Even if that were the case, you would still find White tribes fighting amongst eachother. One only needs to look at Europe's past to acknowledge this.
Races
- Thread starter cannibal corpse
- Start date
Even if that were the case, you would still find White tribes fighting amongst eachother. One only needs to look at Europe's past to acknowledge this.
Fenrisúlfr
ὠδÏÏÎºÎ¿Ï Î»ÏκοÏ
Even if that was the case, it would not be mutually exclusive with the white race having its own space, even if it was to conduct a civil war.
And that's exactly my point: White people wouldn't be any different to any other race when it comes to, "giving them their own space". There would still be a human element that would want to conquer the weak, even if both groups involved were considered, "White".
Fenrisúlfr
ὠδÏÏÎºÎ¿Ï Î»ÏκοÏ
That does not detract from their right to live amongst themselves in their own lands should they chose. If I am a private land-owner, said land is my property and as such I may prohibit certain parties from setting foot upon said land. Extending that to the state, if they entered into a contract with one-another to prohibit certain parties entry, if they own the land, it is within their rights to enter into such a covenant. Multiply that by two, and let them enter a feud...that changes not their right to property nor their right to contract, ergo your point is moot.
This isn't about following laws. This is about human nature. Have laws ever stopped anyone from doing something that they really wanted to do? Nope.
I agree with you that people should have the right to live amongst themselves if they choose. Yet, we can't be so naive to believe that just because a, "law" has been set to seperate a certain people, that it is a guarantee that others are going to accept and not break.
Fenrisúlfr
ὠδÏÏÎºÎ¿Ï Î»ÏκοÏ
In such a case, the law would merely recognize the discretion of property-owners to let whom-ever they chose onto their property.
As for stopping someone from intrusion, I would advocate the 'one shout, one shot' policy: advise the bugger to leave the property, and if the intruder does not proceed to vacate, fire a warning shot. Otherwise, one may presume the intent is nefarious and may use force accordingly.
As for stopping someone from intrusion, I would advocate the 'one shout, one shot' policy: advise the bugger to leave the property, and if the intruder does not proceed to vacate, fire a warning shot. Otherwise, one may presume the intent is nefarious and may use force accordingly.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
Fratricidal war has always been a Germanic failing. There is only one solution. All whites would have to embrace a religion that was racially loyal and forbade inter-racial warfare. This would work, just as Catholicism kept Catholic nations from fighting each other, and as the Caliphate did for the Muslims. May I recommend
http://www.creativitymovement.net/
Fenrisúlfr
ὠδÏÏÎºÎ¿Ï Î»ÏκοÏ
I do not think that specific question came up. The subject-matter as identified by the initial post was open-ended.
As for the blacks versus whites, I defer to the IQ numbers and crime statistics, both of which indicate the whites are more intelligent and better-behaved.
As for the blacks versus whites, I defer to the IQ numbers and crime statistics, both of which indicate the whites are more intelligent and better-behaved.
derek
Grey Eminence
I point to the overwhelming failure of statistics as a mode to prove anything.
We've not had a topic like this around here for quite some time.
We've not had a topic like this around here for quite some time.
Vimana
Member
- Mar 2, 2007
- 11,671
- 20
- 38
Its all cultural and environmental. They may come across as less intelligent but thats just African American culture. A lot of blacks are poor so of course they are going to have to resort to crime. And I don't think there is any evidence that any race is more intelligent than any other.
Fenrisúlfr
ὠδÏÏÎºÎ¿Ï Î»ÏκοÏ
The variable in play is indeed intelligence and there is evidence, it is unfortunately politically-incorrect. I must remind ye that the concept of political correctness is a Soviet innovation; and have detected much Marxism in this thread.
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/IQ-Wealth-Nations-Richard-Lynn/dp/027597510X[/ame]
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299[/ame]
In other words:
source: data from IQ and Global Inequality
Just like there are breeds of dogs, some of which are easier to train (and thus we infer more intelligent), and some of which are more aggressive than others, so too are the races different in such categories.
Additionally, the blacks have been in Africa for much longer than whites have been in Europe, or the Chinese have been in China. Why is it that they did not produce a civilization that much more advanced than the latter two? I submit it is on account of biological factors.
So now you know.
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/IQ-Wealth-Nations-Richard-Lynn/dp/027597510X[/ame]
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299[/ame]
In other words:
source: data from IQ and Global Inequality
Just like there are breeds of dogs, some of which are easier to train (and thus we infer more intelligent), and some of which are more aggressive than others, so too are the races different in such categories.
Additionally, the blacks have been in Africa for much longer than whites have been in Europe, or the Chinese have been in China. Why is it that they did not produce a civilization that much more advanced than the latter two? I submit it is on account of biological factors.
So now you know.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
By IQ test there is evidence. By achievements there is no evidence that blacks are anything other than less intelligent on the whole than other races - but undoubtedly there are exceptions - particularly amongst African Americans since they are not pure negro anyway.
What we have to question is why we set such store on intelligence in the first place. It is important to those of European ancestry because it is valued in our culture. Intelligence is not valued as much amongst other people.
The central idea in the excellent movie Idiocracy is that intelligence is inherited and that our present dysgenic breeding patterns are reducing the intelligence in society since the least intelligent outbreed the most intelligent.
The introduction to the film shows a well educated middle class couple delaying child birth until they no longer can breed, while their neighbours produce numerous offspring. You can find it on youtube.
Corrupt dot org has just interviewed Professor Richard Lynn
The poverty and crime link is nonsense because poverty has existed in the past in white societies without a similar level of crime - while there is no society of mixed Africans that is not brutally violent. (I say mixed because if you have one African tribe and they are not very numerous and live in isolation they are peaceful. It is really the fact of being mixed with other tribes and ethnicities that brings out the violence.) So the link is not crime coming from poverty, but crime coming from mixing people.
Fenrisúlfr
ὠδÏÏÎºÎ¿Ï Î»ÏκοÏ
Expounding upon Norsemaiden's point about the value of intelligence, it is valued among the east Asians e.g. Chinese, Koreans, Japanese as well as the whites. This is why when their markets are liberalised, their economies grow at break-neck speed.
However, among white people I have noticed a marked change, especially among the proles: a disdain for intellectualism. At least in the US, if not the whole of the West, the younger generation has gone from admiration of intellectual prowess to a disdain. Methinks this arises from cognitive dissonance on account that on the one hand, they are spoon-fed egalitarianism more now than ever, and on the other hand, they observe that humans are not equal. As anti-intellectualism is encouraged through religion (esp. Xtheism), it is vented through disdain for disparities in that attribute.
As the society moves ever-so-steadily in the direction of socialism, this will be shifted toward disdain for those who are successful. We already have such disdain in the left, it is only a matter of time until the proles to the right chime in as well. The resulting measures, already pernicious in terms of the progressive taxation endured by the middle and upper classes (straight out of the Communist Manifesto I might add!), will kill what is left of the Western economy.
The only way to stop this is a revolt against egalitarianism.
However, among white people I have noticed a marked change, especially among the proles: a disdain for intellectualism. At least in the US, if not the whole of the West, the younger generation has gone from admiration of intellectual prowess to a disdain. Methinks this arises from cognitive dissonance on account that on the one hand, they are spoon-fed egalitarianism more now than ever, and on the other hand, they observe that humans are not equal. As anti-intellectualism is encouraged through religion (esp. Xtheism), it is vented through disdain for disparities in that attribute.
As the society moves ever-so-steadily in the direction of socialism, this will be shifted toward disdain for those who are successful. We already have such disdain in the left, it is only a matter of time until the proles to the right chime in as well. The resulting measures, already pernicious in terms of the progressive taxation endured by the middle and upper classes (straight out of the Communist Manifesto I might add!), will kill what is left of the Western economy.
The only way to stop this is a revolt against egalitarianism.
Vimana
Member
- Mar 2, 2007
- 11,671
- 20
- 38
Some parts of Africa had kingdoms and such before parts of Europe. Also Africa didn't have the resources that Asia and Europe did. Also Europe was just lucky, they got things like engineering, good ships, guns, and stuff from the east. In Africa you do not need as many resources to survive as you do in other places, which is why Africans did not need to create a bunch of inventions. That chart is utter bullshit because some of the first civilizations were in South America, and they had astronomy, engineering, writing, and mathematics before a lot of Europe did. East Asians would probably score higher on the IQ test because learning is more valued in their culture, whereas in African American culture it isn't. Put a black guy in the typical honor-based East Asian family and he will be getting all A's and stuff. Put an Asian guy in the projects with a typical ghetto family and he acts ghetto and gets shit grades to live as a thug.
So are the Mesoamericans more intelligent than Germanic peoples because they had organized civilizations while they were still having tribes? Are Iraqi's smarter than the rest of the world because they achieved civilization and law system first? There is no intelligence factor, its all environmental.
Also the development of huge civilizations has more to do with dominance of one large group over smaller groups and/or groups coming together than intelligence. If it wasn't for that one dynasty that took over China then China would be a bunch of smaller countries with considerably less achievements because the bigger a group, the better pretty much (as long as it functions well). If you have one great inventor for every thousand, and one country has thousands more people than another, then you have thousands more great inventors, which leads to more inventions.
The only reason some of these places had these inventions was the amount of people they had and the amount of people they had contact with. I'll bet that if any of the Native American empires of South America had contact with the Chinese the Europeans wouldn't have any colonies there. Eurasia had so many achievements because of the contact they had with each other.
Also you do not compare entire continents by choosing the strongest link of one and the weakest of the other. I could say that Blacks are more intelligent than whites by comparing Mali to the Germanic tribes. I could say Hispanics are better than Asians by comparing the Maya to the Koreans. The reason Eurasia developed so well is not intelligence, it is environmental factors and luck.
Let me put it this way. Suppose Eurasia is a pot of top notch soil and Africa and the Americas are just dirt. Take two of the same flowers and plant one in each pot, one will grow bigger and healthier. Which does not mean that bigger and healthier flower is better, but it was placed in a better environment. Eurasia had a bunch of resources, less geographical barriers, and oceans and animals which could deliver messages much better. To spread information in South America, you have to run across mountains, forests, and rivers and harsh environments just to deliver a message. Yes the Arabs had deserts. But they had camels to ride. I've been to Peru and seen pieces of the Inca empire, it would take me weeks and weeks to walk the distance I went in one train ride.
Those are good points, but not 100% dead on. Europeans had to be more resourceful but were still very primitive and tribal prior to Roman influence which stems from what ? Greek influence ? Which stems from Egyptian influence ? None the less they were faster out of the gate as they utilized such things as the wheel, levers and harnessing of animals to get work done. Myself I would simply say more industrious and curious which does seem to be a pattern still visable. There is many ways in which to be smart, many "smarts" havent proven to be the most positive.
Cypers, bit about having noticed a marked change, is amusing, for many reasons, hardly worth my time. Just thought I'd bring that up for others to ponder.
Cypers, bit about having noticed a marked change, is amusing, for many reasons, hardly worth my time. Just thought I'd bring that up for others to ponder.
Vimana
Member
- Mar 2, 2007
- 11,671
- 20
- 38
The African tribes just never felt the need to group up. Necessity is the mother of invention, they didn't need to so they didn't. Arab nations and such had to because it was necessary to survive in their environment, if they all stay separate tribes and some kind of shortage of resources hits them and bam they're all gone, its going to be hard for them to migrate. Lots of Native Americans in similar environments had cities too. They didn't have the same achievements because of a lack of resources.
Saying that Hispanics and Africans are less intelligent for having less inventions is like saying a person is stupid for not making a spear when they never had a stick.
Saying that Hispanics and Africans are less intelligent for having less inventions is like saying a person is stupid for not making a spear when they never had a stick.
Fenrisúlfr
ὠδÏÏÎºÎ¿Ï Î»ÏκοÏ
Yeah...apologist for the 'noble savage'? They do not need as much to survive, so what? That does not debunk a measure of innate cognitive abilities:
I know the tree by the fruit it bears forth, not the fruit it may bear forth had X, Y, Z, &c come to pass. If other groups cannot get their affairs in order, let them live in squalor, it is not our concern as civilized people, for what do we owe them?!
Additionally, perhaps one should be citing sources to lend credibility to your outrageous claims? I can just as easily say the moon is made of cheese, but no one would believe me...extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Cognitive function, in this case, is not dependent upon whose civilization did what.
I know the tree by the fruit it bears forth, not the fruit it may bear forth had X, Y, Z, &c come to pass. If other groups cannot get their affairs in order, let them live in squalor, it is not our concern as civilized people, for what do we owe them?!
Additionally, perhaps one should be citing sources to lend credibility to your outrageous claims? I can just as easily say the moon is made of cheese, but no one would believe me...extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
so now certain groups did not have their affairs in order ? and other groups did or do on account of who got the work done for them, and so then others are supposed to sit in awe of the profoundness ? typically interesting
