Are facts racist? Are journalists just lazy? And where the hell is Marfa?

 

"Never confuse an ought for an is, nor an is for an ought."


My attorney has long kept a slip of paper under the thick-tempered glass of his desktop that has written on it the sage advice, "Never confuse an ought for an is, nor an is for an ought."  This stems from Hume's famous philosophical statement, "you cannot deduce an ought from an is." 

Hume’s idea seems to be that you cannot deduce moral conclusions, featuring moral words such as ‘ought’, from non-moral premises, that is premises from which the moral words are absent. The passage is summed up in the slogan ‘No-Ought-From-Is’ (or NOFI for short) and for many people it represents the take-home message of Hume’s moral philosophy. It is sometimes rather grandly referred to as Hume’s Law.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/83/Hume_on_Is_and_Ought

No confusing an ought for an is, and vice versa, is much, much, more useful advice for us average Joe's, in my experience, than Hume's no deducing an ought from an is.  I have noticed that the confusion of another person's is statement (objective/hypothesis or fact) for an ought statement (subjective/opinion or propaganda) is at the root of many arguments, both here in the comments on ZeroHedge, as well as out in polite society and even my marriage.

Take, for example, the case of James D. Watson, a Nobel Prize recipient for Physiology or Medicine in 1962, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, and author of the fantastic book, The Double Helix.  

In October 2007, Watson told the Sunday Times in an interview that he was “gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really.”
Since then, Watson has not been invited to give public lectures. 

“Because I was an ‘unperson’ I was fired from the boards of companies, so I have no income, apart from my academic income,” he explained before auctioning off his Nobel Prize. 

https://www.rt.com/news/212943-usmanov-nobel-prize-medal/

My take is that Watson, a scientist, made altruistic is statements, observations really, that were portrayed by the non-scientific media and interpreted by many as ought statements, or opinions, and so he was branded a racist, and black balled.  This begs the following question, which is frequently asked on some freer forums, such as Zerohedge.  Are facts racist?  It seems to be dependent upon one's definition of racism.  

According to the ADL:

Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics.

https://www.adl.org/racism

Belief?  Have they watched the Olympic 100 meter finals?  And I think their definition is missing a conjunction, intentionally so.  And?  But?  Or?

 

What if it is not merely a belief, but a fact, that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, at least in regards to an objectively-measurable characteristic such as intelligence, or time to run a set distance? 

Does the objective statement, "On average, Japanese score much higher on intelligence tests than Sub-Saharan Africans," make the speaker a racist?  

Does the objective statement, "In general, blacks are far superior to Asians in a foot race," make the speaker a racist?

If it does, and these facts are indeed true, then is not anyone and everyone either a racist, or a denier of reality?

Do Watson's objective statements, "gloomy about the prospect of Africa,” because, “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really,” make him a racist?  

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WAIS-IV_FSIQ_Scores_by_Race_and…

The objectively provable truth of these statements indicates to me, at least, that the ADL's definition of a racist is either true for all instances of rational thinkers, thus we would all be racist, or nonsensical, and useless as a definition in either case. 

In the beginning of Orwell's novel, 1984, the main character Winston writes that, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.” At the end of the novel, after being tortured, he sits at the cafe and writes, “2 + 2 = 5,” in the dust on his table.

When the forces of tyranny use such power, as it has with Watson (and Winston) in order to convince us that an is is really an ought (or 2+2=5), then it is no wonder that we are so often prone to confuse an ought for an is.  

Back in high school, the 80's, I studied journalism and wrote for the school newspaper.  In those days, I recall that the news stories were supposed to be objective (is statements) and kept separate from subjective opinion (ought statements), that were to only be found on the editorial page.  However, it didn't take me long reading The New York Times to learn that this was simply not reality.

When I listened to NPR or so-called conservative talk radio, or watched television news, I noticed that the lines between news and opinion were at best very gray and blurry.  When one reporter would interview another reporter for their opinions as a subject matter expert for a news story, I would wonder if they were evil propagandists, or just lazy journalists?  After knowing many journalists, and reading Edward Bernays' book, Propaganda, my answer is probably a little bit of both.    

Today, with social media and the internet, there simply are no lines separating news and opinion.  Just look at ZeroHedge: no editorial section; no news section; no features section.  It is entirely up to the individual to sort out the two.  

Have you noticed that much of what is labeled as fake news, is actually opinion, and vice versa?  This is important to recognize, as governments and statists push to eliminate fake news, they are really trying to eliminate opinion.  I am looking at you, Mr. Zuckerburg and Mr. Brin.  When the government gets to decide for the individual what is fact, and what is not, then liberty is lost.  

I believe that this is a big part of why the First Amendment was placed at the top of the Bill of Rights.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Having read Bastiat, I understand that the Bill of Rights does not grant me my natural rights, but is clearly and only intended to protect these natural rights, especially if and when the government of the United State's of America is inclined to tyranny.  Don't agree?  Educate yourself.

hedgeless_horseman's Revolutionary Call to Arms:

11.  Read, The Law, by Frédéric Bastiat.
12.  Make a list of your natural rights.
13.  Read, The Constitution of the United States and The Bill of Rights.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-06/hedgelesshorsemans-revolution…

So, much like the right to defend our liberty, as protected under the Second Amendment, we must also exercise our right to freedom of speech and peaceable assembly, as protected under the First Amendment.  

To that end, I invite each of you to come to the Second ZeroHedge Symposium and Live Fight Club in Marfa, Texas, this June 1-3.  

This year it is going to be a slightly different format.  Once again, we have some amazing speakers, but we are also going to have more opportunity for all attendees to participate.  If you have something to say, then you will have the chance to step up on the Paper Street Soap Box and say it.  This is, after all, nothing more than a peaceful assembly of the people, and a great opportunity to practice differentiating between fact and opinion, which is one thing that Fight Club is really good at.  

Feel free to email me if you want to discuss further: hedgeless @ protonmail .ch

As a reminder, there is no registration, no badges, and no charge to attend.  If you want to remain anonymous, then you certainly may do so.  Please, do not DOX attendees.  We appreciate the Financial Times reporter abiding by this request, last year, and hope everybody follows suit.

Thanks to those of you that have already donated, and a request to those that have not to please do so now, so that we can pay for the meeting hall, the fantastic live music, and if anything is left over some really good mescal to go with the music on Saturday night.  Weldon Henson is coming to play!   

Once again, if you are not planning to camp out in the high desert, drive an RV, or sleep in the gutter or jail, then reserve a luxury suite, historic hotel room, teepee, yurt, trailer, or tent (and wood-fueled hot tub) at one of the few fine sleeping establishments within stumbling distance of the many fine bars in town.  You better hurry!  The most interesting and best accommodations all sold out last year.

We are going to officially kick off the Symposium at 12 noon on Friday, June 1st, again at the Marfa Activities Center, 105 North Mesa, Marfa, Texas, 79843.  Although a few of us might be out at the Marfa Lights Viewing Center, Thursday night, after having spent the day touring The Chinati Foundation.  

Here are a few other posts regarding this year's symposium:

We look forward to seeing y'all in a few weeks!

Peace, prosperity, love, and liberty,

h_h

 

Comments

SubjectivObject Mon, 05/07/2018 - 16:45 Permalink

i resemble this confusion

to the extent psychological data is not objectively collected and reduced, the potential for subjectivity remains, and thus for psychological data, subjectivity for its interpretation will always be present

 

Watson made an "altruistic" statement?  i.e.; the [psychological] policy was wrong

i think he intended an objective statement:  one based on data 

 

politically correct racial offense focuses on singularities, e.g. a statement, rather than the overall pattern; the individual's behavior in a variety of circumstance

 

 

 

macholatte SubjectivObject Mon, 05/07/2018 - 20:17 Permalink

 

Then he added, "the black is a better athlete to begin with, because he's been bred that way. Because of his high thighs that go up into his back. And they can jump higher and run faster because of their bigger thighs.

"This all goes back to the Civil War, when, during the slave trading, the slave owner would breed his big black to his big woman so that he would have a big black kid. That's where it all started."

"What a foolish thing to say," Snyder said yesterday. "I thought I was being instructive, when in fact, I was destructive."

'JIMMY THE GREEK' FIRED BY CBS FOR HIS REMARKS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/01/17/jimmy-the-gr…

 

In reply to by SubjectivObject

NoDebt macholatte Mon, 05/07/2018 - 20:48 Permalink

What with kids and, you know, running my company, I won't be able to make it.  Sorry.  If it's any consolation, we'll probably get to meet someday under odd and unexpected circumstances.  Like probably in a FEMA reeducation camp. 

I have no idea why you do this or what "success" for the event looks like in your mind, but it's probably far better that you do it than NOT do it.

 

In reply to by macholatte

HopefulCynical NoDebt Tue, 05/08/2018 - 08:07 Permalink

My take is that Watson, a scientist, made altruistic is statements, observations really, that were portrayed by the non-scientific media and interpreted by many as ought statements, or opinions, and so he was branded a racist, and black balled. 

My take is that he spoke, with the authority of science, against the Jews' (knowing lie of) radical egalitarianism, so the Jew media disappeared him.

This is an IS statement, BTW.

In reply to by NoDebt

Stuck on Zero HopefulCynical Tue, 05/08/2018 - 09:25 Permalink

The Author is a bit confused. Truth is not racist, sexist, or mean spirited but expressions of the truth in the wrong forum or at the wrong time can be. For example, in a philosophical discussion with colleagues it would be inappropriate to interject that the person who just stated an opinion had bad breath. The statement was one of fact but socially inappropriate. 

In reply to by HopefulCynical

Citxmech LargeHardonCollider Tue, 05/08/2018 - 12:22 Permalink

The critical point regarding average differences in the potential abilities in races that is rarely addressed it, assuming such a difference is determined to be a fact, whether the law, therefore, should treat individuals differently.

Seems to me that overlapping Bell curves are not really a very good justification to codify a system of racial inequity into law (especially for folks of the Libertarian persuasion).  It becomes even more questionable when the nature of the tests have a hard time distinguishing traits like innate "intelligence" versus the effects of "culture."   

In reply to by LargeHardonCollider

El Vaquero LargeHardonCollider Tue, 05/08/2018 - 13:03 Permalink

Exactly.  In the 1940s and 1950s, the black homicide rate was in significant decline.  That was promptly reversed in the 1960s and 1970s.  You can argue that it was the end of Jim Crow that did it, but places like Detroit and Chicago experience the problems and weren't subject to Jim Crow.  I'd look at the introduction of the welfare state as it enabled black women to be single mothers, the war on drugs as it gets black males dead and/or in prison due to the significant risk premium that they get to charge for illicit activity - leading to gangs and gang warfare - as well as affirmative action, which tells them that they don't need to achieve because they're big, dumb animals.  The result of a confluence of all of these programs is that 70% of blacks are born out of wedlock.  No fathers means broken families which means broken communities.

 

Excepting the affirmative action, the same forces are going to be at work against other races and ethnicities, it's just that we have further to fall and thus it will take longer for the same effects to appear.  Either way, the government subsidizes the kinds of degenerate behavior we see in black communities, and then we wonder why we get that behavior.  It's gone so far that there are no ways of getting out of it that wouldn't be seen as cruel.  

In reply to by LargeHardonCollider

MoreSun El Vaquero Tue, 05/08/2018 - 14:34 Permalink

While the synagogue of satan aka so-called israel agitates for more and more wars.

They are also Destroying your rights of FREE SPEECH:

"As is expected in this upside-down world of ours, while Mamma Merkel roams free to wreak havoc and cause more rapes and deaths of Germans at the hands of her sainted and untouchable Turd World "migrants," Ursula (89) and Monika (60's) -- with the gleeful approval of Jews all over the world -- are condemned to waste away a few years in German prisons for their thought-crime of Holocaust Denial" ™. Boy-oh-boy, the "usual suspects" sure do make it difficult for decent people of good will not to "hate" them, don't they?

Dear God please effect the release of these women: Ursula Haverbeck, Monika Schaefer, Sylvia Stoltz from their jew supremacist terrorist oppressors !

http://tomatobubble.com/haverbeck_schaefer.html

In reply to by El Vaquero

DownWithYogaPants LargeHardonCollider Tue, 05/08/2018 - 12:28 Permalink

Is the Chinati foundation run by ChinDit?

If so I expect to find it in the upper left hand corner with many employees madly preening in front of baroque vanities of the style used by diva actors with the row of lights ringing the outer perimeter of the mirror.

Edit: I was just informed that Chindit is indeed the COO of Chinati and that there will be drag queens!

In reply to by LargeHardonCollider

HopefulCynical heretical Tue, 05/08/2018 - 08:14 Permalink

Correct - except the sole purpose is to attack anyone who dares disagree with or criticize a Jew. Remember, although the word saw sporadic use prior to Trotsky, it was he who popularized it - as an attack upon anyone who opposed communism, which of course is not a race but an ideology. However, it's a thoroughly Jewish ideology, hence the slandering of its opponents as RAY'CISSSSSSS.

In reply to by heretical

American Sucker Mon, 05/07/2018 - 18:25 Permalink

There's more human genetic variation in Sub-Saharan Africa than in the rest of the world combined.  Race is a social construct, not a biological reality.  To put it very, very simply, if you try to define race genetically, you get something like 4-5 different Sub-Saharan African races and one Everywhere Else race.  Once you understand that, the idea of intelligence being tied to race makes no sense, as you have to combine Australian Aborigines and South Koreans in the same Everywhere Else race.

As for African development, you cannot talk about it without talking about 20+ million people stolen from 1520 to 1860, probably that much again killed in slave-catching warfare, the post-slavery exploitation of Africa, and the massive proxy wars between the USA and USSR during the Cold War.  They're digging out from hundreds of years of war, depopulation, and exploitation; nothing's wrong with their DNA.

HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 American Sucker Mon, 05/07/2018 - 18:40 Permalink

No. You are wrong. IQ and other inborn attributes do explain the differences between the races. Around the world there is evidence of mob behavior that is extremely aggressive and antisocial. I can show you videos from the US, from Australia, from Europe, and from Africa that verify this fact and that stand as evidence. Mele Host, Vlad Tepes, and Colin Flaherty have done an excellent job documenting these mob incidents. The interesting part, is the incidents are similar even in such disparate locations. This mob violence has resulted in severe bodily harm, including death and the destruction of private property by a colored mob, for fun and amusement.

Of what do I speak? Coloreds involved in mob incidents. It is rare to see white's involved in such brutish, animalistic behavior, anywhere in the world. Certainly if you have evidence, feel free to post it. I know Colin is always asking for someone to refute his videos and show him similar videos that show white youth viciously attacking lone blacks. It simply doesn't happen. It doesn't happen in the US, it doesn't happen in the UK, it doesn't happen in Europe, it doesn't happen in Australia, nor does it happen in South Africa (where certainly white farmers would be justified in attacking coloreds given what has been done to them and what will be done to them by the current South African president who said he is going to expropriate their farm land because that land is owned by whites and that is viewed as unfair by the present Marxist regime).

As for your ridiculous notions of people being stolen from Africa, it is obvious you attended a public school in the US and learned little about the world other than what you were fed. Slavery has taken place, inside and outside of Africa, for thousands of years. In fact, it was Africans that sold conquered tribes (first to other Africans) and then to the the Middle East, to the Spanish, and to Europeans. If you go to Mauritania, Africa, it is still legal to inherit the family slaves. Mauritania is 95% colored and a Muslim majority country. Slavery is a normal part of life in Africa and in the Middle East. You can hate it. You can be angry that Africans are ignoble and cruel to treat fellow human beings in such a manner, but your anger will do nothing to change the facts or history. I speak of real facts and real history and not of the pablum that was shoved down your throat in a US public school.

Furthermore, I think you would be celebrating the US as this country legally abolished slavery more than 150 years ago. In fact, black men in the US could vote 50 years before women (of any color) could vote. You should consider reading the 15th and 19th amendments to the US Constitution. Here is a link if you don't happen to have a copy on hand: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_the_United…

The idea of IQ, and thus intelligence, being tied to race, makes perfect sense and is completely rational. But in the US it is verboten to even discuss these facts without name calling and being shouted down. Or as happened to Mr. Watson, the Nobel prize winning scientist that discovered DNA, to end up stripped of the ability to earn a living and to be impoverished. There is no greatness in tearing down someone simply because you are unable to comprehend what they are saying. We await your facts. The fact is, you have none.

In reply to by American Sucker

DanDaley HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 Mon, 05/07/2018 - 23:03 Permalink

So how are you defining "race"? That is the important question here, because we are all homo sapiens, and we can all interbreed, and when you look at genetic markers -as the National Genographic project has done with more than 700,000 people, the markers all point to us having originated in Africa. To think otherwise is to believe in Java Man, and Piltdown Man, and Peking Man, etc., saying that "human races" sprang up independently in various places. This is nonsense. So what is race? Is it slant eyes, or round eyes, or being tall, or having a different complexion and skin tone, or a big nose vs a flat nose? Where does one of your so-called races start and another one leave off? 

 

Just because slavery has been a part of almost all human groups throughout history (especially with the mohammedans having enslaved north of 12 million in the years before the England-Africa-New World trade began), and because the tribal leaders along the coast of Africa controlled the slave trade and sold people to the Europeans, does not negate the fact that a good 20 million humans were sold to Europeans. 

 

If you stop and think for a moment, that if those 30 or so million people had not been stolen out of Africa over several centuries, and that if Africans had not been subjucted to centuries of vicious colonialism, then possibly, just possibly, they might have prospered much better than they have. 

 

As for Europeans, they have engaged in mob behavior for many centuries...they just called their mobs different things -kingdoms, principalities, clans, etc., and even nation states are gangs, really, and look at how many hundreds of millions they have murdered in the last 200 years alone. Think the Nazis, Bolsheviks and the French Revolutionaries weren't mobs? Think again.

In reply to by HRH of Aquitaine 2.0

HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 DanDaley Mon, 05/07/2018 - 23:36 Permalink

I speak of race In the normal way, meaning that which is commonly understood and accepted (if you want to play semantic word games I suggest you move along). Caucasian, Asian, Negro, along with the various First Nations in north and South America (Incans, Aztecans, other natives).

I have thought, quite a lot about the problem of race. The US will regret LBJs Great Society progrom and welfare. It has done nothing to help US negros improve their lives and done a great deal to destroy them. In fact, that was LBJs intention. The democrat party never wanted to improve the lives of negros and colored in the US. The Great Society, and welfare progroms, are nothing more than modern day plantations that are run for the benefit of the elites, during elections, and to the detriment of those that live on those modern day welfare plantations. People are farmed as easily as any crop that is grown in soil. Every urban plantation in the US has free medical provided and free, or nearly free, on-demand abortion services. Why bother with an active eugenics progrom when the people can freely choose, or not, to self eliminate?

I will counter your questions with questions of my own. How do you explain the negro propensity for violence towards other negros? The negro propensity for enslaving other negros? As I stated above there was plenty of slavery in Africa long before the European showed up. How do you account for continued slavery in Africa? The girls that are abducted by groups like Boko Haram? The slave trading in Libya? The legal right to inherit your family slaves in a majority negro country like Mauritania? Oh I understand that you have been entrained to blame Europeans, to blame colonialism for the poverty and blight which continues in much of Africa.

How is the majority negro country of South Africa going to address colonialism? By blaming the white farmers and by stealing private property, I know the nice word is expropriation, whilst claiming that things can be made fair for negros? This was already done in Zimbwabe (formerly named Rhodesia) and it failed. People starved. Farming is hard work. Farming requires discipline and patience and a good amount of faith.

But you didn't really want to talk about the problem of IQ in negros, especially African negros. You wanted to complain about how white's have kept the black man down. Do you discuss how negros keep each other down? No. Of course not. That discussion is quite unpleasant and very difficult. The issue with European, and let us be precise, Caucasian mobs, is that white people do not run around punching, stabbing, or killing random people for no reason. That is certainly the case with the negro mobs around the world.

They are not in fear of their life (in the US, UK, Australia, and Europe). They are not starving. They are have equal access to all the modern conveniences such as indoor plumbing, water from an indoor tap, electricity, modern sewers and waster water treatment along with access to free education, free public libraries.  Many negros in western countries are provided  heavily subsidized housing, medical care, food and even, like places in the US, subsidized access to the Internet and phone services, including cell phones. They have access to free libraries and public schools and university if they choose to study. But reading and mathematics are not easy. Long term planning requires the ability to delay gratification, often for long periods of time. For low IQ people, long term planning, delaying gratification, and the ability to save resources for future use are difficult habits to learn. It is not impossible. But more difficult. Can the person with a level 80 IQ learn to read Shakespeare? Of course. Compared to the person with a 120 IQ or 140 IQ however, the process of reading and comprehending Shakespeare will be much easier. I am not saying it is impossible for a low IQ person to learn, only that the level of difficulty increases.

If you factor in the cultural milieu in negro communities, it has to be noted that education is not promoted as a virtue or as useful. Many negros will viciously attack their classmates and bully them for attempting to become educated. In fact, those classmates, if they attempt to speak proper English or try to learn mathematics, are often accused of acting white. This is a slur, used by the negros, to bully fellow classmates. In many cases public schools, in the US, do nothing to stop this type of bullying and harassment. What can be done to alter this type of behavior and these types of attitudes? I would propose that discontinuing the incentive of welfare, being given to single parents that breed offspring with minimal selection criteria, is a start. Choices have consequences, both good and bad, for everyone, regardless of race. Becoming a mature, healthy, responsible adult is not an easy process even with the best background, IQ, and genes. The left cripples people by making excuses for them and welfare incentivizes continued poor decision making, which is unfortunate for the bastard negro born to a single mother in the US. Their future prospects are dim, from the beginning. As I stated, previously, this was intentional. LBJ and the democrat party did not want successful negros in the US. Do you think LBJ succeeded or failed in destroying the negro family in the US?

LIfe is much easier now, than it was 1000 years ago, than it was 500 years ago. Certainly living in the US is much easier than living in many places around the world. The single differentiating factor between success, failure, and aggression, in too many cases, is race. To make the claim that race and IQ do not matter is to ignore reality and objective facts. I have said, previously, that I am a realist. I don't muck around in idealistic fantasies of what life could be or what I want it to be or what I dream that it ought to be. I keep my feet firmly planted on terra firma.

In reply to by DanDaley

DanDaley HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 Tue, 05/08/2018 - 07:16 Permalink

Look, you don't have to retreat into the defense of saying that I'm using "semantics" in defining race. I asked a broad simple question: How are you defining race? What you are talking about when you mean race is some sort of ethnic grouping -Aztecs, or Jews, or Germans. When you say that you "...speak of race in a normal way..." does that mean that anybody is of a different race simply because you say so? Crazy uncle Bob or cousin Suzie are a totally different race because you think of them as weird or somehow different? Once again: Where does one leave off and another one begin? What makes it a "race"? Apparently, it is whatever you say it is because you are speaking in a "...normal way...". 

You simply didn't or can't answer the question. Instead you come with all sorts of red herrings about LBJ and the Great Society as being pivotal in helping to destroy blacks. Totally true, I don't disagree at all...and you can go further than that. Look at Plessy vs Ferguson that extended the unchained slavery of blacks in Separate but Equal (segregation) by a Supreme Court vote in 1896 of 7 Democrat justices vs 1 Republican justice (Harlan of Kentucky -a former Democrat)...and then the Democrats 60 years later "fixed" the evil of segregation that they had created. So you put the black man at a HUGE opportunity and educational disadvantage for generations, and then wonder why he doesn't perform so well on your IQ tests. Considering the Flynn Effect, IQs go up on average 3 points per decade. So why is that? Am I so much smarter than my grandparents? No, it is opportunities, enrichment, and enviromental pressures that cause these rises. The point is that these differences you see are not based on genetics, but situational/environmental pressures.

 

Genetically, race simply does not exist. Try reading Spencer Wells Deep Ancestry: Inside the Genographic Project (or watch the video) for a fuller understanding of this. By the way, even though "race" does not exist, racism -certainly as practiced by liberals and Democrats, absolutely does exist.

 

If you want to have your eyes really opened, go have your deep ancestry DNA analyzed. You will be shocked to find that your DNA extends all the way back to east Africa about 80 - 90 thousand years ago. You will probably also find out that (unless you are African) that you share a lot of DNA with people in a lot of places you wouldn't imagine. DNA tells your story...and you will come away being a lot less racist for it.

 

You look around and see all of these "differences" between groups of people, you call these groups "races", and it becomes the justification for your self-adulation or prejudices against some of these people. As for black on black violence, did you ever consider just how many hundreds of millions (no exaggeration here) of Europeans have murdered other Europeans over the last 3 millennia? It will put to shame any black on black statistics or anecdotes you can come up with...and no, I'm not justifying or defending the actions of Mugabe or the other African thugs in South Africa...I see them for the beasts they are. They do what they do because they are what they are, not because they are black. Otherwise, let's look at how many people Stalin, Hitler, and Mao murdered. They weren't black mobsters were they? Do you blame "race" for their brutality? Apparently not.

 

 

In reply to by HRH of Aquitaine 2.0

HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 DanDaley Tue, 05/08/2018 - 16:12 Permalink

You didn't have to retreat into semantic games and avoid answering my direct questions, but you did. And then you continue playing those games by claiming I can't answer the question. Why should I engage in a straw man argument? No, I will not.

I don't really care where my relatives from 50,000 years ago came from. It isn't relevant to my life, and ability to survive, now. Staying away from hostile negro youth, is.

In reply to by DanDaley

jin187 HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 Tue, 05/08/2018 - 02:56 Permalink

Just because the whites aren't wearing loincloths when they act like animals, doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Slaughter and genocide are a problem for every race.  Is it somehow more civilized when the perpetrators are wearing white hoods, or swastikas, or army uniforms?  2-3 aggregate IQ points isn't the thing that keeps us civilized, it's experience.  It took thousands of years for whites to shed their mob mentality in lieu of civil discourse, and it still isn't perfect.  You want to know when the white mobs show up to burn shit down, all you have to do is look in a history book.  It happens whenever black people try to do anything positive.

In reply to by HRH of Aquitaine 2.0

HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 jin187 Tue, 05/08/2018 - 03:00 Permalink

Keep blaming whitey.  You sound like one more brainwashed victim, oh woe is me, white man keeping me down! 

This is fight club.  Go have your pity party someplace else.

You should be happy, a light-skinned mulatto is getting married to a royal on May 19th.  An actress, no less.  It's astounding when you really understand this historic event.  Imagine red haired mulatto children!  I am sure they will be quite unique.  A real spectacle.

 

In reply to by jin187

jin187 HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 Tue, 05/08/2018 - 03:22 Permalink

You're damn right whitey is to blame.  You wanna sit here and talk about minor IQ discrepancies in a world where it was illegal for blacks to learn to read until 150 years ago.  They had the same reasoning as you, BTW.  Oh look at those booty scratching animals running around topless with their wooden spears.  Guess since they're animals, might as well chain them in our yards.

We all get the real point that you're trying to make.  Why don't you just come out and say it like a big boy?  Gotta kill or enslave all the niggers to make the world a better place, cuz ur bett'r'n dem.  I guess should have my pity party somewhere else, since there's probably no room in your single-wide.

In reply to by HRH of Aquitaine 2.0

HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 jin187 Tue, 05/08/2018 - 03:35 Permalink

Why would I kill anyone?  Negros in the US are doing a fine job of killing each other!  How many dead in Chicago and Baltimore this year?  

How many of your women went to Planned Parenthood for that free abortion?

White people don't have to kill you, you're doing a fine job killing yourselves!

Rather than be angry with me, why not be angry with your fellow negros, for being lazy, for not working hard, for using drugs and alcohol to excess and for not putting more effort into becoming educated?

Why not travel to Liberia and look at how a country that had a Harvard educated black female president still has open sewage and limited opportunities?  Why not go back to Africa and start a school or teach farming or teach entrepreneurship?

But no, so much easier to piss and moan about how the white man is keeping you down.   Oh, and those IQ differences are not minor, it's a very wide gap.   

But those welfare queens will breed with any prison buck that shows her some attention, won't she?  Tommy Sotomayor calls them hair hats, BT-1000s that will do anything for D-n-A, dick-and-attention.

In reply to by jin187

The Grim Teacher HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 Tue, 05/08/2018 - 10:55 Permalink

 

+1000 to your posts above. 

A good case study to hammer home your point, and being a very recent one is Rwanda, and genocide that tool place there in the 90's. That event is essentially Africa personified, the same thing or similar is imminent in South Africa. When it happens the whole world will be shocked and appalled and probably blame whitey, and say that they deserved it. All the markers are there, and take a walk about any city in South Africa, you'll be stared at by blacks with pure hate and resentment in their eyes.

Most firearms that have been handed into the police under the various amnesties over the years have vanished. One police officer found 500 such firearms in a house in a dodgy neighborhood in Cape Town. He was told to shut up and promoted sideways. The military have been caught red handed selling rifles to gangs, and those are just the incidents in which the sprockets selling the rifles were caught red handed.

In reply to by HRH of Aquitaine 2.0

nmewn jin187 Tue, 05/08/2018 - 06:59 Permalink

"You're damn right whitey is to blame.  You wanna sit here and talk about minor IQ discrepancies in a world where it was illegal for blacks to learn to read until 150 years ago.  They had the same reasoning as you, BTW.  Oh look at those booty scratching animals running around topless with their wooden spears.  Guess since they're animals, might as well chain them in our yards."

lol...a Berkeley graduate I presume.

I'm going to also assume you don't think Arabs & most Indians (the Asian subcontinent variety) are Caucasoids. 

I would also point out that "slavery" was widely practiced by Negros in Africa long before "whitey" showed up to take over "their trade" and all those bleached bones across the Sahara were left there not by "whitey" but by Negros & Arabs. 

Friggin idiot.

In reply to by jin187

css1971 jin187 Tue, 05/08/2018 - 08:14 Permalink

Irrespective of race, when IQs drop to the 85, 90 level, criminality increases dramatically. These are people who aren't quite able to function normally in a democratic society. The average criminal IQ is 90.

Doesn't matter if you are white, black, asian. Society has to become more repressive and authoritarian to maintain order.

There are lots of people in the ~85 category. 50 million in the USA. You just can't have a functioning liberal democracy when a majority don't understand what they are doing.

In reply to by jin187

bloofer HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 Tue, 05/08/2018 - 09:36 Permalink

American Sucker's point was that racial differences are not DNA based--or, rather, that DNA-based racial differences would divide up the races in a very different manner than we're accustomed to. Your point is that there are observable differences--especially in behavior.

My guess, in reference to American Sucker's point, is that genetics is not nearly as well understood as "scientists" (or whomever) would have us believe.

In reference to your point, I see no real evidence that blacks have a corner on brutality. Back in the fifties and sixties it was quite common for white youths to randomly attack lone blacks. White youths used to drive around in cars with a baseball bat looking for a lone black to knock in the head. It was called "nigger boppin'." Also, white ethnic neighborhoods (of several different ethnicities) of former times had youth gangs that enjoyed beating each other up, most likely with a preference for settings in which the victims were either greatly outnumbered or--preferably--alone.

Now, IQ is observably tied to race. I think it would be valid to ask how this comes about. Is it genetic? Or is there some other cause, or causes? There are a number of other possibilities besides genetics. I don't really understand epigenetics, but I suppose there could be some kind of interface between epigenetics and culture going on.

Another possibility that my daughter, a biologist, pointed out is nutrition. Because she wants to have a baby, she has done a lot of homework on the subject of nutrition and its impact on having healthy (and intelligent) children. The impact of nutrition is HUGE, and maternal nutrition has a HUGE impact on the health and intelligence of the developing unborn child.

My guess is that this is where much, if not all, of the black IQ deficit is coming from. One thing we can also observe about blacks is that they eat like crap--and this habit of eating like crap is multi-generational and is probably magnifying this deficit over generations. Black culture, both in Africa and the US, is a mess and has been for centuries, and most of it is not conducive to producing anything good in the way of good physical or intellectual specimens.

At one time I was around blacks a lot. (I used to teach in all-black schools.) While plenty of blacks are plenty stupid, it's really hard to say where this is coming from. And there is also a large percentage of blacks who have nothing whatsoever wrong with their brains--at least no more than anyone else, which is perhaps not saying much. I've known blacks whose worth ethic put me to shame.

Basically, what I'm saying is that I think the problem with the black intelligence deficit is fixable, assuming they or anyone else wanted to fix it, and that it could be fixed with proper nutrition (over several generations) and cleaning up the culture.

 

 

 

In reply to by HRH of Aquitaine 2.0

DanDaley bloofer Tue, 05/08/2018 - 10:19 Permalink

Exactly. "...racial differences are not DNA based...". Yet people prefer to see race as whatever they think it is, whatever they want it to be -the obvious differences in people. Calling Poles or Jews or Arabs or Chinese or Aborigines different races is, genetically, absurd. Is Obama black or white or Jewish? And what is in all of those genes, what mixes, what twists and turns, what groups were his ancestors linked to? Even Hitler's genes (traced through his existing relatives) show Ashkenazi, Tuareg (North African), European, and other genes associated with different groups. So what "race" was he? Well, he was a homo sapien who shared genes with those various groups -not various "races". Some people love the concept of race because it justifies their prejudices instead of looking for the causes of actual differences between people...things like sexual selection, environmental pressures, and environmental benefits of various kinds. Nevertheless, racISM definitely exists.

In reply to by bloofer

HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 bloofer Tue, 05/08/2018 - 15:57 Permalink

US negros have been getting free food and free medical care for 50 years. Race-related IQ differences are much deeper than people understand. I do not think the "black intelligence deficit is fixable" as you do. The US has spend how many billions in an attempt to do exactly what you propose as being possible. The end result is that negros kill each other on a daily basis and in some cities almost none can read or do math but they are allowed to graduate from highschool.

I disagree, I do think that racial differences are absolutely based on DNA. As you stated and I agree, IQ differences are observable and tied to race.

By the way, I like how you said you used to teach in an all-negro school. But you no longer do? Why not? If negros are so teachable? Would you allow your grandchild to live near negros in the US? That is where you find out what people say, and what people do, can be very different.

I choose to not live near, or deal with, US negros. I find them ignorant with poor attitudes. Many of them are openly hostile towards whites like myself. Why should I endanger my life around them? It isn't worth it.

In reply to by bloofer