Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

Race Realism = Real Racism


  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#41 Goosey

Goosey

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 350 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:12 PM

Obviously you don't like race-mixing and have a wild imagination when it comes to what your opposition thinks. There isn't an element of truth to anything you just said but it's a waste of time for me to try convincing you otherwise. Instead I will simply maintain that none of the nonsense you wrote is reflective in what the author of that video actually expressed. You would be wise not to claim you know what other people think because it makes you look foolish. Any claim I make about what racists believe is reflective of what they actually say.

 

 

I don't dislike racemixing. You are putting words into my mouth. I think if humans are put in the same vicinity they will fall in love and that can not be helped. The "author" of the video is the one who hates racemixing. And she also hates white people existing in the world in our own countries. I live and let live. She is not.
 


  • 0
Love not hate

#42 Goosey

Goosey

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 350 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:15 PM

What you just did in your post is nitpick at every argument I just made

You mean he actually addressed your argument instead of blasting a wall of emotion out instead, like you do. I hope you are female because otherwise you are a dick.


  • 0
Love not hate

#43 Mikemikev

Mikemikev

    K-selected

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 441 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:43 PM

Let's keep this simple. What do you think a country needs to do to attain enough wealth to become a first world country and what do you think developing nations lack which prevents them from attaining this wealth? What is the scientific basis for claiming that their inability to do these tasks is genetic?



They need an intelligent well behaved population. The evidence that variation in this is genetic is found in consistent racial patterns. Genetic differences is a single explanans which satisfies Occam's razor and is the default hypothesis. A myriad of imagined economic, cultural and social variables which vary ad hoc from explaining adoption, displaced populations and national variance, producing the same result with no compound variance, is the implausible explanation.
  • 0
[b]"I can put more men on the street than the white nationalists in Europe" "I've been in warzones", Bendigo Thompson.

#44 Morpheus

Morpheus

    Egalitarian Extraordinaire

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 890 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 03:33 AM

I don't dislike racemixing. You are putting words into my mouth. I think if humans are put in the same vicinity they will fall in love and that can not be helped. The "author" of the video is the one who hates racemixing. And she also hates white people existing in the world in our own countries. I live and let live. She is not.
 

 

You accused her without a shred of evidence of wanting to see the extinction of Whites because she made a video response to another Youtuber where she refuted her racialist arguments. You are the one putting words in people's mouths ascribing arguments to them that they never made.

 

You certainly give the impression that you don't like race-mixing or people of mixed race when you complain about a Youtuber mentioning her heritage in a video about racism and suggest that she has something against Whites simply because she opposes racism.

 

 

You mean he actually addressed your argument instead of blasting a wall of emotion out instead, like you do. I hope you are female because otherwise you are a dick.

 

He didn't address the argument he just made ridiculous excuses for contradictions in his highly consistent pattern.

 

 



They need an intelligent well behaved population. The evidence that variation in this is genetic is found in consistent racial patterns. Genetic differences is a single explanans which satisfies Occam's razor and is the default hypothesis. A myriad of imagined economic, cultural and social variables which vary ad hoc from explaining adoption, displaced populations and national variance, producing the same result with no compound variance, is the implausible explanation.

 

I've already established that the alleged racial pattern you claim exists relies heavily on the selectivity of data. The environmental variables you mentioned aren't imagined, furthermore it is true despite the denial of racialists that intervention programs can eliminate racial gaps in IQ. We've been over all of this before so if you want to have the discussion again perhaps it's time to compare sources instead of continuing to make uncorroborated assertions.


  • 0

#45 Goosey

Goosey

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 350 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 04:08 AM

You accused her without a shred of evidence of wanting to see the extinction of Whites because she made a video response to another Youtuber where she refuted her racialist arguments. You are the one putting words in people's mouths ascribing arguments to them that they never made.

 

You certainly give the impression that you don't like race-mixing or people of mixed race when you complain about a Youtuber mentioning her heritage in a video about racism and suggest that she has something against Whites simply because she opposes racism.

First of all, I don't hate race mixers and I'm not a hater. I also don't like most of the ideals which White nationals/preservationists etc are fixated on. I hate the corporations(the 1%) who lobby the governments of the west to import foriegners for profit. It's my country, why should I have to pay through the nose so the investment class can get richer? And why are you helping them?

 

Now to respond to your argument(?)

 

I haven't accused the author of that video of anything. It's obvious she is fixated on the fact that European peoples in all countries want to preserve there heritage, their ethnicity and most of all a place and pride in thereof for their children and grandchildren.

 

I never watched the video to the end because it's too hateful and negative and frankly, aggressive. I never heard her say she was mixed I just noticed she was because of her hatred towards anyone proud of their european heritage.  If she wasn't so fixated on it Iwould have just thought she was a nice looking girl regardless of race.

 

I do believe that people who are anti-racist, dislike white people and don't want us to have a place in the world. After all every single european country in the world is being replaced with all ethnicities of the world. If it was just in America or some other country that would be different. some people say multiculturalism is a social experient. If it is then which european country is the control group? ther isn't one! so what kind of experiement is it? It's not.

 

It's an easy way for large corporations to keep the wage the same while inflation excelerates., effectively lowering it. It stimulates the bubble based economy by craming in more consumers who are issued with more non-existant money(pieces of paper or numbers on a computer) allowing the investment class to make more of this non-existant money for themselves. If you don't know what I'm talking about I mean the money that doesn't have actual gold reserves to justify its existance, fake money. It's in your bank right now. You can buy food with it.....for now.


  • 0
Love not hate

#46 Mikemikev

Mikemikev

    K-selected

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 441 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 11:20 PM

He didn't address the argument he just made ridiculous excuses for contradictions in his highly consistent pattern.
 
I've already established that the alleged racial pattern you claim exists relies heavily on the selectivity of data. The environmental variables you mentioned aren't imagined, furthermore it is true despite the denial of racialists that intervention programs can eliminate racial gaps in IQ. We've been over all of this before so if you want to have the discussion again perhaps it's time to compare sources instead of continuing to make uncorroborated assertions.


I never said there was a uniform pattern within major races. You are attacking a strawman. There is subrace variation. Why are you lying?

I am making no excuses, I just have genetics to account for variation. You have "social discrimination", "legacy of slavery", "stereotype threat", "they stole our resources (never specified)" etc. etc. Why do we see the same racial pattern if IQ can be depressed so much?
  • 0
[b]"I can put more men on the street than the white nationalists in Europe" "I've been in warzones", Bendigo Thompson.

#47 Morpheus

Morpheus

    Egalitarian Extraordinaire

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 890 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 07:22 AM

I never said there was a uniform pattern within major races. You are attacking a strawman. There is subrace variation. Why are you lying?

I am making no excuses, I just have genetics to account for variation. You have "social discrimination", "legacy of slavery", "stereotype threat", "they stole our resources (never specified)" etc. etc. Why do we see the same racial pattern if IQ can be depressed so much?

 

Subrace variation is just an ad hoc explanation for why there are inconsistencies in your pattern. How would you for instance explain a country or region being wealthy and powerful at one point in history and significantly less so at a different period in history? How would you explain countries with basically the same genetic stock (ex. North and South Korea) having very different outcomes for government policy? There are very simple explanations for why some countries are wealthier than others which have nothing to do with genetics. You have no genetic evidence for your claims and invoking Occam's Razor is not a valid argument. Just because you assert an explanation is more plausible doesn't make it so.

 

I agree with Otter that this isn't really worth wasting any more time on because even if you were right I would still oppose racism on moral grounds. The experts on this topic who are actual biologists, geneticists and anthropologists have refuted racialists point by point. If anyone wants to read some of their articles check out the sources at the end of this video.

 

 

 

I haven't accused the author of that video of anything. It's obvious she is fixated on the fact that European peoples in all countries want to preserve there heritage, their ethnicity and most of all a place and pride in thereof for their children and grandchildren.

 

She didn't say anything about European people preserving their heritage. Her video is a response to another Youtuber named Heyruka who herself put out a video defending racialist arguments. You seem to want to ascribe viewpoints to xxxthepeachxxx that she never expressed which is wrong. Disagreeing with someone is one thing. Claiming things about them that is untrue isn't right. That's dishonest.

 


 

 

I never watched the video to the end because it's too hateful and negative and frankly, aggressive.  I never heard her say she was mixed I just noticed she was because of her hatred towards anyone proud of their european heritage.  If she wasn't so fixated on it Iwould have just thought she was a nice looking girl regardless of race.

 

She didn't say anything hateful. She was critical of another Youtuber and aggressive in her commentary because of her passionate aversion to racism.

 

You seem to want to equate being anti-racist with hating White people which is an unfounded and ridiculous assertion.

 

 

I do believe that people who are anti-racist, dislike white people and don't want us to have a place in the world. After all every single european country in the world is being replaced with all ethnicities of the world.

 

Immigration is not so massive that we would see the full-scale replacement of people of European descent in European countries and saying that people who are against racism dislike White people is an unfounded accusation. There is no logical reason to claim that it's just a tactic by intellectually dishonest racism to defend their radical and intolerant viewpoints. Racism is evil and destruction. There are far more White people who are Egalitarian-minded than there are racists. Maybe White Supremacists actually hate other White people because they don't want them to be individuals who think for themselves.

 

If it was just in America or some other country that would be different. some people say multiculturalism is a social experient. If it is then which european country is the control group? ther isn't one! so what kind of experiement is it? It's not.

 

The only people I've ever heard claim that Multiculturalism is a social experiment are racists.

 

 

It's an easy way for large corporations to keep the wage the same while inflation excelerates., effectively lowering it. It stimulates the bubble based economy by craming in more consumers who are issued with more non-existant money(pieces of paper or numbers on a computer) allowing the investment class to make more of this non-existant money for themselves. If you don't know what I'm talking about I mean the money that doesn't have actual gold reserves to justify its existance, fake money. It's in your bank right now. You can buy food with it.....for now.


There's no conspiracy to wipe out the White race by any large corporations. It's unfortunate that you have bought in to all of this blatant propaganda but it's simply not true. White Nationalism is a radical political movement started by ex Klansmen and Neo-Nazis who are trying to advance their racist agenda by making their movement appear to more politically and socially acceptable. They have failed miserably. Racialism is nothing more than pseudoscience with no basis in biological reality. Future societies are going to be a lot more Multicultural and political leadership will be far more progressive which will lead to an even more Egalitarian society. In America there is already talk of the end of the Republican Party. Republicans will have to become more inclusive and cater to the interests of minorities which spells doom for far-right political movements like White Nationalism.

 

That is a wonderful thing.


  • 0

#48 Goosey

Goosey

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 350 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 10:15 AM

I don't think corporations want to wipe out white people. I think they just want money, and don't care about people.


  • 0
Love not hate

#49 Mikemikev

Mikemikev

    K-selected

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 441 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 03:21 PM

Subrace variation is just an ad hoc explanation for why there are inconsistencies in your pattern.


Well no, because "my pattern" is just a strawman lie you made up.
  • 0
[b]"I can put more men on the street than the white nationalists in Europe" "I've been in warzones", Bendigo Thompson.

#50 Morpheus

Morpheus

    Egalitarian Extraordinaire

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 890 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 03:34 PM

Well no, because "my pattern" is just a strawman lie you made up.

 

Your pattern was adopted by professional racialists. It doesn't represent the totality of human societies it's just a selective observation of statistical data which leaves out whole populations and ignores data that doesn't fit the theory. The key issue here is that you're trying to make claims about genetics without valid scientific evidence. So whether we're talking about your pattern, a pattern, the standard racialist pattern it makes no difference because the theory itself is not valid.


  • 0

#51 Mikemikev

Mikemikev

    K-selected

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 441 posts

Posted 19 May 2013 - 12:21 AM

Your pattern was adopted by professional racialists. It doesn't represent the totality of human societies it's just a selective observation of statistical data which leaves out whole populations and ignores data that doesn't fit the theory. The key issue here is that you're trying to make claims about genetics without valid scientific evidence. So whether we're talking about your pattern, a pattern, the standard racialist pattern it makes no difference because the theory itself is not valid.


Whites and Negroes have a largely uniform IQ distribution which is consistent all over the world. That's evidence for genetic differences.
  • 0
[b]"I can put more men on the street than the white nationalists in Europe" "I've been in warzones", Bendigo Thompson.

#52 Morpheus

Morpheus

    Egalitarian Extraordinaire

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 890 posts

Posted 19 May 2013 - 12:34 AM

Whites and Negroes have a largely uniform IQ distribution which is consistent all over the world. That's evidence for genetic differences.

 

No, it's not because it's a known fact that intelligence is affected by environmental and developmental factors as well as genetics. Assuming a genetic cause for IQ variation between groups based on mere statistical data is unfounded. You need actual genetic evidence supporting your claim and at least some evolutionary reasoning for why your claim should be valid in the first place, which you don't have.

 

Psychometricians admit that intelligence is clearly a polygenic trait (e.g., Jensen, 1973). The existence of a continuous distribution of intelligence, although not necessarily a bell-shaped one, is itself an indication of a polygenic trait. Jensen advanced the argument that there must exist differences at literally thousands of loci that account for the African deficit in intelligence. Despite this assertion, he was never able to demonstrate mechanistically why or how the existence of genetic variation necessarily meant the deficiency of one population in a particular trait. Thus, his scenario was, in the final analysis, ridiculous. It is true that at the time he put forth his argument, data were just emerging on the measurement of genetic variation (polymorphism) in humans of various races (Nei & Livshits, 1989; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1982). However, anthropological data demonstrating that even morphological traits are not consistently differentiated between races had existed for centuries (J. Diamond, 1994, Brace, 1995).

Take the example of skin color, which varies on a cline from tropical to arctic. Several "racial" groups have dark skin, including non-European Caucasians and Australoids. A tree of human "racial" groups would have both of these populations on the branches farthest away from Africans (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994). Thus, clearly dark skin does not vary consistently with "racial" category. To modern population geneticists the idea that races differ consistently for any trait is nonsense. For example, there is more genetic variation among the people of the African continent than there is among all the rest of the human species combined (J. Diamond, 1994), and there is absolutely no reason to suppose that this variation excludes alleles that impact intelligence. Moreover, as Dobzhansky and Montagu (1975) so eloquently point out, natural selection for mental ability is overwhelmingly uniform throughout the world.

SOURCE: The Pseudoscience of Psychometry and The Bell Curve The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 64, No. 3, Myths and Realities: African Americans and the Measurement of Human Abilities (Summer, 1995), pp. 277-294

 


  • 0

#53 Mikemikev

Mikemikev

    K-selected

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 441 posts

Posted 19 May 2013 - 12:45 AM

No, it's not because it's a known fact that intelligence is affected by environmental and developmental factors as well as genetics. Assuming a genetic cause for IQ variation between groups based on mere statistical data is unfounded. You need actual genetic evidence supporting your claim and at least some evolutionary reasoning for why your claim should be valid in the first place, which you don't have.



The consistent pattern is "actual genetic evidence". Your quote is bizarre. Why must groups be uniform on all traits for differences to exist? Skin color is not uniform, so there are no genetic intelligence differences? Huh?
  • 0
[b]"I can put more men on the street than the white nationalists in Europe" "I've been in warzones", Bendigo Thompson.

#54 Morpheus

Morpheus

    Egalitarian Extraordinaire

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 890 posts

Posted 19 May 2013 - 01:26 AM

The consistent pattern is "actual genetic evidence". Your quote is bizarre. Why must groups be uniform on all traits for differences to exist? Skin color is not uniform, so there are no genetic intelligence differences? Huh?

 

The variation in intelligence is continuous across populations and there is no reason to assume that intelligence is consistently differentiated between populations. This "pattern" you keep harping on about is not genetic data it's statistical data on IQ scores and other variables whose variation can be explained environmentally. The "pattern" only appears consistent if one interprets the data selectively and ignores or make excuses for contradictions. Even if the "pattern" were consistent its mere existence is not evidence of genetic differences. Correlation and causation are not the same thing. This has been explained to you many times and the professional racialists you are parroting have been refuted point by point on all of their theoretical assumptions.

 

 

Several years ago Joseph Graves did write a book chapter critique of my life-history explanation of race differences. I no longer recall it in detail except that he had ducked the main part, that is, the data.

As you know, most race research focuses on Black-White differences in the US in IQ, education, crime, and marital stability. My research went a lot further to cover some 60 variables such as speed of maturation, brain size (three separate indicators), rate of producing twins at birth, longevity, testosterone, sexual behavior, etc. Moreover, I looked at African descended people in the Caribbean, Canada, the UK, and sub-Saharan Africa. and found the same Black-White differences where ever they were studied. Most crucial, I looked at East Asians on all the same 60 characteristics and found they had higher IQ scores, larger brains, less sexual activity, less crime, fewer twins per 1,000 births etc.

In other words, a highly consistent three-way pattern of racial differences exists in brain size, intelligence, sexuality, personality, speed of maturation, life span, crime, and family stability in which East Asian descended people fall at one end of the spectrum, African descended people fall at the other, and European descended people fall intermediate, typically close to East Asians. East Asians are slower to mature, less fertile, less sexually active, with larger brains and higher IQ scores. They also engage in greater social organization and less crime than Africans who are at the opposite ends in each of these areas. My 1995 book, Race, Evolution, and Behavior summarized these theories and the evidence supporting them.

So, the fundamental question is, how do we explain the consistent three-way pattern? No environmental theory alone can do so. Only evolutionary theory in which genetics are crucial can account for the pattern If Dr. Graves can come up with a better theory or show the data is different than I described, he should do so. But he has not done so.

I hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Phil Rushton

 

Rushton’s memory of my critique is quite limited. First, it began with an evaluation of the efficacy of r- and K- theory in general. Professional life-history evolutionists (of which I am, and he is not) no longer regard r- and K- theory as a useful research paradigm. This dismantling occurred due to a series of experiments that tested the predictions of r- and K-theory and showed that they did not hold up in a wide variety of species. Second, I demonstrated that Rushton misapplied r- and K- theory; indeed by MacArthur and Wilson (the originators of r- and K-theory) Africans would be K-selected and Europeans and East Asians (r-selected); just the opposite of what Rushton claimed. Third, I demonstrated that much of the data he cited to make his case was flawed either in collection or source; particularly data like “social organization” and “crime”. Thus at three levels his r- and K-theory approach to human life history variation fails.

 

So I challenge the notion his 3-way spectrum is real; secondly even if it were real, he has not presented an evolutionary theory that could explain it; and third that environmental differences could easily explain much of what he reports.

 

- Joseph Graves

 

 

 

As for that email, the bulk is just filler, a restatement of the abstract for Rushton's book. His thesis here is simply that this conjunction of data (his 'highly consistent three-way pattern of racial differences') is significant and can only be explained genetically.

The problems with this claim are so great that it's sometimes hard to know
where to begin, but in general, here are some of the main problems:

(1) Aggregation of data is only useful if some degree of control and comparability are exerted over the data being aggregated - otherwise, you end up with the GIGO Rule (Garbage In, Garbage Out). Many of Rushton's data sources are exceptionally poor, to the point of being caricatures of scientific research: thus, one of his primary sources on 'sexual behaviour' is a book of 19th-century travel porn, of no serious scientific value, and many of the studies that he cites on IQ and brain size are based on datasets that even people who agree with him accept as unreliable. In the most direct sense, many of his data are the garbage in the GIGO Rule.

You may or may not have read David Barash's review of Rushton's
methodology: "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.
Review of Race, Evolution, and Behavior. _Animal Behaviour_ 49:1131-1133

(2) Aggregating data on (say) brain size or twinning rates into his three 'racial' groupings conceals the very significant variations in aggregated characteristics _within_ those racial groups. Essentially, he reduces very, very, very diverse characteristics down to single numbers, then generalizes those single numbers to every population within his putative races. However, averages among diverse populations tell you almost nothing about the distributions of those diverse characteristics, nor about the evolutionary pressures that might have brought them into being.

(3) Many of the characteristics that he thinks are evolutionarily determined have actually changed dramatically over historical time-periods in different parts of the world (and are extremely variable _within_ his 'racial' populations - see #2 above): besides obvious things like longevity, fertility and infant mortality rates, these include characteristics like twinning rates, speed of sexual maturation/first menarche and so on. He treats them as immutable evolutionary differences, whereas in fact they seem entirely sensitive to historical contingency over short time-scales.

Best

Scott 

 

- Scott MacEachern


  • 0

#55 Mikemikev

Mikemikev

    K-selected

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 441 posts

Posted 19 May 2013 - 01:44 AM

The variation in intelligence is continuous across populations and there is no reason to assume that intelligence is consistently differentiated between populations. This "pattern" you keep harping on about is not genetic data it's statistical data on IQ scores and other variables whose variation can be explained environmentally. The "pattern" only appears consistent if one interprets the data selectively and ignores or make excuses for contradictions. Even if the "pattern" were consistent its mere existence is not evidence of genetic differences. Correlation and causation are not the same thing. This has been explained to you many times and the professional racialists you are parroting have been refuted point by point on all of their theoretical assumptions.


Yes, there is a reason to assume "consistent differentiation" (genetic differences): a consistent pattern among displaced populations. You seem to think "genetic data" is all about DNA scans, it isn't. Consistent behavior patterns in organisms are routinely ascribed to genetics.

You have your copy paste disparagement: "selective data" "ignores" "contradictions" "excuses". However, this is just gratuitous slander. We see essentially the same racial pattern in all times and places. Where are the advanced Negroes? There is no contradiction, you are lying.

A consistent correlation strongly suggests causation.
  • 0
[b]"I can put more men on the street than the white nationalists in Europe" "I've been in warzones", Bendigo Thompson.

#56 Morpheus

Morpheus

    Egalitarian Extraordinaire

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 890 posts

Posted 19 May 2013 - 03:23 AM

Yes, there is a reason to assume "consistent differentiation" (genetic differences): a consistent pattern among displaced populations. You seem to think "genetic data" is all about DNA scans, it isn't. Consistent behavior patterns in organisms are routinely ascribed to genetics.

You have your copy paste disparagement: "selective data" "ignores" "contradictions" "excuses". However, this is just gratuitous slander. We see essentially the same racial pattern in all times and places. Where are the advanced Negroes? There is no contradiction, you are lying.

A consistent correlation strongly suggests causation.

 

You say that but my point has already been demonstrated to be the truth. When there are inconsistencies in your alleged pattern you make excuses as do all racialists. Behavior-genetic research is not genetic data but even appealing to this will not help you because racialist research violates the basic principles of quantitative genetics. In order to determine genetic causality for any given phenotypic variation between two genotypes the environment the organisms with different genotypes were reared in have to be equal. This cannot be done in racially stratified societies. You know this you just make excuses to get around this fact.

 

Where are the advanced Negroes?

 

What the hell kind of question is that? This is what I'm talking about. This isn't a scientific debate. Your argument isn't a genetic argument it's a defense of an ideology. You're trying to argue that racist stereotypes have a basis in reality and that the differences you perceive exist between people are innate.

 

"Niggers are stupid and violent!"

 

That's the argument you're really trying to make. Oh excuse me you're calling them Negroes now to at least attempt to not come off like a total racist asshole. And yeah sure we're not talking absolutes here. All of those "Negroes" getting straight A's in school, working cognitively demanding jobs and obeying the law are individual exceptions to the general pattern of stupidity and violence that plagues the Negroid gene pool. And the obsession with this idea conveniently supports old racist ideas of racial separation and discrimination based on the perception of innate and immutable racial differences. This is just objective scientific inquiry and I'm lying for pointing out that this is nothing but racist propaganda.

 

I'll let you have the last word this time Mikemikev. The Peach is right though. Race-Realism is Real Racism. It's racist bullshit and that's all it will ever amount to.


  • 0

#57 Mikemikev

Mikemikev

    K-selected

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 441 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:15 PM

You say that but my point has already been demonstrated to be the truth. When there are inconsistencies in your alleged pattern you make excuses as do all racialists. Behavior-genetic research is not genetic data but even appealing to this will not help you because racialist research violates the basic principles of quantitative genetics. In order to determine genetic causality for any given phenotypic variation between two genotypes the environment the organisms with different genotypes were reared in have to be equal. This cannot be done in racially stratified societies. You know this you just make excuses to get around this fact.

 

Where are the advanced Negroes?

 

What the hell kind of question is that? This is what I'm talking about. This isn't a scientific debate. Your argument isn't a genetic argument it's a defense of an ideology. You're trying to argue that racist stereotypes have a basis in reality and that the differences you perceive exist between people are innate.

 

"Niggers are stupid and violent!"

 

That's the argument you're really trying to make. Oh excuse me you're calling them Negroes now to at least attempt to not come off like a total racist asshole. And yeah sure we're not talking absolutes here. All of those "Negroes" getting straight A's in school, working cognitively demanding jobs and obeying the law are individual exceptions to the general pattern of stupidity and violence that plagues the Negroid gene pool. And the obsession with this idea conveniently supports old racist ideas of racial separation and discrimination based on the perception of innate and immutable racial differences. This is just objective scientific inquiry and I'm lying for pointing out that this is nothing but racist propaganda.

 

I'll let you have the last word this time Mikemikev. The Peach is right though. Race-Realism is Real Racism. It's racist bullshit and that's all it will ever amount to.

 

No, there are no inconsistencies in my pattern. There are inconsistencies in your strawman pattern that claims all East Asians have the same IQ, for example. However, that is not my pattern.

 

As you know you do not need to "equalize the environment" to demonstrate genetic differences. In fact, if there are genetic differences, that is impossible.

 

http://www.thephora....78&postcount=52

http://www.thephora....86&postcount=54

 

"Where are the advanced Negroes" is a question that cuts to the heart of this matter. If all these separate variables account for adopted black IQ, national majority black IQ, and minority black IQ, we should see more variation. But we see the same IQ, That's a hell of a coincidence.

 

Your spluttering moral outrage and use of the meaningless pejorative "racist" shows you have no scientific arguments left.


  • 0
[b]"I can put more men on the street than the white nationalists in Europe" "I've been in warzones", Bendigo Thompson.

#58 Truthcentric

Truthcentric

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 190 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 02:50 AM

We see essentially the same racial pattern in all times and places. Where are the advanced Negroes?

If you're really the same Mikemikev I knew from a year back, by God you've learned nothing from your discussions with us. Are you honestly asking us to repeat the same points that were rained down on you long ago?

 

I mean, I like discussions about African civilizations and the role Africa has played in shaping modern human culture around the world, but they are fruitless when the opposition comes from the likes of you.


  • 0

#59 Mikemikev

Mikemikev

    K-selected

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 441 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 11:38 AM

I mean, I like discussions about African civilizations and the role Africa has played in shaping modern human culture around the world, but they are fruitless when the opposition comes from the likes of you.


You mean you like fantasising about that (and cartoon negresses) but feel depressed when I point out the facts.
  • 0
[b]"I can put more men on the street than the white nationalists in Europe" "I've been in warzones", Bendigo Thompson.

#60 Morpheus

Morpheus

    Egalitarian Extraordinaire

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 890 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 12:54 PM

You mean you like fantasising about that (and cartoon negresses) but feel depressed when I point out the facts.

 

Facts? Like your racist pseudoscientific claim that Blacks are genetically part chimp?

 

This paper alone refutes your racist claims about African culture:


 

Over the last two decades, a number of psychometric researchers have claimed that very substantial
differences in intelligence exist among modern human racial groups, as these groups are traditionally
defined. According to these researchers, African populations suffer severe cognitive deficits when
compared to other modern humans. Philippe Rushton, particularly, places these claimed mental
deficits in an evolutionary context, advancing environmental explanations for such deficits and
asserting that such cognitive differences existed prehistorically as well. Such substantial cognitive
differences should be evident in human behavioural patterns, and thus in the archaeological record.
Archaeological data can thus be used to test these claims about human evolutionary development
and modern human cognitive difference. Examination of the archaeological record does not support
the claims made by these researchers. This suggests that regional differences in IQ test score results
should not be ascribed to variations in human evolutionary development.

 

Source: Africanist Archaeology and Ancient IQ: Racial Science and Cultural Evolution in the Twenty-
First Century World Archaeology, Vol. 38, No. 1, Race, Racism and Archaeology (Mar., 2006), pp. 72-92

 

 

The ability independently to develop state-level societies was another capability
traditionally denied to Africans by European authors, who tended to look for inspiration
beyond that continent and especially in the Mediterranean Basin and western Asia
(Delafosse 1912, I: 207; Desplagnes 1906: 544^-6; Murdock 1959; Palmer 1936). Probably
the most developed example of this attitude was Charles Seligman's (1957: 10, 43)
'Hamitic hypothesis', which traced virtually every cultural advance in sub-Saharan Africa
to light-skinned immigrants from the north and north east, or to later contacts with
Semitic populations.

 

Again, research across the continent over the last three decades decisively disproves this
point of view. The literature on this topic is expanding rapidly: there is, however, no doubt
that complex polities in the Nile Valley (O'Connor 1993; Welsby 1998), in West Africa
(Gronenborn 2001; Holl 1985; MacEachern 2005; Mclntosh 1991, 1999; Mclntosh and
Mclntosh 1984), in North-east Africa (Curtis 2004; Fattovich 2000; Munro-Hay 1993), in
East and Central Africa (de Maret 1999; Kusimba 1999; Schoenbrun 1999; Sutton 1993)
and in south-eastern Africa (Huffman 1996; Pikirayi 2000; Sinclair et al. 1993) were indeed
African, developing according to their own internal logics. The social and political
hierarchies, the external relations and the economic and trading systems of these states
were entirely comparable with those of similar polities on other continents, and were
frequently recognized as such by European visitors before corrosively racist views of
Africans had time to develop (cf. Brooks 1993; Northrup 2002). They did not appear in
isolation - indeed, neither did states in other parts of the world, including Europe - and,
again, they were not mirror-images of states in those other regions (cf. Mclntosh 1999).

 

Source: Africanist Archaeology and Ancient IQ: Racial Science and Cultural Evolution in the Twenty-
First Century World Archaeology, Vol. 38, No. 1, Race, Racism and Archaeology (Mar., 2006), pp. 72-92

 

 

Conclusions

 

This paper presents the juxtaposition of two data sets, one archaeological and one
behavioural and psychometric. It is now a commonplace in the comparative psychometric
literature to claim that low IQ test scores among African populations indicate severely
diminished average intelligence among those populations. Rushton (2000) places these
claims in a behavioural and evolutionary context, one paralleled by similar explanations
applied to poor and relatively powerless populations in other parts of the world and
supplemented by data of other kinds. Rushton's model posits quite major behavioural
differences among the different continental populations, and especially between tropical
African populations and the inhabitants of temperate and Arctic Eurasia. The magnitude
of these differences is such that they should be detectable archaeologically, and indeed
Rushton presents archaeological evidence that he believes bolsters his case. His archaeological
interpretations are for the most part obsolete and/or erroneous.

 

However, Rushton is probably correct in claiming that such a magnitude of racial
differences should be demonstrable archaeologically. Archaeological data provide an
independent test of his hypothesis, one not subject to the obscuring effects associated with
modern mental testing and interpretation. Examination of archaeological data on the culture
history of African populations, and comparison of those data with data from other parts of
the world, yields no evidence for the behavioural and cognitive disparities claimed by
Rushton. African cultural history is entirely comparable with that of other regions of the
world, not in terms of lockstep evolutionary schema but rather in the evident sophistication
with which African populations have met the challenges of their physical and social
environments through time. To interpret the conflict between these two data sets, it may be
useful to examine possible confounding factors in the behavioural and psychometric data.
The behavioural data are quite variable and often of poor quality, but it is striking to note
that the field of intelligence testing is grappling with a phenomenon analogous to continental
differences in IQ test scores - the Flynn Effect. In both cases, testing across cultural
boundaries yields results that systematically disadvantage populations culturally removed
from our own, results that on their face defy logic. It is now up to intelligence researchers to
identify the confounding effects in their tests, and let archaeologists and other researchers get
back to looking at the Africa that actually exists today, and existed in the past.

 

Source: Africanist Archaeology and Ancient IQ: Racial Science and Cultural Evolution in the Twenty-
First Century World Archaeology, Vol. 38, No. 1, Race, Racism and Archaeology (Mar., 2006), pp. 72-92

 

I ranted in my last post because I recognize the futility in seriously indulging you on this topic. You are a racist and as such you are never going to accept the demonstrable facts that refute your racist theories. The core point of the MacEachern paper above is that modern and ancient Africans exhibit behavioral characteristics that indicate a general level of intelligence that all human populations possess and which racialists want to deny them with their pseudoscientific research on hereditarian interpretations of IQ score variation.

 

One does not need to accept your premise that lack of advanced civilization, however you define it, is evidence of lack of general intelligence for Africa or any population because we can actually look at the behavior of people (in general rather than pretend that criminals are reflective of the general population) and observe whether or not they display the mental abilities we associate with normal intelligence.


  • 1