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.

>>598

But your reason is entirely wrong when you cite solely genetic causes for lack of intellect when it has been over-stated and over-proven that g is a sum of two factors. Nature and Nurture. Not one or the other. Not one over the other.

You see, it really doesn't matter what your opinions on negroid intellect are because the only way you can arrive to these conclusions is by ignoring nurture. Ignoring the impact of environment.

Secondly, the only way you can still maintain that "negroids" didn't want to improve their environement is with an ignorance of history. Negroids forged metal and stonehouses before "caucasiods" and "monogoloids". Caucasiods didn't invent everything or place these things into world wide use in the ancient world. You will find these attributed to the moors, the chinese, the egyptians and the arabs. "Anglos" merely followed suit and copied the greeks- who despite your efforts to lump them in- aren't exactly what *you* would call "caucasiod". History clearly states that most of the groundwork was already laid out by peoples other than the light-skinned chinese and anglos. You keep saying things like "it doesn't take intelligence to do this and that" and "negroids were genetically inferior that's why they..." in hopes that one day- they're going to be true. They just aren't.

Remember who writes history. Would you trust a german nazi with jew history? A chinese with japanese history (or vice versa for that matter)? An American with Iraqi history? Why should I or anyone who perscribes to analytical thought or scientific method ignore evidence that we've uncovered for want of looking? Should we leave what we know is proven out of the argument because you haven't bothered to do more reasearch? For christs sake...you think Sub-Sahara Africa had *jungles*.