Objective truth or blind racism.

[jaxvid]

Sark6354201 posted:

(voice wrote):
Oh , BTW, if it weren't for whitey they all, and I mean ALL, would be in their rice paddy, squatting next to a hut or sacrificing their young to the Gods...Seems a bit harsh but some take things like electricity for granted(built upon physics, chemistry etc)

(Sark6354201)
What a stupid statement. This is why I hardly ever post anymore. This is also why anyone coming to this site will automatically brand it racist while ignoring the legitimate argument that a caste system exists.

I responded as follows:
(jaxvid)
Not a stupid statement at all. Absolute truth by any objective measure. It's rude and crude and un-PC which will tend to drive away people that refuse to see the world as it really is.


(Sark6354201 came back)
Absolute truth by any objective measure? So if sub-Saharan Africa was left to its own means it would never develop technology on par with Europeans? You can theorize that it might have taken longer, or that it would be unlikely, but to claim that it is completely certain they would not have developed is absurd.

Technological development is not unique to whites either. The Middle East and Persia specifically is home to numerous medicinal and mathematical innovations that Europeans admired and adhered to in the Middle Ages. These formed the foundation for many modern technologies and theories.

I only mention my posting because I strongly believe there is discrimination and stereotyping against whites in the NFL. So it would stand to reason that I would post a lot on the only site that acknowledges it, wouldn't it? Instead, I have nearly ceased posting because some of you guys can't keep your racist/radical comments to yourself, much less have an open mind. Great way to grow the site guys!

My reply.
Voice's point was that if it were not for white people civilization as we know it would not exist. Therefore the people who did NOT create civilization would be living in much the same manner as they always had.

I feel that this belief is true and can be verified by objective means. Sark's reply was a challange to the point. He responded that Sub-Saharan Africa would have eventually developed some sort of civilization and also that a couple other societies had some technological developments.

There is no good reason to believe that primative societies would develop advanced civilizations if they were given longer to do so. The average IQ levels of those people preclude such a thing from happening. But even if you are uncomfortable looking at scientific facts like IQ you certainly have to consider that the evolutionary pressures were not there.

For instance American Indians were living like they were in the Stone Age and would still be doing so if Christopher Columbus had not arrived, furthermore in many places in Africa they are STILL living in a state of pre-civilization and in some places where white influence is waning they are going BACK to pre-civilization. Objectively, it is safe to assume that they cannot, would not, and will not, develop higher civilizations. As someone who has lived in Detroit much of his life, I know wherefrom I speak.

 

[Don Wassall]

Would the Australian aborigines ever have developed high civilization on their own? The Amazon rain forest tribes? Black Africans?


The answer seems clear. One only has to look at what happens in this country when blacks take over a city politically. What do Newark, Detroit, Gary, East St. Louis and other black-run cities share in common?


I see no problem with what Voice wrote. A rebuttal was the appropriate response by Sark if he disagreed. What Sarkwrote was little different than what I typically see on boards that talk about Caste Football -- a "leader" will quicklyattack us with the "racist" label rather than engaging in reasoned debate, and the rest (typical American sheeple, even posting anonymously on the Internet) quickly fall in line since we represent a forbidden viewpoint. Any chance for intelligent debate has been effectively squelched. When a board's Sark doesn't start off a thread by spouting the PC party line and pretending to be horrified, more often than not there is actual back and forth discussion about Caste Football and what it covers rather than name calling.


It's alsoimpossible to discuss why a "white" power structure would discriminate against whites without talking about group differences, IQ differentials, ideological agendas and how these and other things are used and exploited to achieve certain goals. So many otherwise intelligent people can't get past this seeming hurdle or contradiction (that powerful whites would discriminate against the white masses) and so it is an important topic here. And as with anything, there's a right approach and a wrong approach, but the onlyinappropriate approach I seein this caseis Sark's.

 

[White Shogun]

I thought it somewhat ironic that the two 'civilizations' Sark used as examples, the 'Middle East' and Persia, are considered Caucasian peoples anyway. It was particularly funny to me because I used the Persian empire as an example of a white civilization in a discussion just the day before, when someone told me that white civilization did not have a beginning until 1000 years ago. I said, 'Have you ever heard of the Romans? Or Greeks? Or Persians? All three existed before the time of Christ, which, if I'm not mistaken, was approximately 2,007 years ago."

Where are the structures in Australia and Africa that can rival the aqueducts, the roads, the temples, the stadiums of these civilizations, that existed more than 2,000 years ago? The churches and castles that were built in the DARK AGES of European history?

The only other comparable civilizations are Indo-Aryan and Asian.

EDITED TO ADD: I forgot to mention the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas, although the indigenous people of the Americas are considered to be of Mongoloid (Asian) stock anyway. Edited by: White Shogun

 

[whiteathlete33]

in 6000 years of recorded history the sub saharan african has invented nothing. this is a fact and i am speaking of pure blooded Sub saharan africans.

 

[white is right]

You know off the top of my head I can't think of one subsaharan invention, beyond simple crude inventions. But many American blacks have invented patented devices. Also "George Washington Carver made the peanut great!"

 

[FieldThrower]

They 'invented' bungee jumping...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeaqnfBWRtc

(I though blacks didn't do crazy stuff for no apparent reason, like sky diving and bungee jumping)

Also, I'll give them credit for building towers 80 feet tall with such primitive means (before steel frame, 80 feet was a very tall structure in the old days). I think they always had the raw ability for civilization, they were just too content with simple tribal life and lacked the societal organization of other human groups.

Instead of stupid or intellectually inferior, I'd say
lazy / unmotivated / content / unorganized.

Either way, some parts of Africa are slowly modernizing.
Edited by: FieldThrower

 

[White Shogun]

Fieldthrower, when, where, and of what material were these towers built?

As for the modernization of 21st century Africa, whatever they're doing, it's with white and Asian brain power and organization (the Chinese are investing heavily in Africa.)

 

[FieldThrower]

They're actually Melanesians in the South Pacific (though they could pass as Africans). I don't know what the towers are made of.

They had the ropes measured and probably had accounted for stresses in the tower structure. As to why they never took these basic concepts further and built more advanced structures, I haven't a clue. I can only guess they wanted to live "close to nature", or were just plain lazy.

My personal view is human groups living in tropical settings have it so easy, that they aren't driven to build great civilizations to survive. East Asians, Europeans, and Mid-easterners lived in harsher areas where things like advanced shelters and large societies are almost necessary for survival.

Most tropical groups had pretty basic living conditions when European explorers, conquerors, and colonists spread out over the globe in the middle ages. The lone exception would probably be the Meso-american civilazations, which were mostly in ruin by that time (and even those were built by a group with a mongoloid/caucasoid racial mix, that brought their civilizations from other continents).

Edited by: FieldThrower

 

[Deadlift]

Fieldthrower, when, where, and of what material were these towers built?

As for the modernization of 21st century Africa, whatever they're doing, it's with white and Asian brain power and organization (the Chinese are investing heavily in Africa.)

Correct.

In Africa -- The globalist corporations are building modern, high-rise towers for their personnel, not for the blacks. They, the blacks, still live in huts.

South Africa was once modern, but the blacks have destroyed it in short order. If they can't maintain civilization, they certainly can't build it from scratch.

Kenya used to be "considered" a bright spot in Africa, but it has been going down hill, and fast. This development could be caused by an artificially high population -- which stems from Western hand-outs.

Because natural selection is momentarily blocked, they will experience much more pain than they initially would have, had nature been allowed to take it's course early on. (i.e. not allowing the artificially-caused population explosion)


Who's interested in creating a surplus of negroes and then, here's the "good" part, use them to flood formerly White Europe? Oh, the West must take in these poor and desperate lil negroes...

Anyone who tells you -- "the world population is going to go up indefinitely" is full of it. Aside from the evil and tyranny of multi-kult, there simply isn't enough resources. Also, by putting all the races in close-quarters, deadly disease is bound to sprout up.

A culling on a massive scale is fastly approaching. Ensuring survival of our-own is all that matters.Edited by: Deadlift

 

[Sean]

All you really have to do is watch discovery channel some time. They aften have shows where they go down and live with or visit with common africans. They live in grass huts or trees, usually don't wear much clothing, and are really superstitious. All you have to do to answer this question is look at these people and say, are there ANY white nations that look/act like this. The answer is no.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

I have just started to check out this forum recently. First off the neolithic era started around 10,000 B.C in the Middle East and those people are Semitic Arab and Yiddish and normally not considered white. The Chinese were known to have developed farming very soon after that on their own somewhere between 10,000-9,000 BC.

In the Americas there were groups of Natives that developed farming on their own around 8,000 BC if I am not mistaken. I believe it may have been the Incas in western Peru near the coast, I don't recall completely b/c I have not taken history for a long time. Of course there is the Mayans and Aztecs with there massive temples which WS has already mentioned. The Mayans and Aztecs were known also to have advanced mathematical and astronomy knowledge for their day and they did it without modern machinery. Lets not forget the Pueblo Indians and their ability to create farming in the desert.

There are lots of theories as too why some civilizations developed sooner than others including cultural diffusion, and animals to domesticate which were common in the middle east. Cultural diffusion works best if there are civilizations to share ideas with that share the same climate; usually east to west rather than north to south.

My personal belief is that certain groups didn't desire change. For example the Brazilian jungle Indians had plenty of resources available to them and their only real contacts were other jungle Indians. Why cut down the jungle to farm when you are plenty happy living in it. By the way hunters and gatherers have more free time than us civilized people.

Civilization started around 3,500 BC in Sumeria. So basically the whole world was living primitively until then. Europe didn't have any notable civilizations that I can recall until the Ancient Greeks. That civilization started around 1000 BC but didn't really kick off until the first Olympics in the early 700's B.C. Many Northern Europeans were still Pagans living a primitive life at the time of Christ.

If I was going to look at black African groups that achieved progress "by our standards" there aren't many I agree, but you could say Nubian blacks had a good society on the Nile south of Egypt that co-existed with the Ancient Egyptians for while. I happen to think the biggest factor for progress is necessity. Humans aren't galvanized to change until we are forced. When human population started getting bigger and the flora and fauna weren't plentiful some person, most likely a woman, in one culture or another decided to plant seeds which is where the idea for farming came from.

In my opinion of black African groups; Kenyans seem to be smarter than other groups I have encountered, just my opinion. But I believe that the reasons for the large IQ gap are social, economic and cultural differences. There aren't a lot of black kids in the impoverished inner city with an absent father in those drug infested areas reading the philosophical works of Descartes for instance. It is true that whites have higher IQs than blacks, but a lot of it is circumstantially caused. I don't believe there is a black Einstein out there, but there are still a lot of smart blacks. And maybe I will be proven wrong on the Einstein thing, you never know.

Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[White Shogun]

Pretty extensive list of civilizations on this list, and I don't see any sub-Saharan African empires on there, or for that matter any Africans at all except for Egypt.

Bout a 1,000 years off on the beginning of the Greek empire, which is irrelevant anyway in comparison to a continent of people who never, ever had a civilization 1/4 it's equal. Doesn't matter when it started or when it ended, 1 > 0.

If the Persians and other Semitic peoples aren't Caucasian, what do you think they are? Do they look more Mongoloid, like the Chinese? Or Negro, like Nigerians?

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

How am I off on the beginning of Ancient Greece? Do you include the relatively small earlier Mycenaean civilization as part of Ancient Greece, because that civilization collapsed around 1200 BC didn't it? I would think the true beginning of Ancient Greece would be somewhere around 1000 BC. Obviously it wasn't at it's height until centuries later especially during all the Peloponesean wars in the 400's BC before Alexander.Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Ok, White Shogun if you think Semitic Arabs are white would you include Yasser Arafat as white. As far as Persians would you consider Iyatolah Komenei as a white if he were a football player?

Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[White Shogun]

Ok, White Shogun if you think Semitic Arabs are white would you include Yasser Arafat as white. As far as Persians would you consider Iyatolah Komenei as a white if he were a football player?

White is not synonymous with European. And yes, Arafat is Caucasian, as is Khomeni. They're not European, but they're Caucasian. There are some people who don't consider even Italians or Greeks to be 'white,' but not me. I believe both you and they are wrong in your definition of 'white', i.e. Caucasian. However, I believe the majority of the board here root for whites of European descent, as that is the people who founded this nation and from whom most of us are descended - Europeans.

As for the Greeks / Mycenaens, you must have missed the part right under that where I said it's irrelevant, because 1 > 0. And who said anything about the 'height of a civilization?' Any number times 0 is still 0. Sub-Saharan Africa had no civilization to have a 'height.'

And you're still not answering direct questions. Do you think Persians are more like Mongoloid peoples, like the Koreans? Or do you think they are more like Negroes, like Nigerians?

p.s. If you think you will persuade me of your argument by lumping Muslim despots within my definition of 'white' , you failed. Our history is replete with despots of all nationalities and peoples. Throwing in a few Semites doesn't change the facts. Edited by: White Shogun

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Good for you WS, I am sure you're happy with your dogma...I don't need to answer all your questions.

 

[White Shogun]

Good for you WS, I am sure you're happy with your dogma...I don't need to answer all your questions.

Answering each other's questions is usually what people do when they're having a discussion, Riggins. I'm not sure how you consider discussion of facts as dogma, but ok.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Alright, I just got a little tense there for a second. No hard feelings.

 

[Bart]

My personal belief is that certain groups didn't desire change. For example the Brazilian jungle Indians had plenty of resources available to them and their only real contacts were other jungle Indians. Why cut down the jungle to farm when you are plenty happy living in it...


But I believe that the reasons for the large IQ gap are social, economic and cultural differences.

They didn't desire change?

Riggins, do you really believe that?They lived in the trees and jungles, nearly on the same levelas theanimals, sweltering in the heat and humidity, without developing systems that would drastically better their conditions for thousands of years. Why not?They simply did not have the ability to do so, or they would have.

 

[white is right]

They did to a point just that the sub-Saharan cultures didn't develop the ability to forge metal. Really the were semi-isolated and didn't share technology the way that Europeans and Asians did. What really has held back their countries is the ability to come together as one people. Internal squabbling is the root of African backwardsness. Many African countries are resource rich, but the money stays in the hands of the cronies that are connected to the ruling class.Edited by: white is right

 

[White Shogun]

What really has held back their countries is the ability to come together as one people. Internal squabbling is the root of African backwardsness. Many African countries are resource rich, but the money stays in the hands of the cronies that are connected to the ruling class.

You say that like it's not a bad thing.

Whether from lack of motivation, lack of intent, lack of talent, or lack of ability to get along with each other, the fact remains- they didn't get it done, and still haven't.

Alright, I just got a little tense there for a second. No hard feelings.

No hard feelings here, either. I can vehemently disagree with someone on different issues and still bear them no ill will. I have responded to a lot of your posts, but it is not my intention to pick on you. Like you, I'm just sharing my opinions on the subjects about which you happen to be posting.

So, where were we?

Edited by: White Shogun

 

[Bart]

Internal squabbling is the root of African backwardsness.

Largely due to genetics. They are given to emotion, aggression, and violence. They and the Aborigines are the dullest of all peoples inhabiting the earth. Very low levels of intelligence, imagination, creativity, cognitive abilities, and reasoning skills are responsible for their lack of achievement.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

My personal belief is that certain groups didn't desire change. For example the Brazilian jungle Indians had plenty of resources available to them and their only real contacts were other jungle Indians. Why cut down the jungle to farm when you are plenty happy living in it...


But I believe that the reasons for the large IQ gap are social, economic and cultural differences.

They didn't desire change?

Riggins, do you really believe that? They lived in the trees and jungles, nearly on the same level as the animals, sweltering in the heat and humidity, without developing systems that would drastically better their conditions for thousands of years.Why not? They simply did not have the ability to do so, or they would have.

I absolutely believe that. Hunters and gatherers worked less than 20 hours a week on average. Compare that with our 40 hour work week in traditional America. That goes without even mentioning the work you have to bring home with you. And don't forget the financial and housework stress that comes with owning a house.

As a person who loves the outdoors, I can understand how people who had lived traditionally off the land could enjoy that lifestyle. You are an instrument of your experience. It wasn't all tribal war and human sacrifice. Those were surely the worst elements of hunting and gathering societies that existed in some tribal regions.

However, there are many groups like the North West Fisherman Indians of Oregon who had a plentiful supply of food and lived in a region of peace. They spent most of their time playing competitive sports and games, story telling, dancing, painting and I am sure had a hell of a lot of sex. Living amongst the Animals is how "all" human beings lived for the first approximately 190,000 years of our species "Cro Magnum" man's existence.

It is a known fact that there was far less disease in those days b/c most diseases came from domesticating and sleeping amongst the animals in pastoral societies, which hunters and gatherers didn't do. They lived amongst the animals, but didn't sleep amongst them or domesticate them for farming. If you took the time to do research you would see that many tribes in regions with plentiful food had elder medicine men and Shaministic healers who reached old age. The life expectancy other than infant fatalities and child labor fatalities was not much less than ours in peaceful regions.

To top that off it is also known that the life of a farmer is extremely hard labor. You essentially work from when the rooster crows until dusk in the sun and heat toeing the field. Hunters and gatherers in most locations had the covering of the forest from the sun. In early days before machinery being a farmer was a curse. You need to ask yourself the question of why "all" humans lived for 190,000 years as hunters and gatherers before the neolithic era in about 10,000 BC.

My guess is that that life wasn't all that bad and that people were only galvanized to change when population in the Middle East rose and their was a food shortage. Some "brilliant" female gatherers probably got the idea to start planting seeds b/c the herds had moved on and the vegetation was drying up. Therefore they planted seeds and watered them for small scale farming.

Another thing to note is that the whole alcohol tradition started with farmers. Farmers basically discovered naturally occurring fermentation of yeast by accident. Back in the days of early farming before machinery a nice beer before bed was about all the leisure you had time for.Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[Bart]

I absolutely believe that. Hunters and gatherers worked less than 20 hours a week on average. Compare that with our 40 hour work week in traditional America. That goes without even mentioning the work you have to bring home with you. And don't forget the financial and housework stress that comes with owning a house.

Your entire post is ridiculous. If not for the mind and soul of the white man and his innatecreative genius, the entire world would still be living in very primitive conditions, not too far removed from the animals. That is not arguable, and the implications are obvious to the intellectually honest. Not being able to refute the truth and the implications thereof, you attempt to prove to us that the primitive societies were actually better.Ha ha. I like nature and the simple life too, but because of white achievements I canCHOOSE to sit at my computer and punch away at the keyboard or camp in the woods this weekend living among the wild life. You see, because of Edison, Marconi, Tesla, and countless other white men like them, I have the opportunity to do as I wish. The African andNative Americanwas forced to live in very primitive states because they could not elevate themselves to a higher position. Why don't you live among the Masai, if their culture and life style is so great? Edited by: Bart

 

[aussieaussie31]

It always puts a grin on my face whenever I hear anyone say "it's just their culture". I read somewhere this exact quote "culture is a direct physical manifestation of a peoples inner being, their creativity, their desires, their inherent genetic traits". Cultures do not create people, people create cultures. I can't remember where I read that at. I think it may have been Philip Rushton's book "Race and Evolution" but I am not 100% on that. Well needless to say I agree with that quote all the way. You see many people believe that a person is the way he is as a result of his culture. On it's face that may have some relative truth to it. However, when looking at the big picture I Believe that a culture is the end result of what a people are capable of.
As far as Africa ever having the ability to develope a civilization that could rival Europe's, I find the notion laughable.
Anywhere you find a large concentration of Africans you will have similar conditions that exist in Africa. It is not racism. It's just a cold hard fact. This in my humble opinion is genetics, pure and simple genetics. Am I a geneticist? No. However I have been to many countries over the course of my young life and I BELIEVE WHAT MY OWN EYES REVEAL TO ME. If I could find even ONE country, city, state, county, district, village, town, suburb, ANYWHERE on this planet from South Africa, to Detroit, to Paris, to certain sections of London, from Toronto down to New Orleans and back west to Oakland then up aroud to D.C. mabye I would change my opinion. Fact is we still see the same results. Any scientist doing a study who received the same result while using multiple control factors(I.E. the different cities, and countries named) would have no choice but to come to the conclusion that this is the case.