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.

>>668

You're fool, btw. Me destroying your shitty ideas with supported facts is winning the *correctness* of the arguement in the first place. It does make me right and makes you 100% wrong.

I wasn't interested in this subject no mmore than the usual person until the racist psuedo science started spreading all over the internets. It doesn't take anyone with any amount of genius to google the information I presented here.

You're just not smart.

Be happy, because im your futuristic eugenics utopia that would mean people like you would be castrated for the benefits of people like me. Now me? I'm a mixture of many races: Asian, African, South Asian. If you met me you would consider me to be a black person with really pretty eyes, yet never the less: inferior because of "black genes".

I know blacks that are on par with my perceived intelligence because they studied. This is why I must assume that you believe more in the perception of blacks and not the actual facts- which is why your scientific dogma is oftern referred to as just as that: insubstanciated dogma steeped in racism and facsism.

Man, this thread just keeps getting more fagged up.

Here's a summary:
ur dumb
no! u r!
nu-uh! u!
yeah well ur a fag
u 2!

>>700
get

>>681
That's not really true.  Intelligence is, for some weird reason I can't even begin to fathom, subject to what is known as hybrid vigor.

http//en.wikipedia.org/...

So, in other words, your black genes wouldn't even harm you. 

Does this mean that all races should interbreed?  Well, if it'd end the BS, and give humanity an overall boost, then whatever.

Also, while it's been shown that intelligence is correlatable across different races, it doesn't mean one race is overall more stupid than another.  For example, while the average IQ of blacks may be say, ten points lower than that of white people, there are still blacks with IQ's that measure in the top one percentile, and not neccesarily at a very much lower rate than whites.  

Intelligence is more heritable between members of the same family, really.  Read this article, it's probably the best, most well-referenced (and with .edu references to boot) article on wikipedia, not even on just this one subject either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Just read this stuff and think.  While environment can indeed play a big role, the role of natural forces within individuals' brains is being proven more and more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_intelligence_factor

Wait, this is probably a better place to start.

It really doesn't make you come to any of those conclusions you most fear at all.  It makes you realize that all humans are more or less flawed, and that we must search out the best and the brightest regardless of race and what not.

Interesting.

Blacks are still ugly though.  I would never interbreed with them.

>>684

The point I'm trying to make is that a "black genes" themselves don't control intelligence (intelligence being an abstract concept at best). Nor do they [race genes] "exist" in the way the psuedo science crowd wants them to exist. Having "black genes" is a matter of perception.

What if I were to say that I lied and that I am completely 100% black? If we had this argument face-to-face, you would assume to me 100% black. Your emotions and the emotions of people like you would overtake any logical approach to the argument. This is a fair assumption on my part because the very core of your argument is to say: "Stop looking at people as individuals." You base everything on unproven scientific dogma and the problem is you say to people: "Think.", yes, well...I've thought it over and there is no possible way that one has more control over intelligence than the other.

Just not possible. Even with all that we don't know about "g"- we still know that an intellect without nurture or nature is an incomplete one.

What I find must repulsive about your argument is your implied suggestion to immediately jump ahead to eugenics. We haven't even secured the proper nuture of intellect for all of human beings; even if we increase everyone's IQ to 130, it's not going to change anything. You're just going to have a bunch of smart people starving.

I really think you need to take a step back and really look at what your position is saying. And then ask yourself if all the problems of Africa and other third world country were a matter of genetic "g"- or *way* more obvious environmental factors.

At it's very basic it says: "If your parents were dumb, you will always be dumb and there is nothing you can do about it." And what is implied is: "Because nature is the only aspect that matters in intellect."

That's pure bollocks. My parents are retards compared to me- the difference is that I was pushed by them to be better than they were- to study harder than everyone else. So from my point of view- what's to stop me from saying that NURTURE is being proven more and more each day?

ANSWER: Science.

My suggestion is that my parents do actually have have a high intelligence gene set (particularly my BLACK father), but have had nowhere near the opportunities I've had for education. Until you come to grips that there is no way around the fundamentals of what we know to be true about human intellect, you're always going to lose out.

>>The point I'm trying to make is that a "black genes" themselves don't control intelligence (intelligence being an abstract concept at best). Nor do they [race genes] "exist" in the way the psuedo science crowd wants them to exist. Having "black genes" is a matter of perception.

Er, not really…  If we can find genetic factors for anything, then we can find genetic factors for intelligence.  And if we can find that genes are common in certain populations, then it stands to reason that it’s possible that some of those genes may control intelliegence... to a degree.  Intelligence still needs a nurturing environment, though you can't always make a genius out of a dummy. 

>>What if I were to say that I lied and that I am completely 100% black? If we had this argument face-to-face, you would assume to me 100% black. Your emotions and the emotions of people like you would overtake any logical approach to the argument. This is a fair assumption on my part because the very core of your argument is to say: "Stop looking at people as individuals." You base everything on unproven scientific dogma and the problem is you say to people: "Think.", yes, well...I've thought it over and there is no possible way that one has more control over intelligence than the other.

You’re assuming that I’d have anything against you for being black.  You’re the one who brought your own heritage into the argument, I was only pointing out that your black genes would not as a matter of fact be detrimental.  And yes, it’s been proven in studies that yes, intelligence does exist independent of the nurture component.  While it’s true that environment can mean the difference between the poor house and a CEO’s office, genes can as well. 

http://www.eugenics.net/papers/murray.html

>>Just not possible. Even with all that we don't know about "g"- we still know that an intellect without nurture or nature is an incomplete one.

We have a relatively complete picture of what it does, and that’s enough. 

>>What I find must repulsive about your argument is your implied suggestion to immediately jump ahead to eugenics. We haven't even secured the proper nuture of intellect for all of human beings; even if we increase everyone's IQ to 130, it's not going to change anything. You're just going to have a bunch of smart people starving.

Er, not really.  If everyone’s IQ was 130, they’d be farming, or leaving places where food just cant grow, and moving somewhere better.  They’d be less likely to destroy society as they tried, and they’d be more likely to provide a better environment for their own children…  

My own great grandfather (since we’re talking about our heritage here) was raised a poor ass white trash boy in Appalachia.  He was in the middle of a family of four brothers and six sisters.  He was never educated, he came down out of the mountains at the age of 16 to look for work after leaving the coal mines. 

He taught himself to read and write, and started a small business supplying equipment to the local giant mining industries, and later, making cement.  He bought a small tract of land and built a house there, and raised a big family himself (albeit at 30 with a 16 year old wife… he was a deviant, which may also explain some of the things he did).  He sent his kids to school, even though he was highly suspicious of people who had to go to a big building to learn (his parents were very critical of “book learnin’” itself, and thought he was fricken crazy for wanting to learn to read instead of learning through just doing things).  Though he never pushed his own kids through school, three of the four went on to college.

Why in the hell did he feel like doing all that, when all his brothers and sisters went on to become trash miners, whose descendents are probably festering in the trailer parks of Tennessee to this day?  I think he made his decisions because he saw the long view of things, that it was indeed possible for him to rise, and become better than he was.  He never really changed his societal caste, but he did make a lot of money, and thrust his descendents into the middle class later on in the 20th century. 

His IQ was probably much less than it would have been if he’d been born into a family that valued education, but still, he was definitely wily and smart.  He also had depression (which I inherited), and volatile mood swings.  

I think that all this contributed to his willingness to go outside the norms of the culture at the time (or maybe to his complete obliviousness to it), and his intelligence made him able to use that to rise above.

Einstein had much less educational opportunity than German royalty, and yet he was still a genius.  Why?

>> I really think you need to take a step back and really look at what your position is saying. And then ask yourself if all the problems of Africa and other third world country were a matter of genetic "g"- or *way* more obvious environmental factors.

Well, I believe it’s a combination of both.  Culture is assuredly influenced by nature. 

>>At it's very basic it says: "If your parents were dumb, you will always be dumb and there is nothing you can do about it." And what is implied is: "Because nature is the only aspect that matters in intellect."

Well, honestly, that’s to some extent true.  There are some things you can do about it, for example, study hard, be persistent.  But honestly, it’s true that many people may have very little control over their own destiny for this very reason.  This is the point of eugenics; so that this quandary doesn’t happen anymore.  It’s as good a solution as any.

>> That's pure bollocks. My parents are retards compared to me- the difference is that I was pushed by them to be better than they were- to study harder than everyone else. So from my point of view- what's to stop me from saying that NURTURE is being proven more and more each day?

Why did they push you so hard, instead of telling you to blame everything on whitey like so many black families I’ve seen?  It’s really tragic, and admittedly a case where nurture really does play a huge role.

>> My suggestion is that my parents do actually have have a high intelligence gene set (particularly my BLACK father), but have had nowhere near the opportunities I've had for education. Until you come to grips that there is no way around the fundamentals of what we know to be true about human intellect, you're always going to lose out.

That may be true, but as the link I posted earlier showed, naturally dumb people often throw away their opportunities, maybe without even knowing it.  We don’t know why this is.  Maybe it takes a good deal of introspection to be able to see the long view of things, that possibly it’s much better to concern yourself with building your own life, planning for the future, rather than trying to just take it when you need it.

We have a relatively complete picture of what it does, and that’s enough.

This is once again, where youth and uneducation play a role. No, we don't have a "relatively complete picture" it's more like I said: An abstract. And no, evidenced by this thread, it's very obvious that what we have now is not enough. It isn't the mission of science to stop asking questions and stop using methodology. This is something you keep trying to skirt around.

Einstein had much less educational opportunity than German royalty, and yet he was still a genius.  Why?

I'm not answering that until you tell me why the Hittites civilization failed. They were smarter, discovered iron and steel first...where are they? Getting sick of you answering none of my questions and then expecting me to answer yours. I'm not answering any more of your "pointed questions" until you address >>648. Other than that, let's keep it down to raw statements.

Also: The grandfather story is sweet, but doesn't account for the numerical value of his IQ- which I think it's pretty safe to say was in the same ballpark range of his family. (Low) Another gaping hole in your argument that you pretend doesn't exist: "Poverty often effects intelligence *IN GENERAL*." It's rare that Poverty makes one more intelligent than his family- this is proof that leaps in IQ occur on the individual level. Further more you have ZERO PROOF that his decision to leave was genetic or my parents decision to push me were genetic. Maybe it was something in his environment that changed his mind. Are you seeing a pattern here? You're making co-relations without proof. That's not methodology and that's not science.

Why did they push you so hard, instead of telling you to blame everything on whitey like so many black families I’ve seen?

You obviously haven't seen enough. You're white, so you're allowed the ignoranace. The "Blame whitey" langauge doesn't leave a minority's thought process with an increase in IQ. Depending on who you talk to in the high IQ range of minorites it might actually intensify.

It is common fact that whites have a history of unminding others' cultures and branding people inferior without any proof.  The entire colonization of Africa was built on the concept that they were genetically inferior- remember this was before a time of IQ tests. You think the problem with black people is that ALL of them are blaming whitey for everything. I'm sure some of them are, a vast majority of them though...eh not anymore than a poor white bum would "blame whitey". There are other factors involved. Factors that you continously ignore because they break down your world view.

naturally dumb people often throw away their opportunities, maybe without even knowing it.  We don’t know why this is.  Maybe it takes a good deal of introspection to be able to see the long view of things, that possibly it’s much better to concern yourself with building your own life, planning for the future, rather than trying to just take it when you need it.

But none of this really corelates to intelligence does it? I'd like some proof that this is so. This "longview" doesn't guarantee one a job as a quantam enginneer. I want to see proof that (A) these people are irreversibly stupid on a genetic level and (B) that the decisions that they make are because of genetics.

"Just look at them!" or "Just think about it!" isn't methodology, it isn't science and this is why your argument is referred to as the "psuedo science."

err, OK.  First, how g-factor relates to later success in life.  Link:

http//www.p/...

And on the nature vs nurture thing, yes, I realize that we can't say for sure that his decision to leave was genetic, but he was always the "smart one" in his family, and that link I provided showed that early IQ is indicative of future success, even among members of the same family.  I can't conclusively rule out something in the water, or air, or something somebody said to him one day, but then again, you can't conclusively rule out genetics. 
And honestly, I believe that yes, something probably did happen to change his mind, his outlook.  But he had that capacity, that ability to build to back it up.  This is what's linked to g-factor intelligence, which contrary to what you seem to have come to think is actually a pretty well-proven phenomenon. Listening to your story, your parents are very much unlike many of the poor people I've known in the past (I did a lot of volunteer work in my more bleeding-heart days).  Most people either didn't care that they were poor, or believed that it was impossible to get out of because someone in power was blocking them from getting ahead.  Most of the time, when talking with them, it arose out of a misunderstanding of how society works.  They always believed someone was witholding something from them that was theirs, for example, welfare.  They thought they had a right to it, not realizing that it was charity.  Often times, they will have been passed up for promotions at work, and they'll be unable to comprhend that their superiors might not see them as exactly reliable, and instead blamed it on the fact that they were not well liked, or whatever else they could think of.  See the way someone's apprehension of a situation might affect their overall view of it?  Many of them told their children that the world was hostile, and would  try to bring them down at every opportunity, thought of education as a waste... I've read stories though, about people, even believing things like this managed to rise above it, used it to get ahead.  Their parents' resignation to poverty became their own driving force. BTW, most of these people were white, so don't get me wrong.

BTW, that story wasn't so sweet.  I know it might have on skimming come across as a propaganda piece, but if you read carefully, you'd know that my great grandfather was an insane person, and well, an asshole.  I probably wouldn't have gotten along with him.

Where I said blacks blame whitey, yes, I can agree that that notion doesn't neccesarily disappear with an increase in IQ, what I meant was when they use whitey as an excuse not to amount to anything.  I really should have made that clear, and I apologize.  I'm really using this point to show how one can overcome cultural influence with the ability to think rationally and make clear decisions.  You seem to think I'm cutting you or your race out here, saying that there's no place for you or your people in the future.  I'm not.

The hitties, I think, failed because of pressures from the nearby assyrian empire, an altogether more aggressive and powerful empire, though I could be wrong. I THINK that the assyrians had iron at that time as well, but my specialty isn't history, and this is outside the scope of any argument I'm making.

I don't believe a high intelligence actually controls someone's future; this is another place where I'm being misinterpreted.  I think that you'll agree with me that a high intelligence, no matter how you believe it is given rise, allows someone the ability to control their future, while low intelligence can easily be said to control someone's future regardless of what they want.

BTW, I should say also that I believe that it's possible for an environment to completely undercut an individual who would otherwise excel.  I don't believe all socio-economic differences are justified.

Nine away from 700get

Keep going guys! I got 500, I want 1000!

>>693
You won't get it. Mr. Over 1000 gets 1000.

ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT

696get, my favorite highway!

It contained all the arcades of my youth. Oooh bad pun!

>>690

So, you don't know your grandfather's IQ? Maybe you should find out, you know, compare it to the rest of the family's.

All I can say to the rest of this is that no matter what you may think, or the impression the "scientific community" has given you- we do not know enough about intelligence to implement eugenics as a solution to the percieved problem of "lower IQ" (note the quotations) in human beings. Eugenics requires a totalitarian and fascist government/society to work properly. Those two ideas alone seem to run hand in hand with an under-educated and uninformed populace. You need to study more on intelligence and stop reducing individuals down to generals. It just doesn't work.

>>697
I don't know his IQ but there were signs early on that he was smart. 

Actually, eugenics could be done without any government intervention; almost all parents would want their own kids to be as smart as possible, so that they could succeed.

And I don't know where you're getting this whole IQ as an abstract.  The study of IQ is fairly rigorous.

699 get

and 700 get

bo-yah.

oh and all nigers must die

>>698

I don't know his IQ but there were signs early on that he was smart.

But "smartness" isn't always the same thing as IQ. See, you seem smart. But genetically speaking and by your own admission, my IQ would dwarf yours.

And I don't know where you're getting this whole IQ as an abstract.

I said intelligence- not IQ. Maybe you should just google it, dude.

http://penrobokai.livejournal.com/1449.html#cutid1

Neggars are inferior.

Bumb

It's baaaaaaaaack!

PS. This argument is stupid. There are bigger problems to solve before worrying if lol heredity makes a minor difference.

Nigger stole my sage!

>>705
Well, when 90% of that gene pool is destroying the economy and taxing the environment, it is something to worry about.

>>707

The people who are destroying the economy at large, are white. Come on guys, all non-whites (Espeically blacks) are supposed to be "inferior" right? Well, how can such an "inferior thing" reek such havoc? All the control is in the hands of white people.

The financial systems, the privization of other countries natural resources, a two party system that's looking more and more like a familial monarchy of the richest aristocrats in the world...

That's all white people. Why are "niggers" to blame for a system that systematically creates "niggers". (Of all races).

How is it possible that you do not understand that you are apart of what makes a person "a nigger". You are a part of the negative social evironment blacks often have to deal with. You say that "racism doesn't exist" when you're so obviously RACIST. 

I think niggers should go back on the banana boat

>>708
Thank god the world isn't in the hands of negroes. Considerring their crime rates we'd be at world war 8 by now. Thank god white people exist to create the democracies and technology that make your life worthwhile. Sure they're not perfect, but at least the world isn't like Africa!

>>710


You are just utterly not smart. At all. Did you even read >>708?

>>711 is oppressed!

>>712

More like DEpressed. Humanity is becoming a fucking joke.

>>607
 Actually the only cavemen in existence were white.this was how they transformed into the full fledged whiteman.They werer the cavemen,not blacks.

>>709
I think white men should go back to the cold caves of europe from which they were genetically altered.you are so stupid.You are Sub-saharan african whether you like it or not.Negroids are believed to be the first race in existence.If you dont like that then like this:negroid race was in existence before caucasian,which I know you are judging by your stupid comment.I will even go as far as saying I know you are white,and most likely American.

Hey, it's a proven fact; black people, outside the ghettos are good for the economy.  Who else will buy cell phones, cars, and rap music at almost double the rate that whites will pay for them?

>>715
Uh, why does that matter?  We all came from apes too, so what?

>>703
You are inferior.You can't even spell niggers right,yet I know you love using it on a daily basis among friends,so I think you might be the dumb inferior one.

>>718
It was intentional and facetious.  God damn, you stupid.  You a nigger?

>>719
I would guess you could figure out who on this forum is the nigger based on how seriously they take it.