divine focus wrote:The aborigines are a different sort of people altogether. They do not see themselves as lesser or worse off or weakened in any way, though some do choose to integrate somewhat into the city culture. They aren't in need of help. They are very different people. Aliens, almost, though not "alien." Nothing is truly alien, except maybe insects and arachnids. ;)
Many Australian aborigines live in dire poverty and suffering, and very few have a similar quality of lifestyle to whites. They have much more health problems, die much younger, spend much more time in jail, are violent against each other, lack of education, etc. They do see themselves as worse off, and they do need help, but they need to be helped in a way that teaches them to help themselves. Even this won't help much for as long as they are crippled by a massive inferiority complex, being an identity that essentially places them sub-white.
Rhett: But what if they don't really want to stop fighting. If they really wanted to stop fighting you think they would be able to negotiate it.
Divine: Why don't the Northern Irish stop fighting or the Slavs in Russia and the Ukraine stop fighting? Some cultures have ways of seeing things that go way back. In the U.S., the culture is really a new creation of a bunch of cultures. Australia, if that's where you are, is also a new creation culturally. Both create a sense of identity as a citizen, a belonging to a culture. This is why there is more political order.
Violent cultures hold on to past grievances as an excuse to keep fighting and stay small-minded.
Oh ya. bout the Beverly Hillbillies. I thot Jed came from OK, which does have the western rim of the Ozarks. At the time, I thot it nonsense. I knew of oil, like at Tulsa, 70 miles west out in the flat land. But recently, if you come back east that 70 miles, past the Neosho and then North of the Arkansas, they found the "Fayetteville Shale" formation, and they are drilling the fuck out of it. I have neighbors that sold their mineral rights, and when you go to Clinton now, you see the new business selling and servicing drilling equipment.
As if the Southern Ozarks didnt have enuf going for it in a post crash economy already. Bedford Forrest would love the chance to shoot Yankees here. Altho most here now seem to be from the north, and in fact, the whole area seceded from the rebel government in Little Rock. But like Tallin and Riga, they have the hydropower to keep the lights on no matter how high the price of oil and gas. And- the new wells they put in will provide the locals all the oil and gas they need to keep on trucking- either with propane conversions or diesels. Dont have a refinery for gas. Not yet anyway.
The main North South route is US highway 65, which is still steep and twisty with lotsa two lane bridges over river gorges that'd be easy to block, and lotsa good old boy x-military here who know how to setup a road block, or blow a bridge if need be. I dunno what the gun nuts have on hand to blow it with, but can see if they simply piled logs on a bridge and then set them ablaze, the thermal stress would leave the bridge useless for heavy stuff like trucks and tanks.
If TSHTF, the situation would look like when the Serbs decided to secede. They were better educated, and had a better idea of where military equipment was, and because smart people realized who was going to win, the Serbs got even more support. Alaska has oil, gas, and a lot going for it too, but it take more preparation to get there and get setup... before winter. If you dont mind the cold, and have the money to buy everything you think you'll need, go for it. But if you dont, and will need to rely more on what is already in the local resource base, and what money you can make when you get there, the Ozarks are a much smaller step. Tennessee is smaller yet, but also closer to east coast urban masses.
Some working in Atlanta no doubt have summer cabins in the hills of North GA. Remember "Dr. Zhivago"? when a revolution comes, people that have a summer house go to it. The "Decameron" is a dozen hanging out at a rural villa while the plague swept across Europe. Whether it is smart money moving into the Ozarks and other remote regions or not, it is creating job and money making opportunity, so you can have it both ways. Live comfortably if things go on as they always have, and still live more comfortably than most everyone else in the world if TSHTF. There aint no sure bet anywhere, just better bets in some.
Even this won't help much for as long as they are crippled by a massive inferiority complex, being an identity that essentially places them sub-white
While I do agree with what you say, I think they are also being held back by a superiority complex. "It is Our Land and "We are Connected to the Land and "Our Myths Mean a Lot to Us", means they do not wish to change their core culture in a way that would allow them to progress.
If racial IQ's play as much a role as I suspect, then it may be erroneous even thinking they are capable of changing on masse to a level of close equality to whites, and will always be akin to the bogans or trailer park trash type of society member. Of course, there are exceptions, the Torres Strait islanders for example are far more adaptable. I have a lot of respect for Noel Pearson.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:They are the first breed of humans, which evolved in environments that lacked the same degree of pressure as farther north. Generally, whites are better with science, language and philosophy because neurologically, their brains had more pressure from the environment to survive the winter, and so the cortex grew in complexity to the pressure. Blacks could survive easier in the tropics by constantly hunting and gathering. Their pattern didn’t change as much, it didn’t need to, the environment didn’t call for it, whereas white settlers had many more obstacles to overcome.
*yawn* more evolution rubbish. If the environment did such a thing, then eskimos would have also developed science and philosophy due to the weather, and Aztecs, living in the tropics wouldn't have developed some science because 'the environment didn't call for it.' And Arabs and Persians in the Islamic Golden Age developed science and technology because they were living in the cold frozen Arabian Peninsula and Middle-East....
Not only that, the beginning of science and philosophy in Northern Europe wouldn't be helping them cope with the weather in any real way, so according to natural selection, it wouldn't have progressed because it would be inconvenient and useless.
If genetics dont matter, then why was Anatolia 6000 years ahead of Carcal? Why were the Aztecs of 1400 AD not yet at the point Egypt had reached 3500 years before? Bouchard's studies of identical twins adopted out at birth to separate families, yet test out so identically at adulthood makes a bulletproof case that genetics does matter, and the only question is just what the specific effects are.
Not that education and environment dont matter. And now the study on methyl tags and epigenetics go a long ways twards explaining transgenerational effects, like whether the grandfather experienced famine growing up affects the lifespan of grandchildren. What's with that?
Turns out, its related to regeneration; how you can grow new skin, but an amphibian can grow an entire new limb; yet the DNA is no different at the point of injury. Just last nite on "Wired Science" they showed a dude who grew a new fingertip, nail and all, which they think is related to this business of methyl tags which can be handed down *on the DNA*. Its the methyl tags which tell the DNA, which is the same in every cell in the body, to make more heart, kidney, fingertip cells, or... gray matter.
And there are a host of effects, like dietary deficiency and contamination, which in the case of Blacks, seem to retard maximal mental development more than whites. The PC mantra that there is no diff in intelligence means that nobody looks for methods to improve the situation. Since I wanted smart kids, I raised mine on oatmeal. Had I wanted them to grow up stupid, I would've used soulfood.
Rhett: Even this won't help much for as long as they are crippled by a massive inferiority complex, being an identity that essentially places them sub-white.
James: While I do agree with what you say, I think they are also being held back by a superiority complex. "It is Our Land and "We are Connected to the Land and "Our Myths Mean a Lot to Us", means they do not wish to change their core culture in a way that would allow them to progress.
I haven't particularly seen a superiority complex in the aborigines, but acknowledge they probably have one, they are just too accepting and mushy and weak and culturally crushed to express it much. I have heard many whites exalt them though. However, i see a superiority complex as a product of their inferiority complex. And the inferiority complex a product of their inferiority, which is a crux issue.
James: If racial IQ's play as much a role as I suspect, then it may be erroneous even thinking they are capable of changing on masse to a level of close equality to whites, and will always be akin to the bogans or trailer park trash type of society member.
Again, i agree. They are being held back by genetics, culture, distance from civilisation and services (such as health and education), misguided academics, etc.
James: Of course, there are exceptions, the Torres Strait islanders for example are far more adaptable. I have a lot of respect for Noel Pearson.
Yes, there will typically be exceptions, but they do not reflect the potential of most of the rest.
Rhett, have you read or heard about this book? Book Link
Someone recommended it to me, and I see it got a lot of good reviews despite the knee-jerk 1-star reviews. It seems it's a litte too countercultural, but a lot of it sounds interesting.
*yawn* more evolution rubbish. If the environment did such a thing, then eskimos would have also developed science and philosophy due to the weather, and Aztecs, living in the tropics wouldn't have developed some science because 'the environment didn't call for it.' And Arabs and Persians in the Islamic Golden Age developed science and technology because they were living in the cold frozen Arabian Peninsula and Middle-East....
Not only that, the beginning of science and philosophy in Northern Europe wouldn't be helping them cope with the weather in any real way, so according to natural selection, it wouldn't have progressed because it would be inconvenient and useless.
The progress of modern science lead to the industrial revolution in Europe, which gave way to civilization as we know it. And It was only the white race that was able to accomplish this probably because their society had more intellectuals in power compared to some of the other races that couldn’t hold it together.
The black race, the Arab races, and many of the Latino races had their chances, as all had flourishing empires, but too many members of their societies were barbaric in nature, and so they weren’t able to hold it together.
I’m not saying that there cannot be intellectuals in the black race or Arab races, but statistically I bet the numbers of intellectuals and productive humans are much lower than the white and Asian races.
And Cory brought up an interesting article, some of the 'equator' race's inferiority could also be attributed to high testosterone levels. Consider this – In the tropics there’s going to higher frequently of mating, and the males with the highest levels of testosterone are going to be able to reproduce more frequently and successfully, thus passing on their genes more. In colder climates, mating is more difficult, and men need to impress women with their ability to earn money, so women are more discriminate between picking a mate because it is more difficult for her offspring to survive. And the end result is that she will pick men with normal or lower levels of testosterone, which results in higher ratios of intellectuals, and lower instances of violence, barbarity, and civil upheaval.
To begin with, eugenics didnt really have enuf data to go on. And now we know it isnt only the DNA. But in any case, it does not matter what we think of it eugenics, it is already going on among smart well educated, and AFAIK, only white, professional women.
Many have passed the age when they are young and sexy, and are unable to establish the kind of relationship they would like with the men who meet their standards of character and talent. As a result, they are increasingly going to fertility clinics to select among thousands of Y chromosome lines so as to bear the smartest, most charismatic, and sociable children possible. Who will no doubt also grow up to be very successful in the transnational culture.
Get over it. You cant stop them. As in most other technological innovations, this will filter down from the upper class early adopters to all women, of whatever race. You mite do a study, to find out which elderly ladies have the most support from their grown daughters- those who bore smart white or East Asian girls, or those who gave birth to any other race.
Are you going to support the right of non-white women access to the most promising Y Chromosome lines to dramatically increase the likelihood that they will have support, rather than challenge, from their grown children in later years? Or post more politically correct opinion because you know that you wont make the cut?
Ryan Rudolph wrote:Faust wrote:
And Cory brought up an interesting article, some of the 'equator' race's inferiority could also be attributed to high testosterone levels. Consider this – In the tropics there’s going to higher frequently of mating, and the males with the highest levels of testosterone are going to be able to reproduce more frequently and successfully, thus passing on their genes more. In colder climates, mating is more difficult, and men need to impress women with their ability to earn money, so women are more discriminate between picking a mate because it is more difficult for her offspring to survive. And the end result is that she will pick men with normal or lower levels of testosterone, which results in higher ratios of intellectuals, and lower instances of violence, barbarity, and civil upheaval.
Note that the more misogynistic a culture is, the more retarded. Outside of the white race, it is the East Asians that had the most liberated women. Outside of the whites, Only China produced a line of women's romance novels in the 16th century. While the Dowager empress is well known, in fact all the way back to the Tang, there have been empresses, and many times it was the harem who selected a front man to run things.
And while foot binding was notorious, that was only for the aristocracy. It didnt happen to middle class women, much less the peasantry. And like in Europe, East Asia had challenging winters which required the men to sit down, shut up, and practice inside crafts without getting cabin fever and butchering the wife and kids. Both in Europe and East Asia, the peasants fled while the warriors suffering from testosterone over dose had at each other, dramatically reducing their numbers in the gene pools.
The question is not whether Blacks are inferior to Whites, but what ecosystems each was adapted to survive in. The tropics have biodiversity several times that of the temperate zones, so white men, not needing to remember all the minutiae of flora and fauna, could apply the gray matter to linear logic rather than random access from a databank in the head.
Inferior? The word itself is open to interpretation. I mean didn't the 'superior' white race vote Bush into office? Not a very smart move...And thanks to the white race, the world has been brought to the edge of extinction because of climate change, which, I suspect, most people in here, like evolution, believe is another 'conspiracy theory' hatched by those god awful liberals, none of whom consequently are in power anywhere...but don't let that stop you calling them 'politically correct...'
Hey, I've got an idea, lets go after anyone who has susceptability to certain diseases in their genes ( 99.9% of the human race ) with god and George Bush out front leading the charge - for the intellectually superior white race! - SHEEP!
I've often wondered why Al Gore took a dive in 2000 to let Bush have the oval office. One possibility is from JR Lowell: "He who is firmly seated in authority soon comes to think that security, and not progress, is the highest form of statecraft." Gore didnt know what progress was, and was unwilling to pursue security, which was not a problem for Bush. And we all know by now, that Bush dont know what progress is either.
Hillary has not been expressive about it either, not that I blame her. You cant get too far ahead of the electorate and still get elected. If the system survives long enuf to install her, I wonder if she will remember that it takes a village to raise a child. Parents may be necessary, but they are not sufficient. A village would see to it that kids had more than sugar cereal, junkfood, and soda.
Gore is still thinking in terms of a topdown system, which he knew he'd not get a mandate for in 2000. Letting Bush take over has made it all worse, and more obvious, but I still dont see an effective political mandate coming out of it. Africa is a basket case largely because their genetic heritage does not allow them to adapt well to modern culture. You can have progress, or you can have misogyny; pick one.
And if you allow women to go for progress, *they* will begin by being more selective in sperm donation, which will have vanishingly small Y chromosome lines from Africa. Women will be running eugenics, not Nazis.
Gore didn't take a dive, the vote was rigged by Bush and his gangsters: his dad, his cousin, judges, christian right, powerful media groups ( affluent whites and zionists ) . Some solid evidence is supplied by Michael Moore ( a horrible liberal! ) in his movie FH/9/11. Do you need an Australian to tell you these things? But then, I suppose you think MM is part of a communist conspiracy? Isn' t that how you people think? How many of you are from Utah anyway? Gore would have won, but the minority vote ( the inferior races ) was blocked by congress, who dismissed their reps one after the other...That you white middle class yanks can just stand by and let this mindless thug direct your country down the road to hell is a source of wonder and amusement to me. But then, he is on a mission from god. Anyway, I can understand it from your point of view: all you've done is send the sons and daughters of the poor and genetically inferior to die in Iraq. No loss there....The next round will be really interesting: IRAN....I suggest you fasten your safety belts for that one...
I say that Gore took a dive cause he knew he had a majority, and he knew that the vote in Ohio and Fla was rigged, and he didnt try to do anything about that. Regardless of what the courts had to say, the electoral college had not yet met, and there was time to identify who the electors would be, and to publish their identities on the net, and make them damn miserable if they went along with the corrupt process.
daybrown wrote:And if you allow women to go for progress, *they* will begin by being more selective in sperm donation, which will have vanishingly small Y chromosome lines from Africa. Women will be running eugenics, not Nazis.
I heard a radio show not so long ago talking about this. Apparently black women as a whole are starting to feel more comfortable dating outside their own race. This goes against what "black culture" supposedly teaches them, which is that they should only mate with black men. I guess black women are fed up with competing for a single group of men who tend to be less educated and less able to provide for their family.
I'm not sure what to make of this. About 40 to 50% of Hispanic-Americans marry outside their race. And about 40% of Asian-American males and 60% of Asian-American females marry outside their race. But only about 10% of African-Americans marry outside their race. I'm not sure what the breakdown is in terms of male and female African-Americans.
Oddly, the racial group with the HIGHEST ammount of inter-marrying in America is Native American Indians. Well over 60% of them marry outside their race. I should know: My mother had an Indian maiden name, her father was pretty close to full-blooded.
(Stanford University did a study about this, by the way, if you're curious about further data.)
I'm not sure what to make of this. About 40 to 50% of Hispanic-Americans marry outside their race. And about 40% of Asian-American males and 60% of Asian-American females marry outside their race. But only about 10% of African-Americans marry outside their race. I'm not sure what the breakdown is in terms of male and female African-Americans.
Oddly, the racial group with the HIGHEST ammount of inter-marrying in America is Native American Indians. Well over 60% of them marry outside their race. I should know: My mother had an Indian maiden name, her father was pretty close to full-blooded.
(Stanford University did a study about this, by the way, if you're curious about further data.)
One explanation for the high rates of natives interbreeding is because they are such a dispersed minority, with much less racial identification to hold them together, they seem to have lost a lot of their racial culture through western influence. Many native reserves here in Canada are in shambles and young discontent youth either self-destruct, lead similar lives as their parents, or break away completely from the tribe in search of bigger and better things by moving into the cities.
And a possible explanation for the low African American interbreeding is that for starters, black women don’t usually fit into the western ideal of sexual beauty, so the different males in each race would probably be more likely to pursue white women or Asian women.
However, I bet the numbers of black men intermarrying with white women and Asian women are higher. For instance, where I live, ones sees quite a few black guys with the dumb white blonde types. They seem to be a match made in heaven…
For a bunch of so-called "thinkers" you guys makes some pretty dumb assumptions.
Philosophy, thought, thinking, happens in the "mind" and is usually expressed through orality. All humans are capable of this.
To say that some people don't reason or philosophize because there is a "lack of written sources" is a bogus presumption. Many of the greatest minds didn't write anything down. (Buddha, Socrates, etc) to name a few. It have to be because philosophy was a process, a guide to lead someone to a place. It is active and dynamic. Writing philosophy allows it to transcend time, sure but the lack of written sources does not ential the non-existence of philosophy.
However, Africa does jhave its intellectual traditions. For one, many east african cultures have their own written languages and have used them to produce scholarly work for thousands of years.
Two east african philosophers off the top. Zera Yacob(an Ethiopian rationalist) and Dhu'l Nun Al-Misri(Nubian mystic-thinker)
In west african, the introduction of Arabic sparked a wild fire of intellectual activity. The arab travellar Battuta said the most bought item in the markets of Mali were books. These guys were studying Aristostle almost a thousand years ago. The Bambara, Fulah, Hausa, Songhai were contributing to an intellectual market that extended all the way to the middleast.
Unfortunately, the spread of the desert and war slowed this activity down. Yet, there are troves of works produced by west african scholars that westerners are just now learning about and translating.
I could elaborate on this more, but one exercise all thinkers must undertake is the expunging of our prejudices and realising everything is not as they appear. Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Never presume that you really know anything.
Something that is disturbing is the implicit, no explicit assumption that certain activities are more emotional than intellectual or that black culture is more emotionally based. I think this is based on some illusionary dichotomy between "emotions" and "intellect" and some misunderstanding of african diasporic culture.
And if you think blacks ahbor reasoning and thought, than obviously none of you have been in a black barber shop.
This is based on you own prejudice that jsut because blacks may reject "white" institutions of intellect that we don't have any of our own. No, most blacks just don't trust white people and their creations.
Kaidara wrote:. No, most blacks just don't trust white people and their creations.
I'm not sure how much I trust them, either. Like I said in a previous post: The kind of "intelligence" that could invent automobiles, nuclear bombs, and TV sit-coms could just as easily be thought of as a form of stupidity.
Something that is disturbing is the implicit, no explicit assumption that certain activities are more emotional than intellectual or that black culture is more emotionally based. I think this is based on some illusionary dichotomy between "emotions" and "intellect" and some misunderstanding of african diasporic culture.
Would you explain a little about how you see the dichotomy between emotion and intellect as an illusion? This is a most interesting topic for me.
It does seem to me that blacks are more emotional than whites, but not necessarily in a real way. Rather it seems their emotions are more open and less blocked. Are you American?
Thats a little condescending, isn't it? This notion that blacks are more "emotional" than "intellectual." This whole stereotype of the "earthy, emotional, primitive black." Like they're a bunch of children. But the uptight, stuffy, intellectual white can treat them like interesting children, the way they emote with that blues music, and dance around.
To me, this whole debate is interesting but wrong-headed. The argument has been mis-stated from the beginning, and then bogged down in taboo. Its not that black "intelligence" (whatever THAT loaded word means to you) is inferior or superior. But different. Not better or worse, but different. Why wouldn't it be different. Its the product of zillions of years of evolution, adapting its intelligence from a far different environment from the white European environment that those fucks evolved from.
You got those bone-heads from the "Bell Curve" book, showing the discrepency between I.Q. scores of blacks and whites. You got the discrepency in achievement between blacks and whites and asians in America. Then you got people coming to all sorts of misguided conclusions about the "inferiority" or "superiority" of intelligences. People, its "different" not "inferrior or superior."
Look at it this way: The kind of "intelligence" that would have thrived in the days of the pioneering, wild American west, was the kind of mentality that was self-sufficient and independent. THe kind of "intelligence" that thrives in today's corporate America, is the kind of minds that can conform and slot into the corporate machinery. One intelligence isn't superior or inferior. It just happens to adapt -- or not adapt -- to the particular society of the moment.
Does that make any sense? Or perhaps my own intelligence is suspect at the moment. (And not the first time for THAT.)
acebackwords wrote:Thats a little condescending, isn't it? This notion that blacks are more "emotional" than "intellectual."
You need to read a little more carefully before accusing someone of condescension. Anna didn't say that. I'm not sure I agree with what she did say, but she certainly didn't say that.
