RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND BROTHER..BE PROUD WHITE MAN.
BE PROUD WHITE MAN.
WE CONTROL THE WORLD.
Name:
RedCream2007-07-28 16:33 ID:ByoZMzmS
I'm glad I've finally been able to get my conspiracy theory about the evil jew media trying to convince me that my tiny penis is a problem has finally been exposed! Take THAT hollywood!! all you girls who were sexually unsatisfied by me, you've been BRAINWASHED
Bush sent ANOTHER envoy to China (NOT Paulson this time) to beg them to buy our junk bonds (i.e. mortgage-backed securities). So, Bush and Cheney ARE acting like our bankruptcy trustees. Good call!
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-30 2:30 ID:rVUy0PjR
White isn't a race. you can be german, hungarian, italian, etc. and if you're mixed.....well, you're inferior.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-30 16:35 ID:EfzV6/pE
So how do you guys handle the science fact that mankind started off in Africa? Or that Jesus was not only indeed jewish but was most likely arabian?
Your race fallacy has been already covered in the Strumfaggotry thread. Why haven't you replied?
The first to challenge the concept of race on empirical grounds were anthropologists Franz Boas, who demonstrated phenotypic plasticity due to environmental factors (Boas 1912), and Ashley Montagu (1941, 1942), who relied on evidence from genetics. Zoologists Edward O. Wilson and W. Brown then challenged the concept from the perspective of general animal systematics, and further rejected the claim that "races" were equivalent to "subspecies" (Wilson and Brown 1953).
One of the crucial innovations in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation was anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as it is affected by natural selection, migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations; these gradations are called "clines" (Brace 1964). This point called attention to a problem common to phenotypic-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and difference (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race. Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion that, since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines" (Livingstone 1962: 279). In 1964, biologists Paul Ehrlich and Holm pointed out cases where two or more clines are distributed discordantly—for example, melanin is distributed in a decreasing pattern from the equator north and south; frequencies for the haplotype for beta-S hemoglobin, on the other hand, radiate out of specific geographical points in Africa (Ehrlich and Holm 1964). As anthropologists Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda Jackson observe, "Discordant patterns of heterogeneity falsify any description of a population as if it were genotypically or even phenotypically homogeneous" (Lieverman and Jackson 1995).
Finally, geneticist Richard Lewontin, observing that 85 percent of human variation occurs within populations, and not among populations, argued that neither "race" nor "subspecies" were appropriate or useful ways to describe populations (Lewontin 1973). Some researchers report the variation between racial groups (measured by Sewall Wright's population structure statistic FST) accounts for as little as 5% of human genetic variation².
A. W. F. Edwards claimed in 2003 that such conclusions are unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors.[21] While if true it would make Lewontin's argument unwarranted, Edward's paper does not address the existence or absence of human races. (See Lewontin's Fallacy.)
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-31 11:07 ID:x8MpVHNT
>>54
"This point called attention to a problem common to phenotypic-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and difference (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race."
Blood type has little effect on the ability for a person to survive as a hunter gatherer, thus blood types were distributed evenly. Racial characteristics, such as superior intelligence, did have an effect which is why there are differences in intelligence between races.
#55, considering all the White, educated people now laboring under adjustable-rate mortgages that they really can't pay, I'd have to say "White intelligence" is as highly specific to time and place as any other race. Whites were behind an expansion of civilization that required a lot of victims, both domestically and abroad. We can see from history how the USA grew so impatient with the victimization plan that they imported slaves from Africa ... which is the opposite of the modern era's victimization routines of outsourcing and offshoring.
When the chips are down (i.e. there are no more easy resources to steal), Whites are shown to be just about as stupid as any ghetto chimp.
>>56
The entire planet consisted of tyrannies up until 50 years ago so you must admit all other races are capable of evil aswell or you are racist. The fact they were ruthless is not the reason for western civilisation's success, their success is due to technological growth and the fact that the nazis were not succesful and did not exterminate all non-whites is due to libertarianism.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-01 21:07 ID:cxmWo9S0
don't you think it's time to be an hero?
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-01 23:35 ID:BewQHDSR
#58 +10 PTS
#59 Only if you get the good parts...
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-02 3:46 ID:9JfdO8UN
stfu nigger
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-02 4:49 ID:2aRmbhfq
Strange I thought the Jews ran the world?
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-02 19:29 ID:86Hpsj4J
LULZ
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-03 22:51 ID:kjy3u2hi
:P, nazi run the world, yankees run the world, jews run the world, money run the world... i'm getting confused.
are jews considered white?
and what about ethiopian jews?