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.

Black on white crime is several times that of white on black crime.

No, that's just what gets reported.  White on black crime also consists of exploitation, con-artistry, ETC... none of which ever gets shown in the majority of society's statistics. 

Whites are commiting just as many crimes on blacks as blacks are on whites.  It's just the way society calculates it.

>>801
That's BS.  If you're white, come on now, how many family members do you have who have ever commited a crime that they could get arrested for?  Come on now.

>>802
That's just the thing.   The kind of crimes that w hites could commit aren't exactly arrestable in our country.

None. My family is Christian. I'm not, but my mom and my dad would beat the shit out of anybody that even considered it and disown
them. They can be real scary sometimes.

Invisible uncalculable crimes vs. arrestable
calculable crimes!

Evil Whitey! Kill Whitey!

Sorry, did you forget to take your medicine today?
We all know about what Dr. Freund told you about seeing
invisible crimes today and using them as justifications for
arguments today...

>>805
LOL DELICIOUS COPY PASTA!!!!!!

>>804
That's exactly the problem with black culture.  You get more respect coming out of jail than you do out of college.  If you're getting out of prison, it means you survived the white man's onslaught.  If you are out of college, it means that you're trying to rise above them, to become better than them, and it makes them jealous.

What there aren't any black Christians?

>>800


Your delusion is deep seeded. What I'm saying is that there is no "you", there is only "us". And for the longest time the mentality had been: "Me, my race, my people."- even if (for whatever reason) you think race is such a big deal that it warrants who much effort and thought on your behalf- it is STILL an outdated and retrogressive form of thought. Obivously- for us to become "post human" we're going to have go beyond the way we normally see ourselves. 

There are no benefits to staying within a race, breeding within one race and doing everything under the sun to make sure your skin color is NUMBER ONE. Biologically, socially and culturally. That kind of thing only matter if you're eventually planning to wipe all non-whites off the face of the earth.

And in reality, all this "Aryan" nonsense is a bunch of fluff for the perception of "being white". You don't know what's aryan or what's not, who the "real white people" are or aren't. It's a game people play because they feel like they do not belong and can't relate to themselves as individuals.

White nationalist keep piping off the "Black on white crime" bullshit, while at the same ignoring everything that led to that statistic. I've never understood that. You're able to define the problem- but not able to acknowledge the mechanism for that problem?

The answer: "Niggers is niggers" only works on people who didn't graduate high school. The notion of protecting one race instead of acknowledging the kindred in all of human is no longer acceptable. It isn't moral, it isn't ethical and it's only nessacary if you're re-building the third (or is it fourth?) reich.

What's most puzzling is that your sentiment comes from a place of isolation, feelings of being discriminated and prejudged by the rest of the world. Then you turn around and adopts ideals that have been proven to only lead to encouraging this feeling in others?

>>810
misunderstands the position of his opponents.  They do not ignore what they perceive to be the mechanism at all.  The fact that they believe the mechanism to be genetic strikes me as a bit wonky, but they aren't ignoring it--in fact it is the centerpiece of their arguments, such as they are.

LURK MOAR.  You cannot refute their position unless you comprehend it.

>>811
So, basically, what you're saying is that it's ok that whitey took the land from the native americans?

The reason why white people are so hated and why so many white people hate their own race is because they go so carried away with it in the past two centuries or so, imposing their will on others, basically showing a will to power.  Then, when the moral enlightenment comes up, guess who's at the center of all past atrocities?

There wasn't any one aboriginal tribe. You're talking as though
there was a unified nation here. You are talking as though
there was a unified people here. You're also talking as though 'to the victors go the guilt' rather than 'to the victors go the spoils.'

The Chinese should feel guilty for waging war. The Chinese should feel guilty for waging war. Arabic tribes in a war with another tribe should feel guilty for waging war on another tribe and winning. Muslims should feel guilty for taking over nations by conquest, and then slaughtering all the non-believers in a 'righteous' blood-bath. Blacks should feel guilty for raping and killing what's left of South Africa.    

White guilt-tripping doesn't work here. I'm just trying to survive and trying to put a mantle of white-hatred on me isn't going to work.

The majority of North America was unoccupied. How can you take
the land from them when there wasn't anybody there?

As for the land we did take by war or trade, that's tough apples. Aboriginals are still around, and they have their own
reservations. We've been nice conquerers.

Did you know about, what was it, the spirit cave man? Apparently over here in North America, the first settlers were European a long, long time ago. The aboriginals killed all these proto-Europeans out, to the very last woman and child. Complete genocide.


So, where are the aboriginals now? The aboriginals have a reservation about 60 miles down the road and are goverment-subsidized.

We've allowed the aboriginals to keep their race and even to have a nation within our borders. The government, including me as I have to pay taxes, pays them money and gives them land rent-free/i.e. tax-free. We don't owe them anything, but white people are generally nice. Ambitious but nice.

Why don't you go pick on somebody that deserves it, and leave white people alone?

>>811 Actually brings up a good point.  If you accept that islam etc... are basically world domination schemes (which I wholeheartedly agree with) and that they are basically the prototype of this ideaology of bleaching everyone to be the same, does it not follow that thinking all humans are exactly the same and should all follow the same model a form of domination too?

I mean, should black people abandon their culture just because it's a non-racist thing to do?  Many blacks would decry that.  You can be for goddamned sure that the Japanese and Chinese would too.

>>814
You may be a racist son of a bitch, but you make a good point. 

You're basically saying that we shouldn't believe that we're morally more evolved that the past?  And that possibly, directing our efforts toward trying to create this moral shining utopia with equality for everyone might not be such a good idea? 

For me, the jury is still out on the whether we should try to be moral or not.  I honestly kind of believe that morals don't and can't apply on a national scale, in a way I agree with you.

But this us and them mentality is still a little bit much for me to absorb. 

>>814
>>816

same person

*bows* I used to be a cosmopolitan too, until I heard the counterarguments to it. You can have world peace and still have things like groups, friends/family/nation/race etc, but it's hard work and not as simple a task as making the world
one unified uni-idenity uni-race undiverse pot full of nothing specific.

The world is complicated and diverse, and so too are people and human society. My strategy is to embrace it, instead of rejecting it, and learn how to not only appreciate it but make it work for me.

You can work towards world-peace and the sharing/respect of cultures without having to destroy those cultures/peoples and their unique idenities, which are what ultimately make the world
interesting.

Also, another great thing in my opinion is that by allowing diversity of nations and races, you get unique takes on unique things. I mean, look at the awesome culture that the Japanese produce? Think of what we would have lost if we had forced the Japanese to interbreed with blacks/whites and destroyed all of their culture and their pride...

>>810

That was precisely my point, dummy. Any mechnanism that isn't "niggers r genetically dumb!" (which is honestly what all that fervor boils down to) isn't something they are prepared to discuss. Your post = desperate nitpicking.

>>811

You are asking yourself the wrong questions and most of it stems  from paranoia/fear. Which is probably why you've got these queer notions of race and family- but I'll get to that in a sec.

First off, Alexander's empire fell because Alexander died. You can argue against "Cosmopolitanism" all you want. It's just a very small label for a bigger idea that I'm presenting. In any case, percieved failures of multi-culturalism (comsopolitian is YOUR word) ignore the fact that the strongest and best nations/religions in the world are/were, youuuu guessed it! Multi-Culti in nature. Multi-culturalism became a problem for those empires AFTER the *foundation* of those empires fell, not during and certainly not because of. Dealing with these problems is apart of progress.  

And did you really just bring the illuminati into this thread? You put "WORLD DOMINATION" in all caps as if: (A) It's something people should fear and (B) as if your idealogy doesn't implictly imply the same thing under the guise of "white survival". Not only that- those "rich men" you speak of have one thing in common other than being rich- they're BLACK! Psyche! Obviously they're white and with them looking out for you- preserving what *they* believe to the status quo- where's all the paranoia coming from?

1. Race is family writ large.

Classic. You take what I said about your fear of individualism and the simple need to belong and you validate it completely. I really don't think I need to tell you that "race" isn't synomous with "family", do I? Obviously not everyone looks at race like you. And you do realize how subjective it is for you to say (blood related, I'm assuming) families are automatically a good thing? You mean absolutely, no matter the circumstance? Come on, now...what are you? <i>Twelve?</i> Are you Oliver Twist? Grow the fuck up. 

Race is based on real genetic relations.

You can keep repeating this little piece of dogma all you want. I've proven that is simply not true. I don't know if you're the same guy I've been arguing with but there's a Haplotypes/Phenotypes post that refutes that claim soundly.

The rest of your arugment is childish drivel. Human is Human. Monkey is Monkey. You know the difference between the two because there is an obvious biological difference. This isn't the same thing as race- where you look at a skin color or facial features and you're able to identity what 'race' that person is. Definitions for race are purely social and were social long before we discovered DNA.

(cont...)

so i herd u like rhetorics

--------
It's been around since Alexander the great demanded that his soldiers interbreed with locals. He wanted to make a huge empire and he didn't want that silly race thing to get in the way.
--------

1. I was pointing out that cosmopolitanism is an old idea. Racial mixing is part of that old idea. You mix everybody into one group, get rid of all diversity, diverse culture and heredity (and the multiple/conflicting loyalties associated with them) so that everybody becomes loyal to one thing. You/your ideology/the state. (You mentioned the Illuminati, but I don't recall mentioning the Illuminati. I don't know much about
All I'm talking about is simple common sense. If you have a global corporation, you want to have the widest market. Ever heard of 'buy american?' Well, that's an enemy of international corporations getting into the market of another country. The Japanese buy Japanese products over American products. Duh, it's the same as brand loyalty, except its national loyalty. They support their nation/race by buying products made by their nation/race so that their nation/race gets the money. Duh.)

The problem with this is that you can't be tall and short at the same time. You can't have blonde hair and black hair at the same time. You can't have a Chinese face and an Aryan's face at the same time. The same goes to the genetic factors on things from personality to the different types of variation within intelligence.

Oh, and as for multiculturalism... Shouldn't people be free to live in a nation that is designed for their culture? The world has already got multiculturalism, but I don't see any reason why my sister should have to cover up her face because Muslims find that sort of risque behavior offensive. Not that I think that Muslims shouldn't be able to practice their own laws somewhere. So, they need their own nation. 'Multiculturalism' is basically trying to appease everyone, and that never works. Also, in the typical 'Multiculturalism' of the West, everybody has got a culture except for white people. Everybody is allowed to form communities except for white people. This is silly and bad for white people, and white people are recognizing this.

2. Family isn't an 'automatically good' thing for you, huh.. *_*

I feel sorry for you. For some reason you don't want people to have families... To have people that are supposed to take care of you, identify with you, and be loyal to you, not based on things that easily change like ideologies and likes/dislikes.

I know that family/race brings with it some responsibities, but I assure you that they are worth it.

You must be very lonely.


Did you ever join any groups during high-school? You probably need to get out more and meet some people. Believe me, you'll feel alot better and begin to understand how people are a social animal. It's quite fun to spend your time around people that you can get along with. Perhaps you wouldn't have so much repressed anger and hatred towards white people if you did. Go ahead, get some friends! You'll feel better, and you won't feel the impulse to go out and hate whitey anymore.

3.White survival implies world domination?
....
*_*
....
....
Chinese survival implies world domination?
Japanese survival implies world domination?
Black survival implies world domination?
Korean survival implies world domination?
....
...
*_*
...

I'll make this simple.

No, it doesn't.

4. You've had a bunch of people already argue against you with the dna thing. Ok, our dna is 99% like a chimp's, our dna correlates 99.5/9 percent with other humans. What's the difference in dna between us an a mammal? Small. What's the difference in dna between us and a chimp? Nothing really. Us and another human? Even smaller. Heck, tapeworms have pretty close dna as well, if I remember correctly.

A small change in dna creates a huge change in phenotype. If you don't believe this, look at chimp and a human.


Mammals have very close dna to us too. Some microorganisms as well. Hey, you know what? There are no human beings and no animals. Only microorganisms. Grouping microorganisms into larger beings is an outdated idea. Just like family and race. You haven't proven anything and you were soundly beaten on this front by other people. Read the whole thread if you haven't what they had to say yet.

Bone-mass, facial characteristics, brain size, skull shape, skin-color, fast-twitch vs slow-twich muscle in the extremities, estrogen and testosterone levels, hormone levels in general, age at which sexual maturity is reached, grey and white matter distribution .... These aren't biological characteristics?

There is a heart-disease medicine out there that is either on the market or being tested that lowers the risk of heart disease only in blacks. It doesn't work in asians or whites.

Also, there is a gene that is found in white people that, if a black person inherits it, then the black person has a HUGELY increased rate of heart disease. However, most whites have this gene and it has no ill-effects for them. It only causes problems within a black genetic super-structure.

My whole point was that you want me to be selective in where I turn on my brain. You want me to see the difference between species and breeds of species, BUT you don't want me to see the difference in breeds of humans.

Look, why are you so desperate to believe that all human beings are equal anyway? Why do you so desperately want to not recognize race? Come on, you're not an idiot. You've got eyes. You've got ears. And, you've got something in between those ears. Look at the differences yourself and put two and two together.

Oh, and of course race is social. Duh. Family is social too. Family is genetic, and family is social. As for people recognizing race.... Do you have any problems recognizing people that are related to you? Do you need to have a genetic test to see when somebody has eyes like you, or has the same awarenesses you do?

Here if you are confused about your race or something, why don't you get yourself tested?

http://dnaprint.com/welcome/productsandservices/anestrybydna/

>>819 isn't something they are prepared to discuss.

Read "The Bell Curve" and get back to us, k?  Or, if that book is too thick and has too many big words and not enough cheerful colorful pictures, try:

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11(2) 235-294 (2005)
"THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY"

Science 297(5580) front cover (2002) b-catenin can regulate whether neural precursor cells proliferate or differentiate

Or if looking up reference material in referreed scholarly publications of record is too much effort for you, here is the information pre-chewed and pre-digested for you on the Web, ready for spoon-feeding:

http://www.isteve.com/IQ_Table.htm
http://www.rafonda.com/html/genetic_reality_of_race.html

>>820 = desparate/pathetic

>>820 = DESPERATE/pathetic
>>811 = ...
>>809 = ...

Scratch that, >>811 is ok. lol

>>822
Hey, cracker, stop grouping me in with your Aryan brothers.

I'm cro-magnon, 98%.  I'm white european, sure, but I've got the rounded head etc... of a cro-magnon. 

Basically, my race was in europe before the middle easterners came and took over.  We were the aboriginals.

>>827
Cracker?
They weren't negroid, their brain mass is the largest in the world, 10% larger than current europeans and negroes currently record with the lowest brain mass, too much of a distance to be a negrito sub-species. Clearly a sub-species that evolved seperately in the harsh ice age conditions competing with the neanderthals until their inferior negrito traits were bred out, like the mongoloids and caucasians. Even australian aborignes whom black racists love to claim are closer to primates than them are in fact more intelligent with a higher brain mass. Northern europeans have more cro-magnon haplotypes correlating in some areas with the aryan theory.

The rounded head you lie about is in fact a sloped skull cap which has not been rushed to accomodate a larger brain. Cro-magnon is named for it's large straight forehead which is pushed into that shape by adolescant brain growth when the cranial bones have not yet fused.

i've been keeping up with this thread but this has gone phenomenally long.... so can some1 quickly sum up whats been discussed till this point?

>>829
Your'e gay, you like to eat your brother's feces, you sell crack to aboriginees and your mother is a whore.  Did I miss anything?

>>830
hahaha fag.

>>831
lol u shure tolded me! ^_^

>>832
hahaha~ c'on now, summary me plz. :)  this is probably the most interesting thread seconded by the china and taiwan debate.

>>822

[center]Are you paranoid? Yes, in order to survive, the Chinese must wipe all non-Chinese off the planet. In order to survive, the Japanese must wipe all non-Japanese off the planet. You sure are unfair to white people. Do you have something against white people? I think you do.[/center]

This is where you and I part ways. There will never again be a point in history where any one "race" will be in such a position and never will others stand idle while entire groups of people are wiped off the planet in a bid for world domination and racial purity of the planet earth. Your dreams of a glorious race war will go unfullifulled. The world is just too small now. I'm sure you believe everything you're saying, I don't doubt it. But I know for a fact that once the skies are filled with screams and the mass graves of brown bodies pile up on your doorstep bringing endless tears to the eyes of your children, only then will your conscious kick in and you'll have to deal with consequences of your antiquated notions of "survival".

[center]You sure are unfair to white people. Do you have something against white people? I think you do. // White people aren't saints. White people aren't gods. White people are just trying to survive and protect their family and their race. Stop picking on us.[/center]

Is this like on Rikki Lake when some fat cow in a size 4 thong says: "You kno I's look gudd, don' haet! don' haet!"? What's the sound of one hand clapping? No one is claiming you're Gods, no one is saying you're saints. The only person that has suggested that thus far- is you.  Your suggestion that I have something against white people is some rhetoric you're desperately trying to use to prove your point.

But you already know how I recognise myself as an individual- my mind, my way of thinking isn't reduced down to a skin color or a racial indentity. Why would I conatrict myself in such a way? I'm trying to grow up, not down. "Stop picking on us."? Please. You sound like a child. Don't you understand that this isn't about you, your race or your people- but instead the genocidal rhetoric that you represent? 

>>815

[center]I mean, should black people abandon their culture just because it's a non-racist thing to do?  Many blacks would decry that.  You can be for goddamned sure that the Japanese and Chinese would too.[/center]

When that culture is implictly racist? Yes. Of course they should. I've abandoned "it" because "black culture" isn't in the same place it was 30/40 years ago when the civil rights movement ended and people were looking to improve themselves and not blame all of their problems on being black or being picked on because they are black. The Japanese have embraced American multi-culture and as the world gets smaller and smaller- they aren't going to have a choice but to allow other "races" of people to assimilate. And if Japan as a nation is worth their salt they will be stronger for it, not weaker. Conflict isn't going to magically disappear because everyone of the same race lives in the same place. Prejudice exists outside of race as a part of the human condition. If there ever comes a point where there's nothing left but one "race", then that one race will seek out differences among their own to be prejudiced against. History has proven this.

|| 3. White survival implies world domination? Chinese survival implies world domination? Japanese survival implies world domination? Black survival implies world domination? Korean survival implies world domination? No, it doesn't.

Yes it does. You *just* said that it does.

And I quote: "Yes, in order to survive, the Chinese must wipe all non-Chinese off the planet. In order to survive, the Japanese must wipe all non-Japanese off the planet."

Are you retarded? How does that not equal world domination?

1. I was pointing out that cosmopolitanism is an old idea. Racial mixing is part of that old idea. You mix everybody into one group, get rid of all diversity, diverse culture and heredity (and the multiple/conflicting loyalties associated with them) so that everybody becomes loyal to one thing.

It's not an old idea. It's new when compared to race as a familial concept and "racial survival". That was around in cradle of civilization of Africa. Multi-culturalism, the notion that we are one human race came afterwards. Civil rights, respect for your fellow man (not fellow white man) comes afterwards. You can't avoid this, you can't argue against it- we are growing away from indentifying ourselves solely by our culture and our skin color/facial features.

Also, in the typical 'Multiculturalism' of the West, everybody has got a culture except for white people. Everybody is allowed to form communities except for white people. This is silly and bad for white people, and white people are recognizing this.

First of all, if whites don't have a culture that not multiculturalism's fault. It's white people's. Second of all, you do have a culture, you're just not connected with it. Again: Not multiculturalisms fault. It's yours. Do I blame multiculturalism because I don't know what tribe my father's ancestors come from? Nope. It's my "fault" because I don't care. Knowledge of self, puts me beyond being defined by my familial bonds. That kind of information is meaningless- I control who I am. No one else.

Your perception that "Everybody is allowed to form communities" stems from past rejections and your own need to belong. I've met many people who only hung out with other jews, whites, etc. And those people who insulate themselves to only hanging around with their own race are just as wrong as any white person. But you aren't going to make people more inclined to get to together without considering race by making your own community with your race being the focal point.

I know that family/race brings with it some responsibities, but I assure you that they are worth it. You must be very lonely.

Oh, well thank you for that Dr. Phil, really! ^_^ --- Family doesn't always have to related by blood. But you knew I meant that when I said it, didn't you? Nice try, though. And when it comes to my race- situations where I found myself responsible for my race meant that would have to sacrifice my indentity as an individual. In other words: Who I percieve myself to be is way more important that how anyone else looks at me. I'm sorry, you haven't developed enough self-confidence to embrace that notion.

And for the rest of the stuff- I have always had friends who were different races. White, blacks, whatever. I'm very uncomfortable in a room where it's all one race of people, no matter who it is. It is BECAUSE I am a social animal living in America that I am able to socialize with different races. I'm sorry if too bogged down by xenophobia and the fear of the unknown to step out of yourself. But I'm not and meeting those who are not like myself has helped me grow as an individual. I don't hate whitey, you fucking idiot. I realize it would make things much easier for you, if I did. But sorry I don't. I dislike idiots like you regardless of race and because of the genocidal- isolationist rhetoric you preach.  

As for the rest, I've been over the overall meaningless of pheno and halpotypes. You can sift through the thread if you want, but I'm sick of fucking repeating myself.

 >>816

You can *believe* whatever you want. But believe isn't truth. Obviously, we're progressing in a direction where morality and ethics are extremely important. The longer the human race exists the more we realize we can never be like the animals. We can never let "survival" be can excuse for immorality and behaviors that hurt the human race as a whole.

>>823

I read it and I refuted it in this thread. Stop trying to act like it didn't happen. Stop trying to act like I didn't shut you fuckers down eons ago when this bell curve bullshit. Difference in cognitive ability among the races is environmental. Period. And if you find someone who is genetically dumb it is because of environemtal factors of the previous generation.

My god. This piece of shit thread is going to beat the loli appreciation thread to 1000get? You people are DISGUSTING!

Shut up. I want 1000GET.

>>753
Stop.Don't be a fag.(you said it)
Egytian were not Arabs.Arabic is ethnicity and is not a defined race.They like to think they are a race all thier own but even they are wrong.I study this.I guess Hispanic is also a race right?

 This is the longest myth ever in existence, which is pedaled as true scholarship and truth. Yet it is an outright myth, deliberately created from 1830 onwards, to explain away Egyptian civilization. During the 1800's there was all kinds of pseudo-sciences floating around about the genetical and inherent inferiority of peoples of African descent, and also a belief blacks are to be colonized because they are uncivilized and savage by nature. This was created to justify colonialism and also denying blacks equal rights in America. In order to moralize their mistreatment of blacks, scientific racism was created. And a part of this was in denying blacks had ever had a civilization. Since Egypt was a very impressive and marvelous civilization, and much of the heritage of the western world (such as writing and the calendar) came from ancient Egypt, it became necessary to whiten Egypt.

  The truth is, the ancient Egyptians were not white. Neither were they pure black. The ancient Egyptians were a mixed-race people, especially in Upper Egypt, where Egyptian civilization began. While the earliest inhabitants, the Tasians, are believed to have been of Cro-Magnoid stock, the predynastic Badarian period which starts at 5500 B.C. in Upper Egypt, was quite Negroid. Carleton S. Coon calls the predynastic Egyptian population of Upper Egypt during the Badarian period "Mediterrenean" and denies any black admixture, on account of their thick and wavy hair. But thin and wavy hair is Caucasion hair. Wavy hair that is thick in texture is typical of peoples with African ancestry. The hair-type Coon described can be found amongst many modern-day Nubians, as well as some Northern Ethiopians, and a number of persons of mixed ancestry in Latin America, the Caribbean, and even in the United States. And besides, he described the crania of the Badarian skulls he studied as being dolichocephalic, with short faces, blurred margin (broad noses), and prognathisms. These are distinctly Negroid traits, and are undeniable evidence of black admixture. As for the hair of predynastic Upper Egyptian of the Badarian period, recent studies of their hair, show them to be semi-frizzy, like Mulattoes and many Northeast Africans. [Keita, S.O.Y. Studies and "Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History of Africa 20 (book).] Of the Badarian predynastic Egyptian population, other scholars do not hesitate to call the characteristics of the crania as Negroid and as being due to African ancestry. Dr. Childe V. Gordon, a British anthropologist, spoke of the Negroid traits in Badarian crania. Other Egyptologists and anthropologists have noted the same. Dr. Emile Massourlard, a French Egyptologist, published a work in 1949 called[ "Prehistoire et Protohistoire d'Egypt" in which he cites various studies on predynastic and dynastic Egyptian culture. On the Badarians, he quotes a study by Miss Stoessiger. Of her, he states:
 "Badarian skulls differ very little from other less ancient predynastic skulls; they are just a bit more prognathous. Next to these, they most resemble primitive Indian skulls: Dravidians and Veddas. They also present a few affinities with Negroes, due no doubt to a very ancient admixture of Negro blood."
 Prognathisms is a distinctly Negroid trait. What Massoulard's passage leaves out, is that Miss Stoessiger found the Badarian crania to all possess blurred margin (broad nasal index), just as Coon noted. Dr. S.O.Y. Keita, a well respected and noteable anthropologist did a cranial analysis of his own on various cranias, in his work "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa." His samples included predynastic Badari, predynastic early Naqqada, Kerma (Bronze Age Nubia), 1st Dynasty royal remains at Abydos, Teita East Africa, Gaboon Central-West Africa, and Romano-Britain. Through his experiments he was able to gain several observations. He found that the Badari predynastic Egyptian crania occupied, "a position closest to the Teita, Gaboon, Nubian, and Nagada series."
 The Badarian crania have a modal metric phenotype that is clearly 'southern'; most classify into the Kerma (Nubian), Gaboon, and Kenyan groups NO Badarian cranium in any analysis classified into the EUROPEAN SERIES. Especially notable is the fact absolutely none of the predynastic Badari crania were Caucasoid. Other anthropologists and Egyptologists whom have noted predynastic Badari and early Naqqada crania possessing "alveolar prognathisms" (protruding upper teeth case; a condition very common amongst African populations, but very rare amongst Europeans and Western Asians.)
 It is during the Badari predynastic period which begins at 5000 B.C., that the Egyptians begin farming and domesticating animals, and cease hunting and gathering. This period is noted by distinctive pottery and the use of copper. Here we see, the basic elements which were to become Egyptian civilization being created by a population whom posses distinctive Negroid affinities.
 On to late Naqqada predynastic Egyptian. These crania have been found to more heterogenous in nature. But still, all posses Negroid affinities. This is noted by Dr. Emile Massoulard, whom cites a Miss Fawcett, whom studied a number of Naqqada crania, and found them all to posses a combination of Negroid and Europoid affinities. Of this Massoulard states:
 "Miss Fawcett believes the Naqada crania to be SUFFICIANTLY HOMOGENOUS to justify speaking of a Naqada RACE. By height of the skull, the auricular height, the height and width of the face, the height of the nose, the ceohalic and facial indexes, this race PRESENTS AFFINITIES WITH NEGROES. By the nasal width, the height of the orbit, the length of the palate, and the nasal index, it presents affinities with Germans.
 Any study which claims ancient Egyptians had no black admixture is absolutely ludicrous. Besides, according to a DNA study by G. Paoli, the ABO typing of the ancient Egyptians was most closely matched by the Harratins , a Negroid Berber people of southern Morocco, southern Algeria, and northern Mauritania. It has been claimed by some that the Haratins are the descendants of freed Sub-Saharan slaves. But this cannot be established, since the DNA patterns of the Haratins are not found in Sub-Saharans, nor are they found in any of the "white" Berber tribes Haratins are supposed to have been owned by and mixed with. The DNA pattern of the Haratins is very unique, thus establishing them firmly as a Hamitic race. Their presence has been long recorded in the region, and their origins, a mystery.
 While the most Caucasian or racially ambiguous images are shown to prove their point, what Eurocentrics do not show you, are images of Egyptians with clear Africoid features.
 Contrary to what Eurocentrics claim, the ancient Egyptians were a dark-skinned people with racial affinities to Black Africans. While not unmixed black, were still black enough to be considered black in the western world. They were in truth a mixed-race people. And like all peoples of mixed ancestry, their features morphed from near Negroid to near-Eurpoid, with all kinds of variations in between. The position held by Eurocentrics that the ancient Egyptians were white people or so called Arabic is pure myth and nonsense.
 Read a book called Enclyopedia of Egypt which was put out by the Oxford Press.Author is a mainstream egyptologist named Ian Shaw.

>>838

Holy shit.

Thank you.

>>835
Keep dreaming.  It's a shame you can't find any refereed paper that's passed peer review in any scholarly publication, anywhere, EVER, proving conclusively that Negroes and Whites have equal intelligence.  If it were so self-evident you'd think it'd be easy to prove.  All you've got is "dat beez racisms!  u must beez some stupid hillbilly wif flies buzzin round yo head lololololol"

Too bad for you it's been known since the 19th Century that Negroes have on average 15-20% less cranial capacity than Whites and it's been known since the 1920s that the average Negro IQ in the US is around 80 and in sub-Saharan Africa, closer to 55.  Which is why they've never produced anything but failed states dependent on aid from the White race for their very survival.

Too bad for you the Human Genome Project is demonstrating day after day the vast gulfs that exist between races.  Another few hundred thousand years in isolation and true speciation would probably occur and interbreeding would probably become impossible; the process is already well under way.

Too bad for you it's obvious and observable on a daily basis, from Harlem to Detroit to Haiti to Rwanda to Zimbabwe.  Are you some rich White college boy who's never actually had to work for a living, never actually been around the Negro, never actually been the only White person in the apartment building, never actually been the only White person on the job?  If you'd ever actually spent any time with the Negro, you would know him for what he is.  If you'd ever actually known any of them, when you read the Bell Curve (have you actually ever read it? or are you just copypasting ten-year-old expressions of outrage from liberal magazine book reviewers who've never actually read it either?), you'd think to yourself "Well, yes" or "IQ 85?  I don't believe that, maybe closer to 70," not "DAT BEEZ RACISMS LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL"