I notice, a lot of people here are trapped in the racial world view. As a result, people are trapped in old ideas, and in applying old ideas to solve new problems.

Efficiency is important to the success of any machine, including economic machines. Affirmative action increases diversity, but it does so at a cost. The cost is that it promotes racism indirectly by focusing on differences.

I have a better idea. The main goal behind affirmative action is to promote unity and efficiency. So the question is, what is the best way to do that?

One way, is to simply provide unity incentives. Instead of punishing qualified white males to promote diversity, we should instead provide incentives to white males to promote diversity and unity. The best way to do this is to use the tax system.

Greater unity should mean lower taxes, meaing tax incentives to anyone who promotes unity. The more women you hire, the lower your taxes. The more minorities you hire, the lower your taxes. If your business is diverse according to guidelines, you should actually be able to earn money for promoting diversity and unity.

Affirmative action is wrong, you should not punish qualified employees. You should instead reward shareholders, CEO's, and the corporation itself for doing what is rational, and in the best interest of the bottom line.

So one replacement for affirmative action could be, unity tax deductions. Another replacement for affirmative action could be, unity credits, where individuals who choose to run their business or give to charities which promote unity, can actually recieve credits for doing so.

The goal, to promote unity. The benefit will be to every American, because a united America is fundamentally stronger. The result, will be that there will be no need for affirmative action, or any race based policies, because the market itself will regulate diversity due to the fact that unity increases income potential.

This is just one basic idea. It will not end racism outside the workplace. It will not end cronyism inside the workplace, but it's one step in the directon of full employement, and full employment is the most efficent direction.

Ok, I ask all for your comments, opinions, etc. I'm sure this idea, will piss off liberans and conservatives because it has no social bias and it's a more libertarian market based solution. I still like to hear the pros and cons.

Whether you punish or force or bribe companies to hire people they wouldn't hire otherwise, you end up discriminating against better qualified Whites and hiring inferior people which is not efficient. I could argue that the NBA discriminates against Whites and demand 4 out of 5 players always be White but if I was successful the quality of basketball might decline and better Black players would not be playing.

Remember as well that affirmative action requires a bureaucracy and enforcement which require time and money which is a waste of resources in itself.

Whether you punish or force or bribe companies to hire people they wouldn't hire otherwise, you end up discriminating against better qualified Whites and hiring inferior people which is not efficient. I could argue that the NBA discriminates against Whites and demand 4 out of 5 players always be White but if I was successful the quality of basketball might decline and better Black players would not be playing.

Remember as well that affirmative action requires a bureaucracy and enforcement which require time and money which is a waste of resources in itself.


Tax breaks aren't bribes, it's about promoting economic efficiency, to have the end result be full employement of all citizens of the United States.

The corporation decides how they promote unity, but corporations should be pursaded to promote unity because the government benefits through the increased economic spending of each of the workers. It's in the corporations best interest to promote unity because white males cost the most, so unless the white male really is worth more to the corporation, is it not rational to do whats in the best interest of the share holders and the corporation itself?



Remember as well that affirmative action requires a bureaucracy and enforcement which require time and money which is a waste of resources in itself.

I never said I support affirmative action or a huge bureaucracy. I specifically said I support efficiency. A corporation filled with bureaucracy, just to support a racial quota, black or white, asian, or a gender quota, is no better. This is why I say we should let the market decide, by giving incentives such as tax deductions, credits, etc. These tax deductions and incentives are simply to help the corporation do what is in the best interest of the corporation and it's ability to remain and stay profitable. Unity is profitable, it's a fact, and it's more efficient. The best way to promote unity, is simply by lowering the tax burden on corporations who wish to do what is rational AND ethical. If a corporation truly believes that white males are more qualified, then white males should also be the most profitable, and therefore white males will be hired anyway. However if a corporation comes to the conclusion that race, gender and other human properties don't matter, then the corporation will simply take the tax cut and be done with it. The tax cut will allow a corporation that for example, has an all white male workforce, that is on the verge of going out of business, to hire a more diverse workforce, and as a way to turn the business around from the red into the black, or even into profitability, by bringing more diverse minds and ideas into the corporation. This is about as rational as you can get because it does not take into account race, gender, or education, with the only interest being the bottom line and unity.

Whether you punish or force or bribe companies to hire people they wouldn't hire otherwise, you end up discriminating against better qualified Whites and hiring inferior people which is not efficient. I could argue that the NBA discriminates against Whites and demand 4 out of 5 players always be White but if I was successful the quality of basketball might decline and better Black players would not be playing.


I never mentioned that corporations must hire from a draft system. What does pro sports have to do with the corporation? I'm talking about the fact that, to a corporation, the only thing that should matter is profitability. If white males really are the most qualified as you say, a corporation will have no problem paying your salary and giving up the tax incentives because the corporation will have enough money to afford to hire in this way.

What if your corporation does not have billions of dollars and can only afford to hire the cheapest labor, or the most cost effective labor, or the most efficient workforce? Well of course a united workforce is always more efficient than a divided workforce, and unity has nothing to do with race. You can hire a person from a different county for each employee, and you can have greater unity due to the workplace policies than if you hire all white males with the wrong policies, and then you add the tax incentives, this is just so corporations can pay for the new policies which will be implemented. Each corporation can define what unity is, in their own terms, and if you want an all white company, you can define race as unity, and if your state agrees with this definition and if the court agrees, then thats what it will be for your corporation, and all this will do is make the highly qualified others, move to the corporation which has their definition of unity, it will actually improve the efficiency of the market because companies like yours won't have to hire people who you and your employees don't want.

The only benefit of Affirmative Discrimination was that after countless centuries we white males got to actually feel what it was like to not have rights because of our sex and color. I think in the cosmic scheme of things it probably accomplished some good. We actually walked a mile in those moccasins.

Timetraveler, you are going on about what makes an efficient economy, an efficient machine, bla bla bla, but what you have failed to realise is that the number one thing that ensures such a thing is meritocracy rather than affirmative action (or "racism" and "sexism", its real names) or nepotism.

The best candidate should get the job, and that's it.

To give tax deductions to companies who hire non-Whites is essentially taxing companies who do hire Whites. Don't be surprised even if this happened if companies continued to hire mostly Whites. Companies don't want to deal with the bullshit and expense of racism lawsuits everytime they discipline, fail to promote or try to fire non-White employees.

Surely companies can't be stupid? If they want to make the most money they need the best people, regardless of them being black or white. Why not hire someone based on ability?

Timetraveler, you are going on about what makes an efficient economy, an efficient machine, bla bla bla, but what you have failed to realise is that the number one thing that ensures such a thing is meritocracy rather than affirmative action (or "racism" and "sexism", its real names) or nepotism.

The best candidate should get the job, and that's it.


Meritocracy is always impossible. Endorsing meritocracy is as utopian as endorsing communism. It's not in human nature to be fair, so if we assume humans by nature can never be fair and will always hire their friends and family members by instinct, it makes sense to encourage a meritocracy based on profitability, not based on race, sex, gender, or anything of this sort.

I'd think a computer would be more fair than any human could be at hiring, but since we want to keep humans in the hiring process, it makes sense to organize a merit policy around greed, selishness, and unity. If you are greedy, unity is in your best interest, not merit, because unity can be calculated in numbers, while merit cannot. You can measure unity, in a very straight forward way, while merit is impossible to measure until later on, after a company is profitable or sinking.

Surely companies can't be stupid? If they want to make the most money they need the best people, regardless of them being black or white. Why not hire someone based on ability?

Sure, are you going to let a computer decide ability? The reason we cannot hire on ability is because it's impossible to know someones true abilities until after you hire them and find out. So if you hire people on any group of qualifications you could end up wasting your money. However if you hire based on unity, you simply hire a bunch of people who can be united, and then you create the jobs and positions for the workforce, or move them around into the positions that best suit them. Yes there should be capable, but I don't think in the future merit will be a big issue anymore, there will be no shortage of skills, but there will be a shortage of experience. The technology will make up for the skills gap as the type of labor changes.

There is one way to hire based on ability, and that's to let a computer and software algorithm do all the hiring and firing, however while this would be economically efficient, many middle manager types want to keep their sense of heirarchy and power within the corporation and will fight a merit based computerized system, so we must accept that merit based hiring is always impossible and never going to be fair. There will always be quotas, there will never be merit or fairness, and we should simply reward corporations for doing what is profitable by giving tax reductions to unified companies.

A unified workplace is a workplace where every employee functions as a unit within the company, a unit which is like a cube or lego that can be placed around in different positions and orders, retrained over and over as the need arrives. This is how it works in Japan and in China, they have so much unity in their workforce there that people are almost never fired and the employees become the corporation itself.

What I'm saying is, by promoting unity you promote job security, you promote employee loyalty, you promote profitability, you promote efficiency, and you promote flexibility for the employee who might want different hours, different job titles, or just the freedom to be treated as a member and not just a worthless number. I think we all can understand this.

Affirmative Action is hypocritical, bottom line. So is busing.

Meritocracy is always impossible. Endorsing meritocracy is as utopian as endorsing communism. It's not in human nature to be fair, so if we assume humans by nature can never be fair and will always hire their friends and family members by instinct, it makes sense to encourage a meritocracy based on profitability, not based on race, sex, gender, or anything of this sort.

I'd think a computer would be more fair than any human could be at hiring, but since we want to keep humans in the hiring process, it makes sense to organize a merit policy around greed, selishness, and unity. If you are greedy, unity is in your best interest, not merit, because unity can be calculated in numbers, while merit cannot. You can measure unity, in a very straight forward way, while merit is impossible to measure until later on, after a company is profitable or sinking.

While people will hire lesser qualified friends etc, it is less of a problem than forcing people to hire who they don't want. Companies who hire based on friendship instead of merit suffer from not hiring the best person and lose in the marketplace to companies who do hire on the basis of merit. Speaking of which, where do you think nepotism and the like is a bigger problem...business or government? I know which I would choose based on my work experiences.

To give tax deductions to companies who hire non-Whites is essentially taxing companies who do hire Whites. Don't be surprised even if this happened if companies continued to hire mostly Whites. Companies don't want to deal with the bullshit and expense of racism lawsuits everytime they discipline, fail to promote or try to fire non-White employees.

A corporation should not be forced to believe in concepts such as race. I never said anything about hiring or not hiring whites, you decided to think about whites. I said unity. You because you are a believer of race, you believe unity is race, but unity is not in the dictionary listed as race and therefore it's up to the corporation to define unity, based on state guidelines.

This means unity could mean gender, height, citizenship, or any other definition, but I guess you literally cannot think outside of the racial view of the world to understand.

While people will hire lesser qualified friends etc, it is less of a problem than forcing people to hire who they don't want.

It's not about want, no one stops the CEO from doing whatever he wants, or the president, or the shareholders, but the main function of a corporation is to do what's in the best interest of the corporation as an entity. If you believe that the CEO and President, or whoever hires, should hire based on who they want, then they can do so without tax incentives. However if the main goal of a corporation is to be profitable, then the corporaton should hire based on what is efficient and profitable.

We have outsourcing, right now, white males are being replaced by chinese males, and indian males, and neither of you are complaining about that. Unity would actually benefit white males because a corporation can define unity as citizenship. The corporation has freedom to define unity in a way which benefits the corporation. You tell me, would you rather hire more women and minorities who are citizens, or are you happy with them being hired overseas because it saves cost? I think unity would screw you less as a white male than disunity, but thats just my opinion.

Companies who hire based on friendship instead of merit suffer from not hiring the best person and lose in the marketplace to companies who do hire on the basis of merit.

That's what I'm saying, we should give unity incentives. Merit is not something defineable, but unity is defineable. It can be defined as citizenship, it can be defined by cultural standards, it can be defined by the ability to speak english, it can be defined by anything that isnt gender, or race, this gives you plenty of freedom. You'd therefore be able to hire a conservative christian workforce, as long as this workforce is evenly split up and not dominated by say, one gender, or one race. If everyone is culturally the same, and if everyone is qualified, what say you? What is wrong with that?

Speaking of which, where do you think nepotism and the like is a bigger problem...business or government? I know which I would choose based on my work experiences.

I don't know what you mean by business or the government, that's not really a question I can understand. What I can say is that, unity is profitable, and efficient, and I'm also going to say that humans have no way to know who is qualified before they hire, I mean it would take a lot more information about a person than an interview, and a personality test, if you know what I mean, and even still, I said promote unity, because unity is the only form of merit that matters.

In the military, or in the family, it's unity that keeps the family strong. You don't want a member of your family to feel unwanted and go work for your rival, you want them to feel accepted, loved, united. It's basic, it's as basic as magnetism. We have more strength together than we have apart. A corporation has more strength together than it has apart. Employees have more strength together than they have apart. A country has more strength together than it has apart. So yes, unity should be encouraged, but you cant do this by dividing people up into race and gender, and that's why I'm not a supporter of affirmative action, but I am a supporter of unity, I'm not a supporter of race, but I'm a supporter of the concept of corporation, country, and the community. Corporations can either helps us or hurt us depending on how we use them.

Affirmative Action is hypocritical, bottom line. So is busing.


Busing should be a decision decided by the individual states, but if a kid can afford to pay for the bus, well you cannot tell them they cannot go to the school. I think it should be up to the family to figure out how to handle the busing situation, or the community, or families, I don't think the schools should be forced to segregate, but I don't think the schools should be forced to intergrate. I don't think force has to come from the federal levels, it's moral to desegregate, so if you want your kid to go to a moral school, then the school will desegregate itself, this is if your school believes segregation is immoral and you agree. If you believe segregation is moral it would be good if you send your kid to whatever school enforces that morality even if I disagree with it, because if you put a kid with that worldview in the wrong school, it can only reinforce that opinion.

Surely companies can't be stupid? If they want to make the most money they need the best people, regardless of them being black or white. Why not hire someone based on ability?
Because that's racist, unless the minority always comes out on top. Like in basketball.

An all black professional basketball team is not racist. Profesional boxing with every heavyweight champion black is not racist. But an all white management of a corporation, you bet that's racist! We need to tax companies that have the audacity to hire white guys!

A corporation should not be forced to believe in concepts such as race. I never said anything about hiring or not hiring whites, you decided to think about whites. I said unity. You because you are a believer of race, you believe unity is race, but unity is not in the dictionary listed as race and therefore it's up to the corporation to define unity, based on state guidelines.

This means unity could mean gender, height, citizenship, or any other definition, but I guess you literally cannot think outside of the racial view of the world to understand.

It was your idea to suggest taxing companies less for having minority hires (which in effect is taxing companies extra for hiring Whites). I am totally against any kind of affirmative action so in this case, I appear to be less racist than you are.

Because that's racist, unless the minority always comes out on top. Like in basketball.

An all black professional basketball team is not racist. Profesional boxing with every heavyweight champion black is not racist. But an all white management of a corporation, you bet that's racist! We need to tax companies that have the audacity to hire white guys!

Just to let you know, all 4 heavyweight belts are now currently held by Whites. Betcha didn't know this, the media isn't big on celebrating White acheivements.

Probably because white people don't have to celebrate every little pissy thing as if we've just put a man on the moon like a certain race does.

Probably because white people don't have to celebrate every little pissy thing as if we've just put a man on the moon like a certain race does.
You obviously don't live in the UK!!

It was your idea to suggest taxing companies less for having minority hires (which in effect is taxing companies extra for hiring Whites). I am totally against any kind of affirmative action so in this case, I appear to be less racist than you are.


I never said minority. You people are changing my words. I said unity. Women are not minorities in this country, they are 50% of the population at least.

I never said minority. You people are changing my words. I said unity. Women are not minorities in this country, they are 50% of the population at least.

To quote your words...First paragraph of your first post in this thread.

The more women you hire, the lower your taxes. The more minorities you hire, the lower your taxes. If your business is diverse according to guidelines, you should actually be able to earn money for promoting diversity and unity.

Whether they be women, minorities or even straight white men for the NBA I am opposed to favourable taxation for these hires. To lower taxes for the NBA if they hire white players is to to tax the NBA extra for every black player that they have.

Probably because white people don't have to celebrate every little pissy thing as if we've just put a man on the moon like a certain race does.

I said the media...btw, did you know that all four heavyweight belts were held by whites before I told you? Just want to see how well the media is doing its job.

Just to let you know, all 4 heavyweight belts are now currently held by Whites. Betcha didn't know this, the media isn't big on celebrating White acheivements.
You're kidding. I had no idea. What are their names?

Meritocracy is always impossible. Endorsing meritocracy is as utopian as endorsing communism. It's not in human nature to be fair, so if we assume humans by nature can never be fair and will always hire their friends and family members by instinct, it makes sense to encourage a meritocracy based on profitability, not based on race, sex, gender, or anything of this sort.

Hiring the best isn't being fair. Hiring the best is hiring the best, hired so out of complete self interest for the company to perform better.

I notice, a lot of people here are trapped in the racial world view. As a result, people are trapped in old ideas, and in applying old ideas to solve new problems.

Race is neither a 'world view' nor an 'old idea'.

Races are part of nature and are neither good or bad in themselves.

What your post reveals is why Americans have such an intractable problem dealing with this issue.

White Americans manipulate nature to make dollars. Hence, you believe that through manipulating the economic system you can make nature how you want it, ie, you can make black the same as white.

This is impossible because in nature black and white people do not live together. Black people live in Africa. White people live in Europe. If they did live together there wouldn't be any black and white people would there?

It is tragically sad that the only people in your lands who really understand this are the American Indians.It is their knowledge and wisdom which is needed here.

But there's little chance of your people ever listening to them since Americans are only interested in material gain and consider nature a 'barrier' to themselves creating their sick idea of 'heaven on earth' or the laughable 'American Dream'.

The world knows and so do you that you can't give up the dollar now.

The real problem was caused centuries ago when your people left Europe for a place you didn't belong.

And perhaps even earlier when Europeans raised money above nature through interest.

No amount of affirmitive action or otherwise is going to change that.

A bad faith led you astray and so now we must all face the consequences.

Whichever path you chose the future is sealed.

Can the moon change the course of its orbit?


;)

http://www.castefootball.us/images/temp/b6a8528d7e68d97109746731cc79d528.jpg

You're kidding. I had no idea. What are their names?

http://www.castefootball.us/viewarticle.asp?sportID=14&teamID=0&ID=23012

pictured: White men hold all four heavyweight titles

(8/17/06) All four heavyweight titles are securely in the hands of white boxers. Since the anti-white Caste System media is reluctant to talk about it, let Caste Football review the situation for you.

Last Saturday, Ukranian Oleg Maskaev spent 12 rounds pounding on the last “Great Black Hype,” Hasim Rahman, before rocking him with a combination and sending the over-rated fighter to the canvas to win the last belt that was not in the hands of the people to whom it rightly belongs. Maskaev is a rock-solid slugger who beat Rahman a few years before. He is 37 years old, the same age that Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis "should" have retired at, instead of getting whipped and brain damaged

- snip -

http://www.castefootball.us/images/temp/b6a8528d7e68d97109746731cc79d528.jpg



http://www.castefootball.us/viewarticle.asp?sportID=14&teamID=0&ID=23012

pictured: White men hold all four heavyweight titles

(8/17/06) All four heavyweight titles are securely in the hands of white boxers. Since the anti-white Caste System media is reluctant to talk about it, let Caste Football review the situation for you.

Last Saturday, Ukranian Oleg Maskaev spent 12 rounds pounding on the last “Great Black Hype,” Hasim Rahman, before rocking him with a combination and sending the over-rated fighter to the canvas to win the last belt that was not in the hands of the people to whom it rightly belongs. Maskaev is a rock-solid slugger who beat Rahman a few years before. He is 37 years old, the same age that Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis "should" have retired at, instead of getting whipped and brain damaged

- snip -
And I thought Syvester Stalone was the last white boxer!

the problem is, race will be a pointless identifier in teh years to come because of mixed races. Correct me if im wrong but i believe a student is entititled to affirmatice action so long as they are at least 1/8 black, or is it as long as they have any black blood they are eligible? That seems unfair.

The point is the country being a "melting pot" will eventually become at least for the most part a blend of a bunch of different races and there will be pretty much no diversity. Just as Europeans who came as Spanish, British, German, Italian, etc now have pretty much made up teh typical "American" who shares many different ethnicities, soon blacks and asians and hispanics will integrate, maybe not too the same level and not in all communities certainly (there will still be communities who are isolated and want to be "pureblood") but pretty much the population will all be mutts soon. So distinguishing by race will become pointless in teh future when everyone is the saem blend mostly.

To quote your words...First paragraph of your first post in this thread.

The more women you hire, the lower your taxes. The more minorities you hire, the lower your taxes. If your business is diverse according to guidelines, you should actually be able to earn money for promoting diversity and unity.

Whether they be women, minorities or even straight white men for the NBA I am opposed to favourable taxation for these hires. To lower taxes for the NBA if they hire white players is to to tax the NBA extra for every black player that they have.


Yes I said women and minorities, what is with your obsession with blackness? I never mentioned racial minorities, I said minorities, this could mean gays, this could mean the disabled, whoever. I did not name it racial minority, minority just means the opposite of the majority, so if a business is hiring mostly Asians and Indians it would actually be a good thing to unify the work force wouldnt it, because in this company you'd be the minority.

Anyway I don't get it, I guess you plan to benefit from outsourcing somehow.

the problem is, race will be a pointless identifier in teh years to come because of mixed races. Correct me if im wrong but i believe a student is entititled to affirmatice action so long as they are at least 1/8 black, or is it as long as they have any black blood they are eligible? That seems unfair.

The point is the country being a "melting pot" will eventually become at least for the most part a blend of a bunch of different races and there will be pretty much no diversity. Just as Europeans who came as Spanish, British, German, Italian, etc now have pretty much made up teh typical "American" who shares many different ethnicities, soon blacks and asians and hispanics will integrate, maybe not too the same level and not in all communities certainly (there will still be communities who are isolated and want to be "pureblood") but pretty much the population will all be mutts soon. So distinguishing by race will become pointless in teh future when everyone is the saem blend mostly.

It's already like that now. That's why I don't care about race. Some people care about race, but I dont' think race counts as a qualification, or even as a property. I do think unity is important, but everytime I say unity, people seem to go into this black vs white mode of thinking, even if I don't mention race, some people just naturally think in black and white.

It's not black and white, because white people arent all the same race either and yes there has been racism in hiring white Irish immigrants, Italians and many others. Unity is unity.

Yes I said women and minorities, what is with your obsession with blackness? I never mentioned racial minorities, I said minorities, this could mean gays, this could mean the disabled, whoever. I did not name it racial minority, minority just means the opposite of the majority, so if a business is hiring mostly Asians and Indians it would actually be a good thing to unify the work force wouldnt it, because in this company you'd be the minority.

Anyway I don't get it, I guess you plan to benefit from outsourcing somehow.

Fine. I oppose affirmative action for anyone. Giving tax incentives to business to hire "minorities" is in effect a tax on hiring "non-minorities". Oh, and you're right. A lot of minority run businesses will only hire other minorities but good luck getting our government to crack down on them for discrimination. Just another benefit of "white priviledge" I guess.

Race is neither a 'world view' nor an 'old idea'.

Races are part of nature and are neither good or bad in themselves.

There is no scientific evidence for the biological existance of races. It's a theory, an idea, and it has nothing to do with nature UNLESS there are several species of human, but because all species have mixed blood generally, and all can and have mated with each other in the past, the whole idea of race is pointless unless you are a royal. Are you of royal blood?

What your post reveals is why Americans have such an intractable problem dealing with this issue.

Race is only an issue for people who believe it exists. Look, if everyone were white there would still be race. Race can be defined as any set of physical qualities or attributes that are different. This means shorts, fats, uglies, pretties, blondes, redheads, just about everyone has a certain look, and that look becomes race even if there is no real biological basis for it. Anyone can have any look because the genes exist in all of us to have all hair colors, this is why you can design a baby to have whatever hair and skin you want, it's selectable because all babies have roughly the genes for all the different stereotypical race looks.

White Americans manipulate nature to make dollars. Hence, you believe that through manipulating the economic system you can make nature how you want it, ie, you can make black the same as white.
Please define to me what a "white" is, besides saying the opposite of black. What does a generic white person look like? Would white even exist if there were no black? White would divide into races if there were no black.

This is impossible because in nature black and white people do not live together. Black people live in Africa. White people live in Europe. If they did live together there wouldn't be any black and white people would there?
In Egypt black and white people lived together, and in Rome although not as much, and in America. White people actually came from Africa, the same skeleton based evidence you use, to prove race is real, is used to prove all races came from Africa. The same genetic evidence you use to scan DNA and run diagnostic tests, has proven as a fact that the majority of people on earth come from the same few ancestors. This means the further you trace back, the more common our ancestor is, until you do actually reach the original ancestor, and this original ancestor is the birth of the human race. Of course you are free to believe that there were originally 3 ancestors that came from mars, formed tribes, and became seperate species, but they have been inter-mixing for thousands of years, all the way back to neanderthal, so basically, how can I believe race is real when there is no scientific evidence for it at all? To me it's like the creation myth, I mean it might be true, I can keep an open mind, but really, even if it were true, there is no white race, there is only a white look, no black race, only a black look, no asian race, only an asian look, which basically means in all races, most people are what we can call mutts, not purebreeds. Royalty may be purebreed, but thats about it. Are you royalty? is anyone here of royal blood?


It is tragically sad that the only people in your lands who really understand this are the American Indians.It is their knowledge and wisdom which is needed here.

American Indian genes are now mixed into the "white" and "black" races. This is why I say most people aren't pure, if you have just one drop of Native American blood, it changes everything, if you have just one drop of Egyptian blood, it changes everything, in order to be pure your family would have had to avoided every major civilization, and all the cultural mixing and inter-breeding. You can find out if you are pure just by tracing your genes, so if you believe in race, take a genetic test and come post your results for us to see. If it says you are "white", that's not a race, I want to know what tribe, I want to know the name of your root ancestor if you can go back that far, or at least know the name of your tribe. Just calling yourself a white, that's not genetically real so people who don't believe in race but who do believe in genetics and science won't understand what you mean.


But there's little chance of your people ever listening to them since Americans are only interested in material gain and consider nature a 'barrier' to themselves creating their sick idea of 'heaven on earth' or the laughable 'American Dream'.

Science is the tool we use to discover nature, not religion, race is religion, genetics is science. This is not my personal belief, all the scientists say so, every geneticist says so, if you were to prove without a doubt that race were actually seperate species, then none of our genetic sciences would work anymore because our geneticists depend on the fact that humans all share the majority of DNA. I mean look at us, we might have different skin tones, hair texture, height, weight and other minor physical differences, but basically humans as a species think the same, feel the same, and act the same. We don't have a special psychology for blacks and a special psychology for whites, and it would be silly to do that. We don't have a special racial neuro-science to study the differences between black and white brains because we have not found any racial differences between brains. We have found plenty of differences between individuals however.


The world knows and so do you that you can't give up the dollar now.

The real problem was caused centuries ago when your people left Europe for a place you didn't belong.

And perhaps even earlier when Europeans raised money above nature through interest.

No amount of affirmitive action or otherwise is going to change that.

A bad faith led you astray and so now we must all face the consequences.

Whichever path you chose the future is sealed.

Can the moon change the course of its orbit?


;)


I tried to answer most of your concerns. Race is about as real as space aliens, we can't prove either, but sure we can make claims even if these claims have no basis in genetic science. Race was invented before genetics, before DNA, before science, therefore it's religion, it's like saying adam and eve, both white, had kids, and created the white race, while in another side of the world, black people somehow spawned into existance, or perhaps mutated from white people and were kicked out, and then asians somehow mutated from black people or, what? I don't know, tell me how you can get 3 species of human from only two species which existed that we know of, neanderthal and homosapian?

I believe genes are real. I do not believe race is real, unless you can prove you have a pure bloodline, and I don't think thats likely, thats all. The reason is, you can have a kid with blonde hair and blue eyes, the palest of pale skin, and they could have black genes, because you cannot see the race of genes, no one can, because genes are race neural, so this is why you have different races of white. It's likely that white people have so much diversity in hair color, eye color, and appearance because of race mixing. Do you honestly believe that brown hair and eyes could have come from anyone other than the races which have mostly brown hair and eyes? Asians have brown hair and eyes, and yellow skin, Blacks have brown hair and eyes, in general, there are exceptions to these rules now, but in general these two races have brown hair and eyes. You have white people who have brown hair and eyes, who may have mated with white people who had blonde hair and blue eyes, and honestly, if it were the 1500s in Europe you'd have had no way to describe this. So please explain to me, if races are real

Why does almost everyone, have that redhead in their family, it does not seem to matter what their race is because this hair trait seems to be in all races, and is most popular among whites. Why does every family have at least one person with brown hair, or at least one person with brown eyes? Yes people can dye their hair now, but back in the past people couldnt.

How could our families have so much gene diversity if we are pure? At this point, the most pure are people like royalty, and even they arent all genetically the same.

Fine. I oppose affirmative action for anyone. Giving tax incentives to business to hire "minorities" is in effect a tax on hiring "non-minorities". Oh, and you're right. A lot of minority run businesses will only hire other minorities but good luck getting our government to crack down on them for discrimination. Just another benefit of "white priviledge" I guess.

Actually, no, it's not just minority run businesses outsourcing, actually these are American run businesses, with white male CEO's, choosing to hire people in China and India to save a buck. I say instead of them doing that, why not let them hire minorities in America, or even hire you? That's the option, you can give all the jobs to China and India, or you can give tax incentives for hiring Americans.

Do you honestly believe that brown hair and eyes could have come from anyone other than the races which have mostly brown hair and eyes? Asians have brown hair and eyes, and yellow skin, Blacks have brown hair and eyes, in general, there are exceptions to these rules now, but in general these two races have brown hair and eyes. You have white people who have brown hair and eyes, who may have mated with white people who had blonde hair and blue eyes, and honestly, if it were the 1500s in Europe you'd have had no way to describe this. So please explain to me, if races are real

Have you ever seen two white anglo-saxon people give birth to children darker skinned than themselves?

It's not possible.

The original people were dark skinned. White skin is genetically reccessive in that you cannot get black from white.

The same goes for eye and hair colour. The lighter you get the more recessive.

Hence, blue eyes are recessive to hazel, which are recessive to brown.

So if you believe in genetics you can appreciate there is a scientific basis for race.

White skin in a hot country is an evolutionary disadvantage and hence in Australia the skin cancer rate is almost 50% for whites which I beleive is not dissimlilar to the rate in California or thereabouts.

Its like white people now wish to pretend race doesn't exist after centuries of using it to oppress and enslave dark skinned people. Come on.

Sorry but the scientific evidence suggests that black skin is an evolutionary advantage whereas white skin isn't. Just check out all the sun tan lotions, face creams, anti-aging creams and what not that white people create. Black people don't need any of those since nature has equipped them with all the protection they need.

Have you ever considered why a white man would create a theory which describes life on earth as a struggle for survival? Or why white people are so afraid of racial inter-mixing?

This has all go off my original point but I needed to point out some fundamental genetic differences since you are sold on this idea.

But I must come back to what I originally said and which is really the faultline in your argument.

As I said races are part of nature and what you have failed to realise is that humans did not create nature.

This is something that AI's know and respect but which white and black people in the U.S. don't.

Any discussion about race is just one individual or group trying to raise themselves over another. It's an endless game of oneupmanship in which we all become the victims.

Races exist just like the sun and the moon. Theres no value judgement being made by nature. This is why all the current problems on earth stem from this lack of respect for nature as the overriding principle and power.

Humans are so morally weak however that they will frequently only accept ideas which give them some kind of material or psychological advantage over others.

In America this game is the foundation of society because of Americas slavery foundation. Its always about keeping up with the Jones' and keeping them niggers down.

How can you possible change this when America was created on the idea of material gain?

Your just gambling again if you try to. Nature is not determined by us and so the only way to solve Americas problems is to put down material things and see that there is not going to be no heaven on Earth made by man.

What nature has given us is as good as its ever going to get.

It's all about balance.

Have you ever seen two white anglo-saxon people give birth to children darker skinned than themselves?

It's not possible.
It is with mutation.

The original people were dark skinned. White skin is genetically reccessive in that you cannot get black from white.
In an isolated African tribe that's had no genetic mixing with pale people you're unlikely to get a white baby appearing. Unless there's a mutation or a case of albinism or somesuch...

So if you believe in genetics you can appreciate there is a scientific basis for race.
It all depends on your definition of 'race'.

Sorry but the scientific evidence suggests that black skin is an evolutionary advantage whereas white skin isn't.
In a hot country. In cloudy Europe it's the opposite (why do you think most Europeans are pale?) Dark skin can lead to vitamin D deficiency. Luckily these days we have sun creams and vitamin pills, so people can live in other places without too much trouble.

Black people don't need any of those since nature has equipped them with all the protection they need.
Black people still get skin cancer, just at lower rates.

What nature has given us is as good as its ever going to get.
Humans have been fiddling with nature ever since we domesticated figs and gave the sick willow-bark tea to reduce their fever. One day, this interference will probably extend to genetic engineering.

So I'd say what nature has given us is as good as it gets until we use our nature-given brains to make it better :D

It's all about balance.
True.

In an isolated African tribe that's had no genetic mixing with pale people you're unlikely to get a white baby appearing. Unless there's a mutation or a case of albinism or somesuch...

In a hot country. In cloudy Europe it's the opposite (why do you think most Europeans are pale?) Dark skin can lead to vitamin D deficiency. Luckily these days we have sun creams and vitamin pills, so people can live in other places without too much trouble.

Black people still get skin cancer, just at lower rates.

Albinism is very common in Africa and hence some Afro-centrists - like the American Dr Welsing writer of the Isis Papers - have theorised that albinism explains the origins of white people.


http://i6.tinypic.com/14alxcz.jpg


The vitamin D deficiency thing has never been proven and looks now more like propoganda from white supremacist science to validate the erroneous belief that having white skin is a positive thing.

Incidence of skin cancer amongst black people is so tiny that it could never be of any concern to them.

As for mutation their has never been one recorded incidence of white people giving birth to a black child or even darker than themselves and yet black people frequently give birth to children with different shades of skin colour and even children who have white skin as in the case of albinism.

In that sense is there really any point in considering the mutation argument when the evidence is right in front of our eyes.

Again this discussion has spiralled towards racial oneupmanship.

The whole problem once again resurfaces in your last statement that we should use our brains to change nature.

This can be traced back to European philosophers like Descartes who divided the mind from the body. Descartes said that animals could not think like humans and therefore were only biological machines incapable of feeling. Perhaps you can draw a strong parrallel between this and their modern day treatment in abattoirs and perhaps the treatment of Africans during slavery and in some respects today.

Also consider how callous this is compared with the AI view of nature and animals.

The human mind or brain is part of nature and therefore cannot 'trump' it.

Our brains cannot rise above what they are inextricably part of.

The 'problem' of race is therefore a theo/philosophical one concerning the faulty perception of European civilisation and how this grew into America.

Putting your faith in what humans can do is a sure fire way to greater racial and environmental disaster on Earth.

Hiring the best isn't being fair. Hiring the best is hiring the best, hired so out of complete self interest for the company to perform better.

Yes, but I define best as in best for the corporation or best for business. I don't think it has anything to do with race, gender, or any of that crap. I don't think it has anything to do with formal qualifications, because most of the best business men and women had no degrees whatsoever. So there is no way to judge qualification until after you hire them, and I think a personality test often reveals more about the employee than a resume. A drug test reveals more about the employee than a resume. United in culture and lifestyle is more important than unity of appearance.

Albinism is very common in Africa and hence some Afro-centrists - like the American Dr Welsing writer of the Isis Papers - have theorised that albinism explains the origins of white people.


http://i6.tinypic.com/14alxcz.jpg

This theory is very possible, it's also very possible that all people were originally white and became black, and some people in Africa just had the recessive white gene. I don't think the skin gene matters, it does not matter to me at all, and from a biological medical point of view, having dark skin is to everyones advantage. Why should white people take tanning pills, and drugs? IF we want babies free of skin cancer, activate the dark skin gene.


The vitamin D deficiency thing has never been proven and looks now more like propoganda from white supremacist science to validate the erroneous belief that having white skin is a positive thing.

This may actually have some truth, but what is more important, vitamin D or cancer? I think skin cancer is worse than a vitamin D deficiency. I think, we don't really need to have either, we can choose our skin type now. The color does not reveal skin type either, because you have black people who get sunburned and who get skin cancer. Having thin or weak skin has nothing to do with color, although there are genes that do protect skin that colored people have in a greater amount, thats based in science, but it's not based on skin color because Arabs and Chinese have it too, even some Europeans have it.


Incidence of skin cancer amongst black people is so tiny that it could never be of any concern to them.

As for mutation their has never been one recorded incidence of white people giving birth to a black child or even darker than themselves and yet black people frequently give birth to children with different shades of skin colour and even children who have white skin as in the case of albinism.

[B]This is not true, as the skintone of white people is not completely uniform. White people come in many shades from clear, to pink, to tan, but usually the borderline between white and black is pink. In general, some white people have the ability to tan more than others without being burned, and some have darker skin than others. Why this is? No one knows. Is it impossible for white people to have darker skinned kids? Absolutely not, you see that certain races of white people do have darker skin than others.

In that sense is there really any point in considering the mutation argument when the evidence is right in front of our eyes.

There may have been a mutation, or it may have been a reccessive gene, no one can really prove where genes came from, all we know is that we all seem to have genes. You can only say the gene came from say, Africa, but you cannot know which gene came first between black and white skin. We also cannot know which gene came first, or which race is oldest, like any of these things matter, because now we all share genes regardless of which came first or who mutated from what.

Again this discussion has spiralled towards racial oneupmanship.

The whole problem once again resurfaces in your last statement that we should use our brains to change nature.

This can be traced back to European philosophers like Descartes who divided the mind from the body. Descartes said that animals could not think like humans and therefore were only biological machines incapable of feeling. Perhaps you can draw a strong parrallel between this and their modern day treatment in abattoirs and perhaps the treatment of Africans during slavery and in some respects today.

No, I don't think this is the case. People just don't care what other people feel. I don't think there is a philosophy behind it, people care how fat people feel either, or how ugly people feel, or how disabled people feel, or how women feel, or how gay people feel, or how other white males feel. People do not care about people, and race really has nothing to do with that. Black people have nothing to do with this problem, this is a human problem. This is a problem of the human condition. Humans hate humans, and there is no rational reason behind it, people do so because they want to. If people want to do something they will come up with reasons for doing it later on.


Also consider how callous this is compared with the AI view of nature and animals.

The human mind or brain is part of nature and therefore cannot 'trump' it.

Our brains cannot rise above what they are inextricably part of.
So, you are a nature worshipper, and nature is your God, thats your choice. Not every human gives a damn about nature, and when we do, most want to control nature, and not have nature control us. It has never been a case where nature has controlled us, so we are built to control it. We would not have gone into space because that is unnatural, there is no air in space, we would still be in the jungles running around with the animals if your hypothesis on nature is true.

I think the human destiny is to control it's destinty as a species, or eventually go extinct because it was unable to.

The 'problem' of race is therefore a theo/philosophical one concerning the faulty perception of European civilisation and how this grew into America.

Putting your faith in what humans can do is a sure fire way to greater racial and environmental disaster on Earth.


I don't think race is real, therefore it's not the problem. Race is a construction of the mind, the wonderful brain that you call nature, it's a construct based on instinct and emotion, and you know which ones because we all have them, but with effort, reason, and by following our better selves, we can overcome our instincts and do what is best for our collective future.

It's all a choice at this point.I have plenty of faith that humans have unlimited potential, but I have no faith in humans to do what is rational for it's survival as a species. A species that hates itself, usually gets it's own wish after a while, it's a matter of what we choose to focus on, and we arent focused on improving our condition or our quality of life, I mean some of us are, but the vast majority right now arent focused on anything at all, and then there are some who are focused on anger, hate, and stuff such as this, and then there are some that are focused on love, and protecting the environment and each other. The majority of people are in the middle and just are either asleep or just don't care about anything but the moment. The fringes do care about the future, and people such as yourself, you have to decide which future you want to see. If you focus on race, you attach yourself to an issue which won't matter in the future, because the core of it all is a mixture of fear and hate, hateophobia. This will express itself over and over again, even if and when there is only one race left on earth and all the animals except humans are extinct, this instinct will continue to manifest itself, genetic discrimination comes after racial discrimination, which is scientific discrimination based on individual genes. You still think it's about race?

Albinism is very common in Africa and hence some Afro-centrists - like the American Dr Welsing writer of the Isis Papers - have theorised that albinism explains the origins of white people.
Since Afro-centrists are the counterparts of white supremacists, I'm less impressed than I would be had the theory come from an unbiased scientist.

Everyone knows that humans came from Africa originally. But to assume that means Africa is and always will be the centre of the world is illogical.

The vitamin D deficiency thing has never been proven and looks now more like propoganda from white supremacist science to validate the erroneous belief that having white skin is a positive thing.
For something that's 'never been proven' it's a very widely held belief. And it doesn't show that white skin is a 'good thing', it just shows that different levels of melanin have different advantages and disadvantages.

As for mutation their has never been one recorded incidence of white people giving birth to a black child or even darker than themselves
I know people who're more tanned than either of their parents...

The whole problem once again resurfaces in your last statement that we should use our brains to change nature.

This can be traced back to European philosophers like Descartes who divided the mind from the body. Descartes said that animals could not think like humans and therefore were only biological machines incapable of feeling. Perhaps you can draw a strong parrallel between this and their modern day treatment in abattoirs and perhaps the treatment of Africans during slavery and in some respects today.

Also consider how callous this is compared with the AI view of nature and animals.

The human mind or brain is part of nature and therefore cannot 'trump' it.
I didn't say anything about 'challenging nature'. The physical laws of the universe seem to be unchangeable, so 'challenging' them would be foolish. However we can use our knowledge of them to work more effectively.

You are communicating with me via a human invention known as the 'Internet'. Since we probably live on opposite sides of the world, would you rather be yelling at me with the voice nature gave you? :D I don't think it would reach that far...

If you'd rather not put your faith in humans, that's your choice, but I'm not sure in that case why you're bothering to communicate with other humans on forums like this.

Anyway, as you said, the conversation has degraded. I believe that a person's merit should be evaluated independent of this man-made concept of race. You seem to want to prove that anything coming from 'Europe' (itself a manmade concept ... there is no ocean between Europe and Asia) is wrong. Well, good luck with that. But I'm off.

It is with mutation.


In an isolated African tribe that's had no genetic mixing with pale people you're unlikely to get a white baby appearing. Unless there's a mutation or a case of albinism or somesuch...


It all depends on your definition of 'race'.


In a hot country. In cloudy Europe it's the opposite (why do you think most Europeans are pale?) Dark skin can lead to vitamin D deficiency. Luckily these days we have sun creams and vitamin pills, so people can live in other places without too much trouble.


Black people still get skin cancer, just at lower rates.


Humans have been fiddling with nature ever since we domesticated figs and gave the sick willow-bark tea to reduce their fever. One day, this interference will probably extend to genetic engineering.

So I'd say what nature has given us is as good as it gets until we use our nature-given brains to make it better :D


True.


Zeph, I agree that there are races, but these races are not seperated into black and white. I'm not denying that there are different tribes, or that people decend from common ancestors, or people may share tribal ancestors, or people may share groups of genes. The problem is appearance genes don't really make up a lot of the gene pool. This means you cannot see race with your eyes.

There is no doubt and definately a such thing as race, but I would first start by getting rid of the name race. The name race itself is a word which says we must compete for existance. I prefer the word tribe, or kin, as these are more accurate. When we look at peoples family history, or genetic history, we find that no one is any one race, you have ancestors from all around the world. Almost all of us have ancestors from the middle east, from Egypt, from Africa, from Europe, from Asia, or from America. Let's face it, if you have a Native American ancestor, then by default you likely also have an Asian and a European ancestor, if we assume that Native Americans originally came from Europe and Asia. It's possible that many people also have Egyptian ancestors, and many people have European ancestors. Let's just be honest with ourselves, we arent white or black genetically. This is not 1600, or 1800, where we had no concept of what DNA was, or genetics were, we know what it is now, and we know without a doubt, that race, at least the white and black form, is not real.

Tribe is real, and of tribes there are the royal purebreeds and the mixed breeds, and almost all of us Americans are mixed breeds. That's all I'm saying. It might be a very distant ancestor, but a white male and a black male in America share ancestors most of the time. It does not matter how it happened, maybe a slave was raped, maybe their families married and were inter-racial, who knows, why does it matter? It may have happened long before slavery, all the way back to Egypt or even before that.

I understand that people want to know their genetic history, but racial history is not the same as genetic history, as there are some genes which only could have come from Africa, like curly hair, or brown eyes. This does not mean that a white person becomes black, but if they have African genes, they have African genes regardless of what the race says they are. That's my point.

I don't know if people understand what I mean, I'm just seperating genes from race because race is not based on genetics, it never was, the whole one drop of black blood rule was never really genetically accurate, and nowdays, most hispanics (maybe all of them), most blacks (most of them), have genes from Africa, Europe, and Native American, so they are actually the same race genetically, and then you have white people who have Native American genes too, and by default if you have Native American genes, you likely get Asian genes if Native Americans come from Asia. So does everyone understand what this means? What exactly is a mixed raced person supposed to think of these racial categories when asked to choose a race? No one really chooses, the race is chosen for them based on how they look.

Why oh why do people assume, because I criticise a post written by someone who seems to be a black supremacist, that automatically makes me a white supremacist?

Good grief.

I don't care about this so called concept of 'race'. There are infinite possible genetic combinations, and infinitely more possible nurture combinations, and partitioning the world into 'black' and 'white' or even 'black', 'Asian', 'white', 'Aborigine', 'Native American' etc is an immense simplification that tells you almost nothing useful.

The South African Apartheid government assumed race existed, and ended up dividing people based up on whether a pencil stuck in their hair fell out or not. Someone with curly hair was assumed to be 'black'. Are there people that still believe this is somehow scientifically viable?

If so, may the Flying Spaghetti Monster have mercy on us all.

Have you ever seen two white anglo-saxon people give birth to children darker skinned than themselves?

It's not possible.

The original people were dark skinned. White skin is genetically reccessive in that you cannot get black from white.
I don't know about this theory, I have seen exceptions.


The same goes for eye and hair colour. The lighter you get the more recessive.

I know for a fact this is not true. Hair and eye color can change from year to year until a person enters adulthood. Kids can be born blonde wnth blue eyes which turn dark blue and then brown and then become adults with brown hair and eyes. I've seen it happen. I've seen people born with blonde hair which turned brown, and I've seen people born with bright eyes which turned brown.
I don't know why this happens, I just know it happens.

Hence, blue eyes are recessive to hazel, which are recessive to brown.

You are correct about this, hazel does become brown, I have seen that happen. But blue can become hazel and then brown and this I have seen and it does not make a lot of sense, unless the person has all 3 of the genes. I'm guessing most of us have all 3 of these genes, although I admit blue and green eyes are more rare than hazel and brown.

So if you believe in genetics you can appreciate there is a scientific basis for race.

But you have not proved race. You have proved genetics. I always believed in genetics. I always agreed that certain genes are recessive and dominant, all I'm saying is that even if you have the reccessive genes or traits, you still have them, they just are not activated, and this means activating them would be as simple as taking a gene therapy drug.

White skin in a hot country is an evolutionary disadvantage and hence in Australia the skin cancer rate is almost 50% for whites which I beleive is not dissimlilar to the rate in California or thereabouts.

It's high but I don't think it's anywhere near 50%. Show me some stats?

Its like white people now wish to pretend race doesn't exist after centuries of using it to oppress and enslave dark skinned people. Come on.

This is great, now you are saying that all whites who are alive today, have been around for centuries? That was an ignorant comment. You should apologize.

Sorry but the scientific evidence suggests that black skin is an evolutionary advantage whereas white skin isn't. Just check out all the sun tan lotions, face creams, anti-aging creams and what not that white people create. Black people don't need any of those since nature has equipped them with all the protection they need.

Yes and Asians age slower according to some tests, and African runners have the best endurance according to some tests. It's not like all white people have weak skin, some don't burn easily and some do. I think there are good and bad genes, but I don't see it in a racial point of view, I just see genes and gene pools.

Have you ever considered why a white man would create a theory which describes life on earth as a struggle for survival? Or why white people are so afraid of racial inter-mixing?
Apologize again, do not try to make the claim that all white people are racist, or that only white people are racist, asians are just as racist if not moreso, and blacks are just as racist too. Racist is a mindset, it's not a racial trait, so please do not go there.

This has all go off my original point but I needed to point out some fundamental genetic differences since you are sold on this idea.

I never denied genetic difference, I denied that we can judge these differences using our eyes and not our microscopes.
But I must come back to what I originally said and which is really the faultline in your argument.

As I said races are part of nature and what you have failed to realise is that humans did not create nature.

This is something that AI's know and respect but which white and black people in the U.S. don't.

Any discussion about race is just one individual or group trying to raise themselves over another. It's an endless game of oneupmanship in which we all become the victims.

What if you aren't grouped up with a bunch of people who have your look?

Races exist just like the sun and the moon. Theres no value judgement being made by nature. This is why all the current problems on earth stem from this lack of respect for nature as the overriding principle and power.




Humans are so morally weak however that they will frequently only accept ideas which give them some kind of material or psychological advantage over others.

Now you are judging ALL humans, a moment ago you judged ALL whites. Once again you should apologize as there are humans who have morality, and these humans have all appearances, shapes and sizes.

In America this game is the foundation of society because of Americas slavery foundation. Its always about keeping up with the Jones' and keeping them niggers down.

Yeah that is how some in America think, but this also goes on among whites, and among blacks, and among asians, you seem to think that people get along with their own race or something, most people just don't get along with other people, if you do, then you are the exception.

How can you possible change this when America was created on the idea of material gain?

You gain more with unity and efficiency. You gain more together than you do apart. I'm not trying to change America. America has decided for itself what path it wants.

Your just gambling again if you try to. Nature is not determined by us and so the only way to solve Americas problems is to put down material things and see that there is not going to be no heaven on Earth made by man.

What nature has given us is as good as its ever going to get.

It's all about balance.


I don't know what you mean by balance, and nature is man made, we invented the word nature, we discovered the natural laws, and some of us keep discovering new laws every day. Moores Law, or the Law of Cause and Effect, if we only were to pay attention to these laws perhaps we'd understand where we are headed.

You like to say the word nature, but you also know that race is just a word, it really has no meaning unless people give it meaning, so ask yourself why people were so angry, and so hateful as to create the word "nigger" in the first place. Ask yourself why these words like "cracker" were invented. The law of cause and effect, people do have emotions, and some people are more emotional than rational, so if you say something to them they might respond with an even more vulgar insult, until there is a dialog of insults. This is a form of emotional communication that some people have, but you don't have to take part in it by using these words, or by communicating in this way, or by believing in the ideology. If you arent a hater, focus on loving yourself. Love is part of nature too.

Why oh why do people assume, because I criticise a post written by someone who seems to be a black supremacist, that automatically makes me a white supremacist?

Good grief.

I don't care about this so called concept of 'race'. There are infinite possible genetic combinations, and infinitely more possible nurture combinations, and partitioning the world into 'black' and 'white' or even 'black', 'Asian', 'white', 'Aborigine', 'Native American' etc is an immense simplification that tells you almost nothing useful.

The South African Apartheid government assumed race existed, and ended up dividing people based up on whether a pencil stuck in their hair fell out or not. Someone with curly hair was assumed to be 'black'. Are there people that still believe this is somehow scientifically viable?

If so, may the Flying Spaghetti Monster have mercy on us all.

I know you aren't a white surpremist. I did not even start a thread on race, but I guess anytime you use the words affirmative action, it attracts racialists. Black racists and White racists and Asian racists, it does not matter because if you aren't a racist then you know they see the world in the same way, they have a form of unity here. It's not like all of us can understand it, but thats just how some people see things, they see the world as a place divided racially, in such a way, like a game of chinese checkers, where each race has to win or something. It's a very competitive way of thinking, and it has some good cultural benefits, because usually people who are racist are also the most motivated. The problem is, it never ends, it's an endless competition, it goes on forever, man against man, man against woman, the battle of the sexes, of the races, of nations, of class, of religion, of the educated vs uneducated, ugly vs pretty, you see it never ends. Humans are busy thinking up as many ways to divide each other as possible.

Perhaps thats what we should focus on? Maybe we should just make a thread to see if we can list all the different ways man is divided from herself?

Humans are busy thinking up as many ways to divide each other as possible.

The problem, I think, is that they don't have to "think up ways", it's all perfectly natural in the same ways as the other animals of the world. We just like to try to pretend that we're above all of that ....which all of the evidence proves that we ain't!

Maybe we should just make a thread to see if we can list all the different ways man is divided from herself?

None of us have that long to live, TimeTraveler! We'd still be adding to it thousands of years from now ...perhaps millions!

Baron Max

The problem, I think, is that they don't have to "think up ways", it's all perfectly natural in the same ways as the other animals of the world. We just like to try to pretend that we're above all of that ....which all of the evidence proves that we ain't!

I think we have moved beyond the natural level of balance. Dogs don't have any concept of race, neither do cats. We take it to a whole new level, to the point where the species itself cannot handle it's instincts. If our instincts control us, we wont last long.

None of us have that long to live, TimeTraveler! We'd still be adding to it thousands of years from now ...perhaps millions!

Baron Max

Yeah that is exactly why our species won't last another thousand years, it's simple, we are too flawed. It would be nice if we could last another thousand years, but that can only happen if we want to, and most people arent even trying to.

Dogs don't have any concept of race, neither do cats.

Please don't make assumptions of things that you don't know or can't prove. Dogs and cats DO exhibit many of the same reactions as rascist during their encounters. What you might be talking about is when two different dogs are raised together, in the same home, by the same people. But that's different, ain't it?

If our instincts control us, we wont last long.

And just the same ...if we lose our instincts, we may not survive. I'll also say that it's possible that our instincts are what makes each of us different ...if we remove instinct, what do we become???

It would be nice if we could last another thousand years, but that can only happen if we want to, and most people arent even trying to.

Well, I might disagree with that. Perhaps we ARE trying, but as a distinct group or clan or race or.....? In other words, like the Muslim Extremists ...aren't they, perhaps, trying to save themselves for the next thousand years? Note that it's ONLY themselves, not "we", as in all humans?

Baron Max





I think we have moved beyond the natural level of balance. Dogs don't have any concept of race, neither do cats. We take it to a whole new level, to the point where the species itself cannot handle it's instincts. If our instincts control us, we wont last long.



Yeah that is exactly why our species won't last another thousand years, it's simple, we are too flawed. It would be nice if we could last another thousand years, but that can only happen if we want to, and most people arent even trying to.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Baron Max]Please don't make assumptions of things that you don't know or can't prove. Dogs and cats DO exhibit many of the same reactions as rascist during their encounters. What you might be talking about is when two different dogs are raised together, in the same home, by the same people. But that's different, ain't it?
Yes I understand that families can become territorial. But that is not how racism seems to look from the outside. Do people actually treat people of their own race good? Not really. People seem to treat each other equally bad everywhere in many bodies. These human instincts sometimes make no sense.


And just the same ...if we lose our instincts, we may not survive. I'll also say that it's possible that our instincts are what makes each of us different ...if we remove instinct, what do we become???

You don't have to lose an instinct to control an instinct. If racism has a useful purpose, and perhaps it does, I think that purpose would be so we can deal with predators, aliens from outter space, or in general non human threats. I don't think we developed these instincts to apply against ourselves. At some point, we will reach a technology level, where if we keep these instincts, well I think you can see what will happen, it's just obvious, I think even people who are racist know where it can end up. All I can say, it's a no win situation, all wins are temporary. It is possible to win and lose at the same time.


Well, I might disagree with that. Perhaps we ARE trying, but as a distinct group or clan or race or.....? In other words, like the Muslim Extremists ...aren't they, perhaps, trying to save themselves for the next thousand years?

Muslim extremists care only about the religion itself. I don't see how they care about the human species or it's survival. How can you convince me or anyone that a terrorist cares about the species when a terrorist is attacking the species? Groups dont' really exist, so even if Islam wins, or Christianity wins, if there are no humans left, why would it matter? I don't mean to attack Islam as a religion or way of life, but the terrorists who are going around attacking people, this is not good for the species. They are accomplishing nothing, they are actually doing harm to themselves while believing they are attacking the "enemy". That's the point, yes there are good Muslims, the terrorists are the bad Muslims. Moderate muslims should come to an agreement with the global community on this.

Note that it's ONLY themselves, not "we", as in all humans?

If they aren't human, what are they? Yes, and thats the problem, people think they are seperate from their species, and no species works like this. We actually do need each other, and you are right, extremists don't really think so. The muslim example, they care more about Islam than the species, which means they don't really care about themselves, because they don't even know what they are.

Baron Max



You are going to have to explain to me, why some people, want to isolate themselves into the smallest possible group to define "we", when they could define we in a better way?

Why do people define themselves by as or by objects? Landmass? Appearance? I can understand culture, but once again why do people define their existance by the culture? How does this happen, and why are there moderates who do care about the species itself, and then extremist seperatists? Can any species survive by seperating itself from itself forever?

You are going to have to explain to me, why some people, want to isolate themselves into the smallest possible group to define "we", when they could define we in a better way?

Better for whom? And who makes that determination? and what if others don't agree?

See? That was the point I tried to make about the terrorist ....they're not interested in "we, the human race", they're ONLY interested in those who feel and think the same way as themselves.

Can any species survive by seperating itself from itself forever?

Well, sure, why not? If, say, they all separated on different, isolated continents or areas, they could all maybe survive completely separately as different "races".

Just look at, say, the deer and wolf population. They can survive together, but there is constant, never-ending war, right? But if you move the deer to one area, and the wolves to another, then the deer might survive, but the wolves won't have anything to eat! And the wolves die, but the deer survive.

Humans really ain't so different to the other animals if you examine them carefully and with an open mind. But you have to let go of your ego, your ego-centricism. The Muslim terrorists are the wolves, the liberal doo-gooders are the deer. Now tell me how those two can survive together? And who is gonna' win that race for survival?

Baron Max

Baron you made some good points, you made me think.

Perhaps racism as an instinct is one of those required instincts channeled in the wrong way, like greed. How can racism be chaneled in a way which actually improves quality of life for our species? Do we really need an outside threat? Do we need aliens to invade or a non human predator to unite us?

It would be sad as hell, if we were attacked by a non-human threat, by aliens, or a new species, and we just continued to fight ourselves while the real threat kills us. I know humans can be ignorant but I hope we recognize at least that someday we might actually need each other. When that day comes will we recognize it?

Better for whom? And who makes that determination? and what if others don't agree?

See? That was the point I tried to make about the terrorist ....they're not interested in "we, the human race", they're ONLY interested in those who feel and think the same way as themselves.

I understand your point of view. The terrorists are a threat to us all. The good news is, most muslims are not terrorists, and are moderate, and care about the human species. There are moderates, but the terrorists seem to have the loudest voice and all the weapons and I'm not sure why this tends to happen, but thats how it is.

Well, sure, why not? If, say, they all separated on different, isolated continents or areas, they could all maybe survive completely separately as different "races".

That was before we went into space. I think we are on a completely seperate phase of existance now. We now know that there is more than just this planet. We now know how rare this planet is, and how fragile a species is, we should have common interests.

Just look at, say, the deer and wolf population. They can survive together, but there is constant, never-ending war, right?

Deer and Wolf are two completely seperate species, this is like comparing Man and Alien, or Man and Dog, or Cat and Dog. Point is, if there is advanced life in the universe, we have bigger things to worry about, like Aliens deciding to take earth away from us ape like warriors. You also have to worry about being hit by astroids. We have so many problems that, why exactly do we fight ourselves when we could be fighting our existential threats? Am I the only one who sees how fragile human existance is?

But if you move the deer to one area, and the wolves to another, then the deer might survive, but the wolves won't have anything to eat! And the wolves die, but the deer survive.

You are making it seem, like humans have to kill each other, because of a hunger. I don't think the majority of humans even have that hunger or desire, and yes it might be a trait or instinct, an astroid could easily wipe us out of existance, just as easily as nuke, or anything else.

It's a matter of focus, but if there is not enough space on the earth, shouldnt we move to mars? We have space, unlimited space, earth is special and I understand that, but we should still be trying to figure out space, and I'm not the only one who thinks this. I doubt we will ever get off the earth as a species.

Humans really ain't so different to the other animals if you examine them carefully and with an open mind. But you have to let go of your ego, your ego-centricism. My ego is not so human centric that I cannot see that humans are just as flawed and fragile as all the other animals. I also see some species are more advanced than us and I notice we don't even try to improve.

The Muslim terrorists are the wolves, the liberal doo-gooders are the deer. Now tell me how those two can survive together?

I don't think you can seperate wolves and deer into clean little groups like this, but it's obvious that terrorists are wolves. I'm trying to make the point, the point is that these "wolves" keep evolving sharper and sharper teeth, faster and faster, and at some point the deer will go completely extinct, and when this happens there will only be wolves left, who will then proceed to hunt each other into extinction. This is the fear, extinction.

And who is gonna' win that race for survival?

Baron Max

At this rate, the wolves, but if the wolves win, what then? Does it ever end? Tell me how we can avoid going extinct, or hunting ourselves out of existance.

Perhaps racism as an instinct is one of those required instincts channeled in the wrong way, ...

Wrong way according to whom?

But AARP had an article a year or so ago about a study ...people were shown pictures of other people, and their reactions measured by electrodes. Everyone, including blacks, exhibited fear at the pictures of blacks, but DID NOT show the fear reaction when shown white men, japanese, chinese, or any other race. Pure instinct? Maybe. But it may also be our social conditioning ...ie., "...all blacks are gansters"?

How can racism be chaneled in a way which actually improves quality of life for our species?

Well, as I said earlier, I think that YOU are thinking "species", while the natural human tendency is to think "my own race/group/clan". See? We, as humans, don't necessarily think in those broad terms of "human race", we think in terms of much, much smaller groups.

Do we really need an outside threat?

Yeah, I actually think so. War, for example, seems to draw us together ...or it did during World War II, when there weren't so many liberal doo-gooders and philosophical know-it-alls. Americans of all kinds came together to fight a common enemy.

I know humans can be ignorant but I hope we recognize at least that someday we might actually need each other.

Well, again I think you're thinking it too broad a term. Most humans now think that they need each other, but it's more like blacks need blacks, whites need whites, Muslims need Muslims, Christians need Christians, ......but few actually think in broad terms of ALL HUMANS ...regardless of what they might say!

Anyone can "say or claim" anything, but do they really feel that way or is it "the thing" to say? Who wants to stand up and say something like, "I'm white, and I only like white people!"? Or ditto for blacks? Social conditioning has taught us that we shouldn't say such things ...even if it's exactly how we feel.

By the way, I also think that the social/governmental tendency to "force" us all together is doing more harm than good. Whenever a human is "forced" into something, his natural instinct is to resist.

Baron Max

TT, I sure wish you'd learn to use the quote function! Just hit the "reply" button in the upper right corner, then you can edit the person's quote and make lots more sense.

Deer and Wolf are two completely seperate species, this is like comparing Man and Alien, or Man and Dog, or Cat and Dog.

I was not making a comparison, only giving you an example of the "living together in harmony" bullshit!

I don't think the majority of humans even have that hunger or desire,...

Then how can you explain that humans are at war/conflicts all over this planet all the time? and how can you explain that it's been going on in the same way since man stood upright on the African plains?

I'm trying to make the point, the point is that these "wolves" keep evolving sharper and sharper teeth, faster and faster, and at some point the deer will go completely extinct,...

No, they won't! They didn't in the times before man came along, in particularly in the early American times. The deer are not defenseless, you know, and in reality, only the weaker deer are taken by the wolves. But if the wolves grow in ever-increasing numbers, they'll kill more and more deer. The deer can't survive under constant attack by hungry wolves.

..., but if the wolves win, what then? Does it ever end? Tell me how we can avoid going extinct, or hunting ourselves out of existance.

Maybe we can't avoid it. But then did the dinosaurs think the same thing during their reign on the Earth? Why are you thinking that we're anything except another species of animal? If we go extinct, if we all kill ourselves off, it ain't no big deal ...no bigger than when the dinos lost it. Just another day in the park, huh?

Baron Max

Wrong way according to whom?

But AARP had an article a year or so ago about a study ...people were shown pictures of other people, and their reactions measured by electrodes. Everyone, including blacks, exhibited fear at the pictures of blacks, but DID NOT show the fear reaction when shown white men, japanese, chinese, or any other race. Pure instinct? Maybe. But it may also be our social conditioning ...ie., "...all blacks are gansters"?
Yes, that is true, but this is the fault of the media, and it's not permanent. It's normal to believe these stereotypes until you meet or date someone who does not fit into it. So I understand that it's not only instinct because I've studied this myself, women have the same problem, maybe even worse actually.


Well, as I said earlier, I think that YOU are thinking "species", while the natural human tendency is to think "my own race/group/clan". See? We, as humans, don't necessarily think in those broad terms of "human race", we think in terms of much, much smaller groups.

I know some humans have a narrow sense of self, and I understand why it happened, do people want to change it or do they want to stay in this convert zone? I suppose that is up to the individual at this point.


Yeah, I actually think so. War, for example, seems to draw us together ...or it did during World War II, when there weren't so many liberal doo-gooders and philosophical know-it-alls. Americans of all kinds came together to fight a common enemy.

World war 2 a unique situation, I don't think I've ever seen that much unity since that time actually. The result of that unity was reflected in some of FDR's programs, however people thought world war 2 was the final war or something because that unity did not last very long. Can we get that back?

Well, again I think you're thinking it too broad a term. Most humans now think that they need each other, but it's more like blacks need blacks, whites need whites, Muslims need Muslims, Christians need Christians, ......but few actually think in broad terms of ALL HUMANS ...regardless of what they might say!

I know that few people think in broad terms, it's something that professors and doctor types think in because they are trained to, but it's not generally something religion teaches. Traditional religion deliberately teaches stuff like, "If you aren't Christian you are going to hell", or "If you stand in the way of Islam you are an infadel", etc. You are correct though, there are many special interest groups, thats what I call these groups, and you are correct, there are a lot of liberal special interest groups, in fact it seems liberals are less united than conservatives. I think this is for a lot of reasons but to be honest, religion does increase unity, and so does philosophy, money, etc. Cultural unity is what holds people together currently though, example being this forum, people here might not all be the same race or know each other, but the unifying factor is the internet itself, and the culture behind it, which we all were involved with creating. I think the internet might be one reason why people aren't as trapped in the interest groups, at least the young people arent anyway.


Anyone can "say or claim" anything, but do they really feel that way or is it "the thing" to say?

I understand what you mean. You are right, plenty of people say what they don't mean, you have to pay close attention. How do they treat people? In general I can judge character, and I know what you are saying, and why you'd be skeptical.

Who wants to stand up and say something like, "I'm white, and I only like white people!"? Or ditto for blacks? Social conditioning has taught us that we shouldn't say such things ...even if it's exactly how we feel.

Honestly, the world would be better if people said it. Keeping it in is perhaps only increasing hatred. This is why I disagree with liberals who want to be so damn PC, and not let people say stuff that they feel. I want racist people to be able to say nigger, or cracker, or whatever they want. If we just remove the word, it keeps the emotions in and that makes it worse later.

On the other hand, yes you do have people who generally aren't racist, I admit however the majority of people still have some xenophobia, I don't consider the majority of people racist, just inexperienced and fearful of differences, I think only the fringe are truly hateful. At the same time I think only the fringe truly love all races. Some people were taught to love all races, and some people learned to love all races by accident, it's really simple, if you as a guy or a girl, fall in love with someone who isn't of your race, it can and does change your perspective big time. It does not always do this, but it can. People, young people, are dating outside their race more than ever now, so people actually are learning about each other, and seeing humanity in each other.


By the way, I also think that the social/governmental tendency to "force" us all together is doing more harm than good. Whenever a human is "forced" into something, his natural instinct is to resist.


Baron Max

I agree, I never said we should force people together. I'm just saying, there are people who might want the freedom to date whoever they want and love whoever they want. I don't see why we need to force people either way.

What have you to say about the media? The media in a way, actually influences the human mind more than anything else, the only reason people are less instinctively racist now is because the media has moved to the internet and other sources and now people know that the gangster black image is not true, and that not all women are sex objects, but honestly, all of us were taught to think like this. So I don't hold any grudge against someone who thinks like this now.

And yeah I know about other species of animals and creatures that have gone extinct. Why do you seem to think this is good? It's not that I think it will matter on the cosmic level, but why should we as humans waste our chance?

Sure, we will come back again in another form, as life is a cosmic force, but why do we hate the human form so much that we are destroying it? It actually is the best form on earth right now, and it will take thousands of millions of years before another species reaches this point, and it would be stupid if that species goes extinct in the same way, honestly if we can make it into space we should be trying harder to survive.

I agree, I never said we should force people together. I'm just saying, there are people who might want the freedom to date whoever they want and love whoever they want. I don't see why we need to force people either way.

Well, as I see it, they already have those freedoms, don't they?

But lest you forget, we also have the freedom to tease them, shame them, talk about them, point up their differences, write nasty commentary about their mixed union, tease their mixed children,......... See? Freedom goes both ways ...and both think it's the "correct" way.

I think the media is a big factor, but not the only factor, for sure. Our basic character is learned at a very early age, and that's from the parents and the friends of the parents. Racist parents are likely to raise racist kids.

I also think that hiding behind the ideals of PC is going to do major damage to the race issue ...even more than bringing it out into the open. And tv and media advance that PC crap and probably make racists even more angry.

I've always said, and I'll say it again, ....unless we face up to the facts about race and racism, we ain't never gonna' make it go away. In fact, NOT facing the facts is doing great harm already.

I sure wish you'd learn how to quote and edit in your responses!

Baron Max

the problem is, race will be a pointless identifier in teh years to come because of mixed races. Correct me if im wrong but i believe a student is entititled to affirmatice action so long as they are at least 1/8 black, or is it as long as they have any black blood they are eligible? That seems unfair.

The point is the country being a "melting pot" will eventually become at least for the most part a blend of a bunch of different races and there will be pretty much no diversity. Just as Europeans who came as Spanish, British, German, Italian, etc now have pretty much made up teh typical "American" who shares many different ethnicities, soon blacks and asians and hispanics will integrate, maybe not too the same level and not in all communities certainly (there will still be communities who are isolated and want to be "pureblood") but pretty much the population will all be mutts soon. So distinguishing by race will become pointless in teh future when everyone is the saem blend mostly.

This is why I think you're wrong.

http://home.att.net/~bob.wallace/mixing-blood.html

- snip -

The theory --actually it's a myth -- is that if everyone in the world interbred, we'd all end up with no race, and everyone the same light brown color. This isn't what would happen. What would happen is that people would arrange themselves into a hierarchy, with the lightest at the top and the darkest at the bottom, just as is done today in every country in the world.

For good or bad, light skin is preferred nearly everywhere. Even in Mexico, which most everyone thinks is nothing but metizos, the upper classes (who are white Spanish) have been breeding themselves lighter and lighter.

One of the most surprising things I ever saw was when I turned on some South American Spanish-speaking TV stations and saw myself looking at a bunch of white people, many of whom had blond hair. I thought I would be looking at a bunch of Antonio Banderas. Hardly. In most cases, I couldn't tell the difference between them and Americans.

- snip -

Actually, no, it's not just minority run businesses outsourcing, actually these are American run businesses, with white male CEO's, choosing to hire people in China and India to save a buck. I say instead of them doing that, why not let them hire minorities in America, or even hire you? That's the option, you can give all the jobs to China and India, or you can give tax incentives for hiring Americans.

I'm not happy with our companies firing whites and hiring foreigners to replace them. Just a question, if race doesn't exist, how is it that forensic scientists can use the blood at crime scenes to tell the race of criminals?

Yes, but I define best as in best for the corporation or best for business. I don't think it has anything to do with race, gender, or any of that crap. I don't think it has anything to do with formal qualifications, because most of the best business men and women had no degrees whatsoever. So there is no way to judge qualification until after you hire them, and I think a personality test often reveals more about the employee than a resume. A drug test reveals more about the employee than a resume. United in culture and lifestyle is more important than unity of appearance.

Actually the biggest predictor of how well an employee will perform is their IQ score which of course the government has made illegal for companies to test potential employees. The idea that businesses can't tell how well potential job applicants will perform until hired and actually work the job is so ridiculous I'm not even going to say anything.

Well, as I see it, they already have those freedoms, don't they?

But lest you forget, we also have the freedom to tease them, shame them, talk about them, point up their differences, write nasty commentary about their mixed union, tease their mixed children,......... See? Freedom goes both ways ...and both think it's the "correct" way.

I think the media is a big factor, but not the only factor, for sure. Our basic character is learned at a very early age, and that's from the parents and the friends of the parents. Racist parents are likely to raise racist kids.

This is where we are different. I think character is something some people are born with. I dont think it's possible to teach character, it's possible to take someone of good character and make them better. Racism is a learned behavior which can be unlearned. It's not a character trait. A character trait is like, bully. No, I'm not a bully.

I also think that hiding behind the ideals of PC is going to do major damage to the race issue ...even more than bringing it out into the open. And tv and media advance that PC crap and probably make racists even more angry.


I've always said, and I'll say it again, ....unless we face up to the facts about race and racism, we ain't never gonna' make it go away. In fact, NOT facing the facts is doing great harm already.


I sure wish you'd learn how to quote and edit in your responses!

Baron Max
I don't want people to hide behind PC. People who hide are worse than the outspoken racists. I respect outspoken racists. The cowardly racists I cannot respect. If someone is going to be racist they should be proud of what they are, or stop being racist. If they feel ashamed or guilty about it, then maybe they should stop being it. I can respect a racist, if they are an honest racist. I do not like dishonesty, and someone who hides their true self, from everyone, all the time, including their friends, is simply a false person.


The facts are that there is an instinct among humans which likely promotes it. All the rest is spin. Discrimination has both genetic and learned basis, in that the hatred involved is genetic, but the expression (racism), is learned. I don't think we will ever solve racism, because we need a reason to express hatred and racism provides that reason.

Discrimination in my opinion is good, just not the racial kind. Everyone discriminates, just some of us get caught up in the racial type of discrimination while others discriminate on character. It's one thing to be a racist and be a good person, and recognize other races as human, and recognize that other races have good people in them. It's another to simply say
"if you are ugly on the outside, you must be ugly on the inside" and judge character that way. And it's another thing entirely to be like "I hate everyone who looks different from me", so there are a lot of different types of racists. I have no problem with a racist if the racist is a good person trapped in what I'd consider a flawed worldview.

Actually the biggest predictor of how well an employee will perform is their IQ score which of course the government has made illegal for companies to test potential employees. The idea that businesses can't tell how well potential job applicants will perform until hired and actually work the job is so ridiculous I'm not even going to say anything.


IQ cannot tell you how someone will perform. Lots of lazy people have high IQ's. Lots of jerks have high IQ's. Lots of hard workers have low IQ's. So the IQ is a silly way. I think an employer should test his or her employees CONSTANTLY, and not do it in a way in which the employee even knows they are being tested. This means no recognizeable test, but yes you test them by giving them difficult problems and seeing how they solve them. You can learn all you need to know just by seeing how they solve a difficult problem and how they handle pressure. An IQ test can never act as a true test because it's taken on paper. Instead give a person a huge responsibility, or at least let them think it's huge. Finally, you have to always test the size of their ego, if they cannot view themselves through the eyes of the corporation, their ego just wont be big enough to put the corporation before themselves.

The main key to success in the workplace is putting the corporation first. The same with the country, put the country first. The same with the family, put the family first. The ability to put something before yourself is a better test of character than any IQ test.
If businesses had a for sure way to know how a person would perform don't you think curruption in the workplace would be 0%? Don't you think 100% of all corporations would be profitable? Just hire everyone accepted into MENSA as CEO and you'll go profitable? If only it were that simple.



I'm not happy with our companies firing whites and hiring foreigners to replace them. Just a question, if race doesn't exist, how is it that forensic scientists can use the blood at crime scenes to tell the race of criminals?

Show me a URL? I've never heard of race being specified by blood type. I think you are bullshitting, but if you can show me a URL I'll believe it. I know you can judge race by hair type, but once again hair is appearance, it's one of the external idenfiers. I know you can judge race by skin type, but this too is external. If you show me it can be found by blood type then you'll have discovered something. I've never heard of racialized blood before in my life, in fact I was under the impression that blood could be removed from one person and transfused into another person. Are you trying to say blood types are different among the races now?


The theory --actually it's a myth -- is that if everyone in the world interbred, we'd all end up with no race, and everyone the same light brown color. This isn't what would happen. What would happen is that people would arrange themselves into a hierarchy, with the lightest at the top and the darkest at the bottom, just as is done today in every country in the world.

For good or bad, light skin is preferred nearly everywhere. Even in Mexico, which most everyone thinks is nothing but metizos, the upper classes (who are white Spanish) have been breeding themselves lighter and lighter.


Okay, you have a legit point. You can make the point that light skin looks better, and I will not deny that this may be accurate. It may be true that humans prefer lighter skin, but this is not because the people under that skin are better people, this is about what looks pleasing to the eye. So you can say that a lot of people think say, Paris Hilton is hot, and I will not deny that, it seems to be true. It seems to be that people do prefer the look of blondes with pale skin and blue eyes.

However, is this reason enough for us to believe that that having lighter skin automatically makes you a better person? That's the real question that people ask. The beauty trends, these things change, but the lighter skin trend is partially due to the media, the same reason people like thin women now even though throughout their cultural history they liked big women. In Asia, people are having eye surgery, taking skin lightening pills, and dying their hair blonde, and they are free to do this, but to an intellectual person this would not make them more beautiful, it would make them less beautiful. Michael Jackson did this too, he bleached his skin, has surgery after surgery, permed his hair, and now he looks less beautiful, if you ask a woman now how he looks, women think he looks gross, but there was a time when he had white women passing out and fainting because of his beauty, this is when he had dark skin.

I think there are some who can see beauty no matter what skin it's under, and then some who just think, if you have light skin you are a better person. If you have light skin, you have more of a soul, or you are more human. I just think some people, they happen to meet the most beautiful person of their life, and that person is not blonde, and does not have the palest or lightest skin.

I didn't say IQ would predict job performance 100%. I said it was the biggest single predictor of job performance. Obviously some employees with lower IQ are better than others with higher IQ.

As for determining race by DNA

http://dna-view.com/race.htm

"Sometimes it would be useful to know the race of a stain donor. Any DNA typing provides some evidence, provided that population data of fragment sizes for the races in question is available. Quantitative estimates are given of how good that evidence is likely to be, and ideas discussed for the best calculations to extract the evidence. As a rough conclusion, distinguishing Caucasian from African-American source can usually be done confidently. Distinguishing Caucasian from Hispanic is more problematic."

As for interbreeding, I didn't say anything about the "beauty" of white skin, I said the societies like Brazil and Mexico and even the Middle East, the "whitest" people usually are the elite in that society.

Someone else mentioned that animals aren't "racist" or have races. I'm not an expert, but different species of animals are in effect the races of animals. There are hundreds of types of hummingbirds, but they will not interbreed with each other.

As well,

http://www.separatism.org/

The diversity mongers like to tell us race isn’t real, but it is real to most people on a common-sense level, and to many scholars who study the subject on a scientific level. For example, sociobiologists tell us race is very real among animals, although they prefer the term subspecies to race. They tell us subspecies of mammals, for example, seldom occupy the same space without conflict.

I didn't say IQ would predict job performance 100%. I said it was the biggest single predictor of job performance. Obviously some employees with lower IQ are better than others with higher IQ.

As for determining race by DNA

http://dna-view.com/race.htm

"Sometimes it would be useful to know the race of a stain donor. Any DNA typing provides some evidence, provided that population data of fragment sizes for the races in question is available. Quantitative estimates are given of how good that evidence is likely to be, and ideas discussed for the best calculations to extract the evidence. As a rough conclusion, distinguishing Caucasian from African-American source can usually be done confidently. Distinguishing Caucasian from Hispanic is more problematic."

As for interbreeding, I didn't say anything about the "beauty" of white skin, I said the societies like Brazil and Mexico and even the Middle East, the "whitest" people usually are the elite in that society.

Someone else mentioned that animals aren't "racist" or have races. I'm not an expert, but different species of animals are in effect the races of animals. There are hundreds of types of hummingbirds, but they will not interbreed with each other.

As well,

http://www.separatism.org/

The diversity mongers like to tell us race isn’t real, but it is real to most people on a common-sense level, and to many scholars who study the subject on a scientific level. For example, sociobiologists tell us race is very real among animals, although they prefer the term subspecies to race. They tell us subspecies of mammals, for example, seldom occupy the same space without conflict.


Alright I give up. You win ok, race is real for you.

Why oh why do people assume, because I criticise a post written by someone who seems to be a black supremacist, that automatically makes me a white supremacist?


Whats black supremacy got to do with the fact that white poeple are much more likely than black to get skin cancer?

Did you know skin cancers are more numerous than all the other cancers put together?

It's not black peoples fault, its the way nature has made things.

I don't know what you mean by balance, and nature is man made, we invented the word nature, we discovered the natural laws, and some of us keep discovering new laws every day. Moores Law, or the Law of Cause and Effect, if we only were to pay attention to these laws perhaps we'd understand where we are headed.


Tha fact that you won't accept the reality of race strongly suggests that you are operating subconsciously as a white supremacist.

You say I should apologise for suggesting a link between white people past and present and this clearly demonstrates a logical failiure in your argument - races are part of nature and have nothing do with individuals behaviour.

Your inability to connect with nature is tragically the problem most white people have.

Black people are not attacking white people only examining them the same way whites did to them.

I believe this is necessary not only to rebalance the world but to help white people understand the damage they are causing to themselves and others.

Another poster has pointed out that wherever you go light skin is considered better than dark. But before colonialism the opposite was true. This is what some European explorers discovered on their travels:

CONGO

"The indigenous peoples of the Congo," he wrote, "are all black in color, some more so, some less so. Many are to be seen who are the color of chestnut and some tend to be more olive-colored. But the one who is of the deepest black in color is held by them to be the most beautiful. Some are born somewhat light-skinned, but as they grow older they become darker and darker. This occurs because their mothers make use of the artifice of an ointment, with which they anoint their infants, exposing them once they have been anointed, to the rays of the sun, then leaving them there for long periods, and repeating this action over and over, There are some children who although their parents are black, are born white skinned and although they anoint them and use all manners of artifice they can never be transformed into blackskinned people. And these are regarded by the Congolese as monsters. They have the same features and the same tightly curled hair as the black Congolese, but their skin is white and they are short-sighted, As a result, children in those areas, where a white has never been seen before, would become terrified, fleeing in horror from us, no less than our children here are terrified by the sight of a black also fleeing in horror for them.

But they do not want us to call them Negroes (negros) but Blacks (Prietos); amongst them only slaves are called Negroes and thus amongst them it is the same things to say negro as to say slave."

[Teruel, Antonio de, Narrative Description of, the Kingdom of the Congo (1663-1664) Ms. 3533:3574/National Library, Madrid, Spain]

SOUTH INDIA

"It is a fact that in this country when a child is born they anoint him once a week with oil of sesame, and this makes him grow much darker than when he was born. For I assure you that the darkest man is here the most highly esteemed and considered better than the others who are not so dark. Let me add that in very truth these people portray and depict their gods and their idols black and their devils white as snow. For they say the God and all the saints are black and the devils are all white. That is why they portray them as I have described. And similarly they make the images of their idols all black."

[Marco Polo, The Travels, translated and with an Introduction by Ronald Latham, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1958]

SOUTHEAST ASIA

"For the complexion of men, they consider black the most beautiful. In all the kingdoms of the southern region, it is the same."

[Nan Ts'i Chou, quoted by Rene Gaston Georges Maspero, The Kingdom of Champa. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949]

You see it is not natural for humans to prefer pale skin as this is not as in balance with nature as dark skin.

Hence it was white people who went around the world forcing a racial hierarchy in which they were at the top on black people and this is what you find historically in every region of the earth today.

So today we live in a world controlled by fear and in which nature is trodden on because white people have not been able to come to terms with what they are and are constantly seeking ways to change themselves.

White people did not invent nature like you suggest. White people's view of what nature is is confused and deficient. I told you about Descartes but you didn't bother to listen to what I said and consequently you produce the same errors by stating that LAWS created in the mind by white people are nature. Black people like American Indians and Africans KNOW what nature is and they live in harmony with it. For them it is not an equation or mechanical device.

The whole world today is struggling with what white people have done to it.

Of course nature will sort things out her own way. And hence today you see global warming, depletion of the ozone layer and and a gradual increase in the suns core temperature.

This will affect white people more than anyone else and is a confirmation to black people all over the world that nature/God is greater than the white man.

As I said, its all about balance.

White people did not invent nature like you suggest.
He doesn't. When he says 'we', he means 'humans'. You're just projecting your racist worldview on everything you read.

Black people like American Indians and Africans KNOW what nature is and they live in harmony with it. For them it is not an equation or mechanical device.
So you think there are no black engineers? What a racist view.

a confirmation to black people all over the world that nature/God is greater than the white man.
It's all about balance. We are subject to nature's laws, but we can do our best to survive within that structure. Would you say that the Hurricane Katrina was some kind of divine punishment on New Orleans? No? Then I suggest you leave God out of it.

Tha fact that you won't accept the reality of race strongly suggests that you are operating subconsciously as a white supremacist.
:m:

Right. You and Count Sudoku deserve each other.

Ya' know, I just can't get it through my head how Affirm Action is NOT racist in nature?

And if it is, how can anyone actually support it?

And if it is racist, does one racist action somehow overrule another racist action, thus making everything right with the world?

Baron Max

Ya' know, I just can't get it through my head how Affirm Action is NOT racist in nature?

And if it is, how can anyone actually support it?

And if it is racist, does one racist action somehow overrule another racist action, thus making everything right with the world?

Baron Max

You have to remember that discriminating against Whitey is a-okay, and that only Whitey can be racist. When you believe (or say you believe) these things, everything falls into place.

You have to remember that discriminating against Whitey is a-okay, and that only Whitey can be racist. When you believe (or say you believe) these things, everything falls into place.

Ahhh, I've got it now! Thanks ....it was a puzzle to me, but you've made it perfectly clear. :)

Baron Max

I agree that affirmative action is racist and that only when whites discriminate it is considered racist. I think that a lot of black people are far more racist than white people. If a white guy walks into an all black neighborhood, he will get just as bad (and in my opinion probably worse) of a racist reaction as a black man walking inot an all white neighborhood.

Black people are not attacking white people only examining them the same way whites did to them.

yes, but the blacks started it by ostracizing the genetic mutation freak white babies and trying to roll them in oil to make their skin darker.

I agree that affirmative action is racist and that only when whites discriminate it is considered racist. I think that a lot of black people are far more racist than white people. If a white guy walks into an all black neighborhood, he will get just as bad (and in my opinion probably worse) of a racist reaction as a black man walking inot an all white neighborhood.



yes, but the blacks started it by ostracizing the genetic mutation freak white babies and trying to roll them in oil to make their skin darker.

There's no doubt that threre are no go zones for whites in the States where if a white person shows up they are placing themselves in extreme danger just by being there. A black person would be safer at a klan rally than me in many inner cities in the States.

Here's an example of a white girl who was mentally ill at a black cop station in Illinois and the idiot black cops there let her walk around a black neighbourhood knowing she would be dead meat out there and of course this is what happened...

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/09/police_failed_h.php

John Kass, Chicago Tribune, September 21, 2006

The Daley administration is stonewalling the case of Christina Eilman, the blond, white and bipolar California woman released from a police lockup at 51st and Wentworth after an episode at Midway Airport in May.

Police left her to fend for herself.

She couldn’t.

And now City Hall is fighting the release of interviews that would show how police allowed her to leave, to walk alone in a neighborhood where, residents told me Wednesday, she had no chance.

In the past, Mayor Richard Daley has been eager to publicly hold his Police Department up to ridicule, when it served his political interests and when the cops were blue shirts with no clout.

But then the victims were black and Christina is not, and he’s running for re-election.

What’s odd is the deafening silence from the usual suspects who complain about mistreatment by police.

- snip -

We need to provide quality education, and educational support systems, to children of all socio-economic situations - affirmative action is a band-aid, not a cure.

also,
These are our heroes?
http://www.castefootball.us/images/temp/b6a8528d7e68d97109746731cc79d528.jpg

I weep for the human race.

We need to provide quality education, and educational support systems, to children of all socio-economic situations - affirmative action is a band-aid, not a cure.

How does it "band-aid" anything? ..except perhaps to teach our children that some kids get extra help just because they're black or a minority? What, exactly, does affirm-action actually accomplish?? Please tell me!

I weep for the human race.

And well you should ...because some people get aid and assistance for doing nothing but get born! And others force that onto some people in the name of help! It's nothing but give-away programs that don't and never have worked anywhere on the fuckin' Earth!

Baron Max

He doesn't. When he says 'we', he means 'humans'. You're just projecting your racist worldview on everything you read.

You still haven't explained how I'm a racist.

This is because your reaction is a knee-jerk one to being told some home truths.

Nature IS an invention of white Europeans unlike the AI's and Africans who have no concept of humans as separate from the environment in the same way that they have no concept of religion as seperate from daily life.

It is only whites who seperate themselves of from the environment in this way and this may be attributable to some physical weakness within them.

Hence, some have theorised that because white skin is weak, ie, it is more prone to sun-burn, skin cancer, ageing, and is not as elastic as melinated skin, that this provides a basis for further research.

It would also explain why whites were FORCED to leave Africa and did not migrate as white supremacist propoganda would like us to believe.

White skin could not withstand the relentless power of the African sun.

Black people also have stronger bones than whites. The result of this being that whites are more likely to develop bone disorders and bone cancers.

This also shows in their teeth which are 'whiter' than whites peoples teeth.

There's no point getting aggressive over this as its all scientifically validated and subconsciously known by everyone anyway.

We live in a world today where black is considered at the bottom and since this is not natures truth but an artificial system imposed by whites it needs to be corrected if we wish to see an end to global pollution, environmental damage and inequality.

You still haven't explained how I'm a racist.

This is because your reaction is a knee-jerk one to being told some home truths.

Nature IS an invention of white Europeans unlike the AI's and Africans who have no concept of humans as separate from the environment in the same way that they have no concept of religion as seperate from daily life.

It is only whites who seperate themselves of from the environment in this way and this may be attributable to some physical weakness within them.

Hence, some have theorised that because white skin is weak, ie, it is more prone to sun-burn, skin cancer, ageing, and is not as elastic as melinated skin, that this provides a basis for further research.

It would also explain why whites were FORCED to leave Africa and did not migrate as white supremacist propoganda would like us to believe.

White skin could not withstand the relentless power of the African sun.

Black people also have stronger bones than whites. The result of this being that whites are more likely to develop bone disorders and bone cancers.

This also shows in their teeth which are 'whiter' than whites peoples teeth.

There's no point getting aggressive over this as its all scientifically validated and subconsciously known by everyone anyway.

We live in a world today where black is considered at the bottom and since this is not natures truth but an artificial system imposed by whites it needs to be corrected if we wish to see an end to global pollution, environmental damage and inequality.

I believe you are taking about Ubuntu, but it's not just Africans who figured it out, and it's not recent, it goes all the way back to Egypt, and even before this. It's also Greek, Roman, it's just a concept, but it's not something that only comes from one place.

The vitamin D deficiency thing has never been proven and looks now more like propoganda from white supremacist science to validate the erroneous belief that having white skin is a positive thing.

You're wrong big time on this one. In fact, many scientists are now re-evaluting the benefits of sunblocker because it decreases vitamin D production. Vitamin D protects against many cancers that are much worse than skin cancer. So on net, sun block may do more harm than good.

There was a genetic study done on Africans and people all over the world. Turns out the difference between any two African populations was as variable as the difference between, say Pakistanis and Eskimos.
The conclusion was, that genetically, we're all essentially African. I'll dig the name of that paper up sometime.


You're wrong big time on this one. In fact, many scientists are now re-evaluting the benefits of sunblocker because it decreases vitamin D production. Vitamin D protects against many cancers that are much worse than skin cancer. So on net, sun block may do more harm than good.

I'd rather take a vitamin D supplement than burn. I hate sunburns.

I believe you are taking about Ubuntu, but it's not just Africans who figured it out, and it's not recent, it goes all the way back to Egypt, and even before this. It's also Greek, Roman, it's just a concept, but it's not something that only comes from one place.

I never mentioned Ubuntu.

I am talking about why it is that white people have been so obssessed with the idea of racial supremacy.

You're wrong big time on this one. In fact, many scientists are now re-evaluting the benefits of sunblocker because it decreases vitamin D production. Vitamin D protects against many cancers that are much worse than skin cancer. So on net, sun block may do more harm than good.

madanthonywayne,

Please its just silly trying to persuade us that white people don't need sunblock. Here's a web article 'Safe Sun':

People of Celtic origin have delicate skin types and an increased risk of sunburn. Intermittent sunburn ('flash frying') is thought to increase the risk of skin cancer.

The Australians introduced a very successful and simple public health campaign: 'Slip, Slap, Slop - Slip on a shirt, Slap on a hat, Slop on some cream!'

We all enjoy the sun, but how we react to its rays varies from one individual to another. The number of cases of skin cancer has doubled in the last 20 years, which is most probably due to the growing hole in the ozone layer of the sky. So we need to constantly watch out for our skin in the sun. And some people - often those of us who have fair skin - need to take greater care than those who have slightly darker skin.

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/travel/diseases/safe_in_the_sun.htm

The Sun is white peoples enemy since it potentially can destroy them. As evidence is now showing the hole in the ozone layer is increasing causing an increase in skin cancers amongst whites.

White people are out of balance with nature and may therefore, end up destroying themselves. Or in Darwinian terms be selected for extinction.

Survival of the fittest would imply that white skin is less adapted to the environment than black and therefore less fit to survive.

As many resaerchers are showing race is NOT only skin deep but has significant psychological and cultural ramifications.

I am talking about why it is that white people have been so obssessed with the idea of racial supremacy.

Every race/group of humans think that they're better than others ...it's natural and perfectly healthy.

What would you think of a "race" of humans who bowed their heads in supplication and claimed that they were the lowest of the low?

Baron Max

Every race/group of humans think that they're better than others ...it's natural and perfectly healthy.

What would you think of a "race" of humans who bowed their heads in supplication and claimed that they were the lowest of the low?

Baron Max

I'd probably think you were talking about whites. Unfortunately, most white people don't think along racial lines. If they did, they wouldn't allow their governments to ethnically cleanse them in their own countries with massive third world immigration.

Huh? What the fuck are you talking about, Sudoku? Can you repeat that post by using different words and sentences that make a little more sense?

Baron Max

Huh? What the fuck are you talking about, Sudoku? Can you repeat that post by using different words and sentences that make a little more sense?

Baron Max


He is upset that he has to tip his cleaning lady from mexico.

Huh? What the fuck are you talking about, Sudoku? Can you repeat that post by using different words and sentences that make a little more sense?

Baron Max

I'm saying it's only whites who allow themselves to be denigrated in their own countries and that only white countries are allowing a massive flood of third worlders in to ethnically cleanse and eventually eliminate them.

If this concept is new or too alien for you to grasp, I suggest you check out

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/search/results/0515be7336f7423ec5e3d9149ec00626/

He is upset that he has to tip his cleaning lady from mexico.

No, I'm fucking upset that the SW is being colonized by Mexicans, Europe by Muslims and Canada by anyone who isn't white.

No, I'm fucking upset that the SW is being colonized by Mexicans, Europe by Muslims and Canada by anyone who isn't white.

Well I'm sure the AI's were upset the same way when white people took ALL their lands.

Since these lands were never white peoples why worry about it?

This is the inevitable result of gambling with nature.

This is how white people have exported competition to all other peoples of the world.

All the pollution, wars, famine and economic ruin could have been avoided if whites had just stayed in their own lands.

At least Europe is moving towards accepting the invisible and unknowable as the source of all things (Allah) which will allow them to begin to redress the imbalance with nature in their societies.

Well I'm sure the AI's were upset the same way when white people took ALL their lands.

Since these lands were never white peoples why worry about it?

This is the inevitable result of gambling with nature.

This is how white people have exported competition to all other peoples of the world.

All the pollution, wars, famine and economic ruin could have been avoided if whites had just stayed in their own lands.

At least Europe is moving towards accepting the invisible and unknowable as the source of all things (Allah) which will allow them to begin to redress the imbalance with nature in their societies.

1. I don't worry about AI lands because I'm not AI and it happened more than a hundred years ago. Speaking of which, current American immigration is similar to AI immigration policy except the AI didn't give Europeans welfare to breed exponentially and actually put up a fight once in a while to stop the invasion.

2. If you don't approve of white society and all the things it created (like the internet), assuming you live in the West, why don't you fuck off and go back to your third world toilet and go back to living in the stone age?

1. I don't worry about AI lands because I'm not AI and it happened more than a hundred years ago. Speaking of which, current American immigration is similar to AI immigration policy except the AI didn't give Europeans welfare to breed exponentially and actually put up a fight once in a while to stop the invasion.

2. If you don't approve of white society and all the things it created (like the internet), assuming you live in the West, why don't you fuck off and go back to your third world toilet and go back to living in the stone age?

1) A 100 years is very little in terms of historical time. It's practically nothing in terms of evolutionary time. If the world can somersault in such a short space of time it can somersault back even quicker.

Nature will win as we do not control it.

2) People in the 'Third World' are actually very clean. In fact the dirtiest people I've met in my life tend to be middle class white people. I remember this one guy who wouldn't wash his hands after using the toilet or when he was about to eat.

I cannot fuck off back anywhere as I am an indigenous European.

1) A 100 years is very little in terms of historical time. It's practically nothing in terms of evolutionary time. If the world can somersault in such a short space of time it can somersault back even quicker.

Nature will win as we do not control it.

2) People in the 'Third World' are actually very clean. In fact the dirtiest people I've met in my life tend to be middle class white people. I remember this one guy who wouldn't wash his hands after using the toilet or when he was about to eat.

I cannot fuck off back anywhere as I am an indigenous European.

I don't know why people have the opinion that the third world is dirty. Looking dirty and being dirty is no the same thing and it's ignorant to think so. Most pollution does not come from the third world, and this is obvious.

I cannot fuck off back anywhere as I am an indigenous European.

Is there really such a thing as "indigenous European"? Didn't y'all come from somewhere else back in the old days? Or did Frenchmen, Germans, etc just spring right up in France and Germany and ...etc?

Baron Max

I don't know why people have the opinion that the third world is dirty. Looking dirty and being dirty is no the same thing and it's ignorant to think so.

well, next time you're in a third world nation, watch the little kids playing in the open sewers in the their front yards ...perhaps you'll change your mind.

Watch 'em dip water from open, streams/rivers for drinking and cooking water ....with the open sewers running right into that stream only inches away ...pehaps you'll change your mind.

Most pollution does not come from the third world, and this is obvious.

I read a Nat'l Geo article a few years ago about the dense air pollution caused by people using wood fires to cook their meals ...the smoke was so fuckin' thick you could cut it with a knife!

Oh, and dont forget about the open sewers ...and the little kids playing in it in their front yards. Nice and clean, huh?

Baron Max

I don't know why people have the opinion that the third world is dirty. Looking dirty and being dirty is no the same thing and it's ignorant to think so. Most pollution does not come from the third world, and this is obvious.

TimeTraveler,

When people in the West call Third Worlders 'dirty' or 'poor' its usually a psychological reaction to what they see as a society not based around materialism.

It has nothing to do with lack of toilet training or hygiene.

A world built on materialism (away from nature) is seen as a clean world.

People who live in nature are backward or dirty.

How ironic that materialism is destroying the world, polluting the streams and rivers, polluting our bodies and eroding the ozone layer.

People who put themselves up on a pedestal to judge others as dirty just end up shooting themselves in the foot.

Such an overbearing judgmental attitude has been typical of European Christianity.

Just consider what they thought of AI's and Africans.

It comes back to balance.

Poeple in the west are not cleaner, stronger, cleverer, wiser or more honest than people anywhere else.

How ironic that materialism is destroying the world, polluting the streams and rivers, polluting our bodies and eroding the ozone layer.

Three humans living in a natural, idyllic setting beside a stream of cool water and could live without polluting anything. But 5,000 people living by that same stream, in the same lifestyle, would be shitting and pissing on each at every turn ....not to mention polluting the river and the land with shit and piss and leftover food preparation materials and wood fire smoke and timber cutting and.......

It's not materialism that's at fault, it's over-population! And if you examine things around the world, you'll find that it's quite evident and true. And yet we seem to ignore that truism at every turn. Why?

Baron Max

Is there really such a thing as "indigenous European"? Didn't y'all come from somewhere else back in the old days? Or did Frenchmen, Germans, etc just spring right up in France and Germany and ...etc?
Baron Max

Back in the old days?

Your trying to make it sound like a few centuries ago when its actually more than 35,000 years.

Way too long a time to be familiarly called 'the old days'.

As far as we're concerned we're indigenous and there's no one in Europe or outside that will dispute this.

For you guys its a very different kettle of fish.

There's no more 'New Worlds' to run to so you've got to make it work with those rapidly growing populations of Mexicans and whoever.

As well as the AI's and AA's.

Like I said nature is just going to bring things back into balance.

Nature works over millenia not centuries so at the end of this millenium America will be vastly different if not completely transformed or even gone.

Europe will likely still be here though if past history is anything to go by.

Three humans living in a natural, idyllic setting beside a stream of cool water and could live without polluting anything. But 5,000 people living by that same stream, in the same lifestyle, would be shitting and pissing on each at every turn ....not to mention polluting the river and the land with shit and piss and leftover food preparation materials and wood fire smoke and timber cutting and.......

It's not materialism that's at fault, it's over-population! And if you examine things around the world, you'll find that it's quite evident and true. And yet we seem to ignore that truism at every turn. Why?

Baron Max

I guess its economics. The rich get richer the more people they have at the bottom chasing work.

Hence they're shifting their industries east into China and India but still expecting to sell their finished goods in lucrative Western markets.

But what happens when the Asians wealth begins to equalise with the wests?

Europe will likely still be here though if past history is anything to go by.

Hmm, ain't that what Rome thought at one time? And probably the Babylonians? And the Greeks? And the Mayans? ....and I'm sure that there have been others.

Baron Max

I guess its economics.

It's not fuckin' economics, it's too fuckin' many people on too small a land area!

Baron Max

I'm pretty sure we are aware of over population Baron, and maybe we avoid it because sex is one of those things that makes life a little more enjoyable, for most

1) A 100 years is very little in terms of historical time. It's practically nothing in terms of evolutionary time. If the world can somersault in such a short space of time it can somersault back even quicker.

Nature will win as we do not control it.

2) People in the 'Third World' are actually very clean. In fact the dirtiest people I've met in my life tend to be middle class white people. I remember this one guy who wouldn't wash his hands after using the toilet or when he was about to eat.

I cannot fuck off back anywhere as I am an indigenous European.


1. A hundred years is a small amount of time in terms of historical time.

2. I didn't specifically say the third world was unhygenic (although it is), where do you think most disease comes from and why.

3. Assuming you're European you can stay in Europe. If you are some non-European who just happened to be born in Europe and automatically given citizenship then beat it. Actually, if you hate Western life so much, why don't you move to the third world and live like a monk so you won't pollute the environment that much. Oh, don't have kids either.

I'm pretty sure we are aware of over population Baron, and maybe we avoid it because sex is one of those things that makes life a little more enjoyable, for most

The population of the first world would would soon be shrinking fast if not more the huge amounts of immigrants our countries admit. The average first world woman is having way less than 2 kids on average. The population of Russia and Japan are already shrinking every year.

Affirmative action should not be abolished.

TimeTraveler,

When people in the West call Third Worlders 'dirty' or 'poor' its usually a psychological reaction to what they see as a society not based around materialism.

It has nothing to do with lack of toilet training or hygiene.

A world built on materialism (away from nature) is seen as a clean world.

People who live in nature are backward or dirty.

How ironic that materialism is destroying the world, polluting the streams and rivers, polluting our bodies and eroding the ozone layer.

People who put themselves up on a pedestal to judge others as dirty just end up shooting themselves in the foot.

Such an overbearing judgmental attitude has been typical of European Christianity.

Just consider what they thought of AI's and Africans.

It comes back to balance.

Poeple in the west are not cleaner, stronger, cleverer, wiser or more honest than people anywhere else.

Materialism itself is not bad. It's the fact that we don't have unlimited resources, you know this, I know this. There is a finite amount of food, water, clean air, and material.

It's obvious that what we are doing as in how we live is unsustainable, it really has nothing to do with the third world, it's due to lack of efficiency. The first world is supposed to lead on efficiency, I mean we are the richest so we cannot expect the third world to be more efficient and if it is then we must be doing something wrong.

Affirmative action should not be abolished.

Yes, it should be abolished ....it nothing but racism forced upon the people of the nation by the government!

Baron Max

it affirms that a poor black person should be allowed to qualify for an institution, e.g. military, police, college, university - with a score 10% lower, than a poor white person - based on the racist assumption that black people are less intelligent.

it affirms that a poor black person should be allowed to qualify for an institution, e.g. military, police, college, university - with a score 10% lower, than a poor white person - based on the racist assumption that black people are less intelligent.

old ideas are useless in a changing world, ideas have to be upgraded to fit the changing state of reality. Affirmative action is an old idea, and it's as silly as trying to attempt reparations. Even if there is a legal and historical basis, it's a complete waste of time and only further divides the country. This is why I do not support it.

I don't really care about race, it's humans that matter, what is best for humans? Affirmative action is not best for humans. If you focus on policies like affirmative action, and special interest groups, the world can only get worse.

Racist people should be cheering for affirmative acton, because it helps the cause, it pisses off the exact person who has to be pissed off, the angry poor white male. The white female benefits from affirmative action more than anyone else, and minorities all benefit, including Asians, however, in general there are not a lot of Asians here, and Asians only benefit in certain environments, not so much in the academic environment, but the actual workplace.

So thats the situation, it's not about special interest gruops, not to me anyway. So it's ultimately, whats best for people? A merit based society is always impossible unless computers dish out merit. A fair or equal society is imposible because capitalism is unfair by default. The only thing you can aim for is unity and loyalty.

I don't really care about race, it's humans that matter, what is best for humans?

High-sounding words, TT, but just who is to determine "...what's best for humans"?

I agree with your post, TT, but the problem is that you're using "high ideals" that mean nothing to the world at large ....other than for silly philosophical discussion over fine wine and a good cigar! The world ain't like that, TT, and neither are humans!

I think what's best for the world is for all humans to disappear from the planet, the universe! Then everything could go back to harmony in nature without all the bullshit of philosophical crap to interrupt it.

Humans suck giant donkey dicks!

Baron Max

You still haven't explained how I'm a racist.
It seems quite obvious ... you say "all white people" this and "white people" that. Generalisations are the basis of racism.

And you seem to confuse "white" people with albinoes. Um, no. I've met black albinoes and white albinoes and it's quite easy visually to tell the difference between them and white and black people without albinism.

You also said earlier that native Americans are black. This puzzles me. Are the Inuit not native to America? Does this women look "black" to you? I suspect you're oversimplifying.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Inuit_women_1907.jpg/200px-Inuit_women_1907.jpg

This is because your reaction is a knee-jerk one to being told some home truths.
You have an endless supply of amazing assumptions.

It is only whites who seperate themselves of from the environment in this way and this may be attributable to some physical weakness within them.
Last I heard, almost everyone (except for a few small tribes) wore clothes and lived in buildings. Is this not 'separating oneself from nature'?

It would also explain why whites were FORCED to leave Africa and did not migrate as white supremacist propoganda would like us to believe.
Before attempting to explain something, it would help if you had some proof it actually happened.

I don't think the genetic basis for albinism has anything in common with non-albino "whites".

http://www.michaelstevenson.com/contemporary/exhibitions/hugo/albino.htm

Then everything could go back to harmony in nature without all the bullshit of philosophical crap to interrupt it.

Actually the harmony of nature is a myth. There is no such thing. Nature is in constant upheaval. Nature is constantly changing.

What humans do very well is to increase the upheaval to a level never seen before in the history of nature besides the major extinction events and the major radiation (of species) events.

In that sense we are indeed fucking up the world. But we are not disturbing the harmony of nature because it never existed. What we are doing is rapidly changing the world to such an extent that there might be a danger that we will not feel at home in it anymore soonish. And needless to say we cannot turn back the clock.


High ideals indeed mean nothing. Humans make decisions, or let decisions be made for them based on opinion. Political opinions. They never actually research a topic properly before making a new law or passing a new set of regulation. It's all about rethoric and political agendas. People cannot be trusted as such.

I fear that the best solution would be to spread the power as much as possible since nobody can be trusted with power (except me of course ;) ).

But indeed humans suck donkey dicks, or even more frequently, monkey's asses.

It's always difficult for me to accept, but sometimes, Spurious, I just have to agree with you .....even if I try to fight it as much as possible! :)

I do have one little comment, however. You mentioned spreading the power around, yet in the same breath, you said, rightly so, that power was a corrupting influence. If that's correct, then we shouldn't let ANYONE have any power!

Baron Max

I do have one little comment, however. You mentioned spreading the power around, yet in the same breath, you said, rightly so, that power was a corrupting influence. If that's correct, then we shouldn't let ANYONE have any power!


Yes, but I cannot see any political system that will allow for this. Nor will human nature allow for it.

so in that respect we are fucked. But maybe we can minimize the negative effects?

Yes, but I cannot see any political system that will allow for this.
We could build an AI (I mean Artificial Intelligence, not American Indian) to run the planet!

Nor will human nature allow for it.
Probably just as well. Nobody said computers were immune from the corrupting nature of power.

http://chronicle.com/photos/v49/i21/4921diversity_pies.gif

That's a bit of a pointless figure. If you go to the average biology lab (of quality) in the US you will see mainly foreign researchers. Chinese, indians and a handful of Europeans.

Yeah, those are probably weighted means.

Somewhat dealing with AA.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/10/blacks_in_queen.php

Blacks in Queens Make More Than Whites

Queens is the only large county in the nation where the median income of black residents has surpassed that of white residents, a newspaper analysis found.

The picture is quite different across the river in Manhattan, where the gap between whites and blacks is wider than in any other large county in the country, according to a New York Times analysis of Census data.

- snip -

Reader comment

A vast majority of blacks and Carribean blacks work for the city. They are over represented in the transit, court guards, correction officers and will be the majority of the police and the firemen since the city has lowered the standards so much that even felons can be cops and morons that would put gasoline on a fire to become firemen. In NYC the average transit worker makes between 56 to 85 thousand dollars a year for doing absolutely nothing. They get a pension of one half pay based on their last years salary which is inflated by execessive and useless overtime after 20 years. The transit union is headed by an illiterate primitive invader from the ‘islands’ so you know where his loyalities are at. By the way with New York City jobs, NO WHITES NEED APPLY.

That's a bit of a pointless figure. If you go to the average biology lab (of quality) in the US you will see mainly foreign researchers. Chinese, indians and a handful of Europeans.

Blacks do worse than whites in every form of standardized test created during the last 100 years. That their grades are lower as well should be no surprise to anyone. In fact, I would be suspicious if their grades were the same or higher than whites.

The reason behind affirmative action

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Chart_06.jpg

Is J.B. = D'ster? Similar styles.....

I'm saying it's only whites who allow themselves to be denigrated in their own countries and that only white countries are allowing a massive flood of third worlders in to ethnically cleanse and eventually eliminate them.

If this concept is new or too alien for you to grasp, I suggest you check out

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/search/results/0515be7336f7423ec5e3d9149ec00626/


Ok thats complete BS. Did the Irish wipe out the English who were here first? I mean really, how do you come to the conclusion that immigrants come here to wipe everyone else out?

That's a bit extreme and unbelieveable, even from you.

Somewhat dealing with AA.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/10/blacks_in_queen.php

Blacks in Queens Make More Than Whites

Queens is the only large county in the nation where the median income of black residents has surpassed that of white residents, a newspaper analysis found.

The picture is quite different across the river in Manhattan, where the gap between whites and blacks is wider than in any other large county in the country, according to a New York Times analysis of Census data.

- snip -

Reader comment

A vast majority of blacks and Carribean blacks work for the city. They are over represented in the transit, court guards, correction officers and will be the majority of the police and the firemen since the city has lowered the standards so much that even felons can be cops and morons that would put gasoline on a fire to become firemen. In NYC the average transit worker makes between 56 to 85 thousand dollars a year for doing absolutely nothing. They get a pension of one half pay based on their last years salary which is inflated by execessive and useless overtime after 20 years. The transit union is headed by an illiterate primitive invader from the ‘islands’ so you know where his loyalities are at. By the way with New York City jobs, NO WHITES NEED APPLY.

Next you will say the census says more blacks work in Compton than whites.

I don't understand the point of any of your statistics, they are too emotionally extreme.

Materialism itself is not bad. It's the fact that we don't have unlimited resources, you know this, I know this. There is a finite amount of food, water, clean air, and material.

It's obvious that what we are doing as in how we live is unsustainable, it really has nothing to do with the third world, it's due to lack of efficiency. The first world is supposed to lead on efficiency, I mean we are the richest so we cannot expect the third world to be more efficient and if it is then we must be doing something wrong.

TimeTraveller,

You mean we should be even more efficient in how we exploit nature?

Materialism is EVIL.

We need to stop being a consumptive society and become a conservative one instead.

Westerners could easily consume vastly less food and energy than they presently do and become much more spiritually healthy.

The Universe is not founded on the material. It's roots lie in the immaterial.

Our world is spiritually sick. It's not a case of having hydrogen-powered cars or solar-powered houses.

If engineers created an incredibly delicate machine which could fly by flapping its wings 50 time per second using the most refined metals and materials known to man and based upon an incredibly sophisticated, symmetrical and beautiful blueprint would you drive your car into it?

Everyday millions of humans do just that because whether you care to admit it or not nature in the west is considered worthless and insects are part of nature.

You can go on all you like about reducing pollution or 'protecting the environment' but machines are part of the evil of materialism regardless of how they are powered.

You see we are destroying this world primarily through our beliefs and not through chemicals, over-population or deforestation.

This is why in all religions your belief is considered paramount. It is our beliefs which carry the real power in the world and not the material products of our hands or minds.

Real freedom can only come from the invisible and the unknowable but while we put our faith in matter we are only SLAVES to our own DESIRES.

Hence we are trapped in an endless spiral of creating things to fulfill those desires and the world is pushed towards catastrophe.

You don't need an organised religion to tell you anything, you can work it our for yourself as I've just shown.

The population of the first world would would soon be shrinking fast if not more the huge amounts of immigrants our countries admit. The average first world woman is having way less than 2 kids on average. The population of Russia and Japan are already shrinking every year.


i'd ask for some figures to prove this. But this day n' age it's damn near impossible to come up with an accurate graph concerning any kind of cencus.
However, i do know that Japans population is shrinking, but russia i am not too sure.

But the laws of nature usually work themselves out. An old lesson my biology teach taught me was, if there isn't enough natural resources for a given area you can make sure nature will make some breathing room. So i'm not worried about over population because the weak will starve, and the strong will flourish. Like usual.

Real freedom can only come from the invisible and the unknowable but while we put our faith in matter we are only SLAVES to our own DESIRES. .........

You see we are destroying this world ....

Don't you find it interesting that you can talk so grandiosly about freedom, yet in the next sentence condemn that same freedom because of how we operate?

What ye're saying is that we should NOT be free ...that we should follow your ideals about what to do and how to treat the world.

Do you want freedom, or do you want us to be slaves to YOUR ideals?

Baron Max

A long time ago white people became too lazy so they imported black minorities to do their work, after the work was over they still remain too lazy to ship them back. This started the civil rights movement and caused many outrageous and bizzare moments. They could have avoided all this crap if they had repatriated their workers. I will say it again and will forever stand by my view, black people belong in Africa and White people belong..well.. who knows anymore. Frankly if I was black I would have ran back home to motherland instead of having to face Bigotry, racism, oppression, desegregation, political hassles, hipocracy, and infamous stereotypes. Its difficult to figure out which race is stupider in this case. In America white and black neighbohoods are segregated subliminaly, African Americans are fooling themselves because we know they have no culture of their own; they are quite possibly the most lost group of people on earth. Yes, white people are beautiful, but nothig is more beautiful than home. Too bad, we will always have the situation we have in America. Food for thought

Frankly if I was black I would have ran back home to motherland instead of having to face Bigotry, racism, oppression, desegregation, political hassles, hipocracy, and infamous stereotypes.

Interesting comment ...and I have to agree. I'd never stay in some place that didn't want me to be there, and constantly pissed me off. Would anyone else do that?

Baron Max

At the point you are talking about, the blacks were as native as the whites, with as much of unique culture as anyone.

It's as if I kidnapped your family, burned down your house, and erased your culture, then brought you back to ruins and ashes and expected you to go about your business. No way, share the wealth that they helped you create, live up to your high minded values as written in the constitution, or is it just empty talk from a bunch of greedy bandits?

So, Spider, are you trying to say that you would try to live and work and play in an area where the other people didn't like you and didn't want you? You'd just forced yourself onto them? You wouldn't try to find a place that was little more friendly?

Baron Max

Why not, it worked in the American west.

Why not, it worked in the American west.

Huh? What the fuck are you talking about?

Baron Max

Claiming ownership of ranchland or farmland in Indian territory.

Claiming ownership of ranchland or farmland in Indian territory.

The Indians didn't own property, Spider, and even they admitted that ...then and today! They claimed the entire fuckin' world-as-they-knew-it, so fuck 'em, we killed 'em all and stole the land. But that ain't got nothing to do with what we were talking about .....why are you twisting it all up? so you don't have to answer the real question, that's actually pertinent to the topic at hand?

Baron Max

spidergoat, SOP for him Baron.

Yeah, Buffalo, but he sometimes gets flustered when you call him on it. Then he usually posts something that's somewhat intelligent and worthwhile. But you've got to call him on it or he'll just run you ragged.

You'll notice that he hasn't answered by main question ...or even alluded to it?! :)

Baron Max

Yep!

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/115244.jpg

The Indians didn't own property, Spider, ...
Baron Max
Serves them right, then, they forgot to do the paperwork.

J.B. :

Are you D'ster by any chance?

http://www.blackcommentator.com/52/52_images/52_cartoon_large.gif

I knew it!

i'd ask for some figures to prove this. But this day n' age it's damn near impossible to come up with an accurate graph concerning any kind of cencus.
However, i do know that Japans population is shrinking, but russia i am not too sure.

But the laws of nature usually work themselves out. An old lesson my biology teach taught me was, if there isn't enough natural resources for a given area you can make sure nature will make some breathing room. So i'm not worried about over population because the weak will starve, and the strong will flourish. Like usual.

You don't understand the nature of the problem. If the weak go, the strong will kill each other and there will be no builders left to build civilization. Civilization is not divided into weak and strong, it's divided into builders and destroyers, and while the force of destruction is cosmic and may appear to be the stronger force, you cannot survive for long if you destroy everything you touch, we'd be back in the stone ages if we survive. Language was invented by the builders, the people you call weak invented money.

Even ants know that they need workers. If you let your workers starve there will be no one to build your farm, or to harvest your crop, or to do your work for you, and eventually you'll starve or basically kill yourself by robbing yourself and murderering yourself.

A long time ago white people became too lazy so they imported black minorities to do their work, after the work was over they still remain too lazy to ship them back. This started the civil rights movement and caused many outrageous and bizzare moments. They could have avoided all this crap if they had repatriated their workers. I will say it again and will forever stand by my view, black people belong in Africa and White people belong..well.. who knows anymore. Frankly if I was black I would have ran back home to motherland instead of having to face Bigotry, racism, oppression, desegregation, political hassles, hipocracy, and infamous stereotypes. Its difficult to figure out which race is stupider in this case. In America white and black neighbohoods are segregated subliminaly, African Americans are fooling themselves because we know they have no culture of their own; they are quite possibly the most lost group of people on earth. Yes, white people are beautiful, but nothig is more beautiful than home. Too bad, we will always have the situation we have in America. Food for thought


Uh, white people are beautiful? blacks have no culture? where are you getting this from? are these just your opinions? I think billions of people will disagree with you.

Ok thats complete BS. Did the Irish wipe out the English who were here first? I mean really, how do you come to the conclusion that immigrants come here to wipe everyone else out?

That's a bit extreme and unbelieveable, even from you.

I am not suggesting that all this third world immigration will "wipe out whites" in the next 5, 10, 20 or 50 years. I am saying that there is an intentional move by western governments to make their white populations as small as possible as quickly as possible. Whites will be a minority in England by 2100 and in America much sooner. After that whites will continue to become a smaller percent of the population quicker and quicker until they are totally insignificant like the AI of today.

Next you will say the census says more blacks work in Compton than whites.

I don't understand the point of any of your statistics, they are too emotionally extreme.

I wanted to show what AA in America has accomplished in Queens New York. As for more blacks working in Compton than whites, I would hope so since I doubt there are a lot of whites in Compton anymore.

i'd ask for some figures to prove this. But this day n' age it's damn near impossible to come up with an accurate graph concerning any kind of cencus.
However, i do know that Japans population is shrinking, but russia i am not too sure.

But the laws of nature usually work themselves out. An old lesson my biology teach taught me was, if there isn't enough natural resources for a given area you can make sure nature will make some breathing room. So i'm not worried about over population because the weak will starve, and the strong will flourish. Like usual.

The Stats are accurate and not hard to find...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

And the hard data on babies around the western world is that they’re running out a lot faster than the oil is. “Replacement” fertility rate—i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller—is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?

Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you’ll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada’s fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That’s to say, Spain’s population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy’s population will have fallen by 22 percent, Bulgaria’s by 36 percent, Estonia’s by 52 percent. In America, demographic trends suggest that the blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU: in the 2004 election, John Kerry won the sixteen with the lowest birth rates; George W. Bush took twenty-five of the twenty-six states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans—and mostly red-state Americans.

A long time ago white people became too lazy so they imported black minorities to do their work, after the work was over they still remain too lazy to ship them back. This started the civil rights movement and caused many outrageous and bizzare moments. They could have avoided all this crap if they had repatriated their workers. I will say it again and will forever stand by my view, black people belong in Africa and White people belong..well.. who knows anymore. Frankly if I was black I would have ran back home to motherland instead of having to face Bigotry, racism, oppression, desegregation, political hassles, hipocracy, and infamous stereotypes. Its difficult to figure out which race is stupider in this case. In America white and black neighbohoods are segregated subliminaly, African Americans are fooling themselves because we know they have no culture of their own; they are quite possibly the most lost group of people on earth. Yes, white people are beautiful, but nothig is more beautiful than home. Too bad, we will always have the situation we have in America. Food for thought

Although I am not going to dispute the lazy part especially with the repatriation, slaves were brought here for cheap labor just like our goverment allows Mexicans to floood the SW. This is what happens when societies bring in too much foreign cheap labor...(highly recommended reading)

http://www.realiteit.co.za/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=573&mode=thread

Interesting comment ...and I have to agree. I'd never stay in some place that didn't want me to be there, and constantly pissed me off. Would anyone else do that?

Baron Max

Even blacks are smart enough to know that Africa is a hellhole. Most of the blacks in South Africa are immigrants (legal and illegal) that chose to live under Apartheid rather than wherever they came from.

At the point you are talking about, the blacks were as native as the whites, with as much of unique culture as anyone.

It's as if I kidnapped your family, burned down your house, and erased your culture, then brought you back to ruins and ashes and expected you to go about your business. No way, share the wealth that they helped you create, live up to your high minded values as written in the constitution, or is it just empty talk from a bunch of greedy bandits?

The writers of the constitution were racist old white men who would never even conceive of the idea of giving blacks the right to vote.

Serves them right, then, they forgot to do the paperwork.

The AI didn't consider land to be of value. They were nomadic and usually on the chase for buffalo and other food. As soon as the land was cleared of game, they had no use for it. They considered whites fools for actually paying them money for it.

Uh, white people are beautiful? blacks have no culture? where are you getting this from? are these just your opinions? I think billions of people will disagree with you.

I wouldn't say blacks have no culture, just no culture that interests me. As for whites being beautiful, hell the most beautiful, I'm surprised you would even contest that.

No, I'm fucking upset that the SW is being colonized by Mexicans, Europe by Muslims and Canada by anyone who isn't white.

So if they were white that would somehow be better? You think whites wont treat you just as badly?

So if they were white that would somehow be better? You think whites wont treat you just as badly?

Of course white people would treat me better. What are you, high?

http://www.amren.com/newstore/cart.php?page=color_of_crime

Crime Rates

• Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.

• When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.

• Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.

• The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.

Interracial Crime

• Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.

The Stats are accurate and not hard to find...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

And the hard data on babies around the western world is that they’re running out a lot faster than the oil is. “Replacement” fertility rate—i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller—is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?

Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you’ll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada’s fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That’s to say, Spain’s population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy’s population will have fallen by 22 percent, Bulgaria’s by 36 percent, Estonia’s by 52 percent. In America, demographic trends suggest that the blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU: in the 2004 election, John Kerry won the sixteen with the lowest birth rates; George W. Bush took twenty-five of the twenty-six states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans—and mostly red-state Americans.

That is all assuming everything continues in order.

That is all assuming everything continues in order.

Do you see white women having six kids each anytime soon and women in Africa and the Middle East have one each anytime soon cause I don't.

Do you see white women having six kids each anytime soon and women in Africa and the Middle East have one each anytime soon cause I don't.


I know several with 5 children. Is that enough? Young women.

I know several with 5 children. Is that enough? Young women.

Do you see the average white woman having five kids anytime soon? That means basically all of them.

What's wrong with having 6 children?

What's wrong with having 6 children?

It's not good for the environment. I brought up the point and evidence for a poster who didn't believe that first world populations (i.e. white) are shrinking or will soon start shrinking fast.

It's not good for the environment.

They wouldn't have 6 children if their conditions would be better. It's your fault. It's almost as if you put your dick in them basically.

And actually 1 american is worse for the environment than 6 africans, or 60 africans.

They wouldn't have 6 children if their conditions would be better. It's your fault. It's almost as if you put your dick in them basically.

And actually 1 american is worse for the environment than 6 africans, or 60 africans.

It's my fault Africans are having 6 kids? WTF are you smoking?

You are right that 1 American is worse for the enivronment than 6 Africans in which case why have immigration and create more Americans and thereby more pollution?

They wouldn't have 6 children if their conditions would be better. It's your fault. It's almost as if you put your dick in them basically.

And actually 1 american is worse for the environment than 6 africans, or 60 africans.


I agree.

They wouldn't have 6 children if their conditions would be better. It's your fault.

Wow, you really come up with some good ones, don't you, Spurious!! You should take over on the late shows at night with such standup comedy! ...LOL!

Baron Max

It's not good for the environment. I brought up the point and evidence for a poster who didn't believe that first world populations (i.e. white) are shrinking or will soon start shrinking fast.

China and India already are having more boys than girls, and have billions of people. Africas population growth is slowed due to aids and disease, and the middle east is at war.

I don't think it matters though, what difference does it make where the kids come from?

Wow, you really come up with some good ones, don't you, Spurious!! You should take over on the late shows at night with such standup comedy! ...LOL!

Baron Max


Generally, people want to have as many children as they can, and the poorer they are the more children they want, this is natural. I think however there is a difference between having all boys, or having all girls.

Maybe I just view the boys are more competition than I do the girls, but also, well, you know how it is with ladies, its easy to forget that a lady is foreign, it's not so easy with a male. I know, I'm biased, but I like variety in women. More girls being born simply means, more potential wives for men. More boys being born means, more competition for women.

Crime Rates

• Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.

• When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.

• Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.

• The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.

Interracial Crime

• Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.

I don't believe this.

Show me a reputable source which confirms those "statistics" you guys so love to quote.

It's amazing how racists just spout out such numbers time and again without awareness of anything deeper.

I don't believe this. Show me a reputable source which confirms those "statistics" you guys so love to quote.

I believe that those came from the FBI website on crime in the USA. I've seen that site several times, but you have to glean that info from all the other bullshit. It's their, James, if you want to search thru all that data. I prefer to get it from others who've already done it.

Baron Max

China and India already are having more boys than girls, and have billions of people. Africas population growth is slowed due to aids and disease, and the middle east is at war.

I don't think it matters though, what difference does it make where the kids come from?

It matters when you're white and being made a minority in your own GD country.

I don't believe this.

Show me a reputable source which confirms those "statistics" you guys so love to quote.

These are derived from FBI statistics. They are not bullshit. If you have any evidence to the contrary, let me know.

It's amazing how racists just spout out such numbers time and again without awareness of anything deeper.

It's amazing that liberals ignore statistics which correspond to reality which they don't like. Ask yourself which are the 10 highest murder capitals in the States per capita and why they are that way.

Hey, y'all care to check out these numbers? I think they say a lot, don't you?

Baron Max

MOST DANGEROUS CITIES:

1. Camden, N.J.

* Black (53.3%)
* Hispanic (38.8%)
* Other race (22.8%)
* White Non-Hispanic (7.1%)
* Two or more races (3.9%)
* Vietnamese (1.6%)
* American Indian (1.2%)

2. Detroit

Black (81.6%)
White Non-Hispanic (10.5%)
Hispanic (5.0%)
Other race (2.5%)
Two or more races (2.3%)
American Indian (0.9%)

3. St. Louis

Black (51.2%)
White Non-Hispanic (42.9%)
Hispanic (2.0%)
Two or more races (1.9%)
Vietnamese (1.0%)
American Indian (0.8%)
Other race (0.8%)

4. Flint, Mich.

Black (53.3%)
White Non-Hispanic (40.0%)
Two or more races (3.1%)
Hispanic (3.0%)
American Indian (2.2%)
Other race (1.1%)

5. Richmond, Va.

Black (57.2%)
White Non-Hispanic (37.7%)
Hispanic (2.6%)
Other race (1.5%)
Two or more races (1.5%)
American Indian (0.7%)

6. Baltimore

Black (64.3%)
White Non-Hispanic (31.0%)
Hispanic (1.7%)
Two or more races (1.5%)
American Indian (0.8%)
Other race (0.7%)

7. Atlanta

Black (61.4%)
White Non-Hispanic (31.3%)
Hispanic (4.5%)
Other race (2.0%)
Two or more races (1.2%)
Asian Indian (0.6%)
American Indian (0.5%)

8. New Orleans

Black (67.3%)
White Non-Hispanic (26.6%)
Hispanic (3.1%)
Vietnamese (1.5%)
Two or more races (1.3%)
Other race (0.9%)
American Indian (0.5%)

9. Gary, Ind.

Black (84.0%)
White Non-Hispanic (10.1%)
Hispanic (4.9%)
Other race (2.0%)
Two or more races (1.7%)
American Indian (0.7%)

10. Birmingham, Ala.

Black (73.5%)
White Non-Hispanic (23.5%)
Hispanic (1.6%)
Two or more races (0.8%)
Other race (0.6%)

MOST SAFEST CITIES

Races in Newton:

White Non-Hispanic (86.4%)
Chinese (4.8%)
Hispanic (2.5%)
Black (2.0%)
Two or more races (1.5%)
Asian Indian (0.9%)
Other race (0.7%)
Korean (0.6%)

Races in Clarkstown:

White Non-Hispanic (76.0%)
Black (7.9%)
Hispanic (6.9%)
Asian Indian (3.0%)
Filipino (2.1%)
Two or more races (2.0%)
Other race (2.0%)
Chinese (1.2%)
Korean (1.0%)

Races in Amherst:

White Non-Hispanic (88.4%)
Black (3.9%)
Asian Indian (1.7%)
Chinese (1.6%)
Hispanic (1.4%)
Two or more races (1.1%)
Korean (0.9%)

Races in Mission Viejo:

White Non-Hispanic (76.0%)
Hispanic (12.1%)
Other race (3.8%)
Two or more races (3.6%)
Filipino (1.6%)
Chinese (1.6%)
Vietnamese (1.2%)
Black (1.1%)
Japanese (1.1%)
American Indian (0.9%)
Asian Indian (0.9%)
Korean (0.8%)
Other Asian (0.6%)

Brick Township, NJ: no data

Races in Troy:
White Non-Hispanic (81.3%)
Asian Indian (5.7%)
Chinese (3.8%)
Black (2.1%)
Two or more races (1.8%)
Korean (1.5%)
Hispanic (1.5%)
Filipino (1.0%)
Other Asian (0.7%)

Races in Thousand Oaks:

White Non-Hispanic (77.7%)
Hispanic (13.1%)
Other race (4.5%)
Two or more races (2.8%)
Chinese (2.1%)
Black (1.1%)
American Indian (1.0%)
Asian Indian (0.8%)
Japanese (0.8%)
Filipino (0.7%)
Korean (0.7%)

Races in Round Rock:

White Non-Hispanic (65.6%)
Hispanic (22.1%)
Other race (9.5%)
Black (7.7%)
Two or more races (2.6%)
American Indian (0.9%)
Vietnamese (0.7%)
Asian Indian (0.6%)

Races in Lake Forest:

White Non-Hispanic (66.7%)
Hispanic (18.6%)
Other race (7.5%)
Two or more races (4.2%)
Vietnamese (2.4%)
Filipino (2.2%)
Black (1.8%)

Races in Cary:

White Non-Hispanic (79.7%)
Black (6.1%)
Hispanic (4.3%)
Asian Indian (3.5%)
Chinese (2.3%)
Two or more races (1.8%)
Other race (1.5%)
Korean (0.6%)
Vietnamese (0.6%)
American Indian (0.6%)
Other Asian (0.5%)
American Indian (1.2%)
Chinese (1.2%)
Korean (1.1%)
Asian Indian (1.1%)
Japanese (1.0%)
Other Asian (0.8%)

But but but are they adjusted for socio-economic status? :rolleyes: :)

Hey, y'all care to check out these numbers? I think they say a lot, don't you?

Baron Max

MOST DANGEROUS CITIES:

1. Camden, N.J.

* Black (53.3%)
* Hispanic (38.8%)
* Other race (22.8%)
* White Non-Hispanic (7.1%)
* Two or more races (3.9%)
* Vietnamese (1.6%)
* American Indian (1.2%)

2. Detroit

Black (81.6%)
White Non-Hispanic (10.5%)
Hispanic (5.0%)
Other race (2.5%)
Two or more races (2.3%)
American Indian (0.9%)

3. St. Louis

Black (51.2%)
White Non-Hispanic (42.9%)
Hispanic (2.0%)
Two or more races (1.9%)
Vietnamese (1.0%)
American Indian (0.8%)
Other race (0.8%)

4. Flint, Mich.

Black (53.3%)
White Non-Hispanic (40.0%)
Two or more races (3.1%)
Hispanic (3.0%)
American Indian (2.2%)
Other race (1.1%)

5. Richmond, Va.

Black (57.2%)
White Non-Hispanic (37.7%)
Hispanic (2.6%)
Other race (1.5%)
Two or more races (1.5%)
American Indian (0.7%)

6. Baltimore

Black (64.3%)
White Non-Hispanic (31.0%)
Hispanic (1.7%)
Two or more races (1.5%)
American Indian (0.8%)
Other race (0.7%)

7. Atlanta

Black (61.4%)
White Non-Hispanic (31.3%)
Hispanic (4.5%)
Other race (2.0%)
Two or more races (1.2%)
Asian Indian (0.6%)
American Indian (0.5%)

8. New Orleans

Black (67.3%)
White Non-Hispanic (26.6%)
Hispanic (3.1%)
Vietnamese (1.5%)
Two or more races (1.3%)
Other race (0.9%)
American Indian (0.5%)

9. Gary, Ind.

Black (84.0%)
White Non-Hispanic (10.1%)
Hispanic (4.9%)
Other race (2.0%)
Two or more races (1.7%)
American Indian (0.7%)

10. Birmingham, Ala.

Black (73.5%)
White Non-Hispanic (23.5%)
Hispanic (1.6%)
Two or more races (0.8%)
Other race (0.6%)

MOST SAFEST CITIES

Races in Newton:

White Non-Hispanic (86.4%)
Chinese (4.8%)
Hispanic (2.5%)
Black (2.0%)
Two or more races (1.5%)
Asian Indian (0.9%)
Other race (0.7%)
Korean (0.6%)

Races in Clarkstown:

White Non-Hispanic (76.0%)
Black (7.9%)
Hispanic (6.9%)
Asian Indian (3.0%)
Filipino (2.1%)
Two or more races (2.0%)
Other race (2.0%)
Chinese (1.2%)
Korean (1.0%)

Races in Amherst:

White Non-Hispanic (88.4%)
Black (3.9%)
Asian Indian (1.7%)
Chinese (1.6%)
Hispanic (1.4%)
Two or more races (1.1%)
Korean (0.9%)

Races in Mission Viejo:

White Non-Hispanic (76.0%)
Hispanic (12.1%)
Other race (3.8%)
Two or more races (3.6%)
Filipino (1.6%)
Chinese (1.6%)
Vietnamese (1.2%)
Black (1.1%)
Japanese (1.1%)
American Indian (0.9%)
Asian Indian (0.9%)
Korean (0.8%)
Other Asian (0.6%)

Brick Township, NJ: no data

Races in Troy:
White Non-Hispanic (81.3%)
Asian Indian (5.7%)
Chinese (3.8%)
Black (2.1%)
Two or more races (1.8%)
Korean (1.5%)
Hispanic (1.5%)
Filipino (1.0%)
Other Asian (0.7%)

Races in Thousand Oaks:

White Non-Hispanic (77.7%)
Hispanic (13.1%)
Other race (4.5%)
Two or more races (2.8%)
Chinese (2.1%)
Black (1.1%)
American Indian (1.0%)
Asian Indian (0.8%)
Japanese (0.8%)
Filipino (0.7%)
Korean (0.7%)

Races in Round Rock:

White Non-Hispanic (65.6%)
Hispanic (22.1%)
Other race (9.5%)
Black (7.7%)
Two or more races (2.6%)
American Indian (0.9%)
Vietnamese (0.7%)
Asian Indian (0.6%)

Races in Lake Forest:

White Non-Hispanic (66.7%)
Hispanic (18.6%)
Other race (7.5%)
Two or more races (4.2%)
Vietnamese (2.4%)
Filipino (2.2%)
Black (1.8%)

Races in Cary:

White Non-Hispanic (79.7%)
Black (6.1%)
Hispanic (4.3%)
Asian Indian (3.5%)
Chinese (2.3%)
Two or more races (1.8%)
Other race (1.5%)
Korean (0.6%)
Vietnamese (0.6%)
American Indian (0.6%)
Other Asian (0.5%)
American Indian (1.2%)
Chinese (1.2%)
Korean (1.1%)
Asian Indian (1.1%)
Japanese (1.0%)
Other Asian (0.8%)Interesting list, really. But the safest cities are just small towns no one outside the metro area they are in has heard of. So you have Detroit and New Orleans then Lake Forest and Round Rock?? Of course little towns and suburbs have less crime, there's less people and more money. Thousand Oaks?? And Baltimore? C'mon. :rolleyes:

These are derived from FBI statistics. They are not bullshit.

I don't believe you.

I don't believe you.

Why do you think I give a big rat's ass if you believe me or not?

Besides, weren't you the guy who banned me for something that I didn't do? ...and with no trial, no legal accusations for me to answer and/or explain? ...no last phone call before being thrown into prison? ..and leave me with virtually no way to contact you to explain?

No, James, I don't give a fuck if you believe me or not.

But there are those who do, and it's those people that you have to convince otherwise. And I ain't so sure just how you're gonna' do that even if those numbers are absolute fuckin' lies!

People will believe whatever they want to ...a racist will believe those numbers before he believes anything that you might put up in argument. You believe one way, a racist believes another way. If you want to change a rasist's mind, James, then blacks are just gonna' have to start being little angels, or you got a rough row to hoe!

Baron Max

I don't believe you.

So don't believe it. Go move into Detroit or Camden NJ. I would imagine you could get a nice place dirt cheap.

Why do you think I give a big rat's ass if you believe me or not?

Obviously you do, or you wouldn't have replied.

Besides, weren't you the guy who banned me for something that I didn't do?

No. I banned you for something you did do. I don't ban people arbitrarily.

...and with no trial, no legal accusations for me to answer and/or explain?

You know the rules. You've been here long enough to know what is and is not acceptable. You tread a fine line, and so far you've managed to cross it unequivocally only once that I am aware of. I hope you learned something from the experience.

But there are those who do, and it's those people that you have to convince otherwise. And I ain't so sure just how you're gonna' do that even if those numbers are absolute fuckin' lies!

It's really just a matter of whether I can afford the time to search for and post contradictory information. I have a life outside sciforums - quite a busy one, as it happens. I come here for fun, mostly, and do do my job as moderator. I don't come here to waste my time trying to teach people who are unwilling to learn and who are too lazy to look beyond the little boxes they have constructed for themselves. In "real life", I already teach many people who are happy to learn from me.

People will believe whatever they want to ...a racist will believe those numbers before he believes anything that you might put up in argument. You believe one way, a racist believes another way.

It really depends how committed the racist is. Some racists know better, but remain racist. Others are naive racists who have never considered an alternative.

You don't need to teach me to suck eggs, Baron. I'm very well aware of the typical racist mindset.

If you want to change a rasist's mind, James, then blacks are just gonna' have to start being little angels, or you got a rough row to hoe!

You can't group "blacks" into a single group. That is your first and probably biggest mistake.

You can't group "blacks" into a single group. That is your first and probably biggest mistake.

Please, James, let's not argue this issue in a personal sense. I try to keep arguments, discussions about the issue, not about the person talking.

Many people do group blacks (and others, too) all together, James, and you can't just tell 'em to stop or that it's a mistake.

Baron Max

Please, James, let's not argue this issue in a personal sense. I try to keep arguments, discussions about the issue, not about the person talking.

Many people do group blacks (and others, too) all together, James, and you can't just tell 'em to stop or that it's a mistake.

Baron Max

You can put people into groups but that doesn't mean every individual in the group is the same.

You can put people into groups but that doesn't mean every individual in the group is the same.

Oh, I don't know ....I can believe pretty much anything I want to believe. I don't need no stinkin' rules!

Baron Max

You can put people into groups but that doesn't mean every individual in the group is the same.

Yes it does. Every member of a group is EXACTLY the same. Individuality is fake, people are like dots, robodots, numbers even.

Please, James, let's not argue this issue in a personal sense. I try to keep arguments, discussions about the issue, not about the person talking.

Actually, that "you" was a generic kind of "you", referring to racists in general. Sorry for the conclusion.

Many people do group blacks (and others, too) all together, James, and you can't just tell 'em to stop or that it's a mistake.

Sure I can.

Hey, y'all care to check out these numbers? I think they say a lot, don't you?
Yes
MOST DANGEROUS CITIES:
1. Camden, N.J.
Black (53.3%)
7. Atlanta
Black (61.4%)
8. New Orleans
Black (67.3%)
9. Gary, Ind.
Black (84.0%)
10. Birmingham, Ala.
Black (73.5%)

The study you posted here says that the most dangerous city has 31% fewer blacks than the 9th most dangerous city. This completely goes against a hypothesis that more blacks = more crime.
As a matter of fact, the most dangerous city has FEWER blacks than most of the other dangerous cities listed. Also, cities #1, #3, #4, have a LOWER black population than many "safer" cities. This says you have not accepted the negative correlations which go against your idea because you are blind.

P.S.

MOST SAFEST CITIES

What govt. agency or scientific study uses this grammar anyway ????


EDIT - P.P.S. - you are a racist to the nth degree, this has nothing to do with affirmative action, yet you pull this shit out - does every thread degenerate into pure racism, or can there ever be a discussion about a topic?

Yes


The study you posted here says that the most dangerous city has 31% fewer blacks than the 9th most dangerous city. This completely goes against a hypothesis that more blacks = more crime.
As a matter of fact, the most dangerous city has FEWER blacks than most of the other dangerous cities listed. Also, cities #1, #3, #4, have a LOWER black population than many "safer" cities. This says you have not accepted the negative correlations which go against your idea because you are blind.

P.S.

What govt. agency or scientific study uses this grammar anyway ????


EDIT - P.P.S. - you are a racist to the nth degree, this has nothing to do with affirmative action, yet you pull this shit out - does every thread degenerate into pure racism, or can there ever be a discussion about a topic?

Ask not if he is racist, ask if he is right. It is an interesting point you brought up. The "mixed" cities at the top are probably more dangerous because they have more hispanics in them and if there is one thing black criminals like more than committting crime against other blacks, it's committing crimes against other races.

...they have more hispanics in them and if there is one thing black criminals like more than committting crime against other blacks, it's committing crimes against other races.

Yeah, coupled with a tendency of not going after the killers of Hispanic with as much enthusiasm and fervor (especiallly if they're illegals), the blacks might see the Hispanics as easy targets and easy escape.

Baron Max

Yeah, coupled with a tendency of not going after the killers of Hispanic with as much enthusiasm and fervor (especiallly if they're illegals), the blacks might see the Hispanics as easy targets and easy escape.

Baron Max

Yeah forgot about that. They go after illegals because they don't go to the cops as much after the crime.

It seems quite obvious ... you say "all white people" this and "white people" that. Generalisations are the basis of racism.


[/url]

Generalisations are NOT the basis of Western racism.

Economics is.

In that sense we are indeed fucking up the world. But we are not disturbing the harmony of nature because it never existed. .

Of course nature exists in harmony.

Why do you think physical laws exhibit symmetry and harmony?

The moon isn't jumping around the sky is it?

What foolishness.

Technology is not nature and hence it is not in harmony with it.

Human hands did not create the Universe.

But the human mind is part of nature and so its theories are too.

old ideas are useless in a changing world, ideas have to be upgraded to fit the changing state of reality.

Total BS.

The world is not changing otherwise scientific laws would cease to function.

"The world is changing" is just a racist BS excuse not face up to the REALITY of the here and now.

All that labour you stole from Africa and all that land you stole from the AI's.

Even now - in the 21st century - the American racists on this board are incapable of accepting their own history and responsibilities.

Disgusting.

And all you do is post statistical racist BS trying to keep black people down.

After more than 500 years all you can do is regurgitate the same racist crap that the slave traders and plantation owners used.

Well you sure don't have any new ideas that's all I can say.

The Indians didn't own property, Spider, and even they admitted that ...then and today! They claimed the entire fuckin' world-as-they-knew-it, so fuck 'em, we killed 'em all and stole the land. Baron Max

You got that wrong.

You didn't kill them all that's why the Navajo are one of the fastest expanding people in the U.S.

In the end nature will destroy the cancer of white people and return the land to its rightful inheritors.

All wealth belongs to God..... not to white people.

You got that wrong.

You didn't kill them all that's why the Navajo are one of the fastest expanding people in the U.S.

In the end nature will destroy the cancer of white people and return the land to its rightful inheritors.

All wealth belongs to God..... not to white people.

Native Americans were not wiped out, they were mixed out, now there are very few REAL navajo, in the tribal reservation pure sense, but there are many many Americans who have navajo blood, white, black, at this point native americans have mixed into our genetic code.

Total BS.

The world is not changing otherwise scientific laws would cease to function.
Scientific law says time is change, wake up.

"The world is changing" is just a racist BS excuse not face up to the REALITY of the here and now.

What does time/change have to do with race? I could care less how human facial features and hair color changes as long as we avoid going extinct. I simply don't care about race, at all. Maybe I seem racist because I'm a true race neutral.

All that labour you stole from Africa and all that land you stole from the AI's.

Even now - in the 21st century ] - the American racists on this board are incapable of accepting their own history and responsibilities.

Disgusting.

And all you do is post statistical racist BS trying to keep black people down.

After more than 500 years all you can do is regurgitate the same racist crap that the slave traders and plantation owners used.

Well you sure don't have any new ideas that's all I can say.



I responded to you, and you responded with emotion, and called me a racist, when if anyone reads my posts they'll know I'm one of the least racist people on this forum. I don't even believe race is real, so you are the one who is racist because you believe in it enough to call others racist. There are no racists, it's simply people who hate humans and people who dont. You hate racists, so you are no better than racists, you are racist toward whites, this is no better. Move beyond the old ideas of race, or stay in your endless loop of trying to figure out which race is better.

Ask not if he is racist, ask if he is right.
I did... and said "no" based on the statistics which show that there are FAR fewer blacks in the most dangerous city compared to many of the less dangerous cities. Please point out consistent correlations if you wish to even begin the process of proving something.

Re- racists - I am just commenting that every thread turns into the same thing, racists saying, "black people are bad, and white people are good", which is obviously a crock. White people have commited some of the most horrific violence, in the most savage ways on the grandest scale - asians too - you have to be blind to not see that.

White people have commited some of the most horrific violence, in the most savage ways on the grandest scale - asians too - you have to be blind to not see that.

That's true. But it's also true that in the USA, blacks commit violent crime at a rate that's higher than whites or any other race ...that's a simple, plain fact of life in the USA.

By those rates, if blacks had been more numerous than whites, those horrid, savage crimes might have been even worse, huh?

Baron Max

I don't even believe race is real,.

So race is real for 500 years whilst colonialism and slavery were in full swing but now it doesn't exist because to be quite frank white peoples history has become an embarressment to them and shown them up for what they really are?

What a joke.

Sorry but you can't expect to rob people blind and murder them for that length of time and then pretend that the pretext you used for doing it no longer exists.

Of course race is real. As I already explained to you black and white people don't live together in nature otherwise they wouldn't be black and white people.

Nature will balance things out again over time but first white people need to learn lessons.

By that I mean they need to SHUT THEIR MOUTHS and listen to the knowledge and wisdom of other races who know more about them than they do.

White people are not made for the Sun because their skin is weak so wherever you find them in hot countries you know they don't belong there.

If they choose not to listen nature will extinguish them from those places as it is already doing now.

White people are afraid of the sun because it is their enemy. If a celestial object as powerful and neccessary to life as the sun is their enemy what does that say about them?

So you can quit with all this crap about there's no such thing as race because its just your own fear talking.

White people are like a handicapped child who cannot accept its disability so it makes a lot of noise and shows off but in the end nature has the final word.

All the 'achievements' of the white world are just this - noise on earth. White people will again be confined to Europe where they belong. That's if nature doesn't remove them entirely.

Sorry but you can't expect to rob people blind and murder them for that length of time and then pretend that the pretext you used for doing it no longer exists.

Hmm, didn't the white Europeans do that very same thing to the other white Europeans for thousands of years? Why is it most Europeans get along well now, but after only a few hundred years, the blacks can't get along with the whites?

The rest of your post was ...well, ridiculous in the extreme.

Baron Max

Total BS.

The world is not changing otherwise scientific laws would cease to function.

"The world is changing" is just a racist BS excuse not face up to the REALITY of the here and now.

All that labour you stole from Africa and all that land you stole from the AI's.

Even now - in the 21st century - the American racists on this board are incapable of accepting their own history and responsibilities.

Disgusting.

And all you do is post statistical racist BS trying to keep black people down.

After more than 500 years all you can do is regurgitate the same racist crap that the slave traders and plantation owners used.

Well you sure don't have any new ideas that's all I can say.

You're free to move back to Africa and live in the stone age the way we found blacks when we first went there. I fully accept that whites conquered north america and my responsibility is to keep it that way and keep the third world hordes out.

How do statistics keep black people down? Whose fault is it that the stats say blacks commit a lot of crime?

Native Americans were not wiped out, they were mixed out, now there are very few REAL navajo, in the tribal reservation pure sense, but there are many many Americans who have navajo blood, white, black, at this point native americans have mixed into our genetic code.

Kind of like what will happen to whites if a few hundred years at the present rate.

I did... and said "no" based on the statistics which show that there are FAR fewer blacks in the most dangerous city compared to many of the less dangerous cities. Please point out consistent correlations if you wish to even begin the process of proving something.

Re- racists - I am just commenting that every thread turns into the same thing, racists saying, "black people are bad, and white people are good", which is obviously a crock. White people have commited some of the most horrific violence, in the most savage ways on the grandest scale - asians too - you have to be blind to not see that.

What are you referring to? War? The only reason this is is because whites and asians actually invent things and societies that make war much more deadlier. About 10 years ago a bunch of blacks hacked to death 800 000 other blacks with machetes in about a week in Rwanda. Imagine what they would have done if they had WMDs.

So race is real for 500 years whilst colonialism and slavery were in full swing but now it doesn't exist because to be quite frank white peoples history has become an embarressment to them and shown them up for what they really are?

What a joke.

Sorry but you can't expect to rob people blind and murder them for that length of time and then pretend that the pretext you used for doing it no longer exists.

Of course race is real. As I already explained to you black and white people don't live together in nature otherwise they wouldn't be black and white people.

Nature will balance things out again over time but first white people need to learn lessons.

By that I mean they need to SHUT THEIR MOUTHS and listen to the knowledge and wisdom of other races who know more about them than they do.

White people are not made for the Sun because their skin is weak so wherever you find them in hot countries you know they don't belong there.

If they choose not to listen nature will extinguish them from those places as it is already doing now.

White people are afraid of the sun because it is their enemy. If a celestial object as powerful and neccessary to life as the sun is their enemy what does that say about them?

So you can quit with all this crap about there's no such thing as race because its just your own fear talking.

White people are like a handicapped child who cannot accept its disability so it makes a lot of noise and shows off but in the end nature has the final word.

All the 'achievements' of the white world are just this - noise on earth. White people will again be confined to Europe where they belong. That's if nature doesn't remove them entirely.

As much as I enjoy you attacking Time Traveller for his gross naiveity, just a few points I would like to make.

1) I'm not embarrassed or ashamed of white history, in fact I'm proud of it. What makes me ashamed and embarrassed is that way too many white people now think like time traveller which is going to lead to white collective suicide.

2) Knowledge of other races? WTF are you talking about?

3) We can live anywhere we fucking please because we invent things. We could live on the fucking moon if we wanted to, never mind parts of the planet that get a lot of Sun. Ever hear of sunscreen?

4) WTF have blacks or any other race accomplished?

[So race is real for 500 years whilst colonialism and slavery were in full swing but now it doesn't exist because to be quite frank white peoples history has become an embarressment to them and shown them up for what they really are?

What a joke.

Do not substitute emotion for logical arguement. Race is as real as money, and both were invented by the same people, to do the same thing, and people who believe in it, are enslaved by the prison of their mind.

Sorry but you can't expect to rob people blind and murder them for that length of time and then pretend that the pretext you used for doing it no longer exists.

Once again you are applying emotion to a rational issue. Race was not invented as a way to torture others, it did have an emotional element, that element was fear of difference, but the main reason it was invented was for security reasons. This system exists in India, it's a caste system, and it existed to secure the future by giving priority to family members. It was invented for economic reasons, as a way to keep money within family, but this ultimately became corrupted.

Of course race is real. As I already explained to you black and white people don't live together in nature otherwise they wouldn't be black and white people.

Race is as real as money, it's only real because you give power to paper, and you let people give you a name. Look, if you don't define yourself, someone else will. Race has nothing to do with science, it's religion, and it's based on ideology, the same ideology that India applies. If you cannot figure out what race is, you are likely racist yourself, and you actually believe that you are what others tell you. Don't you see that?


Nature will balance things out again over time but first white people need to learn lessons.
People like you need to learn, because all racists believe in the same ideology here. Look, this is a religion okay, you can say whatever you want, but if you believe in the religion, it's arguing against your own beliefs. You believe in race, if you did not believe in race, you would not have said race is real. Do you want to be a human first or do you want to be your race first? You can be both, but you have to decide which to put first, because if you put race first, you are a racist to me.


By that I mean they need to ]SHUT THEIR MOUTHS and listen to the knowledge and wisdom of other races who know more about them than they do.

You are they, they are you, you share the same religious belief in race that they have, so really I don't see what you are trying to say. What I'm trying to say is that hate has nothing to do with race, racism is a symptom of hate, it's not the generator of it. Race is just a symbol, a bunch of letters, a name, if someone calls you "nigger" or "cracker" or "chink", and you respond to it like it's your true name, you only reinforce that world view. Why don't you dress like how they want you to dress too, and go on MTV, and do the whole act? If you are going to believe you are what other people tell you that you are, without doing any research of your own, this usually means you are wide asleep.

White people are not made for the Sun because their skin is weak so wherever you find them in hot countries you know they don't belong there.

Look, if you are black, and you are saying something as stupid as this, you make your own race look bad. You are self hating, because you hate humans. Yes there are white people who hate humans too. I guess it is your destiny to hate them, as they want you to hate them, so they can hate you, and go ahead, have the hate contest. I'm not going to be involved in it. I will either love both of you, or be completely neutral and feel nothing towards either of you, which would you prefer?

I'm not going to increase global hatred, and if you don't know how emotions work, you are increasing global hatred, as a fellow human, who represents the human species, if you hate yourself so much, why blame white people as a group? You did this to yourself, humans did this to you, and regardless of what you want to think, some of you exists in white people, and some of white people exists in you.

If they choose not to listen nature will extinguish them from those places as it is already doing now.

Nature does not believe in race. Nature will wipe humans out of existance if humans hate humans past a certain point of no return.

White people are afraid of the sun because it is their enemy. If a celestial object as powerful and neccessary to life as the sun is their enemy what does that say about them?

Are you some new kinda black nazi? I've never heard any of this BS. I suggest you leave my white sisters and brothers alone. I'm saying this as a human, the sun is what we are all made of, racists, non-racists, whites and blacks. If you are stupid enough to put race before quantum physics, you are even more religiously racist than Hitler was.

You have to at least realize that we are all made up of the same energy, if you cannot figure that out you are lost. Or maybe you are just being emotional, and in this case I suggest you apologize to people who have sensitive skin.


So you can quit with all this crap about there's no such thing as race because its just your own fear talking.

It's not a fear, we are made up of atoms or we aren't. We believe in science or we don't. We believe in genetics or we believe in race, pick one, do you follow religion or do you follow science? Most people follow a little bit of both, but usually only a few extreme people follow ONLY religion.

White people are like a handicapped child who cannot accept its disability so it makes a lot of noise and shows off but in the end nature has the final word.

So your response to racism is to hate racists, what a fool you are, as racists win when you hate them, they WANT you to hate them you idiot. They hate you just for being born, and you want to respond to this by adding more hate to the pot? Don't you see that if humans go extinct it won't have anything to do with race, it will be because humans hate humans enough to wipe the species out of existance, and if you cannot see this coming you are a damn racist fool.


All the 'achievements' of the white world are just this - noise on earth. White people will again be confined to Europe where they belong. That's if nature doesn't remove them entirely.[/QUOTE]

My opinion is, people should be able to live where they want to live, with whom they want to live with. If you want to be racist, you should have freedom to think anything you want about anyone or anything, as long as you harm no one. So the poster I'm responding to, he is a perfect example of someone who has freedom to think whatever he wants, and this person wants to believe in race, as a way to get back at evil white people who don't exist anymore, but who did X Y Z to his ancestors. Look, white people did that to each others ancestors, if you are black, your Egyptian ancestors did this too, and your tribe likely did some slavery and commited some brutal acts. You are never going to make it into the future if you live in the past, and if your mind is in the past, you can just put your body in the past to. I suggest that you think toward the future, I suggest that you look up transhumanism, and learn a bit about science. Race will not last forever in this form, and the people who invented it knew all along it would never last in one form. Hitler knew it would never last in the form of simply "White" and "Black". You really need to read some of the information that is out there. Ultimately, genetic dscrimination is where it will lead. So your racial arguement is silly, unless you are rich, you likely will be a victim of genetic discrimination, and while most humans today don't know what it is, some of the people who have moved beyond race have done so because we know what the next step is after race. I can see the long view of our species and I know what the next races will be after black and white.

You'll have tall and short, fat and skinny, blonde hair will become good, blue eyes will become good, intelligence will eventually be found in genes and become good, homosexuality will eventually be cured, maybe there will be pills and vaccines to control things in the future, but if you don't even have a concept of the future because your mind is trapped in the past, you wont even be smart enough to buy stock in biotech and stem cell research companies.

Thats all I can say. Focus on our mutual human destiny, because we have some common fears like being replaced by machines, or genetic discrimination, or just running out of money.

Kind of like what will happen to whites if a few hundred years at the present rate.


If humans exist a few hundred years from now in any form, thats great. By that time humans will have complete control over their genetic code and will be able to look however they want. Humans will be able to incarnate into snakes, pigs, mice, birds, or invent new hybrid species. We can do whatever the hell we want basically. This is why I don't understand why race matters since we already have passed the species barrier with cloning and genetic technology. If we want to make a race of elves, we could. If we want to invent hobbits, we can.

As much as I enjoy you attacking Time Traveller for his gross naiveity, just a few points I would like to make.

1) I'm not embarrassed or ashamed of white history, in fact I'm proud of it. What makes me ashamed and embarrassed is that way too many white people now think like time traveller which is going to lead to white collective suicide.

2) Knowledge of other races? WTF are you talking about?

3) We can live anywhere we fucking please because we invent things. We could live on the fucking moon if we wanted to, never mind parts of the planet that get a lot of Sun. Ever hear of sunscreen?

4) WTF have blacks or any other race accomplished?


AM I the only one here who can see people as individuals not connected to some "race"? I mean, race is always being redefined, so just wait until we understand genetics.

If humans exist a few hundred years from now in any form, thats great. By that time humans will have complete control over their genetic code and will be able to look however they want. Humans will be able to incarnate into snakes, pigs, mice, birds, or invent new hybrid species. We can do whatever the hell we want basically. This is why I don't understand why race matters since we already have passed the species barrier with cloning and genetic technology. If we want to make a race of elves, we could. If we want to invent hobbits, we can.

Hmmmm, who knows what is possible in the future, but I know what's possible now and none of those things are possible or will be in the next 50 years minimum.

Hmmmm, who knows what is possible in the future, but I know what's possible now and none of those things are possible or will be in the next 50 years minimum.

I predict in the next 10 years. We already have the technology, it's just not commercial yet.

I predict in the next 10 years. We already have the technology, it's just not commercial yet.

We do not have the technology to mix humans with anything or "incarnate" humans into anything or even "fix" it so their eyes are a certain color and we won't have any of those capabilities in the next ten years either.

As much as I enjoy you attacking Time Traveller for his gross naiveity, just a few points I would like to make.

1) I'm not embarrassed or ashamed of white history, in fact I'm proud of it. What makes me ashamed and embarrassed is that way too many white people now think like time traveller which is going to lead to white collective suicide.

2) Knowledge of other races? WTF are you talking about?

3) We can live anywhere we fucking please because we invent things. We could live on the fucking moon if we wanted to, never mind parts of the planet that get a lot of Sun. Ever hear of sunscreen?

4) WTF have blacks or any other race accomplished?

You see you are concerned with preserving the white race.

How many millions of times have we heard this in history?

Since when have black people ever been concerned with preserving their race?

White is genetically recessive since you cannot go back to black. Hence white people are closer to the end of the genetic line of humanity than black people.

'Preserving the race' then comes to mean avoiding the racial extinction implied by this.

This is the biological and psychological basis of white supremacy.

But nature has determined the course of things this is why nothing can ever be done about it except acceptance of the reality of the situation

Black people contain ALL the genetic information necessary to give birth to other races. An English man and a Japanese man are more genetically similar than two Africans.

There is wisdom in this for those who wish to learn.

So you see what you have done and continue to do to black people? Nature has made them the original copies of the human species but your people - due to a lack of self-knowledge - have beaten them down to the bottom of the world.

You are so spiritually debased that you believe nature is about 'achievement'.

White achievements have been to destroy the Earth by spreading an unbalanced science and industrialisation, ie, by creating a false nature that they can live within comfortably.

Everyday we witness this destruction across the Earth in the form of famines, war, deforestation, pollution, inequality, global-warming, etc...etc....

This is all white peoples doing because they are out of balance with nature.

White people are the most artificial of people and the furthest from nature so they need to recognise this.

Trying to regain your place in nature by creating an artificial world will end up destroying nature.

There is always a balance between things.

[Race is as real as money,


You are they, they are you, you share the same religious belief in race that they have, so really I don't see what you are trying to say. .

[/B]

Europeans began the practice of paying interest on money and therefore gave it a value above nature.

Before this money was only ever a convenient medium of exchange with no intrinsic value.

You need to learn to leave non-white people alone who do not want or share your worldview.

White people are constantly forcing there way of life on others.

Nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than what they did to the AI's.

You demonstrate CLEARLY here that you do not understand what nature is.

Nature is not white technology or science.

Nature works without any need for human consciousness.

What we create with our hands or what we think is NOT nature.

You must take a back seat and let nature do the driving even if you don't like where its going.

That means you must QUIT TRYING TO FORCE OTHER PEOPLE INTO YOUR RELIGIONS AND WORLD VIEW.

Here you talk incessantly but you DO NOT LEARN!

White people are like errant children who must be taught the truth about the world.

It's like when a child grows up the parents need to discipline and instruct it so that it can take its place in society.

White people need to listen to other, much older races so that they can take their place in humanity.

Know thyself.

4) WTF have blacks or any other race accomplished?
The important question is - what have you ever accomplished?
Will you ever do anything worth talking about, or will you sit around saying, "I'm white, isn't that enough?"
Because it isn't enough.

You identify with people you are probably nothing like. Great thinking people's views have been twisted to fit racist agendas - even Nietzsche, whose ideas are held up as an ideal for misguided racists, was disgusted by the racism of the nazis.
These people were not racist because they had nothing to gain by identifying themselves with white losers.

ALSO, blame for Rwanda falls on racist hatred, you can't use an example of racism causing bloody violent deaths to promote racism, that is a joke.

You see you are concerned with preserving the white race.

How many millions of times have we heard this in history?

Since when have black people ever been concerned with preserving their race?

White is genetically recessive since you cannot go back to black. Hence white people are closer to the end of the genetic line of humanity than black people.

'Preserving the race' then comes to mean avoiding the racial extinction implied by this.

This is the biological and psychological basis of white supremacy.

But nature has determined the course of things this is why nothing can ever be done about it except acceptance of the reality of the situation

Black people contain ALL the genetic information necessary to give birth to other races. An English man and a Japanese man are more genetically similar than two Africans.



What a load of bullshit.

What a load of bullshit.

Well, yeah, but there is a very large load of it ...so that, in itself, must be pretty impressive, huh? :)

Baron Max

What a load of bullshit.

Live and learn brother...

Live and learn.

You see you are concerned with preserving the white race.

How many millions of times have we heard this in history?

Since when have black people ever been concerned with preserving their race?

White is genetically recessive since you cannot go back to black. Hence white people are closer to the end of the genetic line of humanity than black people.

'Preserving the race' then comes to mean avoiding the racial extinction implied by this.

This is the biological and psychological basis of white supremacy.

But nature has determined the course of things this is why nothing can ever be done about it except acceptance of the reality of the situation

Black people contain ALL the genetic information necessary to give birth to other races. An English man and a Japanese man are more genetically similar than two Africans.

There is wisdom in this for those who wish to learn.

So you see what you have done and continue to do to black people? Nature has made them the original copies of the human species but your people - due to a lack of self-knowledge - have beaten them down to the bottom of the world.

You are so spiritually debased that you believe nature is about 'achievement'.

White achievements have been to destroy the Earth by spreading an unbalanced science and industrialisation, ie, by creating a false nature that they can live within comfortably.

Everyday we witness this destruction across the Earth in the form of famines, war, deforestation, pollution, inequality, global-warming, etc...etc....

This is all white peoples doing because they are out of balance with nature.

White people are the most artificial of people and the furthest from nature so they need to recognise this.

Trying to regain your place in nature by creating an artificial world will end up destroying nature.

There is always a balance between things.

1) Blacks don't need to worry about going extinct, they are breeding like rats.

2) So only a white supremacist would be interested in preserving the white race? Does that mean only whale supremacists are interested in preserving whales?

3) Overpopulation is the cause of all environmental problems and since whites are the only ones who are decreasing in numbers, that means it is non-whites who are the problem.

Europeans began the practice of paying interest on money and therefore gave it a value above nature.

Before this money was only ever a convenient medium of exchange with no intrinsic value.

You need to learn to leave non-white people alone who do not want or share your worldview.

White people are constantly forcing there way of life on others.

Nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than what they did to the AI's.

You demonstrate CLEARLY here that you do not understand what nature is.

Nature is not white technology or science.

Nature works without any need for human consciousness.

What we create with our hands or what we think is NOT nature.

You must take a back seat and let nature do the driving even if you don't like where its going.

That means you must QUIT TRYING TO FORCE OTHER PEOPLE INTO YOUR RELIGIONS AND WORLD VIEW.

Here you talk incessantly but you DO NOT LEARN!

White people are like errant children who must be taught the truth about the world.

It's like when a child grows up the parents need to discipline and instruct it so that it can take its place in society.

White people need to listen to other, much older races so that they can take their place in humanity.

Know thyself.

Who the fuck is forcing non-whites to adopt western ways? Who the fuck is coming to the first world by the boatload and who is not going to the third world?

The important question is - what have you ever accomplished?
Will you ever do anything worth talking about, or will you sit around saying, "I'm white, isn't that enough?"
Because it isn't enough.

You identify with people you are probably nothing like. Great thinking people's views have been twisted to fit racist agendas - even Nietzsche, whose ideas are held up as an ideal for misguided racists, was disgusted by the racism of the nazis.
These people were not racist because they had nothing to gain by identifying themselves with white losers.

ALSO, blame for Rwanda falls on racist hatred, you can't use an example of racism causing bloody violent deaths to promote racism, that is a joke.

I wasn't using Rwanda as an example to promote racism, I was using Rwanda as an example that non-whites are not the saints deluded white people think they are.

I wasn't using Rwanda as an example to promote racism, I was using Rwanda as an example that non-whites are not the saints deluded white people think they are.
You used an example of racist bloodshed to support your idea that whites are better than blacks.
It is a perfect example of what racism does - it takes small differences in people and turns them into an excuse for abuse and violence - those rwandans were killing people who looked different than themselves, preserving their "race" and controlling the power structure.

My point was that you used an example that shows racism as the ugly thing it is.

You used an example of racist bloodshed to support your idea that whites are better than blacks.
It is a perfect example of what racism does - it takes small differences in people and turns them into an excuse for abuse and violence - those rwandans were killing people who looked different than themselves, preserving their "race" and controlling the power structure.

My point was that you used an example that shows racism as the ugly thing it is.

Ah yes, whenever the truth is told about minorities that doesn't put them in a flattering light it's evil racism. When other unpleasant truths are told about whitey though no problem.

As for your concern about certain ideas leading to violence, you have it backwards. When bullshit that we are all equal is espoused, it brings up resentment among blacks who are told they are equal and yet hold an inferior place in society.

1) Blacks don't need to worry about going extinct, they are breeding like rats.

2) So only a white supremacist would be interested in preserving the white race? Does that mean only whale supremacists are interested in preserving whales?

3) Overpopulation is the cause of all environmental problems and since whites are the only ones who are decreasing in numbers, that means it is non-whites who are the problem.

But black people have never worried about this even when they were being transported across the Atlantic on slave ships not knowing wether they were going to live or die.

Neither did they worry when they were being colonised or worked to death on the plantations.

You see they always had a handle on white people.

They were never afraid of white people, just had to tolerate the situation till it all blew over.

So today you see black people have come through all the horrific things that have been done to them and their communities are still intact and growing stronger.

Like I said, black people have never felt the need to shout about themselves from the rooftops.

They were always on top anyway just white people never realised it.

Of course whales don't go around trying to preserve themselves.

Only white people are interested in 'preserving' nature because for them its such a fundamental issue to their own existence.

Overpopulation is not the cause of problems.

Having lots of children is a sign of a healthy physical and mental life.

Humans are part of nature - that's not the problem.

The problem is materialism which demands nature be destroyed so that people can have everything they desire.

This leads to selfishness and consequently people don't want the burden of children and so you arrive at where white people are at today.

Selfish, greedy and declining in numbers.

Ask not if he is racist, ask if he is right. It is an interesting point you brought up. The "mixed" cities at the top are probably more dangerous because they have more hispanics in them and if there is one thing black criminals like more than committting crime against other blacks, it's committing crimes against other races.

How do you know this? That is complete BS.

You see you are concerned with preserving the white race.

How many millions of times have we heard this in history?

Since when have black people ever been concerned with preserving their race?

White is genetically recessive since you cannot go back to black. Hence white people are closer to the end of the genetic line of humanity than black people.

'Preserving the race' then comes to mean avoiding the racial extinction implied by this.

This is the biological and psychological basis of white supremacy.

But nature has determined the course of things this is why nothing can ever be done about it except acceptance of the reality of the situation

Black people contain ALL the genetic information necessary to give birth to other races. An English man and a Japanese man are more genetically similar than two Africans.

There is wisdom in this for those who wish to learn.

So you see what you have done and continue to do to black people? Nature has made them the original copies of the human species but your people - due to a lack of self-knowledge - have beaten them down to the bottom of the world.

You are so spiritually debased that you believe nature is about 'achievement'.

White achievements have been to destroy the Earth by spreading an unbalanced science and industrialisation, ie, by creating a false nature that they can live within comfortably.

Everyday we witness this destruction across the Earth in the form of famines, war, deforestation, pollution, inequality, global-warming, etc...etc....

This is all white peoples doing because they are out of balance with nature.

White people are the most artificial of people and the furthest from nature so they need to recognise this.

Trying to regain your place in nature by creating an artificial world will end up destroying nature.

There is always a balance between things.

Finally you made a rational arguement. Maybe you are right, but in the current world, white people are responsible for the species, the future, or the extinction, as whoever is in control makes all the decisions. So you are correct, if we do go extinct it will likely be someone white who creates the weapon to drive us into extinction. This does not mean most white people are busy trying to drive the human race into extinction, I think the majority of white people are like the majority of all people and just want to survive and have a good life. So really, none of us really make the decisions as to when we go extinct, but as you say while it will likely be a white person to push the extinction button, it will also likely be a white person who saves the planet.

Great power requires greater responsiblity, we should cherish the responsible white man.

, I think the majority of white people are like the majority of all people and just want to survive and have a good life. So really, none of us really make the decisions as to when we go extinct, but as you say while it will likely be a white person to push the extinction button, it will also likely be a white person who saves the planet.

Great power requires greater responsiblity, we should cherish the responsible white man.

Brother,

White people do not have the power to make humanity extinct.

Let us hope they discover who they really are before they extinguish themselves.

They are a lost people who have become disconnected from the other races of man.

The path back into nature is the way opened by the invisible and the unknowable.

Take this path and they are reunited with their fellow man and their own nature.

Keep following the road of materialism and they are doomed on this Earth.

Geez, Arkman, you are one truly fucked up individual, ain't you?

If you go around spouting that kinda' bullshit in the real world, they're gonna' throw you in a small padded room somewhere to protect you from yourself!!!!

You're also one of the most racist sunuvabitches that I've ever heard or read. James R. would ban you in the blink of an eye if you were talkin' about blacks as you've been talkin' about whites. James? James?? Where the fuck are you, James??????

Baron Max

You're also one of the most racist sunuvabitches that I've ever heard or read. James R. would ban you in the blink of an eye if you were talkin' about blacks as you've been talkin' about whites. James? James?? Where the fuck are you, James??????
Baron Max

Bullsh*t Baron Max.

You only think I'm so racist because I've been talking some HOME TRUTHS about the white brethren.

You never heard that before eh?

You all out of balance with yourself.

You've got to learn there's no two ways about it.

I'm spreading knowledge and helping you here the same way blacks have been supporting your sorry asses for centuries with their blood and sweat and yet never lifted a finger against you.

You see nature's just going to swallow your people whole unless you wake up.

All you do is call me a racist for helping you here.

You should be thanking me.

I'm waiting to see if you've got any humility at all Baron.

You only think I'm so racist because I've been talking some HOME TRUTHS about the white brethren.

Ain't that exactly what all racists say about their particular "enemy"? Why is your "truth" so different to their "truth"?

Where's James R.???? James, where the fuck are you? Why don't you do something about this racist prick???

Baron Max

How do you know this? That is complete BS.

I know this because blacks commit crimes against whites in excess of what statistics say they should therefore implying they prefer to go after whitey than one of the bruthas.

Furthermore, some black criminals are blatant enough to admit they target whites.

I know this because blacks commit crimes against whites in excess of what statistics say they should therefore implying they prefer to go after whitey than one of the bruthas.

Furthermore, some black criminals are blatant enough to admit they target whites.


Are you going to say the KKK were not commiting crimes when they were lynching people?

The important question is - what have you ever accomplished?
(R)Amen!

Those who rest on their backsides while discoursing on what their ancestors accomplished (the 'glorious past' seen so often in romanticism) deserve far less respect than those without a distant 'glorious past' who actually do something useful now.

As I said earlier, Count Sudoku and Arkman deserve each other. Should the rest of us really be intruding on their intimate little discussion? :p

Are you going to say the KKK were not commiting crimes when they were lynching people?

He was talking of the present, you're talking of the past. And worse, you're talking of a past where virtually none of the participants are left alive ....so would you persecute the offspring for the sins of their fathers?

Baron Max

Are you going to say the KKK were not commiting crimes when they were lynching people?

WTF does the KKK have to do with racist blacks targeting white people for crime? When the KKK lynched blacks, yes they were acting in a racist manner targeting black people. FYI, blacks kill more whites every year 6000+ than the number of blacks the KKK lynched in their entire history combined. Furthermore, no doubt at least some of the blacks that were lynched had what was coming to them whereas probably very few of the whites killed every year did anything other then be at the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong skin color.

(R)Amen!

Those who rest on their backsides while discoursing on what their ancestors accomplished (the 'glorious past' seen so often in romanticism) deserve far less respect than those without a distant 'glorious past' who actually do something useful now.

As I said earlier, Count Sudoku and Arkman deserve each other. Should the rest of us really be intruding on their intimate little discussion? :p

What have you accomplished? Are we only interested in the opinions of less than 1% of the population?

Bullsh*t Baron Max.

You only think I'm so racist because I've been talking some HOME TRUTHS about the white brethren.

You never heard that before eh?

You all out of balance with yourself.

You've got to learn there's no two ways about it.

I'm spreading knowledge and helping you here the same way blacks have been supporting your sorry asses for centuries with their blood and sweat and yet never lifted a finger against you.

You see nature's just going to swallow your people whole unless you wake up.

All you do is call me a racist for helping you here.

You should be thanking me.

I'm waiting to see if you've got any humility at all Baron.

As a coloured person and one of African ancestry, I can say with all honesty that you not only annoy the hell out of me, but I also find you as racist as Count-Sudoku.

Furthermore, no doubt at least some of the blacks that were lynched had what was coming to them whereas probably very few of the whites killed every year did anything other then be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Oh you have got to be kidding me! Please tell me you did not just say that. You seriously think someone, say James Byrd Jnr as an example, deserved what he got? So how did those blacks deserve their lynching? Is it because they are black and possibly in the wrong place at the wrong time when one of them dared to look at a white woman on the street (as an example of why some blacks were lynched in the past)? Did the black teenager for example deserve to be lynched because some white folk just didn't like how he looked at their daughter? Those are the kind of reasons blacks were lynched in the past you god damn racist prat.

Do you honestly think that crimes against blacks is somehow less 'bad' as crimes against whites? That the blacks somehow deserve it because they are black and must somehow deserve what they get, while a white person who has a crime committed against them is somehow less deserving of said crime because they are white? Crime is crime. A white man beating a black man is just as bad as a black man beating a white man.

WTF does the KKK have to do with racist blacks targeting white people for crime? When the KKK lynched blacks, yes they were acting in a racist manner targeting black people. FYI, blacks kill more whites every year 6000+ than the number of blacks the KKK lynched in their entire history combined. Furthermore, no doubt at least some of the blacks that were lynched had what was coming to them whereas probably very few of the whites killed every year did anything other then be at the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong skin color.


Ok you are the most racist person on this forum, you win the award, you have the title of sciforum champion of racism.

Oh you have got to be kidding me! Please tell me you did not just say that. You seriously think someone, say James Byrd Jnr as an example, deserved what he got? So how did those blacks deserve their lynching? Is it because they are black and possibly in the wrong place at the wrong time when one of them dared to look at a white woman on the street (as an example of why some blacks were lynched in the past)? Did the black teenager for example deserve to be lynched because some white folk just didn't like how he looked at their daughter? Those are the kind of reasons blacks were lynched in the past you god damn racist prat.

Do you honestly think that crimes against blacks is somehow less 'bad' as crimes against whites? That the blacks somehow deserve it because they are black and must somehow deserve what they get, while a white person who has a crime committed against them is somehow less deserving of said crime because they are white? Crime is crime. A white man beating a black man is just as bad as a black man beating a white man.

No, crime is not crime, in Count's world, white people should have free reign to commit any and all crimes against non-whites. Jesus Christ, we arent even lynching our pet cats and dogs, why would it ever be okay to lynch a person?

Ok you are the most racist person on this forum, you win the award, you have the title of sciforum champion of racism.

I don't know if I deserve that honor, however I would like the honor of being the best debater of the "racist" point of view. Since in your mind, the two are probably one and the same, I accept your compliment.

No, crime is not crime, in Count's world, white people should have free reign to commit any and all crimes against non-whites. Jesus Christ, we arent even lynching our pet cats and dogs, why would it ever be okay to lynch a person?

I have never said that white people should have free reign to commit "crime" against anyone. As to why it would be okay to lynch someone, well let's just pretend some black guy raped and killed your daughter. Would you object if a white mob lynched him (assuming he was actually guilty) because I know I wouldn't.

Oh you have got to be kidding me! Please tell me you did not just say that. You seriously think someone, say James Byrd Jnr as an example, deserved what he got? So how did those blacks deserve their lynching? Is it because they are black and possibly in the wrong place at the wrong time when one of them dared to look at a white woman on the street (as an example of why some blacks were lynched in the past)? Did the black teenager for example deserve to be lynched because some white folk just didn't like how he looked at their daughter? Those are the kind of reasons blacks were lynched in the past you god damn racist prat.

Do you honestly think that crimes against blacks is somehow less 'bad' as crimes against whites? That the blacks somehow deserve it because they are black and must somehow deserve what they get, while a white person who has a crime committed against them is somehow less deserving of said crime because they are white? Crime is crime. A white man beating a black man is just as bad as a black man beating a white man.

I don't believe anyone should be lynched or even harmed in any manner (including verbal abuse) for the color of their skin. Most of the blacks lynched in the past were lynched because they were accused of rape and/or murder and in some cases they were guilty and in some they were not. Blacks were not just randomly singled out and lynched for no reason unlike whites who are randomly and singled out by groups of blacks for no reason and killed in varous ways. Furthermore, more whites are killed by blacks every year than the total number of blacks lynched in the entire history of the country. The media loves to suppress black on white crime and play up the rare instances of white on black crime. This is why I bet hardly any of you have heard about the "zebra killings" in San Francisco

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=3693

MOST SERIAL KILLINGS in America take on a life of their own through movies, books and documentaries. The crimes of Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer and The Son of Sam are still well remembered years after they were committed. Yet there is one set of serial killings that has been almost completely forgotten and is rarely mentioned in popular culture.

The Zebra Killings occurred in the San Francisco bay area between 1972 and 1974 and left 71 people dead. They were dubbed the Zebra Killings because of the radio channel used by the police investigating the case (channel Z). The name would take on a more sinister meaning as it became apparent that a group of blacks was systematically stalking and killing whites simply because of the color of their skin.

or the wichita massacre in Kansas

http://www.wichita-massacre.com/

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1908

On September 9, Reginald Carr and his brother Jonathan go on trial for what has become known as the Wichita Massacre. The two black men are accused of a week-long crime spree that culminated in the quadruple homicide of four young whites in a snowy soccer field in Wichita, Kansas. In all, the Carr brothers robbed, raped or murdered seven people. They face 58 counts each, ranging from first-degree murder, rape, and robbery to animal cruelty. Prosecutors will seek the death penalty.

- snip -

As for James Byrd, I assume he is the black guy who was killed by being dragged by a truck, I totally disapprove of that crime and the perp should hang for his actions. His actions were a response to being continually gangraped in prison by blacks but he chose the wrong target upon release and targeted an innocent black man. Now if he had dragged one of the rapists behind his truck, that I would have no problem with.

I don't believe anyone should be lynched or even harmed in any manner (including verbal abuse) for the color of their skin. Most of the blacks lynched in the past were lynched because they were accused of rape and/or murder and in some cases they were guilty and in some they were not. Blacks were not just randomly singled out and lynched for no reason unlike whites who are randomly and singled out by groups of blacks for no reason and killed in varous ways.
Hmm really?

The causes assigned by whites in justification or explanation of lynching Black people include everything from major crimes to minor offenses. In many cases, Blacks were lynched for no reason at all other than race prejudice. Southern folk tradition has held that Negroes were lynched only for the crimes of raping white women—”the nameless crime”—and murder. However, the statistics do not sustain this impression.

The accusations against persons lynched, according to the Tuskegee Institute records for the years 1882 to 1951, were: in 41 per cent for felonious assault, 19.2 per cent for rape, 6.1 per cent for attempted rape, 4.9 per cent for robbery and theft, 1.8 per cent for insult to white persons, and 22.7 per cent for miscellaneous offenses or no offense at a 11.5 In the last category are all sorts of trivial “offenses” such as “disputing with a white man,” attempting to register to vote, “unpopularity”, self-defense, testifying against a white man, “asking a white woman in marriage”, and “peeping in a window.”

Being charged with a crime did not necessarily mean that the person charged was guilty of the crime. Mob victims ware often known to have been innocent of misdeeds. A special study by Arthur Raper of nearly one hundred lynchings convinced him that approximately one-third of the victims were falsely accused.6 Occasionally mobs were mistaken in the identity of their victims.

The racist myth of Negroes’ uncontrollable desire to rape white women acquired a strategic position in the defense of the lynching practice. However, homicides and felonious assault, not rape, were most frequently cited in explanation of mob action. Next in importance, from the viewpoint of number of cases, is rape and attempted rape—25.3 per cent of the victims. Concerning this figure, Myrdal states: “There is much reason to believe that this figure has been inflated by the fact that a mob which makes the accusation of rape is secure from any further investigation; by the broad Southern definition of rape to include all sexual relations between Negro men and white women; and by the psychopathic fears of white women in their contacts with Negro men.”7 Another fact which refutes the fallacy of rape as being the primary cause of Negro lynchings is that between 1882 and 1927, 92 women were victims of lynch mobs: 76 Negro and 16 white.8 Certainly they could not have been rapists.
Link (http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html)

Interesting how any sexual relation between a black man and a white woman was defined as rape by the law, regardless of whether the woman was a willing participant or not. Therefore, even consentual sex between a black man and a white woman would automatically be constituted as being a rape and the black man would face a death by lynching. And you assume that some deserved it? You honestly think anyone deserved this kind of treatment? You wouldn't do this to an animal, but you think that some black people might have deserved this:

One account from The Springfield Weekly Republican of April 1899 reports, "Before the body was cool, it was cut to pieces, the bones were crushed into small bits...small pieces of bones went for twenty-five cents and a bit of the liver crisply cooked sold for ten cents." The crowds watching this atrocity struggled to obtain pieces of the burnt person. Ida B. Wells-Barnett attributes this new coverage that gives every possible excuse for lynching as an attempt to "palliate their own crime but at the same time to prove the Negro a moral monster and unworthy of the respect and sympathy of the civilized world."
Link (http://www.tcnj.edu/~fisherc/lynching.html)

Or this:

Most of the lynchings were by hanging or shooting, or both. However, many were of a more hideous nature—burning at the stake, maiming, dismemberment, castration, and other brutal methods of physical torture. Lynching therefore was a cruel combination of racism and sadism, which was utilized primarily to sustain the caste system in the South. Many white people believed that Negroes could only be controlled by fear. To them, lynching was seen as the most effective means of control.

Link (http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html)
Please. If you think anyone deserves this kind of treatment, you are one sick individual.

Furthermore, more whites are killed by blacks every year than the total number of blacks lynched in the entire history of the country.
Looking a the number of murder victims as sited by the US Census Bureau for 2003 (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/crimes_and_crime_rates/), 6,966 whites as compared to 6,192 blacks, and the total number of recorded lynchings between the years of 1882 and 1951 amounted to 4,730, a figure that does not take into account the fact that many lynchings were not recorded and also not all States in the US defined lynching in the same manner.

The reason for the discrepancies in these figures is due in part to different conceptions of what actually constituted a lynching, and errors in the figures.
Link (http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html)


Now as to your point, more blacks were also murdered in 2003 than the total number of people lynched in the US in recorded history. So what is your point exactly?

Now if you look at the figures reported by the Census Bureau for the number of hate crimes from the Statistical Abstract: Law Enforcement, Courts, & Prisons: Crimes and Crime Rates for 2003 (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/crimes_and_crime_rates/), you will find that crimes against blacks far outnumber the number of crimes against whites.

So again your point?

The Census Bureau also reported that in 2003, 301,200 whites were detained or jailed as opposed to 271,000 blacks (figures gotten from Statistical Abstract: Law Enforcement, Courts, & Prisons: Correctional Facilities, Prisoners from the Jail Inmates by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1990 to 2003 Link. (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/correctional_facilities_prisoners/)

As for James Byrd, I assume he is the black guy who was killed by being dragged by a truck, I totally disapprove of that crime and the perp should hang for his actions. His actions were a response to being continually gangraped in prison by blacks but he chose the wrong target upon release and targeted an innocent black man. Now if he had dragged one of the rapists behind his truck, that I would have no problem with.
You don't get it do you? There is NO justification for doing something like that to any living creature.

Hmm really?


Interesting how any sexual relation between a black man and a white woman was defined as rape by the law, regardless of whether the woman was a willing participant or not. Therefore, even consentual sex between a black man and a white woman would automatically be constituted as being a rape and the black man would face a death by lynching. And you assume that some deserved it? You honestly think anyone deserved this kind of treatment? You wouldn't do this to an animal, but you think that some black people might have deserved this:

Yeah, I saw the stats and as I said some blacks were lynched who were totally innocent and some were lynched who were guilty or rape and/or murder.


Or this:


Please. If you think anyone deserves this kind of treatment, you are one sick individual.

Let me tell you something pal, the kind of treatment that guy got is nothing compared to the kind of treatment I would give to some of the motherfuckers we have in jail.



Looking a the number of murder victims as sited by the US Census Bureau for 2003 (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/crimes_and_crime_rates/), 6,966 whites as compared to 6,192 blacks, and the total number of recorded lynchings between the years of 1882 and 1951 amounted to 4,730, a figure that does not take into account the fact that many lynchings were not recorded and also not all States in the US defined lynching in the same manner.


Now as to your point, more blacks were also murdered in 2003 than the total number of people lynched in the US in recorded history. So what is your point exactly?

My point was that more whites are killed by blacks every fucking year than all the black people lynched in the history of the country. Oh, I also noticed that according to the stats more whites were lynched than blacks.



Now if you look at the figures reported by the Census Bureau for the number of hate crimes from the Statistical Abstract: Law Enforcement, Courts, & Prisons: Crimes and Crime Rates for 2003 (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/crimes_and_crime_rates/), you will find that crimes against blacks far outnumber the number of crimes against whites.

So again your point?

More crimes are committed against whites and almost all the crime committed against blacks is done by other blacks.


The Census Bureau also reported that in 2003, 301,200 whites were detained or jailed as opposed to 271,000 blacks (figures gotten from Statistical Abstract: Law Enforcement, Courts, & Prisons: Correctional Facilities, Prisoners from the Jail Inmates by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1990 to 2003 Link. (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/correctional_facilities_prisoners/)


You don't get it do you? There is NO justification for doing something like that to any living creature.

The death penalty is too lenient for some crimes in my opinion.

Go look up the wichita massacre. A bullet in the head for those scumbags is way too lenient. If it was up to me, they would be tortured as painfully and for as long as possible.

Oh, I also noticed that according to the stats more whites were lynched than blacks.
You also cannot read..

4,730 people were lynched in the United States: 3,437 Negro and 1,293 white.
Link (http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html)

You were saying?

More crimes are committed against whites and almost all the crime committed against blacks is done by other blacks.

You have the statistics from reputable sites (such as the Census Bureau or other government recognised sites) to back up your claims exactly? You know, that 'most' crimes against whites and "all" crimes against blacks is committed by other blacks?

The death penalty is too lenient for some crimes in my opinion.
I agree. It's a shame that all those people who were guilty of lynching people in the past or who participated all got away with murder, isn't it?

Go look up the wichita massacre. A bullet in the head for those scumbags is way too lenient. If it was up to me, they would be tortured as painfully and for as long as possible.
As equally disgusting as crimes by Dahmer, Manson, or other violent killers. Their race or colour does not make their crime any worse than others. That is what you seem to fail to recognise. A black murderer is just as bad as a white murderer. A black rapist is just as bad as a white rapist. Crime is crime, regardless of race, creed or colour.

You also cannot read..

Whoops, read too fast. So, 4730 lynchings and about 7000 white murders a year, probably of which 4000+ are committed by blacks. Sounds about right.


You were saying?


You have the statistics from reputable sites (such as the Census Bureau or other government recognised sites) to back up your claims exactly? You know, that 'most' crimes against whites and "all" crimes against blacks is committed by other blacks?

I wouldn't say most crimes committed against whites are done by blacks, but I would say that most crimes committed against blacks are done by other blacks.

As for your reputable site, my guess is that any site that publishes the "truth" would not be considered reputable by you. To quote someone else...

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Lbl/Lbl-VitalFactsYouNeedToKnow.html

I said earlier that I could prove that the 'racists' are right in one single sentence. My proof stems from the fact that racial matters are never genuinely debated today, because the only thing you ever see in the major media is the politically-correct 'anti-racist' viewpoint. The 'other side' is never allowed to make its case, ie, THE 'RACIST' SIDE IS SUPPRESSED. And you sure as hell can't have a debate about race if one of the sides is never allowed to speak. So here is the one-sentence proof that the 'racists' are right:

THERE IS NO REASON TO SUPPRESS A VIEWPOINT UNLESS IT IS TRUE, because a false viewpoint can easily be combatted with facts and logic, while truth cannot be combatted except by lies which are vulnerable to refutation.

As to the first objection, I can assure you that the facts cited here are truly facts, and that they may be verified by checking the very large collection of articles in the Articles of Others section (accessible from the Home Page). These articles are arranged by subject matter and are carefully titled according to content -- conditions which should make it easy to verify any particular fact, usually with several sources.

I agree. It's a shame that all those people who were guilty of lynching people in the past or who participated all got away with murder, isn't it?

Well some innocent people were no doubt lynched, I told you that the guy who killed Byrd should hang for what he did.


As equally disgusting as crimes by Dahmer, Manson, or other violent killers. Their race or colour does not make their crime any worse than others. That is what you seem to fail to recognise. A black murderer is just as bad as a white murderer. A black rapist is just as bad as a white rapist. Crime is crime, regardless of race, creed or colour.

Did I say let Manson and others walk because they are white? Not all murders are equally bad. Some are a lot worse than others and the punishment should reflect that.

I don't know if I deserve that honor, however I would like the honor of being the best debater of the "racist" point of view.
If you earned anything it would be dishonor, and in order to be the "best" you would have to use some statistics that relate to reality.
FYI, blacks kill more whites every year 6000+
Interesting, since 86% of white victims of homicide were killed by whites, and about 15,000 people are murdered every year in the usa. Over twice as many blacks are killed as compared to whites. That would make it about 750 whites murdered by blacks, hispanics, asians, and others, and about 4250 whites murdered by whites. Also about 9400 blacks killed by blacks and 600 blacks killed by whites, hispanics, etc.

From 1976 to 2004 --
86% of white victims were killed by whites
94% of black victims were killed by blacks http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

If you are going to compare world statistics of black on white homicide you will have to count world statistics of white on black murder, by lynching or otherwise, not just blacks lynched by the kkk.

Come on. It is more dangerous to be black and walk around a black neighborhood, than it is to be white and walk in a black neighborhood.
Where do you get this white fear, from a wormhole into another dimension?

P.S. Speaking of manson, gacy, et. al. - more serial killers, the worst offenders of all, are white.

If you earned anything it would be dishonor, and in order to be the "best" you would have to use some statistics that relate to reality.

Interesting, since 86% of white victims of homicide were killed by whites, and about 15,000 people are murdered every year in the usa. Over twice as many blacks are killed as compared to whites. That would make it about 750 whites murdered by blacks, hispanics, asians, and others, and about 4250 whites murdered by whites. Also about 9400 blacks killed by blacks and 600 blacks killed by whites, hispanics, etc.

Wait wait wait, where do you get the idea that twice as many blacks are killed as whites? It says 51% of all homicide victims are white at the very top. Furthermore, the murders we are talking about are random crime not lover's quarrels or family arguments or people killing their own kids. I for one do not have to worry about being killed by my kids or parents or spouse for that matter. The statistics the DOJ put out are intentionally made convoluted to cover up the huge disparites in interracial criminal activity. You will note that 52% of all murders were done by blacks and 46% done by whites even though blacks are only 13% of the population at most.

If you are going to compare world statistics of black on white homicide you will have to count world statistics of white on black murder, by lynching or otherwise, not just blacks lynched by the kkk.

We are concerned with recent American crime stats. If you want to see what blacks are doing to whites in South Africa go check out

http://southafricaiscrap.blogspot.com/
http://www.africancrisis.org/

Come on. It is more dangerous to be black and walk around a black neighborhood, than it is to be white and walk in a black neighborhood.
Where do you get this white fear, from a wormhole into another dimension?

Are you fucking nuts? A white person that walks through a black neighbourhood is just asking for trouble.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/09/police_failed_h.php


The Daley administration is stonewalling the case of Christina Eilman, the blond, white and bipolar California woman released from a police lockup at 51st and Wentworth after an episode at Midway Airport in May.

Police left her to fend for herself.

She couldn’t.

And now City Hall is fighting the release of interviews that would show how police allowed her to leave, to walk alone in a neighborhood where, residents told me Wednesday, she had no chance.

In the past, Mayor Richard Daley has been eager to publicly hold his Police Department up to ridicule, when it served his political interests and when the cops were blue shirts with no clout.

But then the victims were black and Christina is not, and he’s running for re-election.

What’s odd is the deafening silence from the usual suspects who complain about mistreatment by police.



P.S. Speaking of manson, gacy, et. al. - more serial killers, the worst offenders of all, are white.

The worst offenders that you know of are white plenty of black crimes do not make the national media because they are covered up. Go check out zebra killings and wichita massacre for proof.

I think I made a mistake if I said that blacks kill more whites than whites do...

http://www.amren.com/newstore/cart.php?page=color_of_crime

Interracial Crime

• Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.

Violent crime does not mean murder only. I picked up the idea somewhere that blacks killed more whites every year than all the blacks ever lynched. That doesn't seem possible based on the evidence so if I find that source again I'll have to question it. (Maybe I read it wrong).

Covered up? By who? By what? The black government?

Now we get to hear conspiracies about the black world government taking over the world and covering up the secret black crimes.

This is over the top, but so is your arguement.

Even if ALL the people murdered in the usa were white, only about 3000 could have been killed by blacks, according to the dept of justice. Your "6000+" is IMPOSSIBLE.
I suppose you have a source which is more informed and less biased than the dept of justice - maybe that racist football website?

The worst offenders that you know of are white plenty of black crimes do not make the national media because they are covered up. Go check out zebra killings and wichita massacre for proof.
Do you think those incidents you mention were taken out of the statistics used which show that more multiple murders and serial murders are committed by whites? The statistics are that the animals who commit serial murders are most often white. Of course this reflects the population, but it also reflects on the society we have created, and the point that whites, although as a "race", more highly educated and paid, have not risen beyond anyone of lower societal levels in their ability to kill senselessly, and in ways which belie their humanity more than any single violent murder ever could.

edit - i didn't see your retraction of 6000+ murders until after I posted this, but I am glad to see your reading comprehension is improving.

Even if ALL the people murdered in the usa were white, only about 3000 could have been killed by blacks, according to the dept of justice. Your "6000+" is IMPOSSIBLE.
I suppose you have a source which is more informed and less biased than the dept of justice - maybe that racist football website?


Do you think those incidents you mention were taken out of the statistics used which show that more multiple murders and serial murders are committed by whites? The statistics are that the animals who commit serial murders are most often white. Of course this reflects the population, but it also reflects on the society we have created, and the point that whites, although as a "race", more highly educated and paid, have not risen beyond anyone of lower societal levels in their ability to kill senselessly, and in ways which belie their humanity more than any single violent murder ever could.


I don't think the count could possibly be serious. Everyone knows that white people are better at murdering than black people, just look at the results of all the wars, all of them. Name one time when black people, or native americans, or anyone really, commited mass murder?

I guess you can say it's happening now in Darfur, but this is very recent, and it still does not compare to world wars. If anyone kills you, chances are it will be someone who looks like you. It's almost always that people who look like you are the biggest threat, it's almost never a situation where hoardes of Asians or Blacks come running for the suburbs to set it on fire, even during the LA riots this did not happen. I've never once seen a riot situation where the poor decided to have a gang uprising and target mansions and hollywood. It's not going to happen because there just arent that many black people in this country, and all the angry black people are already in jail on drug charges.

Covered up? By who? By what? The black government?

Now we get to hear conspiracies about the black world government taking over the world and covering up the secret black crimes.

This is over the top, but so is your arguement.

Well, go check out the zebra killings and wichita massacre on google and then you tell me why they aren't common knowledge.

I never said it was being covered up by "the black world government" or "the government" I said (or at least meant to said) by the media.

Speaking of which, here's another example where Newsweek had different covers of their magazine for North America and another for the rest of the world.

http://tinyurl.com/rg767

Even if ALL the people murdered in the usa were white, only about 3000 could have been killed by blacks, according to the dept of justice. Your "6000+" is IMPOSSIBLE.
I suppose you have a source which is more informed and less biased than the dept of justice - maybe that racist football website?


Do you think those incidents you mention were taken out of the statistics used which show that more multiple murders and serial murders are committed by whites? The statistics are that the animals who commit serial murders are most often white. Of course this reflects the population, but it also reflects on the society we have created, and the point that whites, although as a "race", more highly educated and paid, have not risen beyond anyone of lower societal levels in their ability to kill senselessly, and in ways which belie their humanity more than any single violent murder ever could.

edit - i didn't see your retraction of 6000+ murders until after I posted this, but I am glad to see your reading comprehension is improving.

The last statistics I've seen on serial murders were that blacks were slightly overrepresented and whites slightly underrepresented by population which is totally consistent with whites committing most serial murders as they are most of the population. The 6000 murders of whites by blacks a year I'm not sure where I picked up and I do remember not seeing any stats to go with it so I will be more careful in the future. That there are 15 000 murders and more than half are committed by 13% of the population (blacks) however can no longer be disputed by anyone as you have demonstrated with the DOJ statistics you yourself posted and which the stats I have just posted are derived from.

I don't think the count could possibly be serious. Everyone knows that white people are better at murdering than black people, just look at the results of all the wars, all of them. Name one time when black people, or native americans, or anyone really, commited mass murder

Remember that little thing in Rwanda last decade? 800 000 killed in a week with machetes.

I guess you can say it's happening now in Darfur, but this is very recent, and it still does not compare to world wars. If anyone kills you, chances are it will be someone who looks like you. It's almost always that people who look like you are the biggest threat, it's almost never a situation where hoardes of Asians or Blacks come running for the suburbs to set it on fire, even during the LA riots this did not happen. I've never once seen a riot situation where the poor decided to have a gang uprising and target mansions and hollywood. It's not going to happen because there just arent that many black people in this country, and all the angry black people are already in jail on drug charges.

Tell that to the Korean shopowners in LA or Reginald Denny or any of the white people trapped in New Orleans. What you just posted actually is a good argument for whites to segregate themselves away from blacks so that when blacks riot they won't be around.

Remember that little thing in Rwanda last decade? 800 000 killed in a week with machetes.



Tell that to the Korean shopowners in LA or Reginald Denny or any of the white people trapped in New Orleans. What you just posted actually is a good argument for whites to segregate themselves away from blacks so that when blacks riot they won't be around.


Now you want to bring New Orleans into it? There was no riot in New Orleans.

Now you want to bring New Orleans into it? There was no riot in New Orleans.

There was no wave of violence and looting immediately after Katrina? Fine, it wasn't a riot, it was...the anarchy that took place in black New Orleans and didn't take place in the other devestated areas that were mainly populated by whites.

The last statistics I've seen on serial murders were that blacks were slightly overrepresented and whites slightly underrepresented by population which is totally consistent with whites committing most serial murders as they are most of the population.
The only thing I've seen is that whites are equally represented - socially blessed and genetically cursed, according to your views, when it comes to THE most horrific murders in america. Do you understand my point at all?
These are people with better societal upbringing, on average, yet they are equally represented when it comes to these horrific crimes. What does that say for your idea of superiority?

And stop talking about how racism was responsible for killing a multitude of blacks in rwanda - without viewpoints like yours they never would have been able to energize a mass movement of death like they did. Or keep talking about it, it just makes your ideas more realistically represented.