Bob's Mantra

What do you guys think about Bob Whitaker and his radio shows?

------------------------------------------
BOB'S MANTRA
"Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."


"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them."


"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites."


"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"


"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?"


"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"


"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."


"They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white."


"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."
 

Bob Whitaker
-------------------------------------------------


http://www.whitakeronline.org/
http://www.whitakeronline.org/townhall.htm

-------------------------------------------------

Discuss..

In my opinion, one of the true geniuses of our age.

>>40
Given, but "white power" is just too close to nazism.  I'm not one of those saying the holocaust didn't happen, (I think it probably did) but really, cultural history has just had that odd effect of neutralizing white people. 

I think that neo-nazi groups will rise up though, and gain substantial power in germany and areas like that, throw out the foreigners, reinstate logical home-turf privilege (like the japanese and chinese have... no one critisizes them for not being multicultural enough) and white people will at least survive.  (I'm not a person who thinks that race is particularly important...  I just hate to see a branch of possibility snuffed out)

About whites in the united states?  Barring a HUGE overturn of the status quo, we'll be, not completely extinct as a RACE now, but well on our way out, with no cultural barriers etc... that say we should preserve our own makeup.

I'm not a person who thinks that race is so important, please understand.  As a white guy, I've thought about marrying a japanese girl (haha weeaboo!).  I'd just not like to see a race go away simply because everyone thinks they were so evil.  (especially one that produces a very large proportion of our scientists and other mind-type job people...  Intelligence doesn't determine your value as a person, don't get me started on that, but it would be good to have a few more smart people around.)

>>41

I think 41 shows the idea that is really inherent in the native Western culture before multiculturalism. White people were never really that ethnocentric, but that's a far cry from the extermination of your entire race. Also, white people are more concerned with qualities like reason, intelligence, wisdom, and strength than with pure ethnocentrism. But, as I said before, this is a far cry from wanting your entire race and heritage to be snuffed out.

>>42
Yeah, all those pantwaist libs in the US apparently think all history begins and ends with the British Empire, completely forgetting the UK are mutts, and so are 'pure' Germans, having bred with their trading partners for centuries. Any truly divisive lines between countries in those days were drawn along religious reasons.

>>43


Well, white countries (although I would say more cultural than religious,) non-white countries really are racially separate from white countries, but white countries have been sharing genes and cultures for a millenia. Also, if you consider that the white world population is relatively small, the British or the Irish population is infintesimal. However, ironically, Germans and Brits share much of the same gene patterns, like in personality/intelligence/facial characteristics/nose shape/melanin concentration/cranium size/diverse hair shades (black to blonde to red), and similar foundational cultural values that they simply don't share with non-white countries. That's why white->white assimlation is natural and easy while non-white->white assimilation is not. Non-whites don't share any of the genes, culture, or heritage that whites do with each other.

>>44 That probably also has something to do with the fact
that Germany and Britan were populated by the same people for the most part. America isn't Europe, but America/US was populated by Europeans. They are practically the same people. Genetically, they ARE the same.

whats so graet about white people? who care?

>>46
physics
chemistry
architechture
engineering
cosmology

list goes on

>>47 age for truth. Other cultures dabbled in all of those; none of them took them as far as we have (for better or for worse).

>>46
It's a White thing.  You wouldn't understand.

>>46
The White Devil's Tricknology!

Healthy living: By Yacub and the grafted white snake devils!

(This, of course, is horrible horrible sarcasm.)

Mmm. Ice cream, tastes like tricknology!

>>50

And it tastes good!

>>38

See: >>37

>>40

Good. White people should start dying off because there's no such thing as a "white race". "White" greatly overgeneralizes groups of people who before the 1800's had entirely different cultures and ways of life- a majority of which- were opposed to each other.

Also, I think it's all cool you're trying to "survive" and all that- but your survival constitutes ignorant characterization of other peoples and is built fundamentally that the white race should be preserved because it is somehow superior to others. That's racism by objective, non-moral definition. That shouldn't be allowable for any race of people- white- black- whatever.

You're operating under the ignorant assumption that "whites" want everything to be "fair". Well, there's a little bits of history like African Colonization and the Holocaust that "fair" is another word for "white dominated".

With ideas of "racial IQ" floating around in the white nationalist party- it's clear that your camp doesn't know the fucking meaning of fair and you're not going to fool everyone into believing you.

>>52
Absurd.

Hong Kong (PRC) 107 Russia 96 Fiji 84
South Korea 106 Slovakia 96 Iran 84
Japan 105 Uruguay 96 Marshall Islands 84
Taiwan (ROC) 104 Portugal 95 Puerto Rico (US) 84
Singapore 103 Slovenia 95 Egypt 83
Austria 102 Israel 94 India 81
Germany 102 Romania 94 Ecuador 80
Italy 102 Bulgaria 93 Guatemala 79
Netherlands 102 Ireland 93 Barbados 78
Sweden 101 Greece 92 Nepal 78
Switzerland 101 Malaysia 92 Qatar 78
Belgium 100 Thailand 91 Zambia 77
China (PRC) 100 Croatia 90 Congo-Brazzaville 73
New Zealand 100 Peru 90 Uganda 73
United Kingdom 100 Turkey 90 Jamaica 72
Hungary 99 Indonesia 89 Kenya 72
Poland 99 Suriname 89 South Africa 72
Australia 98 Colombia 89 Sudan 72
Denmark 98 Brazil 87 Tanzania 72
France 98 Iraq 87 Ghana 71
Norway 98 Mexico 87 Nigeria 67
United States 98 Samoa 87 Guinea 66
Canada 97 Tonga 87 Zimbabwe 66
Czech Republic 97 Lebanon 86 Congo-Kinshasa 65
Finland 97 Philippines 86 Sierra Leone 64
Spain 97 Cuba 85 Ethiopia 63
Argentina 96 Morocco 85 Equatorial Guinea 59

http://images.google.com/images?q=lithuanian&hl=en
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=LAotian
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=ugandan

>>53


...

>>52

>>54
Yeah so? Black people kill, murder and enslave aswell. What matters is the race that can develop a society capable of putting an end to these crimes. The only reason whites committed barbarity on such a large scale is because they had the technology to. Just like the Mongols had the ability to kill million of people and Idi Amin had the ability to torture and execute anyone who disagreed with him. If white society was that evil, why are you no longer a slave? Having black labourers pick all the cotton was beneficial to white people, so why did they free the slaves? Why didn't the American military just shoot the civil rights protestors as the soviets or nazis would have done? Why did american servicemen risk their lives on normandy to get rid of the nazis? Why did whites throw the US into a bloody costly horrific civil war in order to end slavery?

All you are doing is looking at the facts that make whites look bad and make non-whites look good. If you had all the facts you would come to the same conclusion as me.

>>55

You're an idiot. I think the NAACP is very racist and I find any institution based on race to be racist and morally wrong. Wrong is wrong. Claiming that I care about the race of the one committing immoral acts is a fucking straw man.

But onto your questions.

Why am I no longer a slave?

Because of white christians who after years of exploiting Africans- had a moral crisis- taking upon themselves the "white man's burden". A better question: Why didn't Blacks gain civil rights until fucking 1964!?!?!

Why didn't they shoot the protestors?

They did alot of shit to the protestors OTHER than shoot them. And it wasn't always done by the American military. My argument isn't against the American military, in the first place. It is based on whites as YOU percieve them to be a race. And whites did attack black people, shoot them, lynched them and burn litle girls in churches. Also: Am I supposed to fucking give them "morality points" for doing not doing something that is ethically wrong in the FIRST PLACE? Your ideal of mercy is far too convienent for my tastes.

Why did American servicemen risk them lives?

Because Japs bombed Pearl Harbor. WW2 also helped the economy after the depression. White owned American coroporations actually still did business with the Nazis all the way up till D-Day. And once again "American military" isn't the white race. Blacks fought in world war 2 as well and still returned to America with no rights.

Why did white throw the US in to civil war?

Simple. To save the union. Again: Keep in mind that blacks fought in the civil war as well. Both sides. Why did it take so long for them to get their rights afterwards? Why did it take so long for whites to roll back colonization?

>>56
because blacks were considered a races of sub-human slaves. you have to realize how radical the idea of giving rights to people who were considered slaves of half-human.

>>57

This excuses nothing and refutes nothing in my post. The question wasn't how radical it was, it's how moral it is to free people as slaves and treat them as sub-humans when they aren't.

There were white slaves and yet they were treated as human beings. The question is why- obviously one of the answers is simpleminded ignorance and racism...the other has more to do with economics (see: Mexican immigrant labor). It is around this time that references to seperate races of light-toned people ceased as well. It was a mad dash to assilimate scots, irish, dutch all the rest into one white.

Regardless, this treatment is hardly fair, morally right or "good" and that was the point I was making.

You just lost this debate.

Anything else?

>>56
>>57
>>58
If the reasonning behind a crime is not racist why is that crime justified? You are all competely insane, all slavery is evil. I thought you were vehement anti-racists with a conscience not psychotic maniacs.

My point is not when blacks got civil rights, but the fact that civil rights were allowed and the sacrifices made for it to actually happen. The first time in human history that a multi-ethnic society had equal voting and working rights in a country and you have some sort of vehement hate for the crimes committed by one race that your race is also easily capable of. It doesn't take much to flick through history to see the awful despotism and tyranny human history is wracked with, the fact that some form of democracy occured at all is a miracle, let alone the end of slavery and civil rights. Calling the white race evil for not giving you civil rights earlier is like calling einstein stupid for not developping the theory of relativity earlier.

You mention how most americans whites are scots, poles, germans etc etc.. If you have to hate someone because their ancestors committed a crime, why do you hate all whites and think they should atone for the sins of another group of whites? What I am seeing here is classic skapegoating and you are all vicious crazy paranoid fucktards.

Well I'm sorry my race has been succesful and ended slavery and oppression so you are allowed to say these things without getting beaten and sent back to the fields, however I will not apologise for crimes I have not committed. I don't feel guilty for being white at all, I'm not proud either. I am an individualist meritocratic eugenicist, I choose to employ the qualified black guy over the slightly less qualified white guy, and the only reason I am opposing you in this debate is because I value the truth and the truth is there is no reason to hate the white race or call them evil.

Take the log out of your own eye before you criticise the speck in someone elses.

>>58
They were considered subhuman for a reason.

Chinese laborers brought to the US in the late 18th Century to work on railroads were treated far worse than slaves.  Coolies were fungible goods, to be worked until they died and then replaced, whereas slaves were investments.  Yet no Chinatown slum of 100 years ago was ever anywhere near as dangerous as Harlem even then.  Why do you suppose that is?

East Asians living in the US are in the aggregate better off than most whites today.  Why do you suppose that is?

Vietnamese "Boat People" who got off the boats literally penniless and without one word of English had children who almost universally graduated college and are now doctors and engineers and stockbrokers and scientists, while Negroes sat around and watched it happen with their fingers in their asses, and then went back to complaining about how badly the White folk paying the taxes to pay for their welfare checks were oppressing them, and still are today.  Why do you suppose that is?

Negroes claim that the first word of English learned by Koreans fresh off the boat is "nigger."  Are these Koreans attending Klan rallies?  (would that make them the KKKK?)  Or are they seeing TNB every day in their stores, and seeing with their own eyes?

Yes, yes, I know.  "dat beez RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACISMS!"

And that's all the answer you will ever be able to give for any of these questions.

>>59

You're insane. I haven't accused you committing any crime. If I have, then by all means: Quote me. Your question was about the white people back then and my response concerns them alone.

Calling the white race evil for not giving you civil rights earlier is like calling einstein stupid for not developping the theory of relativity earlier.

Fallacy. I'm not calling the entire white race evil. Just the whites of that era. And at that, a select number. I'm fairly certain most were socially conditioned into considering blacks a certain way.

So...Why is this so hard to understand? Are you so committed to your race that you can't distinguish individual generations (therefore individual views on equality and race) of people?

Slavery is evil no matter who commits the crime and no matter what they did to rectify that crime afterwards. It's a crime that never should have never been committed.

And to be clear here, we are not talking about my civil rights. I don't share the sense of having won anything like my mother or father and their mothers and fathers. As far as I'm concerned if I was alive during slavery- I'd be dead. I'm smart enough to have a sense of my natural rights as a human being. And they culled the smart ones.

Regardless the question is still posed: Am I supposed to thank whites of that era for doing something they should've done in the first place? Am I supposed to be grateful? Well, I'm sorry, I'm not. I don't spend much time thinking about white people or that era, at all, unless a subject like this comes up. 

But ~Let's review the argument I'm making~

There were white slaves and yet they were treated as human beings. The question is why- obviously one of the answers is simpleminded ignorance and racism...the other has more to do with economics (see: Mexican immigrant labor). It is around this time that references to seperate races of light-toned people ceased as well. It was a mad dash to assilimate scots, irish, dutch all the rest into one white race.

Regardless, (of the reasons) this treatment is hardly fair, morally right or "good" and that was the point I was making.

Now let's superimpose this onto what I said in >>52/>>54:

You're operating under the ignorant assumption that "whites" want everything to be "fair". Well, there's a little bits of history like African Colonization and the Holocaust that say "fair" is another word for "white dominated".

And your base-response to that:

All you are doing is looking at the facts that make whites look bad and make non-whites look good. If you had all the facts you would come to the same conclusion as me.

You seem to think when it comes to slavery the debate is about slavery itself. It's not. It's about the treatment of blacks. You said whites were fair- I merely pointed out that there were not. How were Jim Crow laws fair? Isn't what I said about saving the union exemplified by the fact that after the civil the government made no effort to assimilate blacks and bestow upon them rights that were natural first and civil second?

Finally, explain to me how precisely all of this somehow translates out to your guilt (or lack there of)?

Why are you upset that history happened?

>>60

They were considered sub-human for a reason.

You know what, man? Say no more. I get it: [u]You hate blacks. You're going to accuse me of saying "dat beez racisms" no matter what. Even when I direct respond to your questions. I understand you're not here for debate and I'm done responding to someone who doesn't even consider me a human being.

I think >>59 and >>61 are arguing past each other. They're both right.

The problem is that a lot of people on both sides of the debate don't think like this. :'(

>>62

i dont understand how >>59 can act like he has an argument. he says whites are fair- history shows they're not. then he says it is racist and wrong (against whites) for anti-chan to point that out? and then he goes off on how he shouldn't feel guilty and all this other bollocks.

he must've forgotten how whites generally resisted giving blacks rights. it wasn't something white just gave to blacks. it was something blacks fought for. his argument is rubbish and dangerously close to bigotry for my tastes. he undoing alot of argument by himself

I think you're reading too much into it, >>63.

Were the whites wrong to do what they did? You bet. Would any other race have done the exact same thing in the same situation? Of course. Them evil whiteys are just another powerful civilization in history, repeating the very same things powerful civilization prior to them did.

Whites aren't evil incarnate; they're just like everyone else. Get up and look in the mirror: no matter what colour you are, deep down you're a monster. Just like everyone else. In short, whites aren't the problem. We are.

Hopefully humanity eventually outgrows this, but I don't hold much hope. Aggression, groupthink, in-group bias, selfishness, and opportunism are too deeply ingrained in our instincts. We've managed to survive and thrive because of what we are, but it'll also be our undoing once our newfangled modern toys start being used.

Don't believe me? Just look at this idiotic black/white debate. In-group galore. Your way of thinking, us versus them, is what caused this mess in the first place.

>>64

All of what you said is pretty much a give in. But that doesn't apply here. He uttered the ignorant characterization that "whites are fair". History proves otherwise. So I'm suffering from think-group syndrome because history happened? Are we supposed to, pardon the pun, whitewash all of history and pretend it didn't happen when someone makes an implictly racist and supremist statement like the one >>55 made?

There's a conflict with his speak.

One the one hand, he doesn't want anything to do with slavery or jim crow or colonization. He says that he shouldn't feel guilty.

Ok, fine.

But then he goes on to include himself with the whites of that era by saying: "I'm sorry my race was successful."

He doesn't seem to understand that "his race" has been successful because of slavery, colonization (of not only Africa), and policies set in place to deny others of their rights- insuring that success he holds so dear.

If I'm wrong here, tell me where I'm wrong. Because I've never painted blacks are doing everything good. I'm sure we've done our fair share of fucked up shit throughout history. The difference is- I don't feel a connection with blacks of the present or past because fundamentally- I don't believe in race.

>> He doesn't seem to understand that "his race" has been successful because of slavery, colonization (of not only Africa), and policies set in place to deny others of their rights- insuring that success he holds so dear.

Actually the white race was successful because of their ability to exploit the natural resources at hand.  If it included slaves, well, then, yeah, you could say that.  But the white race would have been this successful with or without slaves.

>>66
We just would have been like the asians, sticking to our own plot of ground, building a civilization, and the rest of the world be damned.

>>  In-group galore. Your way of thinking, us versus them, is what caused this mess in the first place.

Actually, I'm one of the major parties in that debate...  There don't seem to be any in-groups in there.  Just one side says that genes don't matter, and the other side says that they do.  For example, anti-chan (I'm just assuming that's who it is) says he doesn't believe in race because of genetic similarities, while I say that race is just a human measure of an observable phenomenon.  Same reason for believing two totally different things.

My point is that I'm not arguing from the point of view of a white guy, just someone who thinks that genes are important and should be looked at.  And he says they shouldn't.  Our races seem rather incidental, even though they do color (LOL PUN) our positions. 

(I prove my unbiased nature by pointing out studies of asians and jews etc... being superior to my own race.  Doesn't mean that us white people should be eliminated so that ashkenazi jews and japanese can take over.  same for blacks.  I just believe that genetic factors for intelligence is not something that should be out of hand ignored because it's an... icky subject)

That being said, White peopel are actually one of the most ethnically weak groups of people on the planet.  Family ties are weak, extended family is almost not important at all.  European society seems to have always been very multicultural, judging people on their individual traits rather than on what any central authority would have said.  This didn't always apply to everyone they conquered; I mean, they were just another resource to the people of those times.  But really though, compared to Chinese society or old indian society...  Their xenophobia not only kept them in their own lands, and from conquering others, but kept them tight as an integral ethnic group.  Our largest controlling authority in history, the catholic church, was very powerful, but citizens were willing to go against it, and we were willing to go out to sea, abadoning our old "ethnicity" to become "American".  In 2500 years you haven't seen anything like that in china or japan.

In short; we're a nomadic people.  That's why we were so meteorically successful.

>>66

But the white race would have been this successful with or without slaves.

According to who? You? Do you have proof? No? I thought not. The logistical growth of the "white empire" would have been impossible without colonization and without slavery.

You're under the impression that slavery came about because of a inherant need to "rightfully" subjegate a people. It didn't. It came about cheifly because of the need for cheap (see: free) labor. Remember: North Americans blacks were indentured servants first, slaves afterwards. And whites were slaves too.

It's very convenient for you, in a losing argument, to reclassify african slavery as "exploiting natural resources". It's your way of reframing the debate so that you don't look like a stinking heap of insecure fail.

But in your narrow scope you forgot to address the element of unethical and immoral behaviors in being the exploiter. You also pathetically dodged the all encompassing points that were being made:

I.E

There's a conflict with his speak.

One the one hand, he doesn't want anything to do with slavery or jim crow or colonization. He says that he shouldn't feel guilty. [For the actions of other men]

This indicates that he realizes the circumstances of colonization and slavery were morally wrong and he doesn't wish to be lumped in with the whites of that era.

Ok, fine.

But then he goes on to include himself with the whites of that era by saying: "I'm sorry my race was successful."

Here, he contricts himself and lumps himself in with the whites of that era. So again I ask: Have I accused him of anything? No, I haven't. It simply appears that it is his undying commitment to the "white race" that has him racked with guilt.

Regardless, the one thing we have agreed on is that slavery and jim crow laws were immoral, unethical and not "fair". He stated that white "fair". He was wrong.

Now unless you have something new to say, I'm afriad you've lost. What is it about you and constantly losing to me in debates?

Must be your low IQ.

while I say that race is just a human measure of an observable phenomenon.

And this, for me, is the fatal flaw in the concept of race. It's only a phenomenon if put all your eggs in that basket so to speak. Different features and the like are inherant in nature. (All cows don't look the same.)

The only reason it's an "observable phenomenon" is because different cultures and ways of life correspond to the different features. Otherwise- race has no fundamentally biological expression.

>>69
Sub-Saharan Africans practiced slavery on a far larger scale than any whites, ever, anywhere did.  Sub-Saharan Africans still practice slavery today.

By your argument, they ought to be the ones running things.

>>70 race has no fundamentally biological expression

o rly?

GENETIC DISTANCE FROM CHIMPANZEES
HOW CLOSELY RELATED ARE THE VARIOUS RACES?
by Michael Rienzi, Biologist.


Genetic studies can provide much knowledge, and some of the newer
technologies are quite powerful and useful. However, some of the older and
more basic studies are quite interesting as well, and some shed important
light on racial and species differences. I'd like to talk about two here.


The more important of the two is Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56,
pgs. 461-474, 1995. This study looks at some genetic markers and compares
the genetic distances of eight human populations (Samoans, North
Amerindians, South Amerindians, New Guineans, Kachari [Mongolids], Germans,
more generalized Caucasians, and Sokoto Negroes from Nigeria [Nigerian
sub-Saharan African Negroes]) to each other and to chimpanzees. The data
were analyzed two ways - with Nei's standard genetic distance, and with
modified Cavalli-Sforza distance.


Which group was genetically closest to chimpanzees? The answer for both
methods was the Nigerian Negro group. Using Nei's method, the
Nigerian-chimp distance was 1.334 +/- 0.375, by far the closest value
(second closest was the Kachari value of 1.527 +/- 0.493). To be fair, and
show we are not knee-jerk "Eurocentrics" hiding data, the group farthest
from the chimps was the South Amerindians (1.901 +/- 0.529); however the
Germans (1.865 +/- 0.506) and the more general Caucasians (1.860 +/- 0.497)
were right behind them (and given the +/- values, virtually overlapping).
Looking at the Cavalli-Sforza method, the Sokoto Nigerians were again the
closest to chimps (0.539) by a large margin. The farthest were again the
South Amerindians (0.712), with the Germans (0.680) and general Caucasians
(0.667) being a very close third and fourth behind the South Amerindians as
well as Samoans (0.711) and North Amerindians (0.697). So, while the two
methods give slightly different orders, in both cases the Nigerians are by
far the closest group to the chimps. Once again, given the first method,
these sub-Saharan Africans were at 1.334 while all the other groups ranged
from 1.527-1.901, and given the second method they were at 0.539 while the
other groups ranged from 0.643 (Kachari again) to 0.712. Thus, based on
these data, the sub-Saharan African group is genetically closest to chimps.
The authors state the following about "neighbor-joining trees" based on
these data, using the chimps as the "outgroup":


    "...the SO [Sokoto Nigerian - my note] population is the furthest from
all the other human populations."


Indeed, these genetic data are consistent with the work of J. Irish,
reviewed here, demonstrating that sub-Saharan Africans are dentally more
similar to extinct and extant apes, and to extinct hominids and
australopithecines, than are any other human population. The genetic data
and the dental phenotypic data match perfectly.


Some may find it unfortunate that all these data seem to correlate with
certain racial stereotypes. However, we must view facts - however harsh -
with honesty. And if that includes recognition that certain groups may be
slightly more distant from chimps than are Whites, so be it. Of course,
White groups have "on their side" the verdict of history as to their
accomplishments compared to other groups; the European extended phenotype
is second to none. However, we can imagine that other less accomplished
groups may find these data very unsettling. That is unfortunate;
nonetheless, it does not change the facts.

>>70
I would actually say I agree with that. 

But to discount what we can learn from genetic study makes no sense.

I suspect that the whites would have been successful regardless of slavery or not (the cultural offshoots of the Renaissance ensured that), but they wouldn't have been as successful.
Cheap labour is a fantastic advantage, which is why businesses still use it today.

>>72

lol @ micheal reinzi

gb2/stromfront.org

>>72


>>71


PROOOOOF PLEASE. (And shit you've read on stormfront, doesn't fucking count)

No proof, no merit, so noted. :D

Also, saying that "by my argument sub-saharans should be running things" is a purposeful twisting of my argument and my words. Wait, what am I doing? I shouldn't even be responding to you. This is my last one, I promise. :)

>>72

If you were smart you'd understand that this doesn't prove me wrong. I'll just wait for you read over this again.

Also, it should be noted that Michael Rienzi is connected to white nationalism. I don't trust him in the same way you wouldn't trust some black "afrocentric" professor.

>>76
Aw, were there too many big words?  Here's the single most significant line:

Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56, pgs. 461-474, 1995.

That is a reference to a paper printed in a peer-reviewed, referreed scholarly journal.

I post objective scientific truth, you chimp out and shriek "go back to Stormfront, dat beez RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACISM!"

Incoherent shrieks of outrage do not constitute refutation.  Therefore your concession of each point is noted.

Michael Rienzi is a biologist--a scientist who deals in objective empirical truth.

A million "Black Studies" professors could never refute a single word he's ever written if you gave them fifty years to work, because all they have is agitprop--simpleminded lies calculated to flatter IQ-70 slumdwellers and thereby sell books.

"Chilluns, did y'all know dat de Ancient Greeks wuz black?  An' Beethoven an' Alfred Einstein too?  It's dat ole debbil Whitey, hidin' de TROOF agin!  Dey waz once African cibblizations dat had flyin' saucers an' shit, but y'all won't nebba fine dem in no Whitey books!  It beez a con-spee-ro-see!  An' de Jews beez in on it too!  Don't y'all hates dem Jews?  I sho nuff hates me some Jews!"

But wave your hands and scream "racism" some more, as if that affected me.  It's amusing.

>>77
>>78

You seem to think my job was to refute the study. I'm afriad you're mistaken; read what I wrote: "If you were smart you'd understand that this doesn't prove me wrong. I'll just wait for you read over this again."

I guess you're not smart.

You know: I could go into how Macroevolution is a sham to prop up the atheist scientific community. (Any sociologist or antropologist will highlight how trival Rienzi's study is.)

I could argue how regardless "black genes" don't exist in isolation and can only be expressed genetically sampled from a continuum.

I could highlight the fact that all men began as apes. (Shave a gorilla and see what color the skin is).

I could go the emotional route; talk about how "Affection Hunger" is drilled into human DNA as to over power "selfish-genes" and therefore notions of superiority. And how it is that ideal of self-sacrifice and the quest for affection that most makes us human.

But the thing is: I really don't care anymore, dude. You seem to think that study means something and I won't take that away from you, but this is what South Amerindians looks like:

www.minelinks.com/worker/jungle_people44.jpg

The humans who are the fatherest from apes are still savages, so what is your point? Do you think truth will ever make your hatred acceptable?

You don't even consider me human. You hate me because you think I'm somehow affliated with a race and by asscioation I am out to preserve the dignity of my "race".

Hahaha.

I'm sorry, but that's called projection.

There's no such thing as objective truth with you, because you and I are having two totally different arguements. Don't fool yourself, buddy. You aren't >>59. You continue to argue right past me and insist that I'm furthering some liberal negroid agenda despite the fact that you have no information or quotations to back up that claim. The only thing you know about me is that I'm black and that's "guud ennuf fer you, hyuk".

There can be no objectivity when we don't even agree that we're two human adults debating ideas.

I guess that's the reason I'm taking a step back from this- because the discourse- particularly with you- is steeped in fear, hate and negativity. And call me a pussy, but I just can't hang with that right now.

In your small mind- this translates out to me calling you "racist". But the truth is I don't even see you as white, you just seem like some really insecure guy who doesn't know who he is and lets himself be defined by his race. You're like alot of black people I know who blame whites for everything.

So what am I supposed to do to appease you? Die? Seek to kill, destroy or isolate you, because you seek to kill, destroy and isolate me?

Do you really want a debate or do you want a safe haven from morality; a place where you're free to call black people niggers and chimps without dealing with the affects of your actions?

>>79 You seem to think my job was to refute the study.

If you're claiming it's false, it certainly is.  And you have failed utterly to do so.  Do you concede the point, then?

>> I could go into how Macroevolution is a sham to prop up the atheist scientific community.

You could try, with about as little success as you're having debating any other scientific point.

Let's see, on our side we have Darwin, Dawkins, Gould, and every biologist, zoologist, and geneticist of the past hundred years and then some.  On your side, there's you, Louis Farrakhan, Pat Robertson, Osama bin Laden, the Reverend Ike, and the crazy old guy with the mimeograph machine in his basement handing out blurry fliers in the mall parking lot about "EVIL-ution conspiracies to deny the truth of Jesus!  Pray the Rosary daily!"

This should be fun and educational--fun for me, educational for you.  Bring it.

>> you have no information or quotations to back up that claim

Nothing except objective scientific truth, while you have ludicrous agitprop that wouldn't fool a nine-year-old and theatrical outrage.

>> I could argue how regardless "black genes" don't exist in isolation and can only be expressed genetically sampled from a continuum.

Is that a fact?

From Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56, pgs. 461-474, 1995.

Addendum I

The following is a list of the [human] chromosome 13q alleles which are found in both Nigerians and chimps and NOT found in any of the other population groups studied:

FLT1 - 156 and 176
D13S118 - 184
D13S121 - 160 and 180
D13S193 - 127 and 137
D13S124 - 179

That's eight genes found only in Negroes and chimps, from chromosome 13q alone.

You are aware that the FBI has for ten years now used DNA profiling to determine the race of a suspect when no eyewitness can provide a physical description, aren't you?

The rest of your post consists of whining and a clumsy attempt to psychoanalyze me, which I find most droll.

Do you have anything else to add, boy?