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.

>> Don't you see the conflict of your words there?

What if it's true?  Doesn't make you a racist.  Racism is defined as IGNORANT characterization.  Our beliefs are based on data and information, which is suppressed at every opportunity by moralists and other people who believe they're doing something good.

>> there is no "intelligence gene" in the first fucking place

No single gene.  Nobody ever claimed there was one.  Yet another of your transparent and idiotic debate tactics.  What we have is a constellation of genes that affect an individual's overall intelligence, picked out more or less at random over the years.  There is no single gene that controls muscle mass, there is no single gene that controls SKIN COLOR.  Yet we know that these factors are genetic (unless I read you properly when you said that all those traits are environmental)

>> It only measures what we *assume* intelligence to be.
This is the same thing as when you said that there is no such thing as race.  Race is a measure invented by man to explain empirical observation.  Intelligence is the same.  It doesn't make it any less valid in the sphere we're talking about here. Especially when intelligence, (g especially) correlates to success in life.  If you can cite me a study that refutes that (and isn't just an attack questioning the motives of the experimenters) then by all means do it.

>>   You completely ignore the fact that 400+ years of blackness being a "societal (and cultural) taboo" could have an effect on future generations' intelligence- while at the same time citing "societal tabboo" as a reason one person wouldn't do an experiment on the genetic basis

You effectively ignore that condition of black people wherever they go in the world since the beginning of civilization.  You can cite a few civilizations if you want, but they were nowhere near as advanced as the white civilizations at the time.  They didn't have the building prowess or the engineering skill of ANY of them.

You can say that I'm subjectively calling the Assyrians and the Harappans etc... superior because I'm uneducated about them if you want to, but answer me this; why did none of those civilizations we hear so much about have any lasting impact on the rest of the world? 

You can't deny that the system is set up to favor black people nowadays.  Colleges have to accept a proportion of them which exceeds their overall population in the country.  Quotas everywhere you look.  And most white people aren't racist.  In fact they're terrified of that label. 

>> How is that different from academic education? It's very rare that relevant new ideas are introduced in academia and it was rare, then, new ideas were introduced for survival.

Academic education is harder than surviving in the bush (mentally, not physically) ever was.  In academia, you have to come up with original and you have to calculate things. You must tax your brain.  To survive, you simply have to follow some simple patterns or some memorization of what plants to eat etc...  It was mostly brute strength that prevailed.

>> Disparity in IQ can't be attributed to genetics alone because genetics alone do not determine IQ.

Never said it did.  The disagreement we're having relates to the extent to which IQ can be attributed to genetics.  Please get your shit straight.