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. Obvio