I'm not a racist, but I am...

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.

http://unicast.org/forums/forum.php?forum_id=1

"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.

Using semiticentric websites has a source for the proof of jewish genetic uniqueness is the equalavant of using the afrocentric http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/ to make any points about African empires and genetics. The inherant and invalid racism of Zionism (i.e semitic genetics) has been an issue for the longest. The difference between you and I is that I wasn't stupid enough or silly enough to try and slide such a website by as a source.

But, you know what? Also, unlike you I'm willing respond to every criticism of an arguement.

But First, I'd like you to make clear how this argument will negate a statement that was ignored in >>355, to which I got no response:

"pan-ethinic" allele frequencies do not casually mean that there is a clear pattern of ethnic differences in allele freqencies alone. They definately can't be absolutely co-related to different phenotypes- don't know where you're getting the data that says that. Anyway, by definition ethnic groups are defined socially FIRST- not biologically (which comes SECOND).

In other words: Given the abstractness of race... this arguement about who's semetic, who's negroid or not is still moot. You also have still not addressed the following:

That....1.  The two abstract concepts of "Intelligence" and "race" are not correlated whatsoever because IQ scores are not a good universal test of intelligence. In fact they are strongly biased based on one's culture and geographic location.

2. We have no way of testing the IQ of anicent peoples. And it's a safe assertion that if we tested these people with *our* IQ tests- they'd fail.

3. How do you know that certain discoveries required a what we call a "high IQ" (when "IQ" didn't even fucking exist). Do you think Newton had a high IQ? It's said that it was 190 but the first IQ test for which you could base your assertions wasn't invented until 1905. What about Leonardo De Vinci? Ceaser? Are we just guessing, now? Is that science? Guessing?

Have you addressed these, yet? Because I seriously want to hear your explaination.

My complete and utter shut out of your semitic obsession is forthcoming.