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.

It's like AIDS only spelled horribly horribly wrong.

Frogs are actually a higher alien intelligence, living conspicuously among us, biding their time, and waiting for the right moment to strike. That moment will be June or July of 2016, and they will reveal themselves to the world.
We will have no choice but to surrender, and they will no longer be called frogs. We will call them "The Overlords".

>>882
gb 2 france

The only argument I have seen for the existence of a black ancient egypt is a very shallow argument which suggests that people with straight hair can still be around 10% negro. This doesn't prove conclusively that Egypt was largely negro, just that Egypt's oldest mummy could have been 10% negro.

If I were to acknowledge the fact that DNA tests prove the DNA of ancient early Egyptians consists entirely of genes from the modern arabs living there, then it would completely throw the idea out of a negro egypt out the window. This fact is mentionned in pretty much every western, middle eastern, chinese, russian, south African and Brazilian document by critical scientific and university journals anywhere you can lay your hands on them. It is an innocent little episode in which DNA science was applied to mummies to prove that DNA can be used in archaeology, the results agreed apon by "crackers" and non-whites alike. For some reason all liberals and afrocentrists eject large amounts of faeces in terror when they find people who have heard about this. They would prefer a world where any fact which is contrary to their world view is simply dismissed as racism and that all Egyptians in the media are portrayed as hip hop negroes who's achievemewnts were put down by the white man.

I didn't this fact out of politeness, but this afrocentrist who for some reason never puts a space after each full stop completely ignored it when I asked it to read up on the facts. I think it did notice this fact, but didn't mention it as I am right about afrocentrists knowing Egypt was never black, but striving to manipulate others into believing otherwise.

Newsflash.
Egyptian universities are in charge of the excavations, all of the white explorers who went there were under their supervision and they are arab muslims, not aryan nazis. Egypt wasn't black. Go unearth some Mali and Zimbabwean ruins, if you are not killed/enslaved by the vicious tyrants who currently dwell there.

>>884

I'm not the Egypt guy, but I'll respond anyway.

They have been excavated, not to the degree the scientific community would hope, but enough to recognise that civilization itself travels from the womb of Africa (sub-sahara) *out* to Europe. It is common knowledge that Egypt was a multi-cultural empire and it is common knowledge that at several intervals of Egypt's history- it was ruled by black pharaohs and it was considered a black kingdom. At the very least you should be able to acknowledge that in all likelihood Egypt and most of the culture of Egypt started with black African's not arabs.

Everyone shouts DNA DNA as if we've found "Arab genes" or "Negroid Genes" that are definitive indicators of race. Tests for Haplotypes and the like don't qualify Egypt as being completely Arab. This bears repeating when we're talking about "DNA evidence" and race: [b]"Pan-ethinic" allele frequencies do not casually mean that there is a clear pattern of ethnic differences in allele freqencies alone. They definately can't be absolutely co-related to different phenotypes- I have never data that says that. Ethnic groups are defined socially FIRST- not biologically (which comes SECOND).

Meaning: Just because you take a set of genetic data and corelate it to certain region doesn't automatically make those people the RACE we would percieve to come from that region. That's just not the way it works.

I think you're mixing up geneology with the perception of race itself and truly by our standards Egyptians of that time were considered to be largely black.

This is the same dialouge we get when we discuss the Moors. Some how because of so-called "DNA evidence" (evidence that people rarely put forth in these arguments) they weren't black, but clearly every instance that refers to the moors, ever picture of a moor is indicated as "black".

I am not ther egypt guy but whatever level of negro is still having negro ancestry.Which means that they are not pure.That was his/her point I believe.You may look fully white,but still have negro ancestry and don't even know it.One might also look fully black with very dark skin,but still have white ancestors.95% of blacks in america have at most 20% white or other ancestry which does not show in there hair.

Are native americans mongoliod?I remember watching a program about chutchi people who came over the bearing straight who were probably the ancestors of Native american indians.They looked almost like eskimos.We call them indians,but they are nothing like the peole of india.What is the scientific name for them.Or were they mixed along the way?

>>886

Exactly, so all this talk about IQ and race is purely virtual and entirely dependant on what race you percieve someone is. According to the genetic evidence- hybrid vigor should have effected IQ in positive ways several times over, over many generations of humans.

Obviously the general reason for low IQs among any group of people is firstly: environmental factors.

Actually, hybrid vigor is not guaranteed at all. It's just a label used when a hybrid is better adapted than its parents. The opposite can also occur.

Look up in/outbreeding depression/enhancement.

>>889

Doesn't matter. Point still stands. Compare the number of pure bred races to people that are mixed and you'll understand how stupid the argument is.

>>890
It's not whether a stock is pure or not, it's the quality of what went into it in the first place.  This is as true of cattle as of humans.

So we have pure stocks:

Ashkenazi Jews, average IQ in the 120-125 range
Japanese, average IQ in the 110 range
Laplanders of northern Finland, average IQ in the 70 range

And mixed stocks:

American Negroes (20% white, 80% sub-Saharan African), IQ in the 80 range
White-Asian hybrids, IQ in the 110-115 range

Human beings are like any other animals:  machines built to a genetic blueprint.  The brain is like any other organ:  its structure and function are decided by the genes.  Not all genes are equal.  And if individuals can carry different genes, how could you possibly decide that groups of human beings must be genetically substantially identical in the aggregate?

You can hide from the truth, you can deny the truth, but truth can't be hidden forever, especially when it's all around us every day, visible to anyone who has the inner strength to open his eyes and look at it without cringing.

>>891

Um, yes it is. That is the debate we're having because "stock" is determined by perception and region not by any absolute biological "racial" indicators. (Do you even understand what this means?)

Facial features and skin color has nothing to do with the brain. I smashed this pathetic notion awhile back when the opposition trumped out the skull shapes argument. Breeding is Breeding. It doesn't matter if the person is black, white or whatever. Dumb genes are dumb genes.

With that in mind it becomes plain to see that your entire argument hinges on the gamble that all Sub-Saharan Africans are "genetically dumb" in the first place and "didn't have civilization". It hinges on the total ignorance of a number of prevalent (more prevalent than genetics) environmental factors that have contributed to the current infrastructure situation in Africa.

These points have been addressed. So much to the point that several have conceeded to it, due to them having no other way to outargue the fact. There are so called "smarter civilizations" that were destroyed *before* so called "dumber generations". What does that tell you about intelligence and our perception of it? Just ask yourself that.

You need to acknowledge that factually speaking general populations of people aren't responsible for the progress of the civilizations: Individuals are.

And the reason those who argue for your viewpoint call you a racist is because race is the focus of your argument. But what about IQ corresponding to height, weight, gender, hair color, social and cultural affiliations?

The reason you don't appeal to these factors is because they support an environmental force over IQ and that destroys the point you're desperately trying to get across: "Whites are supreme."

Even more surprising, you're trying to lump Asians in with whites on the racial heirarchy. The truth is: The very idea of a "white race" is a fallacy to begin with. Maybe you should look into who started calling people "white" and "black" in the first place and for what reasons before you rail off on the relevance of this delusional co-relationship between race and IQ?

>>892 I smashed this pathetic notion awhile back

The only thing you've smashed is your own credibility.  All you have done for almost nine hundred posts is yell "dat beez racisms!  ebil whitey beez opressin a brudda!" and "this has already been refuted" and "I already refuted this."  You refuse to provide substantive counterarguments to anything I or anyone else here has said.

No proof, no merit, so noted.

>>892 you're trying to lump Asians in with whites on the racial heirarchy

Nope.  We're putting them ABOVE us. (I'm white).  A fact's a fact.

>>894
And how do I reconcile the fact that I'm from an inferior race? Well, rather than rant on how people who say that JEWS or CHINKS are more intelligent on average than whites are lying, and that WHITEY IS SUPREME, I just comfort myself by thinking that as an individual I can be outside the norm for my race.

Maybe you could do the same.  Not likely seeing as black pride is such a goddamed high priority on the list of almost every black I've met.  Where does white pride rank for me?  About...  Twelefth.  After my status as a student, my status in my family, my job status, the status gained by the fact that I have a better mowed lawn than my neighbor etc. etc.

Environmental factors alone are not enough to explain the persistent and systematic failure of the negrito race to catch up to the rest of the world.

>>893

You're lying. Address what I've said to the effect of phenotypes and stop resorting to whining about "that be racisms". It's nonsense...because the reality is you have nothing to rebut with- so when I say that there's really no such thing as ethnic allele frequencies what you hear is: "YOU'RE RACIST!". The disconnect lies with you. It's a pattern of behavior that has become your trademark in this thread.

>>894

No, you're not putting them above you. You're lumping them in with you on a heirarchy where the perception is that your "race" is above other "races". There's no way around this- your theory is united around a theory of "the darker the dumber".

It's just not the case. Regardless, if Asians are so smart where is their power on the world stage? Maybe intelligence isn't as important as you think it is when it comes to world power and so called great civilizations. <=== This completely shatters any notion that IQ has anything to do with "catching up with the rest of the world". Did you ignore the point I made about the general population >>892 on purpose?

>>895

I never you said you were lying. Again: You're only hearing what you want to hear. I said that the reasons for any gaps in IQ aren't genetic- there are several reasons one of them being that  Intelligence isn't solely about genetics. Think about it: Genetics alone doesn't contribute to IQ, so genetics alone can't be responsible for IQ difference. What is so hard understand?

Environment is paramount in gaining learned behavior. You only question the black/hispanic student's ability to learn using intelligence and not the white/asain/whatever teacher's ability to use intelligence to TEACH properly. A majority of the teachers in America are white and meanwhile we're behind every other country in pretty much everything academic. What does that tell you about intelligence? What does that tell you about the percieved intelligence of white people? Acknowledge and answer.

Third, you don't even fucking know me. "Black pride"? Yeah, I'm black, what of it? But fuck black people. Don't you see you're doing the exact same thing you accuse the opposition of? By even bringing up black pride, you're calling me a racist. Because that's what "black pride" is: RACISM.

I don't even BLIEVE IN RACE! So how can I be a "racist"? The only thing I have pride in is the absolute truth. You need to just deal with the fact that either (A) You're not smart enough and don't have access to enough information to win this debate. Or (B) YOU ARE WRONG.

>>893

I've read this whole thread and haven't responded yet but in the beginning Anti-chan was offering a lot of unsupported things like the opposition and then it was just people going back and forth really not supporting anything.

Later on however Anti-chan continued saying the same thing over and over however with backed up university text. People tried for some reason to say the edu websites were wrong and wikipedia was a much better source??? Antichan continued to smash their arguement until the smarter ones conceded and Antichan fell in to annonymous.

The racist have lost sorry...

>>898

I think the smarter ones are the ones that don't really have an investment in the greater race issues that this debate encompasses.

The dumb ones (IE - the ones still pretending they can win) have a vested interest in the perception of which race holds all the power. They think intelligence = power. It doesn't.

Ernst Mayr of Harvard published some reflections on the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. His conclusion was that the likelihood of success was effectively zero. His reasoning had to do with the adaptive value of what we call higher intelligence, meaning the particular human form of intellectual organisation. Mayr estimates the number of species since the origin of life at about 50 billion, only one of which, he writes, achieved the kind of intelligence needed to establish a civilisation. It did so very recently, perhaps a hundred thousand years ago in a small breeding group of which we are all survivors. (Sub-Saharan Africans) And he speculates that this form of intellectual organisation may not be favoured by selection, and points out that life on earth refutes the claim that "it’s better to be smart than stupid," at least judging by biological success, which is great for beetles and bacteria but not so good as you move higher up the level of cognitive organisation.

900GET, Let racism die!

Geeez.Here we go again.This thread will never die. It is true that America is behind the world in academics. They don't even know the  geography of thier own country, and they are horrible at spelling. Even the people of india get better education when possible for the individual to do so. Just my two cents.

>>897 I say that there's really no such thing as ethnic allele frequencies

Then please explain why people of different ethnic groups look different.  If it's not genetic differences so vast that the biological differences are visible at a glance, what is it?

<sound of crickets chirping as you backpedal>

Yeah, that's what I thought.

No proof, no merit, so noted.

GOd damn you racist motherfuckers...  IWANTED 900GET!

>>899 "And he speculates that this form of intellectual organisation may not be favoured by selection"

'Splain, plz.

How bizzare... I had just been thinking about this recently myself.

One of the many ironies is that the only reason that black people are anywhere other than Africa is because of slave trade. Is it any coincidence that a culture that is pre-modern (I won't say "sub-", as they are not below modern society, but they belong to a different culture) is frequently seen in "ghettos"?

The only race is the human race :3

So are you saying that everybody else is subhuman? Sounds racist to me.

>>902

People of different ethnic groups look different for environmental reasons. Not genetic. And those genetic differences? They aren't vast. Any set of features outside of skin color could apply to anyone. I suspect you could to the same kind of allele frequency tests with people in your own family (unless your family is ALL twins), but you're not breaking them down into different races, are you? Same thing with "pan-ethnic" allele frequencies. 

>>904

Simple: Intelligence isn't (generally) favored by natural selection. So in the first place- the idea that intellect has any connection to so-called "failed civilizations" as if there is a battle of natural selection playing out between the races is laughable. Which makes whites and asians being somehow more "evolved" than, say a sub-saharan African even more rediculous. Mankind's progress is accomplished by relatively handfuls of people who jump ahead of the others in intellect, but aren't really the 'favorites' of evolution or natural selection. And this is true across the board for every civilization or "race".

>>908
So, blacks look totally different from whites, even have different bone structure, different limb lengths and facial shape, macroscopic and microscopically visible differences in muscle tissue from white people, and can't even be treated for glaucoma with the same drugs as white people--but this is all environmental?

Someone tell the New England Journal of Medicine.  Someone tell the Nobel Prize committee that we've got a contender here.

  I am not who you are arguing with.If genetics make whites more intelligent,how would you explain the millions of under achieving white trash that live in white trailor park ghettos that have fights and kill each other over beer,cigarettes, women,bowling and pool. They exist. They are extremely dumb people with seemingly low IQs, and have absolutley no drive or goals in life and produce generations of trailor trash. Hell,they cant even dress dress themselves in a civilised manner. Is this not the same reason you think that blacks have lower IQ. Seems like thier environment plays a big role in thier behavior to me. They act worse than ghetto blacks when around civilised people too. I have seen it.Actually,I think they might be even more absent minded.I have black nieghbours who have very good jobs and have been nothing but polite and civil to me,and my family members. BTW. I am niether black nor white.Just looking through the looking glass.

>>910 doesn't know what a normal distribution is.

>>911
So why don't you enlighten us on normal distibution?

Maaaan, oh, man. You must be remarkably stupid not to know what a normal distribution is, and I know why: you're too fucking lazy to look things up on your own.

Check it out: google for "normal distribution", and the first hit is http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NormalDistribution.html

Wowee, Billybob! That was hard!

It's normal distibution? Then don't talk about all blacks being stupid and violent.

>>909

You must be either very committed the antiquated notion of race or you must be very fucking stupid.

Yes. Yes those differences are all environmental (cultural, social, etc). They are not fundamentally genetic, which is what you're claiming. If Sub-Saharan African's are a sub-species then so are you. You present your information as if whites and asians are a different species unto itself that evolved from "negroids". That is just simply not the case and your pathetic, snarky attempts of shouting it down will not change that.

And I guess you're just going to ignore what I've said about intelligence and human progress, right? Glaring over points made has been a staple move on your part, as you've proven yourself unable to grasp the simplist of ideals regarding IQ's relationship to Intelligence itself.

IQ tests aren't a great indicator. The tests *are* culturally biased and they *do not* test "Genetic Intelligence*. They only test *environmental* intelligence- therefore all those scores you posted only serves my argument.

Understand: If blacks and hispanics have low IQs it stems from environmental factors because IQ tests only tests 'environemental IQ'. 

Experts say IQ results don't really mean shit.

Wow.What a big fat waste of energy this whole thread is.Noone is going to convince the other.Stop wasting your life force people.Get a life.

>>915
Stop glaring over the shit that we've been posting about the improved IQ test variable 'g' and how it IS a good indicator of intelligence AND later success.  How it exists independant of cultural environment.

'g' doesn't just measure school acheivment.  For example, questions that rely on vocabulary, which were part of the original IQ test made by sanford and binet, are excluded.  Many many other questions that led to an unreliable IQ score were also cut.  All that's left are problems that test visual logic, spatial reasoning, as well as verbal ablity (as in, the ability to keep factors straight in your head when they are given in the form of a word problem) and stuff like that.

'g' actually measures cognitive function, and it has been found reliable.  It has been widely accepted by the scientific community as accurate, and in any new publication (past 5-10 years) where IQ scores are mentioned, they are generally talking about scores from g-loaded tests. 

All this shit about IQ scores being unreliable is outdated.

Wait a minute wait a minute

So, this:
So, blacks look totally different from whites, even have different bone structure, different limb lengths and facial shape, macroscopic and microscopically visible differences in muscle tissue from white people, and can't even be treated for glaucoma with the same drugs as white people--but this is all environmental?

Someone tell the New England Journal of Medicine.  Someone tell the Nobel Prize committee that we've got a contender here.

Gets this as a response:


Yes. Yes those differences are all environmental (cultural, social, etc). They are not fundamentally genetic, which is what you're claiming. If Sub-Saharan African's are a sub-species then so are you. You present your information as if whites and asians are a different species unto itself that evolved from "negroids". That is just simply not the case and your pathetic, snarky attempts of shouting it down will not change that.


All I can say, is, what have you been smoking cracka man?

>>919
Illustrates the point.  I don't think the race-unification dude even understood what the first guy said before responding.

ON OUR WAY TO 1000 GET!