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.

>>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...)