Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post questions or suggestions here.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by Cory Duchesne »

daybrown wrote: Undoubtedly, some of the successful women in business are black. Are they then going to use black sperm donation? I dont *think* so. There are not nearly that many to choose from, and a Nordic line would help avoid the relatively high risk of sickle cell anemia. Successful women all over the world, of all races, will be selecting from Nordic lines far more than any other.
Huh. Interesting.

Daybrown, if you can link me to any articles about this trend in regards to black women's preference for artificial insemination, I'd appreciate it.
Its eugenics, but its not a government policy, just the natural effect of the free market. Does this make blacks inferior? Damifino. The Nordic lines are just better adapted to modern culture. Does that make them "superior"?
Relative to certain values, yes.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Here is an interesting lecture worth listening to from one of the more intellectual black males I know of –

Astrophysicist: Neil deGrasse Tyson

He’s gets a little worked up in parts of the lecture, but his passion for the progress of empirical science is understandable. He makes a good argument against adopting intelligent design as a final answer, illustrating how it stops scientific discovery, and destroys creativity and progress in civilizations for centuries.
hiturunk
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:14 am

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by hiturunk »

Blacks aren't persay "Inferior", Blacks seem to be tribal, Almost ALL black people love rap, Most love to dance, And has anyone ever noticed the obsession with drums? I'm not downing the black race, Organisms evolve to compete in their environment, Blacks came from the jungles, Whites came from more open land, (Europe is pretty open and expansive whereas A good lot of Africa is hot, humid, and enclosed). What I'm saying is, Blacks don't seem to gain intelligence as often due to social priority, (Most whites have the same problem).
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by Rhett »

- I accept the idea that harsh environments can cause increases in intelligence and consciousness. However, in more recent time i would say that inter-human competition has played a larger role in those increases. I'm speaking broadly here. Man has become all the tougher and more capable through pitting himself against himself. He is clearly overqualified for the task of outwitting a mammoth, for example.

- Whilst there is a statistical correlation between IQ scores and intelligence and consciousness, they are distinct qualities that can vary significantly in each individual.

- In the same way that females must become masculine in order to make gains towards enlightenment, blacks must become white (-thinking) in order to make gains towards enlightenment.
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by Tomas »

.



-Zit Munk-
hiturunk - Blacks aren't persay "Inferior",

-tomas-
I like the way you pigeon-hole "blacks" into one, large grabbag...




-Zit Munk-
Blacks seem to be tribal,

-tomas-
Same can be said of this listforum...




-Zit Munk-
Almost ALL black people love rap,

-tomas-
Several varieties of "rap" out there.




-Zit Munk-
Most love to dance,

-tomas-
Don't we all?




-Zit Munk-
And has anyone ever noticed the obsession with drums?

-tomas-
Never been to a native american powwow? (more-so for communication purposes)




-Zit Munk-
I'm not downing the black race,

-tomas-
You?, never.





-Zit Munk-
Organisms evolve to compete in their environment, Blacks came from the jungles, Whites came from more open land,

-tomas-
And you were raised in an apartment :-(




-Zit Munk-
(Europe is pretty open and expansive whereas A good lot of Africa is hot, humid, and enclosed).

-tomas-
Yup, cut down those forests...




-Zit Munk-
What I'm saying is, Blacks don't seem to gain intelligence as often due to social priority, (Most whites have the same problem).

-tomas-
Spare a piece of chewing gum?




Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971



.
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by Rhett »

Rhett wrote:- I accept the idea that harsh environments can cause increases in intelligence and consciousness. However, in more recent time i would say that inter-human competition has played a larger role in those increases. I'm speaking broadly here. Man has become all the tougher and more capable through pitting himself against himself. He is clearly overqualified for the task of outwitting a mammoth, for example.
To develop this further;

I accept the idea that harsh environments and civilisation can cause increases in intelligence and consciousness. However, i add that inter-human competition has also played a large role in increases in intelligence and consciousness, possibly the largest role in more recent time. I'm speaking broadly here. Man has become all the tougher and more capable through pitting himself against himself. When i ask myself how much intellectual capacity i allocate towards surviving in a cut-throat society, versus understanding and meeting co-operative needs, the former gets the gong.
hiturunk
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:14 am

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by hiturunk »

Tomas wrote:.
-Zit Munk-
hiturunk - Blacks aren't persay "Inferior",

-tomas-
I like the way you pigeon-hole "blacks" into one, large grabbag...

-Zit Munk-
Blacks seem to be tribal,

-tomas-
Same can be said of this listforum..

-Zit Munk-
I'm not downing the black race,

-tomas-
You?, never.
.
I had a good laugh at your comments! You happen to of mentioned the Native Americans, Look at them, More socially focused and when we found them they were gun-less, ship-less, etc, It seems to me that we competed with other humans differently, Blacks competed against each-other more physically than anything, and on a tribal scale, Whereas Whites built up larger nations and competed on a larger scale (This goes back to my observation that Europe is pretty open and Expansive, Whereas Africa is hot, humid, and enclosed ((Also note, So are North America and South America))) Nations got what they wanted through diplomacy instead of fighting whenever a problem arose, Therefore requiring leaders of higher intellect to lead nations.
nitty-gritty

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by nitty-gritty »

maestro,
Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?
Why would you ask this? Why do you care? How will the answer help (or discussion)?

What do you mean by "blacks" and "whites" and what does inferior mean? Why would they be or why would they not?

For one their location and upbring greatly influences their personality.
Boyan
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:56 am

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by Boyan »

nitty-gritty wrote:maestro,
Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?
Why would you ask this? Why do you care? How will the answer help (or discussion)?

What do you mean by "blacks" and "whites" and what does inferior mean? Why would they be or why would they not?

For one their location and upbring greatly influences their personality.
Oh I just love this - 'what do you mean by ''blacks and whites'', and what does inferior mean?' You gotta be joking. This attitude that says races are only a social construct and nationalities don't matter, willingly rejects all that we know about characteristics of different nationalities and races, as well as common sense, and sets one up for naivety and ignorance.

Why do you care why does he cares, ha? The answer, as any insight or knowledge gained could help - one of the discoverers of DNA structure, James Watson says that he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really."

And of course he must be racist, even though he states a race related conclusion based on empirical observation.
nitty-gritty

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by nitty-gritty »

Boyan,

Next-time don't make comments towards my questioning. It's sometimes better to ask questions then to assume you know what the other person may mean, imply, or whatever...
Why do you care why does he cares, ha?
Why do you care why I care? [Were these questions meant for you. NO]

Then you go on to assume this or that...When I simply asked a few questions.
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by maestro »

nitty-gritty wrote:
Why would you ask this? Why do you care? How will the answer help (or discussion)?

What do you mean by "blacks" and "whites" and what does inferior mean? Why would they be or why would they not?
Well I asked this question to see whether the so called dangerous thinkers would indeed support this assertion (inferiority in the sense of philosophical achievements), since they constantly harp upon the inferiority of the women. In a sense then you can as well label unconscious as black and conscious as white just as they label feminine as unconscious etc. With this modification the site's motto can be read as

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
- Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, Perfection, Caucasianity.
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by Rhett »

maestro wrote:Well I asked this question to see whether the so called dangerous thinkers would indeed support this assertion (inferiority in the sense of philosophical achievements), since they constantly harp upon the inferiority of the women. In a sense then you can as well label unconscious as black and conscious as white just as they label feminine as unconscious etc. With this modification the site's motto can be read as

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
- Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, Perfection, Caucasianity.
Interesting, i see some value in it, but of course it leads into a large body of discussion that trips a lot of prejudices, which in the overall analysis might not be a good choice for wisdom.

Although someone earlier quoted asians as having the most brain mass and the highest IQ's, in my experience they are less conscious and less intelligent than whites, generally speaking of course. Particularly less creative.

As stated, in my opinion the same dimorphism and interplay between consciousness and unconsciousness as seen between males and females can be seen between whites and blacks, but it is to a lesser extent. Blacks mostly do not want to be like whites, they want their own identity, and this unfortunately manifests as less consciousness/more emotionalism.
Last edited by Rhett on Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
nitty-gritty

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by nitty-gritty »

.
Last edited by nitty-gritty on Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by Rhett »

nitty-gritty wrote:You've mistaken the name with the quote.
Thanks, it's now fixed.
acebackwords
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: Berkeleleleley, Californee
Contact:

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by acebackwords »

"Intelligence" is such a loaded word. Its one of those words like "beauty" or "art." Its in the eye of the beholder. There's all kinds of different forms of intelligence. Someone might be brilliant at mathematical intelligence, but completely stupid at philosophical intelligence. There's emotional intelligence. Functional intelligence. Physical intelligence. Etc.

The kind of intelligence that could invent automobiles, nuclear bombs, and TV sit-coms, could just as easily be seen as a form of stupidity. Couldn't it?
User avatar
daybrown
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: SE Ozarks
Contact:

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by daybrown »

Yes, Who getsta define 'intelligence'? As it is, academics for the purpose of figuring out who the transnationals and government will find most useful. On average, that's East Asians and whites. But individuals are not "on average". We have the techniques to determine who can function at what capacity, and the only problem is to determine what that is, regardless of the gene pool. Neither ascribe, nor ignore the appropriate attributes.

The only place where averages matter is in terms of homogeneous communities, which will need more or less law enforcement and case management.

We must make these judgments on a personal basis whether we like it or not. 35 years ago, a georgeous Black woman envited me home to meet her folks. It didnt take me long to figure out, that for one, white men had taken advantage of black women for 200 years there, and there were lotsa young black men pissed about it. I told her that I could not run away from trouble (she knew I walked with a limp), and sadly understood. White women could bring a black boyfriend to a gathering of us hippies, and not cause any problems, but it was not a two way street. I did not know a single white man, hippie or otherwise, who had a black girlfriend.

That black anger over past exploitation remains to this day, and so white men dare not date black women in a black community setting. Liberals buying into white guilt have maintained this form of racism. I was born on a farm in Minn; none of my yeoman farmer ancestors ever owned a slave, black or any other color. We knew that the institution of slavery encouraged aristocracy, which we knew we didnt want. But that did not matter to the angry black men who are still with us.
Goddess made sex for company.
User avatar
daybrown
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: SE Ozarks
Contact:

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by daybrown »

Oh, forgot. I'm not as clear as I hope. I dont know that black women have a preference for artificial insemination. But as the single motherhood rate among women continues to go up, its a no brainer for smart women, no matter what color they are.

If the man is not going to be around anyway, but women know the kid will be, then it makes perfect sense to try to get the kid with the fewest challenges and the most endowments. Now, making that judgment has not been easy, and as the data comes in looks to be even more challenging. As the demographic data comes in, it looks like some gene pools are less at risk from exposure to modern contaminants, and more able to benefit from closer attention to appropriate diet. Gene pools also have different immune systems that will be more or less at risk from the ongoing evolution of pathogens, most notably the MSRA staph thing.

But just on a blind shotgun approach, the Vikings were the most widely traveled race of men on the planet for 1000 years. Those who returned to Scandinavia were those with the most robust immune systems. Given the ongoing risk of global pandemic, any woman of any race would put scandinavian Y chromosome lines at the top of the list pending data on other markers that she has.
Goddess made sex for company.
Boyan
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:56 am

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by Boyan »

nitty-gritty wrote:Boyan,

Next-time don't make comments towards my questioning. It's sometimes better to ask questions then to assume you know what the other person may mean, imply, or whatever...
Why do you care why does he cares, ha?
Why do you care why I care? [Were these questions meant for you. NO]

Then you go on to assume this or that...When I simply asked a few questions.

I'll comment where I please. This is a public forum, with no gloves. There are no wimpy politically correct discussions here. It is assumed that members are aware of that.
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by divine focus »

Boyan wrote:James Watson says that he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really."
Africa's problem is more a question of getting over racial and cultural differences and becoming unified within countries. Who can say if this can actually happen continent-wide. It's a lot like Isreal/Palestine. The Powers That Were set up arbitrary borders that left different and sometimes clashing cultures fighting for power, in Africa's case in the same government. You can't have an ordered government when it's people don't agree at all.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by Rhett »

acebackwords wrote:"Intelligence" is such a loaded word. Its one of those words like "beauty" or "art." Its in the eye of the beholder. There's all kinds of different forms of intelligence. Someone might be brilliant at mathematical intelligence, but completely stupid at philosophical intelligence. There's emotional intelligence. Functional intelligence. Physical intelligence. Etc.

The kind of intelligence that could invent automobiles, nuclear bombs, and TV sit-coms, could just as easily be seen as a form of stupidity. Couldn't it?
Seems you have an aversion to intelligence. Intelligence can be regarded as the ability to think and work with reality. Intelligence is there and happenning, to a greater or lesser extent. I agree that general assessments of an individual's level of intelligence can be a complex endeavour, with significant potential for inaccuracy, but it can be done to good effect.
Last edited by Rhett on Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by Rhett »

daybrown wrote:That black anger over past exploitation remains to this day, and so white men dare not date black women in a black community setting. Liberals buying into white guilt have maintained this form of racism.
This is topical in Australia. In Australia the mainstream intellectual community spend time, as you would expect, pushing themselves intellectually in their chosen field, yet also bleed-off consciousness by indulging in and praising lesser consciousness in the aborigines. These intellectuals are confused and too weak to become significantly more conscious.

They attribute blame all over the place, mostly at the government, for the current state of the aborigines, and rarely criticise the aborigines themselves. Worse, when they do criticise the aborigines, they then immediately turn it back on the government, like a boomerang, citing a prior cause, dissolving any need for aboriginal responsibility. The truth i suspect is that the government often had good reasons for what they were doing, and were often doing their best and being partly effective at providing for and protecting the aborigines from themselves and others.

I fully acknowledge that the aborigines have been deeply weakened by being conquered, but more importantly point out that they have been conquered culturally, by a superior culture. If inferior cultures were always given right of existence and land rights, consider what the world would be like today, there would be no humans at all.

When i hear anything about their spirituality, it is mind destroying nonsense. The current generation can help them, but not by feeling guilty.
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by Rhett »

divine focus wrote:
Boyan wrote:James Watson says that he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really."
Africa's problem is more a question of getting over racial and cultural differences and becoming unified within countries. Who can say if this can actually happen continent-wide. It's a lot like Isreal/Palestine. The Powers That Were set up arbitrary borders that left different and sometimes clashing cultures fighting for power, in Africa's case in the same government. You can't have an ordered government when it's people don't agree at all.
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.

What if they want to keep fighting because it gives them a simple, single-minded cause, supported by the community, that gives them no time for deeper thinking and the anxiety that brings? Fighting for them is a choice of lesser immediate suffering. They mentally block-out the long term consequences.
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by divine focus »

Rhett wrote:I fully acknowledge that the aborigines have been deeply weakened by being conquered, but more importantly point out that they have been conquered culturally, by a superior culture.
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. ;)
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.
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.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
User avatar
daybrown
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: SE Ozarks
Contact:

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by daybrown »

Primate field studies give us the term, 'alpha male'. Born with the attitude to dominate, and the betas, who sire the females that are less interested in domination and more able to nurture. When a group has too many alphas you get too many chiefs and not enuf Indians.

White yeoman farmer culture didnt do alphas any good. There wasnt anybody there to dominate but the wife and kids, and when they took out their violent instincts on them, they were out of the gene pool. The shit really hit the fan for the alphas when the beta farmers figure out how to grow tubers instead of grain. They took what they could carry to hide in the forest, leaving the rest of their turnips buried.

The alpha men, interested in conquest and the perks of violence ended up starving in armies that had no prey. The necessity of grouping them together for mass attack also killed off lots in plagues- which if you recall, was brought to Europe by a Mongol army that was defeated by that disease.

Then too, we had the Vikings, who traveled widely to conquer in other lands. The alpha males wanted to stay to enjoy the perks of domination. The only men who returned to obscure farms in Scandinavia were the betas with the most robust immune systems. Add it all up, and you have an idea of why the graves of the yeoman farmers show only 5% of the rate of violent assault as seen in the tropical hunting tribe graveyards.

Now. the other thing about betas, is that unlike alphas, you can get them to sit down, shut up, listen, and follow orders. And the result of that- is alpha dominated military organization that works vastly better. There is no better example than the Greek Phalanx.

Neurologically, when you get an alpha's blood up, he wont listen, but will stand toe to toe and just hack away, instinctively unwilling to back down. The phalanx was 7 rows deep, betas standing shoulder to shoulder, listening to the horn of the CO to step forward, turn, or- every 20 minutes, step back in the ranks to let the next line take over- WHO HAVE FRESH ARM MUSCLES!. Read Xonophon's Anabasis. The Persian prince Cyrus hired 10,000 Greek hoplites to deal with the mountain tribes we know as the Kurds. But then, after his daddy Xerxes died, took the "Ten Thousand" with to do battle with his brother for the throne at Carnuxa.

Cyrus thot his candy ass brother would be in his camp, pointed out which way the Greeks should go. the Greeks went thru the persian ranks like a weedeater. But Cyrus himself, because he was alpha. when he saw his brother, waded into the ranks and got killed. Meanwhile, the Greeks have made it to Artaxerxes' camp, are drinking his wine and fucking his women. In, what turns out to be a million man army that had all pledged to Artaxerxes.

To make a long story short, the ended up cutting their way north thru 1500 miles of the Persian empire to the Black Sea coast. Artaxerxes and his whole fucking empire could not stop them. They sailed home. And just like we see going on in Iraq now, its either draconian force to compel obedience, or you have all these alpha leaders of one gang or the other who innately think they should be running things. Just like GW Bush, they have convictions, and will not, in fact can not, compromise.

They dont ever get it. Alexander read Xonophon, and he knew what a push over the Persian empire would be. Then after the Greeks, it was the Romans, then the Byzantines. So long as they had yeoman farmboys to staff the military with the organization was just unbeatable. The Persians, over the course of 1000 years, never could put together an effective phalanx, cause all they had was lard butt sons of the aristocracy and slaveboys. Same basic problem in Africa.

The *one* time the Brits had problems, which Diamond writes about in "Guns, Germs, & Steel" was with the Zulu. Who, it turns out, had become *farmers*, and were expanding into the more temperate zone south. Same deal in China, Korea, & Japan, which would've worked better for the peasants if the land had not already been pretty much clearcut. But even so, every couple hundreds or so, there'd be a coup, or some power struggle among the alpha male warrior class- who'd hack away at each other, pretty much leaving the peasants alone because they all regarded the farmers as livestock. Which they expected to enjoy after taking over. But the alpha male attrition rate would get so high that for a time, an interregnum, the farmers would be left to manage their own affairs.

The stupid and violent couldnt manage, and were filtered from the gene pools. The Russians are more stupid and violent because of all the Mongol blood. Not there are not also lots of Viking descendants who try to keep a lid on things. Stalin was so remarkable because everyone knew he was a hick from Georgia. Nobody, however, was surprised at the Mongol level of his brutality.
Goddess made sex for company.
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

Post by Carl G »

daybrown wrote:Primate field studies give us the term, 'alpha male'. Born with the attitude to dominate, and the betas, who sire the females that are less interested in domination and more able to nurture. When a group has too many alphas you get too many chiefs and not enuf Indians.
Nathan Bedford Forrest dominated the Union cavalry columns sent to bring him to bay repeatedly for four long years despite the fact that they were two to four times the size of his modest command. They had more cannon, too. And more forage.
White yeoman farmer culture didnt do alphas any good. There wasnt anybody there to dominate but the wife and kids, and when they took out their violent instincts on them, they were out of the gene pool. The shit really hit the fan for the alphas when the beta farmers figure out how to grow tubers instead of grain. They took what they could carry to hide in the forest, leaving the rest of their turnips buried.
Tubers are the thing to have when Armageddon hits. I'm going to bury a bunch by a back forty duck pond I know for just such a Madd Maxx day. Just ask the Russians, particularly the Ukranians, where the deep loams, reminiscent of the Ozark small grain-growing loams -- forget corn, that's for pigs -- yield on average 2.1 tonnes per hectare -- those poor Napoleanic troops never found them, nor did the Nazis one hundred thirty odd years later. And believe me, the oddest years are still to come. Fiscally speaking.
The alpha men, interested in conquest and the perks of violence ended up starving in armies that had no prey. The necessity of grouping them together for mass attack also killed off lots in plagues- which if you recall, was brought to Europe by a Mongol army that was defeated by that disease.
Demographics. Need I say more? No, I've said enuf.
Then too, we had the Vikings, who traveled widely to conquer in other lands. The alpha males wanted to stay to enjoy the perks of domination. The only men who returned to obscure farms in Scandinavia were the betas with the most robust immune systems. Add it all up, and you have an idea of why the graves of the yeoman farmers show only 5% of the rate of violent assault as seen in the tropical hunting tribe graveyards.
The graves of the yoemens are quite interesting. Yoe-man means yes-man, the original term for corporate boot-licker. Speaking of licker, we've got some bodacious stills here in the mountains around Marshall, and some good lumbermills, too. We're going to do fine with the shinola hits the fan. Global warming? Bring it on. I'll be out at the duck pond, picking my teeth and writing letters with a fine quill pen. Those are the perks.
Now. the other thing about betas, is that unlike alphas, you can get them to sit down, shut up, listen, and follow orders. And the result of that- is alpha dominated military organization that works vastly better. There is no better example than the Greek Phalanx.
I joined a fraternity. Well, actually the Masons. We built some fine walls, and copied the original arches with keystones. It's interesting how the early Mediterranean and Mayan stonework is so similar. As is the Thai stone work, and that of the sacred city of Karsus in Turkistan, and that of Kensoi in China, where 21 languages were spoken in the whorehouses.
Neurologically, when you get an alpha's blood up, he wont listen, but will stand toe to toe and just hack away, instinctively unwilling to back down. The phalanx was 7 rows deep, betas standing shoulder to shoulder, listening to the horn of the CO to step forward, turn, or- every 20 minutes, step back in the ranks to let the next line take over- WHO HAVE FRESH ARM MUSCLES!. Read Xonophon's Anabasis. The Persian prince Cyrus hired 10,000 Greek hoplites to deal with the mountain tribes we know as the Kurds. But then, after his daddy Xerxes died, took the "Ten Thousand" with to do battle with his brother for the throne at Carnuxa.
The Kazastanis lines were really long, especially when the very first cinema opened, in 17 A.D., well it was actually a puppet show but the scenery was constructed of a very early celluloid material made from flax. The flax was brought down from the mountains on the backs of yaks. Either that or in packs, carried by the arubanis, the slave race of half men and half pig. Some 10,000 were told to "hop to," during each harvest season.
Cyrus thot his candy ass brother would be in his camp, pointed out which way the Greeks should go. the Greeks went thru the persian ranks like a weedeater. But Cyrus himself, because he was alpha. when he saw his brother, waded into the ranks and got killed. Meanwhile, the Greeks have made it to Artaxerxes' camp, are drinking his wine and fucking his women. In, what turns out to be a million man army that had all pledged to Artaxerxes.
The Roman broadsword was the primary empire builder, along with the specific techniques for using it, namely the short thrust, and the regular rotation of front line men with those fresher troops behind. Most foes had no chance against this, they having heavier weapons and an arm-wearying slashing motion, not to mention no provision for relieving the actual combatants until they dropped.
To make a long story short, the ended up cutting their way north thru 1500 miles of the Persian empire to the Black Sea coast. Artaxerxes and his whole fucking empire could not stop them. They sailed home. And just like we see going on in Iraq now, its either draconian force to compel obedience, or you have all these alpha leaders of one gang or the other who innately think they should be running things. Just like GW Bush, they have convictions, and will not, in fact can not, compromise.
I just love the Genius Forum, because it's a place to pontificate on my encyclopedic knowledge of worldly events, and I don't need to actually think about philosophy -- ha -- even though it's a philosophy board, and I don't have to listen to anyone else. It's just like home to me!
They dont ever get it. Alexander read Xonophon, and he knew what a push over the Persian empire would be. Then after the Greeks, it was the Romans, then the Byzantines. So long as they had yeoman farmboys to staff the military with the organization was just unbeatable. The Persians, over the course of 1000 years, never could put together an effective phalanx, cause all they had was lard butt sons of the aristocracy and slaveboys. Same basic problem in Africa.
I tell you some really fucking interesting things happened on many continents over the years. Oats are better than corn. Diversity. Yoemen. Aristocracy. I know lots of big words and really get off throwing them around. You sure this isn't the Genius Sociology and History Board?
The *one* time the Brits had problems, which Diamond writes about in "Guns, Germs, & Steel" was with the Zulu. Who, it turns out, had become *farmers*, and were expanding into the more temperate zone south. Same deal in China, Korea, & Japan, which would've worked better for the peasants if the land had not already been pretty much clearcut. But even so, every couple hundreds or so, there'd be a coup, or some power struggle among the alpha male warrior class- who'd hack away at each other, pretty much leaving the peasants alone because they all regarded the farmers as livestock. Which they expected to enjoy after taking over. But the alpha male attrition rate would get so high that for a time, an interregnum, the farmers would be left to manage their own affairs.
Who could forget the Battle at Rourke's Drift, where 108 well armed British soldiers held off 3,000 spear-chucking Zulus? Livestock and soils, pigs and small grains. My boyhood, ah the hills of home. I wax nostalgic. Bring on Armageddon. I've got a truck buried out by the duck pond. Whores and DNA, small family farming groups of 73-98 individuals. The development of big business. Wooo-ee.
The stupid and violent couldnt manage, and were filtered from the gene pools. The Russians are more stupid and violent because of all the Mongol blood. Not there are not also lots of Viking descendants who try to keep a lid on things. Stalin was so remarkable because everyone knew he was a hick from Georgia. Nobody, however, was surprised at the Mongol level of his brutality.
Yessir, this country is ready for a female President. Just kidding. Crop circles are more than meet the eye. I've got friends who have seen things. Nathan Bedford Forrest. Quantum mechanics. All those statues dug up in the Ming Province, Latitude 54 degrees, Longitude 48 degrees, the Navajo language is very similar to Cantonese Chinese, the Meridians of the Sun, popcorn is a miniature corn but is still not considered a small grain.
Last edited by Carl G on Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Good Citizen Carl
Locked