100 Bitches:glugglug

That is got to be one of the MOST ridiculous things I have ever read! What the hell does colour have to do with it?

Have to agree with you there.

What the hell does colour have to do with a 100m sprint? Yet Blacks always win, don't they!

Perhaps it is because White's are oppressed, or perhaps it is because race, as well as culture, defines a fair degree of ones character/ability?

Blacks can catch a football and win a race, White's can effectively maintain a higher degree of civilisation. Racist? No, Proven fact? Yes!

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! You sir are in need some serious edumacation! That or half decent cable!

lol, I guess you are right. I am sorry for using my brain, and I promise to use CBS in the future to find out what I should be thinking.

:glugglug

Then explain the Arabs. Dominated science and were militarily powerful for 1000 years. What happened?

What happened to Europeans in that time?

Such differences are more explainable by successful cultural paradigms than race.

You might have a point about sprinting but even that is subject to intense debate.

Well your not using it anyway....where are these cold hard/scientific facts coming from? You seem to be pulling them out of your ass!

As for cable, it was meant so that you could watch a sprint race from time to time and see that "blacks" don't always win.

As you will notice when comparing racial differences I chose Negroes rather than Arabs.

I believe that Arab culture/religion is largely the reason to their failure, despite their wealth, in todays world. I state that Arabs could not lead the West because todays Arabs are a result of such culture.

On the other hand, I honestly do not believe Negroes have the capability to control an advanced nation by themselves.

Zimbabwe was handed to them on a plate, as was South Africa, and today Zimbabwe ... (no need to explain) and South Africa is well and truely on the slide.

I see you do not disagree with me when it comes to Black superiority, but when it comes to Whites being superior to Blacks in certain regards ...

Simple.. in the most generous estimation, the average negro IQ is a full standard deviation (around 15pts) below the average white IQ. Not only that, but if you look at the distribution curve for negro IQ's, you find not a curve, but a sort of lump, with the flattest portion towards the high end.

In English that means that not only do blacks have a lower IQ, they are *far* less likely by proportion to break the average and enter the high IQ realms (120+) than Jews, Asians, and caucasians.

That is just American blacks by the way... and they average 25% white blood. Some studies on African negroes show that their average IQ is even lower.. down near 80pts, which is barely above the legal US definition of retarded.

Quick, name your favorite African philosopher!

I didn't think so.

Now you know why.

Huh? Arabs are caucasoid.

I have read many scientific facts which state such things as Blacks arms being longer (the reason they are good boxers), and various other things regarding Brain size, etc.

If I wanted to waste my time finding, and posting them to a bunch of people whose opinions will not change I would. However, I do not wish to waste such time finding such things again.

This is not a sign of weakness, just a sign of tiredness - it is 2AM, perhaps some I will make a thread some other time.

*EDIT: READ GUTTERBOYS POST*

Sure, at a local meet a White kid might come out on top, but have you ever watched an Olympic final?

And you get your information from what? The monthly KKK meetings?

Please do a search for African philosopher's and you will find that there are plenty.

lol, thanks for spending the time to reply with the relevent information.

Use some of your own advice and do a search for African IQs.

They are suffocating in religious ignorance. Mixing religion and rule will halt progress.

2003 + religion = selfinflicted hardship.

I haven't read the entire thread so I apologise if this has been asked before.

Amp, as a Veteran of the US military, how do you feel about the USA's involvement in foreign conflicts of recent years? I don't mean the recent Afghanistan/Al-Queda stuff, but other stuff like Bosnia, Serbia, etc. Why has the US gone marching into conflicts not in direct (or even indirect) endangerment of the USA itself? Do you feel intervention like this (including Vietnam and Korea really) is justified?

Only wondering what a Gulf Veteran like yourself feels about this.

Really? So tell me.. what were black Africans contributions during the time of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Hegel.. and any other great phillosopher (or great military leader, linguist, astronomer, inventor, scientist etc. ) you can name? Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Assuming, as you contend, that black Aficans did produce philosophers, why were they too stupid to invent a written language in which to codify their discoveries? Why has the entirety of sub-saharan Africa been void of written language from the beginning of time.. until the white man showed them how?

It is true that some negroes who have been brought over from Africa and immersed in white culture have been able to benefit from the white mans largesse. They have recieved modern medical care, clean water, language, history, and mathematical instruction, decent jobs -- things all invented by white people. But they, by far, are the exception.

Whine all you want, call me a racist, KKK lunatic all you want, but the judgement of history is as clear on this subject as it possibly can be. To wit: the negro, left to it own devices, cannot govern itself or invent anything worthwhile.

All you need to do to confirm this is look at the "history" of sub-saharan Africa.

While we're on this subject, answer me one more question: Why do you think American afro-centrist "scholars" have tried so desperately to appropriate Egyptian culture & history as their own?

Its because -- beyond cannibalism, huts made of shit, and marathon running -- the negroid has no culture or history of its own to be proud of.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

So true!!

You seem like a smart, descent bloke, so if you ever feel like a chat , you can catch me on ICQ: 344709237!

Did I say otherwise?

And what were the contributions in Germany or England during the times of Plato and Aristotle?

The Chinese would have thought the same thing of Europeans in the 1300s. The Europeans caught up.

Different cultures can be ahead or behind others technologically/culturally at different times without it saying anything about the people themselves.

A very humorous and revealing story is told about a group of white people who were fed up with African Americans, so they joined together and wished themselves away. They passed through a deep dark tunnel and emerged in sort of a twilight zone where there is an America without black people.

At first these white people breathe a sigh of relief. At last, they say, no more crime, drugs, violence and welfare. All of the blacks have gone!!
Then suddenly, reality sets in. The "NEW AMERICA" is not America at all-only a barren land. There are very few crops that have flourished because the nation was built on a slave-supported system.

There are no cities with tall skyscrapers because Alexander Mils, a black man, invented the elevator, and without it one finds great difficulty reaching high floors.

There are few if any cars because Richard Spikes, a black man, invented the automatic gear shift, and Garrett A. Morgan invented the traffic signals.

Furthermore, one could not use the rapid transit system because its precursor was the electric trolley, which was invented by another black man, Elbert R. Robinson.

Even if there were streets on which cars and a rapid transit
system could operate, they were cluttered with paper because an African American, Charles Brooks, invented the street sweeper.

There were few if any newspapers, magazines and books because John Love invented the pencil sharpener, William Purvis invented the fountain pen, Lee Burridge invented the Type Writing Machine and W. A. Lovette invented the Advanced Printing Press. They were all, you guessed it, black.

Even if Americans could write their letters, articles and books,
they would not have been transported by mail because William Barry invented the Postmarking and Cancelling Machine, William Purvis invented the Hand Stamp and Phillip Downing invented the Letter Drop.

The lawns were brown and wilted because Joseph Smith invented the Lawn Sprinkler and John Burr the Lawn Mower.

When they entered their homes, they found them to be poorly
ventilated and poorly heated. You see, Frederick Jones invented the Air Conditioner and Alice Parker the Heating Furnace. Their homes were also dim. But of course, Lewis Latimer invented the Electric Lamp, Michael Harvey invented the Lantern and Granville T. Woods invented the Automatic Cut off Switch.

Their homes were also filthy because Thomas W. Steward invented the Mop and Lloyd P. Ray, the Dust Pan.

Their children met them at the door-barefooted, shabby, motley and unkempt. But what could one expect? Jan E. Matzelinger invented the Shoe Lasting Machine, Walter Sammons invented the Comb, Sarah Boone invented the Ironing Board and George T. Samon invented the Clothes Dryer.

Finally, they were resigned to at least have dinner amidst all of
this turmoil. But here again, the food had spoiled because another black man, John Standard invented the refrigerator.

Now, isn't that something? What would this world be like without
the contributions of Black folks? Black history includes more than just slavery, Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey and Dubois.

Don't forget George Washington Carver, a black American who invented the gretest invention of all time, peanut butter
Flame on.

Why does any civilization identify with the "winners" of the past? Why are there so many statues of Christopher Columbus in the Americas? Why do so many buildings in Washington DC look like Roman knock-offs? Why does the Washington Monument look like an Egyption obelisk?

Why do people use the word "we" when referring to people and groups of people with significant achievements in the past that died long before they were born?

Thats a bit of a straw man. Cultures come and go, but thats not what I'm talking about. Anthropologists use 3 categories to define people: caucasiod, mongoloid, negroid. Most of the societies you've mentioned -- the romans, greeks, and arabs -- are caucasiod. One, the Chinese, is mongoloid.

There have been temporary shifts in technological advancement, but, and this is the important bit, they have ALL occoured EXCLUSIVELY within the caucasoid and mongoloid races.

The only group that has been universally left behind, without even the werewithal to create a written language, for the whole of history, is the negroid. The sub-saharan African.

Jesus, look at Liberia and S. Africa. They have both had all the advantages that the white man could have possibly bestowed upon them. We gave them a government, billions of dollars a year in aid, an infrastructure, and democracy. And what has happened? The same thing thats been going on in sub-saharan Africa for at least the last 7,000 years: a feral, tribal, anarchic society devoid of culture, a viable political system, and everything else which makes civilization civilized.

History provides the record, modern IQ tests provide the justification.

*looks to Europe* - *realises that Europe did not have black help* - *looks to Australia* - *realises Australia did it without black help* - *wonders*



:glugglug

Bahahahahaha.

All of those "inventions" occured within the context of a white culture. Africans managed to invent some things only after being transported (against their will) to a white culture, educated in a white culture, given the advantages of white culture, and all the other benefits that come from being born in the United States.

Do you really think that some white guy wouldn't have put together a lawn sprinkler or peanut butter given the time?

:1orglaugh

Christ, stop fooling yourself.

As I said earlier, when a negro is given all the benefits that white liberals can give him, one or two of them may do something worthwhile. And thats if, and only if, you consider peanut butter and lawn sprinklers to be major technological advancements.. lol.

The rest would be.. uh.. as they pretty much are today.

I just did a copy and paste just to fire up the tempest in a teapot. I can't vouch for the validity of them but thought it was interesting. Honestly I don't give a fuck who invented what. I am sure the comb was around long before some black guy invented it.:)

Europeans had black slaves, especially Britain.

Australians (British/Irish immigrants) did horrible things to the aboriginals that were there. Even until as early as 35 years ago.

This is so true, just like the Indians in central and South America, they had wealth, roads, they were so advanced until the europeans came over, raped their women, killed their men, and stole their gold! Every nation has it's ups and downs, it's glorious moment...

There have been many great men and women throughout history what is important is to look at a persons acheivements and not their colour or ethnicity.

You should be proud of who you are and tolerant of all others.

Slavery was not invented by white men but by the ancestors of all men (and women). Prejudice was not created by white men but is present in all men.

Spain did quite well. Very religious. Last I knew almost everyone on this side of the globe speaks Spanish.

The US is the UN, without us NO UN. I wish we'd get out of the UN screw'em, let the bastards kill each other.

BTW nice backshot Gutterboy :thumbsup

Arrogance

My point is that those cultures flourished, succeeded, retreated, and perished regardless of the race or ethnicity of the people.

Which of those three "categories" is a native Australian by the way?

I understand the thinking of many Americans on the UN issue. The US does not need the UN as much as say France in order to have influence on world events.

The UN is completely rigged in favor of the US though. Why would anyone would to back out of an organization that can only pass resolutions with the approval of their country? Think about it. The Security Council CANNOT pass a resolution that the US disagrees with. This organization is completely to the benefit of the permanent security council members.

France is a permanent member of the UN Security council, so is Russia, UK, and China.

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html

Did is the keyword here. I'm talking about today. And so were you.
Every country has had its religious period. Some outgrew it and flourish today. Some didn't.

The biggest muslim school in Denmark teaches children that the world is flat. I guess because the Koran says so...

Let's see if I can find the article. It's hilarious reading.

I know who the permanent security council members are.

I said "I understand the thinking of many Americans on the UN issue. The US does not need the UN as much as say France in order to have influence on world events."

I'd say that's true. The US does not need the security council as much as France does. In spite of that, the benefit to the US is still great. The UN gives the US more influence in the world than it would have otherwise, not less.

If you want to make a generalization that religious cultures cannot succeed because of the presence of religion, then it should also be true in the past too. Many religious cultures have been quite successful.

You would not have made that statement in the sixteenth century because it would have been true. Religion can have both positive and negative effects on the success of a culture.

Which is one of the reasons why the European Union was created. To have a collective influence on world politics instead of acting as individuals all the time.

Correction, it doesn't say its the largest muslim school in Denmark.

Can't find online translation of danish webpage, but headline is;
Islamic 'free'school teaches children that the earth is flat.
http://www.bt.dk/Soeg.pl?&aid=144766

Super follow-up article quoting Muslim Imam:
Earth Might Be Flat
http://www.bt.dk/Nyheder.pl?c=left&aid=144752

I know, it's amazing Arab countries are still throwing rocks with educational guidelines like these.

Imagine the Arab world without oil...

i can.... we've been nice enough to only drop two nukes.

.

and you just go and have to show us how THIN your skin is. youd burn faster then he would....

.. and terrorists.

Even with it they have small economies. GM's annual sales are greater than the annual GDP of Saudi Arabia.

you better fucking believe it.

Is that Danish? I can't read that ;-)

Ofcourse religious societies can evolve, but religion hinders free thought because it usually clashes with many religious thruths. As a consequence progress slows down considerably.

GM = $187 billion

Saudi Arabia = $241 Billion

Heh, I know. Too small a language to have any online translation services I'm afraid.
Ofcourse I know this is probably a very conservative school, and that not all muslim schools operate in this retarded way.

But as the article says, science today has proven things which clash on so many fronts with the Koran that it comes as a surprise why people can vouch for this.

And that goes for any religion I'm sure.

Religious 'hope' is fine. But this is 2003.
How can you go the step further and 'believe' in religion, and base your way of life, or even country, around it?