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.

>>961

Excuse me? But where is the data that says Mexican immigrants do better than African American's in the US? Where's the data that says it's genetic and not just that immigrant fulfilling what the immigrant's environment re-enforced it to do? Do these mystery studies account for where in Mexico these people come from? Do the test account for the environments of these people?

And why are you still acting as if there is "genetic race"? Find me the "negroid genes". Show me where the "white genes" exist. You can't. Because they don't. The only thing you've got is skin color and other physical features- but that doesn't equal race. The cultural component is the most important component in race and by relation environment (culture) is the most important component in "racial IQ"

I'm sorry, but your entire post sounds like conjecture and all the studies you (or other posters) used to qualify your points were contested, if not refuted outright around posts >>200 - >>400.

>> Not to mention the fact that the genes of a race in a society affects how well they raise their children and develop their economy.

That's not a fact because there's no such thing as "genes of a race". There's genes for physical features that adapted to enviornments. But that's it. 

A small alteration in intelligence and emotional behaviour can affect a civilisation on a large scale.

Again: Proof. Why is it that throughout history "smarter" civilizations failed as well as "dumber" ones? If we were to believe the bell curve, then the Chinese and Japanese should have the strongest civilization and a majority of the world's power.

Why do you keep stating things as fact without the data to back it up. Why do you keep ignoring history? If you don't have the data you don't have a scientific argument. You have a co-relative theory. Do you even understand the difference between the two?

And please (finally) respond: Why hasn't there been a study on Height and IQ or Weight and IQ? I keep asking why the focus is on race, but I'm getting no answers. If the opposition isn't racist, then maybe we can make a co-relation between height and IQ...the question is: Why haven't we?

How do you not see dividing people up into different races along IQ would be as stupid and ridiculous as dividing people's IQ based on height?

Regardless of the implications to my own argument ("I'm just calling people racist!"), I still question the motives and policies built on the idea that IQ is fate. Clearly, judging by history it isn't- because natural selection doesn't favor intelligence unless people (ashkanazi jews) sexually select for it.