SAM Says Blacks are Dumber Than Whites

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Balerion, Dec 6, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Hmm yes, context. Suspending human rights and suppressing your opposition to achieve "peace". A warped concept if ever there was one.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DeepThought Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,461

    The whole concept of 'rights' are an aggressive intellectual weapon backed by military force used by Western/white countries to advance their interests.

    A much more powerful nation than America would - acting wholly on the concept of rights - invade the U.S. to restore the rights of the Native Indians. They would pull down and destroy statues of U.S. presidents, destroy the physical infrastructure such as roads, bridges, power stations, government buildings, etc... Pulverize towns and cities, forcing the populations out into rural areas, and ensure that all forms of the written word, whether electronic or analogue, were obliterated.

    That is what rights must, by logic, entail for the destiny of the United States, except that, of course, without the physical power to back them up rights are just a retarded fantasy.

    But Americans can rest assured that since there is no nation with more military power than the U.S, nobody will be forcing 'rights' on Americans anytime soon.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2008
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Native Indians are in India...and in the U.S as well where there are many native Indians living.
     
  8. DeepThought Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,461

    Yes John.... sigh.

    I am in this case referring to Native Americans.
     
  9. DeepThought Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,461

    Sub-Saharan Africans are tribal, not racist.

    Race is an abstraction of superior minds, one which requires anthropological knowledge of human evolution and objective thinking.
     
  10. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Your distinction is entirely artificial - presumably born of the need to justify your position.

    Do you take the time to read what you write?

    The Tutsi and the Hutu consider themselves to be as distinct from each other as Americans and Chinese.

    The 'genetic evidence' that has been collected so far suggests that they are as distinct as the Americans and Chinese.

    Their cultures are as distinctly different as the Americans and Chinese.

    There is more Genetic diversity in Humans in Africa than there is in the rest of the world combined.

    By any 'reasonable' definition of 'race' the Tutsi and the Hutu are as 'distinct' as Americans and Chinese. If you knew anything of the colonial history of Rwanda/Burundi you would know that the Germans, and because of them, Belgians considered one superior over the other because of this.

    Therefore, by any 'reaosnable' definition of 'race' the conflict between, and Genocide of the Tutsi and the Hutu can only be considered as being racially oriented.

    You, however, do not seem to be able to see past skin colour and facial structure.
     
  11. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    this post of yours needs to be scanned, copied, and distributed to every american on the planet.
    it proves what a powerful document the constitution really is.
     
  12. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    he seems to want to go back to when anyone who sets foot on a particular piece of dirt get shot with an arrow.
     
  13. LogicTech Registered Member

    Messages:
    119

    Yes, we all know, it is very painfully obvious. But don't feel bad, it IS a curable condition....
     
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,955
    As Trippy has been pointing out to you in this thread, repeatedly I might add, the Tutsi and the Hutu are not genetically (or more to the point, racially) similar. Their hatred of each other which led to nearly a million deaths in a matter of months was not based on tribal hatred, but on racial hatred, where one considered themselves more superior to the other and this was aided in part by certain European countries treating one as being racially superior to the other. Even while the genocide was occurring and appearing on our TV screens, countries like Belgium and France still favoured the Hutu and attempted to excuse or deny it was even taking place. And when it had become painfully obvious and they could no longer deny it, they still favoured and helped the Hutu, in some part, allowing the killing to continue in the refugee camps which were under the control of the French forces. I would strongly suggest you actually read up on the history of Rwanda and on the genocide itself to get some idea. Yes I know both are black to you and ergo, the same, but they are not the same.

    Are you somehow saying that only intelligent people with what you term "superior minds" are able to distinguish race and feel hatred or superiority towards another race? How quaint and narrow minded of you.
     
  15. LogicTech Registered Member

    Messages:
    119
    As this thread did start of trying to compare IQ's, I should let you guys know that over the past 50 years, people who are racist and *insert race here* supremacists have been found to have lower IQ's on average: http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm

    The studies and the methods of that test are far less ambiguous (and much more objective for that matter) then comparing race with IQ test results...

    RetartedThought appears to be living confirmation of the results of the experiments conducted

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824

    I read somewhere [probably on these forums] that the divide between the two was created by a divide and rule policy of the Dutch colonists, which put one in charge of the other.
     
  17. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I alluded to that in my post. It was initially the Germans I believe, who found the "Tall and handsome" Hutu to be superior to the "Short and homely" Tutsi. My understanding is that after WWI the Belgians came along with absolutely no experience in sub-saharan Africa, asked the Germans for advice, the Germans said "Stick with the Hutu" so they did.

    I've also seen it suggested that prior to colonization, the Hutu asumed a dominant role (they came along later, the Tutsi being the first to colonize the area), tbut the Hutu and the Tutsi lived 'Peacfully'.

    Having said all of that - i've also seen it suggested that at least some of this is revisionist history to make people feel better about what happened in the '90s.
     
  18. LogicTech Registered Member

    Messages:
    119
    They weren't actually living "peacefully" in the strictest sense before colonization. Before colonization they had their conflicts, but for the most part they tolerated each other. They were basically independent kingdoms (though some of them were under Tutsi control...)

    The Dutch came along and put one in charge of the other, because the Tutsi looked more "white" then the Hutu did... It was all race based from their point of view. And by dividing them they set the course for the current conflicts between them.
     
  19. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    The law of unintended consequences.
     
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,955
    Imagine it as a divide between the Francophone and the Anglophone of Africa. The French and Belgium supported and helped the Hutu because they were Francophone, or French speaking. They were deemed superior as a result. And Francophone countries like France saw the Tutsi fighters under the guise of the RPF as being a part of an Anglophone conspiracy to take over Rwanda and remove the Francophone from power.

    Historically, the colonialists of Rwanda have basically set the standard for the genocide that we witnessed. They did put one in charge of the other and deemed one to be superior to the other.. by way of preferred treatment and seats in Government and in industry. The Tutsi were at times viewed as being cockroaches.. And prior to the genocide, calls were made to eradicate the cockroaches.. all with the support and backup of France, who continued to give tacit support of their preferred group.. even during the actual genocide. Recent documents released in France have shown the extent to which France was involved in the lead-up to the genocide and also their involvement in the genocide itself.. harboring the genocidaires and at times, allowing them to continue the killing in Zone Turquoise. Hell, the French didn't even stop the Hutu from transmitting radio messages encouraging the killing of the Tutsi, from Zone Turquoise.. something that would have prevented the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people..

    The divide and rule policy of the history of Rwanda saw its culmination in the genocide and the countries involved in its implementation are very much at fault.
     
  21. DeepThought Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,461

    Bells,

    The only physical difference between the Hutu and Tutsi appears to be that of average height. That alone is hardly something worthy of study. I'm sure the European colonists, however, who immediately recognized the primitive nature of the people in front of them, used such a simple division to their advantage. It reminds me of how English colonizers in New Zealand - and I'm sure this happened elsewhere in the world - paid the Maori's for their work with buttons.

    You are simply agreeing with me that the white psyche is more predatory than others.


    Of course, so much of liberals arguments against races depends upon genetic evidence, the Emperor's New Clothes of modern science.

    When a visual comparison is made it is, quite clearly, bullshit.


    YAWN!

    I hope your not going to defend the idea that there is more genetic difference between a Rwandan and a Nigerian than between an Aborigine and a Scandinavian.

    Surely you would be able to argue such a case on a visual comparison alone, if these genes you speak of have any importance at all.



    Nigerian Child..............................................................................................................................Rwandan Child

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Cont.....
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2008
  22. DeepThought Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,461
    (Do I really need to tell you which of the children below is Aboriginal and which is Scandinavian? I think not.

    Why is that do you think?)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Good luck with your proof.

    End.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2008
  23. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Sure thing muppet.

    If you subscribe to the out of africa theory of Human migration, which given the levels of shear ignorance you've displayed thus far, I wouldn't be surprised to learn you didn't.

    Then obviously there is more genetic variation in Africa then there is in the rest of the world, because the genepool of the rest of the world is quite clearly a subset of the Genepool of africa. Something that is backed up by Mitochondrial DNA.

    Compared to those in Africa, you sir, are by the strictest scientific definitions of the words, and inbred mutation.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page