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.

>>718
How the hell would you know what I do among friends?  My friends are all fairly liberal, and would be shocked to hear the word nigger in public, as would I. 

You have to be really stupid to use that word in public, and even dumber to think the way most overt racists do.   They hate black people and they don't know why.  They also hate jews, asians, mexicans, sand-niggers(sorry, internet facetism, I don't hate sand-niggers, just their religion.  christianity too.), gays, etc etc etc which is dumb.  Hate is stupid.

But frustration at the way current society is set up, in which you can't admit to the facts without being branded a racist is different.  This isn't billy-bob ranting about how niggers are destroying the country.  It's me, with scientific journals in my hand, admitting to this ugly little human secret, which nobody else will.

There is the ignorance of believing something stupid, yeah.  But there's also ignorance in ignoring something, too.

>>716
That is sort of like saying that Death Valley in August, outside of the places where it's hot and dry, is really good for outdoor ice-skating.

>>716
I mean, they only have a negative effect in the ghettos.  Their own homes, I mean.  The only effect whitey ever sees from them is the money that pours in whenever a stupid ass nigger gets some.  They waste all their damn money.  That's why they po' and stupid.

>>721

Clutch to those journals all you want. There are literally hundreds of others with very conclusive counter-arguements. When you ignore mountains of evidence and voids of data that cancel out your world view and start screaming "nigger, nigger, nigger" you become hate-filled Billy-Bob. 

>>724
Okay, point out these articles. If there are hundreds of them, it shouldn't be hard to dig up some references from a few respected scientific journals.

>>725

It's all through out the thread, my friend.

>>721

Also, while I >>724, wasn't the one who made the >>718 comment- I would like to point something out.

You've come on here with misinformed, subjective and emotional arguments. Your ignorance of past civilizations has been more than overstated. Your addiction to the word "nigger" has been noted.

And to top it all off, you expect to be treated the same way you refuse to treat others: As an individual.

Why should I treat you as a individual when you deny that to others? What makes you different from any other bigot or racist that refuses to address reason? What makes you different from other whites (or any race) who implies a genocide for people who *you* deem as "niggers"? Why shouldn't I lump in you with the other ignorant racist "GENEOLOGISTS" (LOL!)?

>>726
Point them out? Most the articles are irrelevant (zebrafish) or plain idiotic (WTF, Rolling Stones?).

The only scientific article I saw was the ones about twins. It doesn't seem to support your position. There's also a collection by some woman, but it doesn't seem to support your position either.

Maybe I'm blind. Point out the links and I'll go read.

>>728
 Well.after reading from 703 to here,728,if you are 703,why dont you have a responce to 727,or would you rather omit that one.After reading your posts,I cannot disagree with you more,and I am caucasian.

>>728
 I think 726 means the large number of http links through out the entire thread from 1 to me 730.If you dont know they are the underlined phrases within post.

I'm not >>703. My first post was >>725.

BTW, it's fucking annoying having to defend my posts from people who can't write. FYI, there are spaces after most punctuation; that includes commas and periods.

>>731
its the internet,not writing email to a friend or with a pen on paper.Many people on the internet use short hand typing if u will.Noone has time 2 always use quotation marks.This post is becoming really entertaining btw.Keep up the good work.lol

>>732
In other news, you're a total fucking retard.

How are you elementary-school buddies on IM doing? lol u tak em 2 da bar|?

>>727
Stop with the strawmen.  You haven't even tried to understand our argument.  All you do is assign us motivations out of the blue and use them to call us ignorant. 

Wikipedia's IQ and race article is a very well referenced and researched article, maintained by a few of the pre-eminent experts in the field, as is the article on g theory (the one absolute measure of intelligence that crosses cultural boundaries, try this on for size: http//www.p/... Scientific American, maintained by the university of  toronto of all places).  The body of evidence that IQ is not only genetic, but that it can determine someone's likeliness to succeed is huge. 

Once again, think of it this way;(i'm not the person who made this point originally) a smart person has the ability to choose his or her future, to be a pauper or a doctor, while a stupid person is destined for poverty no matter what he or she may want.  Or would you just rather live in fairy-land, and stop human progress?  (BTW, eugenics would not be a government controlled endeavor, like Nazism...   It'd most likely come about in an evolutionary way, as parents choose genes for their children that will make them most likely to succeed.  This includes intelligence.  There'd probably be quite a few restrictions put in place on that too, but that's really the realm of speculation)

>>734

Your argument is steeped in ignorance and subjective statements that don't make sense. First you said Sub-Saharans didn't have civilization, then you changed it to "Great civilization", then that was proven false. Then you asked why they didn't "get their shit together".

Well, it turns out those Hittites of your discovered metal and a whole bunch of other stuff before the rest of world and they failed. You don't have a race-related answer for that, do you? Of course not, because you percieve whites as a most intelligent so even when their civilizations seem on the brink of destruction, they are given the benefit of the doubt because they are white.

How is that not racism?

Nevermind the fact that I know your ideals can only lead to a facsist and totalitarian society.

These aren't strawmen.

These are the very root of your argument because you made your point singling out a group of people instead of talking about the human race as a whole. When you throw out ignorant bollocks like: "Blacks are naturally dumb and always have been." It's like you're ignoring what we know about nature, nuture and IQ.

Nurture can effect genetics. This is why this argument is so moot.

Nurture can effect genetics.

I'm not >>734, and I don't want to get involved, but please be careful what you say. Nurture doesn't affect genes. Genes also place limits on what can be done; you cannot turn a drooling retard into a doctor, no matter how hard you try (you can make a person who has the potential to be a genius a retard though).

As for what we know, this is a nice summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

>>735
They had some sort of civilisation in Nigeria in 1000 AD, but this was well over 5000 years after the rest of the world became civilised. This only goes to back up the range of intelligence everyone has been proving over and over, that Negroes are capable rather than intelligent. You have never proven that Africa has had a great civilisation.

Once again compared to Civilisations with less technology or in poor environments no african civilisation has excelled. Compared to the Mongols or the Incas african civilisations are frankly pathetic. The only reason they are defined as civilisation is due to their light use of organised agriculture and trade with astronomically superior civilisations.

>>736
Since your parents have your genes, nature influence nurture strongly also.

So Nature influence nurture and nurture influences nothing. We don't have the technology to change every single set of dna in a person's body yet.

Nature influences a lot more than you think.

>>738
Oh, I agree.

But I wouldn't say that nurture influences nothing. If you take a person whose parents were both genius, and locked said person in a room since birth, they'll never amount to much.

>>735
Interesting how you have no real response to the information at hand.  Guess now that I cleared one branch of the argument, you have to retreat into another portion of it. 

Maybe Africans had some civilization, but I don't know that much about history. (anyone with more information on it?)  All I know is that for some strange reason, all the civilizations that had any effect on the rest of the world up until the current era have not been black african.  For some weird reason they seem to radiate from the middle east, a predominantly caucasian area.  Maybe it's because we won history, and therefore we have the authority to control it, but I'm not so sure.  Last I checked, supremacist crackers don't identify with middle easterners (sand niggers). 

Also, the hittites failed because the assyrians conquered them.  The Assyrians were an even greater empire than the hittites, and they had copied their metal working skill by this time.  Things are incredibly random.  But one thing is not random; intelligence separated us from all the other animals, enabled us to inhabit every ecological niche on the planet.  Is it not conceivable that intelligence can make a difference on a more minor level?

Also, I don't have any ideals.  The only, THE ONLY thing I'm saying is that intelligence can make a difference. You have yet to show how such a line of thinking has anything to do with totalitarianism(except in science fiction), unless you mean the totalitarianism of our own genes. 

(BTW, in case you're too incredibly stupid to realize it, all my usage of racial epithets is facetious.  Don't start using it to assign me motives)


BTW, I'd like to congratulate
>>739
>>738
>>736
for turning this thread into interesting discussion.

>>734

Umm.Oprah Winfrey,(richest black woman in the world)
Colin Powell,just to name a few.black and some of the most accomplished,sucessful people in the world.
   

>>737 Sub Saharan,civilization?As far as I know sub saharan only refers to a region (area)of africa.

>>741 doesn't know what a normal distribution is.

>>743
like the way I'm going to distribute the back of my hand across your face?

That's the lamest comeback I've seen in ages. There's no way you're from 4chan. Go back to AOL.

>>740

Let me put it this way: Environment effects genes "generally" not on the individual level. If you halt a whole "race's" progress and make everyone of them- "High IQ genes" or not- uneducated slaves...you're going to get some effects.

We don't know everything about intellect, but what we *do* know is that Intellect isn't static, it isn't fixed. Also: How can you say with any certainty that the people of the civilizations YOU *SUBJECTIVELY* deem as "superior" had collectively high IQs? 

I also, would like you to respond to what I've been saying about haplotypes- you seem unable to understand that there is no biological basis for "race" Why?
 

Intellect is the ability to learn things.Environment can affect genes,but this is over many,many centuries.Adaptation.This is why there are different races,in order to survive in the kind of environment,the mental and physical features had to evolve.e.g.If your food source is scattered far and wide across the country plains,you develop differently from people whos food is closer and more readily available.Say longer legs as the generations go on to aid long migrations.This is only the tip of the iceberg.If you had to live in cold weather,you got really hairy and so on.Within recent generations,environment affects only mental and physical development.Think of if you live in a household with fat people who hate school and are uneducated.Chances are you would be fat and uneducated just as they are.If you live in a household with active fit people who stress the importance of education,chances are you will be also.People just choose there own path in life mostly influenced by surroundings.Basicaly,anyone can achieve whta they set their mind to reguardless of race.
P.S. I am not 740.I am 734

sorry.Its 747 again.I had to correct my post above.I am not 734,I am 741.I looked at linke number quote instead of large bold number on side.Just to clear it up,cause I don't want to be associated with the views of 734.TY

>> Let me put it this way: Environment effects genes "generally" not on the individual level. If you halt a whole "race's" progress and make everyone of them- "High IQ genes" or not- uneducated slaves...you're going to get some effects.

I don't quite understand what you're saying.  As far as I can tell you're claiming that people are breeding intelligence out of the gene pool of other groups by keeping them uneducated?  That's not how natural selection works.  Natural selection occurs when those with genes more suited to survival are able to reproduce.  Under the scenario you described, evolution would just halt, and the "IQ-Genes" would neither increase or decrease, because intelligence will have become inconsequential to an individual's survival.

>>Also: How can you say with any certainty that the people of the civilizations YOU *SUBJECTIVELY* deem as "superior" had collectively high IQs?

 Nothing subjective about it.  Those civilizations had far ranging cultural effects that have lasted to this day, while african civilizations, with similar starting populations, and similar (if not better) envrionments, never did all that much.  Middle east for example, left to us the number system and religion that we still  use (I'm not religious, just saying).  They were bigger and stronger.  It's undeniable.

>>We don't know everything about intellect, but what we *do* know is that Intellect isn't static, it isn't fixed.

This isn't about intellect.  Intellect is someone's ability to quote famous literature or to discuss current events.  Intelligence is something else entirely.

>>I also, would like you to respond to what I've been saying about haplotypes- you seem unable to understand that there is no biological basis for "race" Why?

I don't know why you keep dragging this one out.  You seem to be taking someone else's line and repeating it without really understanding what it means.  Race is a way for humanity to tell the difference between different groups of people.  They use this to tell you that "race" doesn't exist.  But race is what it is; a way of describing characteristics inherited from one generation to the next.  And those characteristics are influenced by genes.

>>747
Wrong, environment and genes. As shown by how Africa is a paradise, yet their civilisation has left less remains than the technologically less advanced Aztecs and has had less of an impact than the Mongols, who had their own written language and their share of monuments far surpassing any African achievements. If we were all equal Africa would be the center of the world and not the middle east, China or Europe. Unless of course you are one of these afrocentrics who believes that Africa ruled the world in pre-history but evil whitey destroyed all evidence of this.

People can achieve what they set their mind to, what they can achieve and how likely they are to attempt to do so are determinned by genes. Einstein was a dyslexic jew, according to you he should have an IQ of 85. According to me, he was genetically superior and had an IQ over 140 and he had the sense to pursue physics due to his gift.

Please admit you are wrong, this is getting silly now. You have been completely crushed in debate. No one is asking you to say "I am inferior.". Just accept the truth and move on.

>>750
The whole world was africa back at one time.Do you think egyptians looked white like some of them today.Its not about africa,its about the race of negroids,which ancient egyptians were proven to be.Stop looking for a civilization with the word african in it and start looking at great civilizations in which the peoples primary race,were African.The reason why egyptians look the way they do today is only because of european settlers breeding with the population over the course of many years.How the world and its inhabitants are today,is nothing like how it was centuries ago.People migrated and joined different ethnic and racial groups after new technology enabled them to do so.All those pyramids were built by negroids.God,if you can't admit that egyptians were negro,then your fooling yourself.All they did was started a village on uncharted African land in which they chose a leader,which then developed into a huge civilization.We (Whiteman) have re written history to suit ourselves.I personally dont care who is superrior.I know there are dumb and very smart people in every race.We are not considered more intelligent than mongoloids who btw kicked our ass royaly in vietnam with much less troops and no choppers.You do know that America lost the vietnam war don't you?

>>750
Exactly.  Besides (this is 749 BTW) it makes much more sense to pursue things on the individual level.  To not worry about the fate of states and countries and cultures and start worrying about what YOU are going to do.  MAybe it'll be painful to forget the myth you nursed yourself on that "your people" had great civilizations etc...  You are basically human, and according to the posts you've made here, you're smart enough to make something of it.  Stop sifting through the ashes of your pulvurized misery and start worrying about the future.

>>751
Stop. Don't be a fag.

"Do you think egyptians looked white like some of them today."
"its about the race of negroids,which ancient egyptians were proven to be"
They don't look white, they look arab and they have been for 1000s of years. The genetic evidence suggest this aswell as the statues and paintings of red skinned typical hamitic peoples, Egyptian art distinguishes between themselves and their neighbours clearly showing them to have the same red skin colour as other people in the fertile crescent and showing the black skin of their southern neighbours.

"The reason why egyptians look the way they do today is only because of european settlers breeding with the population over the course of many years."
"People migrated and joined different ethnic and racial groups after new technology enabled them to do so."
Why do you need technology to travel up and down the Nile? The Nile is a calm river not a desert and you don't need to build ocean going ships to travel on it..
The Nile flood plains were (the nile is dammed now) one of the most densely populated region of the planet and has been since agriculture first began and before then it was a very lush environment for hunter gatherers. Since you are stupid, I will point out that dense populations can produce a lot of food in the same place so they are better off being stationary and do not migrate as they do not have to and being densely populated can easily defend against anyone who tries to shift them. There is no evidence of any major migration other than that of the Kushite invasion from the south that marked the end of Egypt's status as a superpower. There was no point when the Nile was inaccesible and then was accesible allowing negroes to wuickly travel north and inhabit Egypt. It has always been accesible and has always had a stationary arab population with immigrants only coming in from other arab populated regions.

"God,if you can't admit that egyptians were negro,then your fooling yourself."
If you can't accept what is very legitimate criticism, you are the fool.

"All they did was started a village on uncharted African land in which they chose a leader,which then developed into a huge civilization."
No they didn't..

"We (Whiteman) have re written history to suit ourselves."
Who said I was white? Last I heard Egyptian universities were not inhabitted by white nazis and skinheads, but by arab Muslims. Maybe you can show me evidence to suggest they are in fact nazis and were all wearing disguises.

"I know there are dumb and very smart people in every race."
So it seems.

"We are not considered more intelligent than mongoloids who btw kicked our ass royaly in vietnam with much less troops and no choppers."
Actually they had more troops, they were armed by Russian and Chinese imports and it cost the lives of 20 vietcong and nva to put 1 US serviceman in a body bag. Though I agree, I never said americans were the master race. You are right, you are being a fag.

Time to admit you are wrong. Come on, put pride aside and embrace humility for a change.

>>750
I dont know who you think i am but my only posts here are 741,747,748 and of course this one.I am not the one who started this debate.I just discovered this place couple days ago,saw it was free to post so I shared my view.If I am wrong then tell me why.You are the first one who answered my post directly.This seems like a heated discussion among some of you.I wont even respond.I am no longer involved in this racist bickering.Don't asume cause someone responds to your post that its whoever your feuding with.

>>1
 Ever heard of Vancouver canada?The finest asians I believe in the world.Petite,nice compact asses,smooth,thick legs and beautiful facial features.I would say good looking Asians population in Vancouver is 65%.

>>753
O SNAP.  I predict that no one will answer any of your points with anything more substantive than "ZOMG DAT BEEZ RACISMS U R TEH NAZIS!!!!11one"

Thread Locked

My anus has been abused so much that shit freely falls out of it.I will be walking around and with no warning, a turd shall drop onto the floor.Did I mention I don't wear pants or anything either?

>>747
Uhhh....  You don't understand natural selection.  

Natural selection occurs when individuals who aren't fit to survive in a certain environment get killed or otherwise rendered unable to reproduce in greater numbers than those who are more fit.  Thus, the hairier people in the cold weather suffer fewer bouts with the flu, or the people with longer legs in sudan are able to move farther and gather more food than their short legged bretheryn.

It isn't some magical force that suddenly takes effect because someone lives in a shitty house or a mansion. 

In fact, it isn't even happening anymore, because even the most unfit individuals (those born with birth defects or whatever else you can imagine) can survive, and even reproduce.  I won't say it's "dirtying the gene pool" or any racist shit like that, because the gene pool itself was pretty well-off from the start.  But the fact remains that the gene pool ISN'T CHANGING.

This is different from nurture though, this only represents built-in capability.  Nurture can make the difference between a retard and a genious, but genes still have a built-in limiting factor.  If someone has the wrong genes, their IQ can be limited forever to say, 110, no matter how much he studies or is fed good proteins and omega-3's as a kid.  On the other hand, some people seem to naturally gravitate to the upward part of the IQ scale, no matter how mediocre or even bad their upbringing was.  They have actually found genetic correlations for this.

I won't say it's "dirtying the gene pool"

This is a tangent (and has little to do this thread), but:

The incidence of defects per individual is probably rising. After all, people who would have died in the past now survive and procreate. The best and brightest often are too busy being successful, while the more questionable characters reproduce like rabbits. This is no doubt causing a (very slow?) shift.

Thank God for genetic engineering.