Holy Shit!

Most of these posts are by moron racists!  This is supposed to be a politics board.  No fucking wonder caucasians seem to be on the decline.  The same old pattern seems to be holding true.  The strong build something, and their weak, spoiled children who believe they are entitled to the same position lose it.
Hey boys: put down the beer, turn off the NASCAR, take your little dick out of your sister, and do something productive.

4/10, a little too obvious and it seems like you're the one who's been trolled but then again there are many racists stupid enough to fall for it.

http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1247531084/40

>>3
skinhead: kill niggers
faggy leftist hipster: omg dont say that it's not PC ;-;
skinhead: lol

>>4
And that's why it never goes anywhere. Enjoy your self defeating purpose in life.

Also, ^* African Americans

>>1
last time i checked, this was america, not bealazyniggerstan. Those "stupid white people" who watch nascar, and drink beer, also have blue color jobs, unlike those niggers to love, who smoke crack all day, and demand money because they reproduce like rabbits. next time, think before you post.

>>6
you*

>>6
you*

>>6
why don't you leave your mother's basement, whitey, and check again.

So >>2, conditioned by this environment, automatically assumes I'm a troll. 
>>4, conditioned by many influences assumes, simply because I'm not a racist, that I must be a "faggy leftist hipster". 
And >>6 just regurgitates erroneous generalizations(there are more whites on welfare and using crack than blacks, though I am aware that the numbers are quite different when related to percentage of population, so what?), misquotes me, and encourages me to think before I post.
I wanted to make two points.  That the quality of interaction on this board has gone way down from some months ago when I  posted regularly, and that race, as a political issue, is a red herring.  Skin color, particularly when related to culture, is an insignificant difference between people that that our unethical, ambitious, and plain old greedy "leaders" use to keep us divided and under control.  Bread and circuses people. 
Mr.>>6, I seriously doubt that you and your racist buddies have ever had an original thought in your lives.  You are angry, and justifiably so, for you are slaves, but you've been sold a load of shit about who you should be angry at.  So do us all a favor; put down the beer, turn off the NASCAR, take your little dick out of your sister, and read some books.  Science books.  Not the Turner Diaries.  Read the Wealth of Nations.  Read The Prince.  Read about Rome.  How long will you allow yourselves to be manipulated so easily?  Hey look!  I've got your nose!, he said, placing his thumb between his index and middle fingers.

ooh lawdy, dat sho izza lot o wo'ds

>>10
I have read the Prince, I have read about Rome. I have also read the art of war, For Whom the Bell Tolls, and many other books. I have realized that none of those, or any other great works. And i have realized that none of them were written by blacks. Blacks have never written a great book, just as they have never ruled a great nation. The current president is a mulatto, and should be an example of white superiority triumphing over black inferiority, if you know about his background.

Dude...ahem...
The preeminence of groups of people, races, civilizations, and nations(our current concept being a 19th century development) wax and wane over time.  When the first major civilizations, the precursors to the advent of the Greeks and our Great Western Civilization came into being, some over ten millennia ago in the middle east and northwestern Africa, many of them were black or had significant black populations who made important contributions.  The Ethiopians, Egyptians, Carthaginians, and the Persians were all at least, shall we say, part black, and some, sometimes, were led by blacks. As far as literature is concerned, the dearth can also be understood as a consequence of the waxing and waning, and the development of the very technologies of writing and printing.  Still, there have been many impressive Black American writers who may one day be considered to be great.  The fact is, our countries paltry 230 year history doesn't leave much to work with without being arrogant. And even considering the whole of the Western body of literature; who knows what has been lost?  Who knows what burned at Alexandria?  In short, your realizations are based on a rather narrow perspective.  I commend you for reading.  It is a habit of an open mind.  Just as making judgments is indicative of a closed mind.

>>13
needs to put down the crack pipe and the copy of "Black Athena."

Just because your "Black Studies" professor taught you to parrot it back to him in the classroom, that doesn't mean it's true.

"Did y'all know de Fay-ros in Egypt was black like us?  Dass right, chilluns!  Back den, WE wuz de massas an' WHITEY wuz de slaves!  An' de E-gypshuns had 'lectricity!  An' airplanes!  Dass right, thousands o' years ago, we could FLY an' shit!  Until Whitey an' de Jews come along and tooks it all away wif dey white debbil tricknology!  Doan you hate Whitey?  I sho' hates Whitey!  It beez a con-spee-ro-cee!"

>>13
By Ethiopians, you mean Nubians, also, the Persions, and the Carthoginians were both, shall we say, tanned, related more to people like the afghans, and the arabs than to blacks. also, persains were never ruled by blacks. Egypt was once, and that period was pretty good at first, then went bad, like the other egyption dynasties. Carthoginians were actually weakened by revolting nubian mercenaries they hired. Don't revise history please.

>>14
See boy, now that's the difference between you fuckers and me. Wholly unfounded judgments and assumptions based on what others have put in your tiny little minds. Black Studies Professor?  Here are some facts. I am a self educated high school drop-out who not only read books... many books, but has actually traveled extensively (more than two years total) through the middle east, northern Africa and Turkey, not to mention many more years in Asia and Europe. Is there a single fact in your head that you have verified first hand?  I doubt it. 
I tried to be relatively kind to you little punk-ass white trash bitches because I understand that you're just frightened little ignorant pawns in a game you don't begin to understand, but my patience is at it's end.  God damned, inbred little pussies.  "Waaaaa, I cain't get me uh good job 'cuz of the niggers an the jooz!" My culture, Western European and American, have led the world in the development of science, technology, and philosophy for centuries, yet the least among us, your kind, are always around holding us back, afraid to step up to the responsibilities that leadership entails.  Always so willing to blame your weakness and impotence on others that you're perpetually led like sheep to the slaughter by the real enemies.  Well keep waving that fucking flag, whether it bears a swastika or stars and stripes, but know this; time is running out, and when your sorry asses are roaming the wasteland looking for food like rejects from Mad Max, I'll be'a gunnin' for ya.  'Cause but for your willful ignorance, it wouldn't have had to go down that way.
Fools.
You make good white men ashamed.  Congratulations.

>>15
And don't try to revise my language to reflect your bias.  Though I may dispute some of your sophomoric assertions, a careful reading will show that nothing I said was inconsistent with anything you said.

>>5
What do you mean it goes nowhere? It provides amusement. As long as there is nothing inherantly insidious about it there's nothing wrong.

>>16
Internet Tuff Guy spotted.  ooooooooooooooooo, we're all a-skeered.

I didn't suck no dog's dick you should stop making stuff up.

>>18
It provides amusement.
Yeah no kidding! It's what makes /newpol/ such an entertaining bottomless pit of stupid. There should be TV shows based upon this material.

>>20
HAHA! Enjoy your dog dicks. Beast lover.

There's less great African cultural works than other places because the majority of Africa never formed civilisations.  Most of it was only oral, ceremonial, and temporary. 

Why?  I'd guess that it's the vastness of the continent and the hundreds of small separate groups.

The average H. Sapiens Africansis having an IQ around 55 wouldn't also be a contributing factor, would it?

>>23
Okay shithead, first of all quit abusing Linnean taxonomy.  If you had even the most fundamental grasp of science, you wouldn't be a racist.  And second, I urge you to re-read this thread and try to puzzle out what side the higher IQ's are on.  Try counting the big words.  If you can count past 20 and 1/2.(that's 10 fingers, 10 toes on your bare hillbilly feet, and that tiny penis that smell like your mothers gin breath)  I don't usually stoop to this kind of post, but it's in kind(abusive, insulting, and not a positive contribution to the discussion), and I'm feeling mean.
Really... are you a child, or a fool?  I'm curious.

>>24
Don't believe science! Science was invented by Jews!

>>25
That's funny, in light of the fact that the guy who's usually credited with "inventing science" was named Bacon.  Frank Bacon, no less!

If you had even the most fundamental grasp of science, you wouldn't be a racist.

Maybe now, but in the late 1800's racialism was the big fad in the scientific community

Modern science proves there are differences between races, they are just not very substantial.

>>28

American Journal of Human Genetics, issue #56, 1995, says niggers and chimpanzees share over twenty identified genes just on chromosome 13Q that Humans do not have.

You were saying?

Facing Facts: Racial Realities

MX Rienzi

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, SoutAmerindians, 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.

The data can be looked at in other ways as well. One can compare the relative genetic distance between two human groups to that between those human groups and chimps, and thus calculate the former as a percentage of the latter. According to the Nei method, the German-Nigerian distance (0.238) is a full 12.8% of the German-chimp difference, while using the Cavalli-Sforza method the German-Nigerian distance (0.168) is a full 24.7% of the German-chimp distance! And for Caucasians-Nigerians vs. Caucasians-chimps the numbers using these two methods are 13.9% and 24.9%, respectively!

These data - however you crunch the numbers, and however liberals may cry that it is all being "misinterpreted" - are quite fascinating and shed important light on questions of racial differences, racial realities, and the consequences of racial miscegenation. It also points out that determining sub-Saharan African admixture (as well as other admixture) via established technology (here, and here) is of significant importance to us.

The other paper that I would like to mention (briefly) is that of Kimmel et al., Genetics 143, pgs. 549-555, 1996. Here eight human populations - including Caucasians, Mongolids, and sub-Saharan Africans- were studied to determine their relative genetic distances. The only real surprise here (not a surprise is that Germans and Nigerians are again very distant, and that various Caucasian groups, including the Germans, are close together) is the (relatively large) genetic distance between the Chinese and Japanese, which some uninformed folks may view as virtually "identical." . The distance between those two East Asian groups (using relative measurements different than that of the Deka et al. work) was 0.029. That is a full 72.5% of the distance (0.040) between Germans and the Bhramins (Asian Indians) of Uttar Pradesh, and is even 8.5% of the German-Nigerian distance (0.342). Not all East Asians are identical, although other data (e.g., Nei and Roychoudhury's classic 1993 paper) do show a relatively close Japanese-Korean relationship. Different areas of China may show different distances to other Asian groups as well, of course. In any case, the stated intention of future ABD tests to distinguish between Chinese and Japanese origins may indeed be possible, given the Kimmel et al. data.

In summary, racial differences are quite real, and the implications of these differences must be considered, regardless of how startling these implications may be.

Addendum I

The following is a list of the [human] chromosome 13q (that which was studied in the Deka et al. paper) 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

And that is all from just a study of 13q alone!
One must carefully consider these data, indeed.

^* African Americans

^*Pan Troglodytes

>>17
Ok asshole, here are the facts: people from the middle east are not of African decent. They, like the rest of humanity, originated in Africa, but they were not what we would consider black. Also, the Carthaginians were descended from the Phoenecians, there fore, they were similar to other middle easterners. When you said Ethiopia, you should understand that it really didn't exist in its present from until around the late 1800's, and is the product of several earlier civilizations, such as ancient nubia, and askum. Don't revise history please.

*form

>>29
I have to question the assumption that sharing traits with a chimpanzee in the same environment as a chimpanzee is necessarily an inferiority, also 5 million years of divergence from chimpanzees far outweighs the 30000 odd years that races have been seperated with far longer generations. It really depends on the content of those traits, nappy hair and large teeth do not adversely affect someone's ability to become a pilot or a doctor, again I am not denying that genetic inferiorities do exist, susceptability to AIDS and alcoholism, over-production of sex hormones and a smaller neo-cortex do have an effect on the performance of various populations. I just cannot deny that individual variation often exceeds the effects of racial markers, when we have a situation where a smaller but significant proportion of blacks exceed 50% of whites in intelligence you have to question whether we should be looking towards social darwinism and transhumanism instead of racism as a solution to the genetic inferiority problem.

Furthermore the content of your study, while relevant, is not entirely accurate, Nei's genetic distance and Cavalli-Sforza's chord method were developed over 30 years before th human genome project was complete and work on a number of broad assumptions similiar to the ideal gas equation. They do provide insights but not as accurately as a comparison between the active DNA of chimps and humans.

>>32
Ask who?

>>35
Ask newpol? Or should I say JEWpol?

I am a self educated high school drop-out who not only read books... many books, but has actually traveled extensively (more than two years total)
IHBT.
Don't respond to this guy's posts.

I'm lost, how does dentition have anything to do with intelligence? 

And great apes DON'T have either nappy hair (it's straight hair, look at any monkey in the zoo), further, under the hair, chimps have white skin, not black. 

These theories while interesting don't prove the substance of your racist theory.  Show me the genes that Africans share with apes that they don't share with other subspecies of humans. 

Put up or shut up.

JEWS

>>38
Race is more than skin deep, those superficial traits do not affect other traits such as brain size.

/newpol/ is the /b/ of text.  Everyone knows that.

I'm not racist, I listen to gangsta rap (g-funk) and watch black tv shows!

>>32
Asshole, eh?  Perhaps.  But not a fool or a liar.  Here are the facts for all to see.
1.
>> people from the middle east are not of African decent. They, like the rest of humanity, originated in Africa

This would be you contradicting yourself.

2.  I did not say that the Carthaginians were black.  Like many major civilizations they were not racially or ethnically homogeneous.  I said:
>> The Ethiopians, Egyptians, Carthaginians, and the Persians were all at least, shall we say, part black, and some, sometimes, were led by blacks.
You even stipulated to the fact that blacks were, at the very least, hired as mercenaries.
Please read more carefully.  I hate to have to repeat myself.

3. I am painfully aware of the fact that European Colonialism drew the borders that placed all of the nations of the Americas, Africa, and western Asia in their "modern form" or contemporary political context.  Please look up any history of Ethiopia. You will find the ancient civilizations of D'mt and The Askumite Empire(which officially used the name Ethiopia in the 4th century)covered.

You are a clever troll, or a piss poor scholar.

>>43
>Ok asshole, here are the facts: people from the middle east are not of African decent. They, like the rest of humanity, originated in Africa, but they were not what we would consider black.

what I said. I thought someone like you would understand what I meant. Instead, you resort to scrutinizing me. Since you are clearly retarded, i will elaborate in caps: PEOPLE FROM THOSE AREAS ARE NO MORE CLOSER TO AFRICA IN TERMS OF RELATION THAN EUROPEANS. THEY ARE OF (DISTANT) AFRICAN DECENT, AND THE THEY ORIGINATED IN AFRICA ALONG WITH THE REST OF HUMANITY, BUT THEY ARE SO REMOVED FROM THE AFRICAN GENE POOL (I AM MAINLY SPEAKING OF SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA) THAT YOU REALLY CAN'T SAY THEY ARE AFRICAN.

Now that that is cleared up, the Persians were not black unless you count their servants, and Carthaginians, as far as I know, did not consider their mercenaries to be Carthaginian. Much like Roman Mercenaries were not Roman. Though I am not sure on the rules for Carthaginian citizenship.

As for the third thing, I agree with you. All i ask is that you please not try to revise history next time you post. :)