Discrimination bullshit

NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
edited May 2011 in Spurious Generalities
You can't be a racialist and step into a debate without ever being given the most common and whiniest excuse that niggers were oppressed and discriminated against, or even that they still are today. The discrimination theory is hard to prove because we see that the groups who perform terribly are of lower intelligence and poorer educational qualifications than those perform well (Whites, East Asians and Jews). Even when matched for education to majority groups that do better, we can see that certain groups do poorly in socioeconomic status and earnings. Social-Marxists and the average minority who doesn't want to take responsibility put this down to discrimination; when it doesn't take a genius to figure out that two groups who have the same amount of schooling do not necessarily have the same cognitive abilities or motivation for economic achievement.

In The Bell Curve (1994) we see that when the races are matched for intelligence, the race differences in earnings, socio-economic status, and education virtually disappear. This shows that the differences are not due to Mestizos and Niggers having different cultural values or discrimination against them by whites, but are explained by IQ differences. The differences in poverty, unemployment, welfare, crime and illegitimate births are also reduced when matched for IQ, but they do not disappear.

Even if it was down to discrimination (which it's not) that doesn't explain away the differences of the Chinese and the Jews who outperform whites in their own countries and were discriminated against; nor does it explain away the fact that Native Americans also out perform niggers in the United States, despite living in much worse conditions. Chinese and japanese immigrants outperform the mestizos, mulattos and niggers in South Amerian countries such as Brazil, and even in Jamaica the Whites, Chinese and Mulattoes outperform niggers in every way despite being a very small minority in the country. The same story is told in Trinidad and Tobago.

The discrimination theory doesn't hold much weight in Southeast Asia, where the ethnic Chinese are a minority and lack political power, except in Singapore. They have been discriminated against and sometimes persecuted, yet they're consistently better than the natives. They have higher IQs and outperform the indigenous populations, despite discrimination against them.

The Chinese and Japanese usually come from poor backgrounds to originally do labouring work and have risen in the ranks extraordinarily.

This is mainly because of race differences in intelligence.


  • fanglekaifanglekai Regular
    edited May 2011
    Niggers are pretty dumb. I thought this was a self-evident truth.
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited May 2011
    Equally as bad is the pseudo-intellectual argument of "cultural values." What sucks for the proponents of this theory is that family values seem to have no effect on the intelligence of children. There would be a high correlation between the IQs of children raised in the same family. The correlation between the IQs of siblings is only 0.47 and is explained only by their genetic similarity (Bouchard, 1993). The correlation between adults unrelated, adopted as children and raised in the same family is 0. Cultural values have no long-term effect on IQs (Scarr and Weinberg, 1978). Scarr's Minnesota trans-racial adoption study is well known and goes a long-way to give genetic-evidence for race differences in IQs. The adopted children were either White, Black, or Mixed-Race (Black-White) babies. The children took IQ tests when they were seven years old and again when they were 17.

    When they were 7 years old, Black, Mixed-Race, and White adopted children all had higher IQ scores than average for their group. Growing up in a good home helped all the children. Even so, the racial pattern was exactly as predicted by genetic theory, not by culture theory. The evidence for genetic theory got stronger as the children grew older. By age 17, the IQs of the adopted children moved closer to the expected average for their race. Whites had an IQ of about 106, Mixed-Race 99, and blacks 89.

    As rushton comments about this study in Race, Evolution and Behavior;
    A special analysis of the Scarr study compared parents who believed that they had adopted a Black baby but, really, had adopted a Mixed-Race (Black-White) child. The average IQ for these Mixed-Race children was just about the same as for other Mixed-Race children and above that for adopted Black children. This was true even though the parents who adopted these Mixed-Race children thought their babies really had two Black parents.

    Korean and Vietnamese babies from poor backgrounds, many of whom were malnourished, were adopted by White American and Belgian families. When they grew up, they excelled in school. The IQs of the adopted Oriental children were 10 or more points higher than the national average for the country they grew up in. Trans-racial adoption does not increase or decrease IQ. The three-way pattern of race differences in IQ remains.

    Of course, poverty, and nutrition play factors (although not as significant). But so too are the genes. Culture theory alone cannot explain all the findings.

    What is also ironic is recently how cultural theorists are praising confucianism for the economic development of East Asia, yet as recently as the 1970s, Jomo (1997 p.237) has pointed out, they "were blaming confucianism for the economic backwardness of the Chinese."

    Studies of regression to the average explains another interesting finding. Black children born to rich parents have IQs that are two to four points lower than do White children born to poor parents. The high IQ Black parents were not able to pass on their IQ advantage to their children even though they did give them good nutrition, good medical care, and good schools. Only genes plus environment tell the whole story.
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited May 2011
    fanglekai wrote: »
    Niggers are pretty dumb. I thought this was a self-evident truth.

    Some people (niggers) don't seem to think so. I'm just making it crystal clear for them. That brings me to another point, actually. Every other race knows what low-down and worthless sacks of shit niggers are, except for niggers themselves. They have a high self-concept and high opinion of themselves. Strong self-concept is a characteristic of dysfunctional personality and anti-social personality disorder. Studies have shown that niggers have higher self-acceptance and believe they're good people, believe they do well in school (when they don't), believe they have great peer acceptance (when it's not as high as they claim) and that they'll be successful in their career when they leave school (many of them are not successful and come no-where near reaching this point).

    In their opinion of their own attractiveness and competency in reading, science, and social studies (but not math), blacks score higher than whites and Asians, despite their actual lower scores. Ethnic pride, prohibited to whites by the Equality Police, increases happiness and, presumably, self-esteem. (Kiang, 2006).

    The so-called "outgoing personality" of niggers does a good job of masking low ability, as Rushton has eloquently put in this article
  • MayberryMayberry Regular
    edited May 2011
    The video in this thread is a great example of this nigger entitlement/pride: https://totse.info/bbs/showthread.php?t=15175
  • BoxBox Regular
    edited May 2011
    Mayberry wrote: »
    The video in this thread is a great example of this nigger entitlement/pride: https://totse.info/bbs/showthread.php?t=15175

    I was going to mention that too. Niggers always play the 'I was oppressed for 400 years" card. Why can't they all be the uncle toms they were in the 50s and conform to the shit they are. Statistically proven, they score lower that any other minority in educational institutes disregarding their living quarters. Just look up BOE graduation rates per state. Blacks always fall into the highest percentile for dropouts, even in half-assed suburban neighborhoods.
  • edited May 2011
    So you admit that environment is a factor?..

    EDIT: Racism is sort of like creationism, isn't it?

    Pick the facts you like, ignore the ones you don't. It's pretty obvious that anyone from any race can be good or bad, intelligent or ignorant, etc.

  • edited May 2011
    Of course. Statistically speaking, though...

    Statistically speaking, there are explanations for that which don't include "All niggers are inherently dumb."
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited May 2011
    So you admit that environment is a factor?..

    EDIT: Racism is sort of like creationism, isn't it?

    Pick the facts you like, ignore the ones you don't. It's pretty obvious that anyone from any race can be good or bad, intelligent or ignorant, etc.

    Can you not read?

    I don't pick and ignore any facts, so I don't know why you're saying that I do. No shit an individual from any race can be good, bad, intelligent or ignorant... but not equally likely as each other.
  • edited May 2011
    Negrophobe wrote: »
    No shit an individual from any race can be good, bad, intelligent or ignorant... but not equally likely as each other.

    And why is that?
  • edited May 2011
    Ever heard of genetics?:facepalm: It seems you are the one who ignores facts. For example I'll readily admit that the average ashkenazi jew has a higher IQ than the average white.

    There are many, many factors which influence intelligence.
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited May 2011
    Because of genetic differences in addition to environmental factors. Differences in hormone levels and differences in brain size and intelligence. Although all humans have the same genes, the percentage of each population that has any given allele of a gene can vary from 0 to 100%

    ASPM (“abnormal spindle homolog, microcephaly associated”), Chromosome 1. Its alleles affect the size of the brain; defects in the ASPM gene lead to small brains and low IQ. (Evans, 2004). A new ASPM allele arose about 5800 ya in Eurasia and that allele has been suspected of increasing intelligence in Eurasia; it is common in Eurasians but absent in Africans and chimpanzees. People who speak tonal languages (e.g., Chinese) are more likely to carry two newer alleles of ASPM and MCPH1 than people in non-tonal regions. (Dediu, 2007; Mekel-Bobrov, 2005).

    MCPH1 (“microcephaly, primary autosomal recessive 1”), Chromosome 8. The alleles of this gene, commonly called “microcephalin,” at least partly determine brain size and/or organization. (Wang, 2004). A new allele of this gene that increases intelligence arose about 37,000 ya (the confidence limit is very wide -- 60,000 - 14,000 BP; Evans, 2005). This allele is common in Eurasians but rare in Africans and absent in chimpanzees.
        Both the newly-discovered ASPM and microcephalin alleles were strongly selected for and spread rapidly through the Eurasian populations. These genes have been associated chronologically with two of the most revolutionary changes in human affairs - an explosion of hand-crafts in the Upper Paleolithic era (40,000 ya), and the development of sophisticated cities and the beginning of major trade routes. 1 However, so far a correlation between IQ and the presence of these alleles has not been found. (Woods, 2006; Rushton, 2007a).

    Intelligence is determined by multiple genes and also by the environment. The heritability of intelligence is about 42% for 4-6 yr olds and 55% for age group 6-20, but increases to 80% for adult Europeans and 72% for adult African Americans.

    It shouln't seem such a hard concept, however to many it is the hardest thing to grasp (or accept, rather), the bigger your brain the more likely you are to be intelligent. Social-Marxists such as Stephen Jay Gould and his followers have been doing their upmost to convince the public that races don't differ in brain-sizes or intelligence, that we are all equal... when mountains of evidence on the contrary says "not really."

    Every way of testing brain size reaches the same conclusions, be it through brain weighing at autopsy, skull measurements (filling empty skulls), living head measurements, and most recently and accurately of all MRI scanning. East-Asians have the largest brains (on average), negroes the smallest, and Whites in between. These differences in brain size are not due to body size. Even adjusting for body size presents the same pattern.

    Even as early as the 19th century it was common and accepted knowledge that East-Asians have larger and heavier brains than Whites, while Whites have larger and heavier brains than do Blacks. The great neurologist Paul Broca also found that White brains have more surface folding than Black brains. (The more folded the surface of the brain, the more brain cells it can contain.) White brains also have larger frontal lobes which are used in self control and planning.

    By 1906, Robert Bean reported on 150 brains of autopsied Blacks and Whites in the American Journal of Anatomy. Brain weight varied with the amount of White ancestry from no White ancestry (1,157 grams) to half-White ancestry (1,347 grams.) He found the brains of Blacks were less folded than those of Whites and had fewer fibers leading to the frontal lobes, just like Broca. Raymond Pearl also found that brain weight increased with the amount of White ancestry (which would make sense, since mulattos do better in academic achievement and IQ tests than negroes). Many other studies followed finding the same pattern.

    During the dark ages and science wars (nature vs nurture debates) reaching its peak in the 1970s, many anti-racialists tried to claim that the early studies were wrong and that they didn't account for “sex, body size, age of death, childhood nutrition, origin of sample, occupation, and cause of death.” However, when averaged
    all the data, we can still see that East-Asians and Whites have heavier brains than
    Blacks. Even Philip V. Tobias, who was a major skeptic finally had to agree that East-Asians have “millions” more extra neurons than Whites who have “millions” more than Blacks. In 1980, Kenneth Ho et al. confirmed the differences; the negroes used in the study were similar in body size to the Whites, but Whites still averaged 100 grams
    more brain weight than did Blacks, so differences in body size do not explain away these race differences in brain size.

    Even in 1942, Katherine Simmons reported on over 2,000 skulls in the journal Human
    Biology. She found that Whites have larger skulls than Blacks. The Blacks in her sample were taller than the Whites so the skull size differences could not be due to body size. Kenneth Beals et al. further confirmed these findings in the 1984 issue of Current Anthropology. They reported the measurements of up to 20,000 skulls from around the world. Skull sizes varied with place of origin. Skulls from East Asia were 3 cubic inches larger than those from Europe which were 5 cubic inches larger than skulls from Africa. This was found through filling skulls with packing material; they all confirm the findings from as early as the 19th century when Samuel George Morton studied over 1,000 skulls. He found that Blacks had skulls about 5 cubic inches smaller than Whites.

    Rushton reported the average brain size for Negroes (1,267), Whites (1,347), and East-Asians (1,364).

    Rushton and C. D. Ankney “Brain Size and Cognitive Ability” in the 1996 issue of the journal Psychonomic Bulletin and Review surveyed all the published research on this topic. It included studies that used the state-of-the-art Magnetic Resonance Imaging. There were eight of these studies with a total sample size of 381 adults. The overall correlation between IQ and brain size measured by MRI is 0.44. The correlation of .44, is the result of magnetic resonance imaging of brain size, it in of itself is a high correlation, but we must remember that even higher correlations were identified when the method of correlated vectors was applied by Arthur Jensen, and a correlation of .94 was found.

    It is essentially an undeniable fact that the differing capacities of g among races are correlated with brain size.

    All of the latest scientific research clearly demonstrates that brain size and intelligence are positively correlated.

    IQ tests are not the best, but they're certainly not useless and are good predictors of life outcomes. Psychologists use IQ tests to measure what we call “intelligence” or “mental ability.” Brighter people typically score higher on IQ tests than most people. Less bright people score lower. IQ tests are made to have an average of 100. The “normal” range goes from “dull” (IQ around 85) to “bright” (IQ around 115). IQs of 70 suggest mental retardation, while IQs of 130 and above predict giftedness.

    The average East-Asian IQ is about 106, the White IQ about 100, and the Black IQ about 85. This pattern is found around the world, with Blacks in Africa having a lower IQ than Blacks in America.

    The Bell curve (1994) shows how IQ predicts success in education, jobs, and training. Low IQ predicts child abuse, crime and delinquency, health, accident proneness, having a child out of wedlock, getting a divorce before five years of marriage, and even smoking during pregnancy. Linda S. Gottfredson et al. confirmed this later.


    All the subjects were from the same race and socio-economic group for this study.

    The very same race differences show up on tests made to be “culture-free” as well as on standard IQ tests. In fact, Negroes score slightly higher on standard IQ tests than they do on these “culture-free” tests, as Arthur Jensen revealed. This is the opposite of what the culture only theory predicts.

    Richard Lynn went further in his wonderful book The Global Bell curve, a dedication to The Bell Curve, that worldwide the gradient is the same, in that East-Asians are more intelligent and more successful (even when they are very small minorities in countries such as Brazil and other Latin-American countries), Whites are inbetween, blacks are at the bottom and mulattos are inbetween blacks and whites, closer to blacks. Culture only, economic and discriminationist theories are found by Lynn to be overwhelmingly unlikely and fallacious, as opposed to intelligence theory. Although it's a mix of both environment and genetics.

    The peak of the black distribution is higher and the left end is less spread out than the ends of white curve, even though both curves include the same number of people; the narrower black curve means that the black standard deviation (SD) is less than the white SD. Although the SD “is commonly given … as 15” for everyone (Herrnstein, 1994, p. 276), the black SD for the data used in Figure 14-5 was 12.4. According to Jensen, the SD for whites is 16 (18 for males and 14 for females) but is 10 or 11 (some say 14) for NE Asians and about 12 for blacks. A group that has a larger SD will have both more geniuses and more dummies than another group that has the same mean but a smaller SD; white males have the largest SD, which may explain their greater achievements.

    Over half of Sub-saharan Africans are in the retarded range. About 37% of American blacks have an IQ below 80, just above retarded, but only about 9% of whites do, but blacks are 6.1 times as likely to be retarded (IQ<70) as whites (i.e., about 12% of African Americans and 2% of non-Hispanic whites have an IQ less than 70; La Griffe du Lion, 2000d)

    r/k theory explains why well enough.

    Pg. 34 onwards
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited May 2011
    Jencks (1972) documented data showing correlations between childhood IQ and educational attainment (r=0.58), between IQ and socioeconomic status (r=0.52), and between IQ and earning (r=0.35). He regarded IQs as determined early in childhood as a result of genetic and environmenta factors.

    Jencks, 1972; Murray, 1998; and Waller, 1971 show that positive correlations between childhood IQ and adult earnings are present among brothers who have been raised in the same family. The brother with the higher IQ in childhood has the greater earnings in adulthood; the effect holds independent of family environment.

    To achieve credibility, a theory needs to explain the totality of the phenomena. Only intelligence theory can do this. If the race differences in IQs in the United States and Britain were solely environmentally determined, you should expect to see different racial hierarchies in other continents...

    Explain to me, JAA.... how come people who have arrived in new countries as impoverished immigrants (Chinese, Japanese and Jews coming to mind here) quickly rise in socioeconomic status and within 2 or 3 generations join the socioeconomic elite, while others remain at the bottom. How do you explain the rapid socioeconomic and intellectual achievements of the Chinese and Japanes ein the US, Canada, Latin America, Hawaii, Europe and Southeast Asia; or of the jews in the US, Canada and Britain?

    These people have high IQs, that's why.

    Malnutrition adversely affects intelligence, even the 2 leading pioneers in the intelligence theory (Lynn and Rushton) concede this. Richard Lynn documented it in 1990.

    However, in Africa, even among blacks fewer than a third are malnourished and this makes it doubtful whether it can fully explain the race differences in IQs. Race differences in the prevalence of malnutrition and intelligence is understood as arising from genotype-environment correlation as described by Plomin (1994), those with high genotypic and phenotypic intelligence provide their children with good nutrition.
  • Gary OakGary Oak Regular
    edited May 2011
    You should write a book. . .
  • BoxBox Regular
    edited May 2011
    He's simply regurgitating what's been already said and published. Nothing new here folks.
  • edited May 2011
    Some black people are smart, and some are stupid, perhaps significantly more of the latter; however, they have this in common only with every other group in the world.
  • High-PhenatedHigh-Phenated New Arrival
    edited May 2011
    Excellent post Slim.
    Some black people are smart, and some are stupid, perhaps significantly more of the latter; however, they have this in common only with every other group in the world.

    As clever as your username is, this thread sure went right over your head.
  • edited May 2011
    Well, I'm no good at trolling (Most of my bullshit came from here [ame=" - Trolling the Racists[/ame]), lol.

    One serious question, though. What is the application of this information? What's the point of having it or making it known?
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited May 2011
    One serious question, though. What is the application of this information? What's the point of having it or making it known?

    Why should facts be suppressed? It's primarily a matter of principle for me. I'd rather live honestly and always seek to further and improve myself, if that makes me "racist" or a "bigot" then so what?

    The acknowledgement of different races and racial differences and why they are the way they are can help form national policies suitable to all races, as much as possible anyway (I personally believe in segregation, with a long term goal of complete separation). True equaity is a myth, even between individuals. Diversity isn't a strength, it has been the downfall of every once great nation and continues to be so today.

    The only diversity we should be celebrating is human genetic diversity and preserving these identities. It also goes a long way in the medical field.

    It is actually an important question you've asked, JAA, not one which can be answered simply.

    I actually find it ironic that race-deniers do not help the "problem" of "racism." Anthropologists of the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s, on the other hand, believed that they were combating racism by openly discussing race and by teaching courses on human races and racism. Which approach works best do you think? I believe suppression of speech, "positive discrimination," hate crime double standards and the anti-pride crowd have done much more to make racism more fierce than ever. I mean, how can anti-racists combat "racism" if no one is ever willing to talk about race? Even if you are anti-racist and a multiculturalist it still doesn't do any good to deny race.

    Forensic anthropologist for Wyoming law-enforcement agencies and the Wyoming State Crime Laboratory, and professor of anthropology, George W. Gill had this to say:
    In my experience, minority students almost invariably have been the strongest supporters of a "racial perspective" on human variation in the classroom. The first-ever black student in my human variation class several years ago came to me at the end of the course and said, "Dr. Gill, I really want to thank you for changing my life with this course." He went on to explain that, "My whole life I have wondered about why I am black, and if that is good or bad. Now I know the reasons why I am the way I am and that these traits are useful and good."

    A human-variation course with another perspective would probably have accomplished the same for this student if he had ever noticed it. The truth is, innocuous contemporary human-variation classes with their politically correct titles and course descriptions do not attract the attention of minorities or those other students who could most benefit. Furthermore, the politically correct "race denial" perspective in society as a whole suppresses dialogue, allowing ignorance to replace knowledge and suspicion to replace familiarity. This encourages ethnocentrism and racism more than it discourages it.

    Now the reason I see it as good to know races are genetically and mentally different is it helps us explain why they act as they do and what we can do about it (personally I believe segregation and/or separation is the best answer).

    Jared Taylor had a wonderful video on why multiculturalism/racialism is bad:

    Anyone who believes multiculturalism and globalism/internationalism (including but not limited to free-market liberal capitalism) is great then they should ask themselves why they think that. What is the pragmatic benefit of diversity? Does it strengthen and encourage the use of one language? Does it strengthen the economy? Does it cut down crime? Does it alleviate tension between various groups? The answer to all of these is NO!

    There is no concrete benefit to diversity. It is simply embraced for its "internal" value. The people who embrace diversity don't do it for any benefits, but do it in cult-like way in which diversity is worshiped or to claim some moral high ground. "OMGZ it's 2011."

    Here's one of my favourite short articles:
    Diversity is Not a Strength
    by The Southern Avenger
    21 August 2007

    Of all the politically-correct doctrines that dominate modern life, perhaps the most idiotic is the notion that "diversity is a strength" Cultural, ethnic or even racial diversity is considered so important these days that everything from school districts to corporations are intentionally manipulated to reflect a multicultural image. Whether this is even a good idea or not is never discussed. The notion that "diversity is a strength" has become an unassailable mantra, case closed and mind shut.

    But not according to Harvard political scientist and best-selling author Robert Putnam, who after intensive study has declared that only is diversity a weakness, but is more destructive than we could have ever imagined. Writes Putnam: "People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to 'hunker down,' that is, to pull in like a turtle. (They) tend to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it's not just that we don't trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don't trust people who do look like us.'"

    But how can this be? For normal people, you don't have to be a rocket scientist ? or even a Harvard professor ? to understand that people enjoy the company of people like themselves

    I remember a conversation with a friend once, a nice enough fella who fancied himself as a "progressive" Being a progressive, he told me that my views were wrong on this subject and that diversity was indeed a wonderful thing. I conceded his point and invited him to join me at a redneck bar right down the street. He refused. Then I offered to buy him a beer at a Mexican dance club on the other side of town. He just stared at me.

    Truth be told, my progressive friend only kept company with other white progressives, all of whom despised the Southern Avenger, I might add. In his defense, the redneck bar or the Mexican dance club likely wouldn't have appreciated his presence at their establishments either. The only difference is they wouldn't hesitate to tell him.

    When couples meet other couples for dinner, the men and women always end up having their own segregated conversations. At family reunions, young and old tend to stick to their own. And there isn't a school lunchroom in this country where white, black and Latino kids don't stake their racially separate territory.

    That diversity exists is undeniable. But so is the fact that it always creates friction. That multiple cultures, living in close proximity, would try to make the best out of a bad situation is honorable. That our leaders would seek to import alien cultures on purpose, whether they be Mexican nationals or Muslims, is deplorable. The very essence of community implies a certain degree of cultural coherence, of belonging to the same people or nation. It is our sameness that binds us together. It's hard to imagine anything more obvious or less controversial. And far from being a strength, the cult of diversity has in fact, become a religion of the worst kind ? where faith dictates facts and the biggest hypocrites are indeed the most faithful.
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited May 2011
    Here are 2 short articles by Rushton, the first one on the politically correct undermining of Darwinism, the second one a critique of anti-racist, social-marxist and pseudo-psychologist; Stephen Jay Gould.
    The Campaign to Undermine Darwinism

    Beginning in the 1920s when the Franz Boas school of anthropology succeeded in decoupling the biological from the social sciences, Darwinism has been marginalized in the human sciences. Although early in the century William McDougall had proposed an "instinct" theory of personality, and G. Stanley Hall had advanced an evolutionary perspective for developmental psychology, Darwinism was swept away in the 1920s by various environmentalist doctrines. Freud's Oedipal theories and Watson's behavioral molding of individuals were compatible with Marx's assumptions of the malleability of entire social groups through government intervention.

    In the 1950s, hostility to the record of Nazi racial atrocities tainted attempts to restore Darwinism to the social sciences. From that time on, it became increasingly difficult to suggest that individuals or groups might differ genetically in behavior without being accused of Nazi sympathies.

    Those who believed in the biological identity of all people, on the other hand, remained free to write what they liked, without fear of vilification. In the intervening decades, the idea of a genetically based core of human nature on which individuals and groups might differ was consistently derogated. This intellectual movement has been politically fueled by successively coupling it to Third World decolonization, the U.S. civil rights movement, the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, and the renewed debates over immigration.

    Let us be explicit about the problem faced by Darwinian psychology -- political correctness. Its central thesis is the environmental determinism of all important human traits. It stems from Marxism and a belief that social and economic oppression are the cause of all significant individual and group behavioral differences. The Marxist hold on liberal political sentiment is so extensive many of us think that way without realizing it. We censor ourselves lest we even dare to think the forbidden thoughts.

    In a 1975 paper invited by the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Professor Hans Eysenck, himself a refugee from Hitler's Germany but a strong advocate of Darwinian bio-social psychology and the doyen of British psychology, wrote:

    It used to be taken for granted that it was not only ethically right for scientists to make public their discoveries; it was regarded as their duty to do so. Secrecy, the withholding of information, and the refusal to communicate knowledge were rightly regarded as cardinal sins against the scientific ethos. This is true no more. In recent years it has been argued, more and more vociferously, that scientists should have regard for the social consequences of their discoveries, and of their pronouncements; if these consequences are undesirable, the research in the area involved should be terminated, and the results already achieved should not be publicized. The area which has seen most of this kind of argumentation is of course that concerned with inheritance of intelligence, and with racial differences in ability.

    Richard Lynn, another British Darwinian psychologist, noted that many politically left-of-center scientists are currently in the same position as Christians were after the publication of The Origin of Species. He called on liberals to do what honest, intelligent Christians did then and what many still do today. Bite the bullet, and jettison those aspects of their world view (like egalitarianism) that are incompatible with the science of natural selection. Political correctness must be discarded if evolutionary theory is to achieve its full promise to become the unifying framework for the human sciences.


    I should add that I'm a supporter of Eugenics in general. Race just happens to come under that.
  • edited May 2011
    In your opinion, would it be possible to change public policy to help us work with the differences between the races without sacrificing the legal equality between the groups? Also, how could this be done while preserving the opportunity that those who work hard and have the intelligence or skill needed to make something of themselves, or otherwise contribute to society?
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited May 2011
    There are quite a few people who do seem to believe that, mainly anti-racists. They see to look at blacks and other minorities as little children in need of guidance and handouts from good benevelont white sugar daddies. I and other white separatists would rather see blacks living in their own lands, governing themselves. Higher intelligence is not the only thing in the world that matters. Blacks would create societies reflective of who they are. Is it better that they live under the rules and norms of whites? A society that places values in areas that they will never be able to measure up to as a group? Well, there is evidence to support that blacks are better off in everyway under segregation, but it is more ideal for complete independence between the groups so no "injustice" can be done. Placing them into a society in which they simply can not compete creates all in itself a whole lot of tension between the races. Whites think "why do they act as they do, why cant they be more like me?" And blacks believe the racist society is keeping them down.

    You can not have equality of any kind between people, in law or otherwise... it is a complete myth and a societal handicap. All sorts of programs and efforts have had money spent on them, thousands simply poured down the drain as they have been futile because they believe in culture, discriminationist and human capital theories only. That money could have been much better spent towards our own people and vastly improving our own nations.

    In regards to the much overhyped and touted Lynn-Flynn effect, Murray attempted in 1999 to see if the L-F Effect was leading to a convergence of black and white IQs. By the 1996 wave of NLSY interviews, over 6,000 children of the females in the sample had given birth to children who had been tested on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary IQ test.

    Murray found that "In the two generations of the NLSY, no convergence has occurred. The black-white difference on a highly g-loaded cognitive test for the 1st generation of the NLSY, born from 1957–64, was 16.6 points, amounting to 1.24 SDs relative to the black and white distributions. For the 2nd generation, born primarily in the 1980s, the difference on a widely used test of verbal cognitive ability was 17.8 points, or 1.26 SDs. The estimated magnitude of the black-white difference in the 2nd generation is robust, surviving a variety of hypotheses about possible sources of attenuation."

    The black-white IQ gap was almost exactly the same from the first generation to the next.

    The L-F effect is real and it happens in all countries at the same rate (2 points per decade for Matrice type test and 3 points per decade for a Wechsler type test). They are fine tuned scores based on when the test was taken relative to its restandardization in Britain or America. However, leftists are far too ambitious for the L-F effect, in assuming that it will cause racial gaps in IQ to simply disappear. There have been no convergence of IQs among the races. The smart have just gotten smarter.

    Average IQs have not gone up, and may have slightly declined. Thus, more evidence that the white-black gap hasn't changed much over the decades.
    Real, or Illusory?

    Social indicators which are linked to intelligence have been worsening for decades. So have independent measures of intellectual aptitude, like the former SAT. While it has been shown that IQ is an excellent predictor of life outcomes and a highly useful tool for use in hiring employees, recruiting soldiers, and accepting students into colleges, Flynn is of the opinion that IQ has only a weak causal link to intelligence, and the Flynn Effect does provide one piece of evidence to support that view.

    Then, too, Rushton was able to discover that principal components analyses show that IQ gains over time on the WISC-R and WISC-III do cluster (suggesting they are a reliable phenomenon), but that the cluster is independent of g factor loadings - in other words, the Flynn Effect doesn't seem to represent a real gain in general intelligence, even though it does seem to represent a real gain in isolated mental abilities.

    In light of these facts, it seems reasonable to suggest that much of the IQ gains are not real gains to intelligence (or rather, to the g factor) itself. But that still leaves us with a question of where these gains are coming from.
    - http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics/pages/flynn.htm

    Here's another interesting article.

    Treating people according to the content of their character and not according to their race assumes that race provides no useful information about a person’s character, which is not true and I can and have been proving that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Even race extortionist Jesse Jackson said, “I hate to admit it, but I have reached a stage in my life that if I am walking down a dark street late at night and I see that the person behind me is white, I subconsciously feel relieved.” And, obviously, he could have omitted the word, “subconsciously.” Like the rest of us, the JJ uses race instead. It is "unfair" to the other person for the Reverend to rely on a stereotype – that blacks are dangerous – but, in this instance, he prefers living to "fairness". Many stereotypes possess nuggets of truth, afterall, they didn't arise from nothing. The notion of stereotype can be defined as a statistical generalization based on the relative probability of trait possession, whose validity can be verified mathematically by means of a series of Bayesian statistical formulae, typically of the form P x (A\B)= P x (B\A) x P x (A)/P x (B) where P x (A) and P x (B) is the marginal probability of A and B is the probability of one event not tied to the simultaneous occurrence of any other event, and that P x (A\B) and P x (B\A) is the conditional probability A or B, given the occurrence of B or A.

    The stereotype that the generality of niggers are criminally inclined is by no means irrational, nor are the stereotypes that they're unintellgient, violent, likely to be on welfare, amongst many others.

    I am a collectivist and against individualism, it is a form of anti-racism, it also implies respect for the choices each individual makes, since a person is not being treated as an individual if he is required to make, or is prohibited from making, particular choices. It is not consistent with individualism to require a person to contract with (sell, rent, buy, hire) someone he does not wish to, even if his reasons are racial. In other words, the Civil Rights Laws, which require non-discrimination in public accommodations, are not consistent with individualism. Egalitarians hypocritially (yet again) endorse individualism when it means treating people according to “the content of their character” but reject it when it is used to defend freedom of choice, making individualism not an end in itself, but only another weapon to attack racism. The collective good is the most important; although, I would consider allowing minorities who integrate into the nation's customs and have a system based on merit, but I would put anti-miscegenation laws into place. Even then though, you still have tension between the groups; these groups simply can not co-exist together very long at all. We are all altruistic, but we all want best for our own kind much more and care less for other groups.

    Here's a funny joke, if you treated a nigger by the content of his character, he'd demand you treat him on the content of his skin colour.

    I believe segregation could work, but the long-term goal would be racial separation.
Sign In or Register to comment.