Is Hiring Prejudice Racism? Or Common Sense?
Government lies lead to justified discrimination.
-
Tools:
The New York Times is wringing its hands about the disproportionate effect of the Obama Recession on blacks. Their teaser for "In Job Hunt, College Degree Can't Close Racial Gap" said:
There is ample evidence that race remains a significant obstacle for African-Americans in the job market, even those with degrees from respected colleges. [emphasis added]
How stupid does the Times think businesses are? Every private business wants to get the most possible work out of every employee and put the least amount of pay and benefits back in. Thus, when a manager interviews a candidate whom he thinks will either give less or cost more relative to other potential hires, he tends to move on to the next applicant. This is particularly true in times of economic distress when there are lots of candidates for every job.
Government Lies About Racial Group Skills
Why is the Times surprised that the recession would be harder on black people? Hasn't the Times heard of "race norming?"
Back in the 1980's, the US Department of Labor started promoting the use of its General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) to state employment services. When a state agency is trying to get unemployed people back to work, it's helpful to have a way to rate their skills and qualifications.
The GATB was developed in 1947 and was refined over the years to the point that it could usefully rate people for 12,000 different skill categories. Developing the test was a lot of work, but administering it doesn't cost very much. State agencies started administering the GATB and sending the results to interviews along with the candidates.
Unfortunately, there was a fly in the ointment - blacks scored significantly below whites on the GATB and Hispanics scored someplace in between. Hiring based on raw test scores would have been inconsistent with the government's affirmative action goals.
Accordingly, some bureaucrat conceived the idea of adjusting scores according to an applicant's race. If a black person took the test, his score would be compared only with the scores of other blacks who took the test. Thus, if a black person received a score of 90%, which was supposed to mean that he was in the top 10% of candidates who took the test, it really meant he was in the top 10% of black candidates, not that he was in the top 10% of the overall candidate pool.
An employment web site puts it another way:
As an example, three candidates take the test - one white, one black and one Hispanic. All three applicants achieve identical scores of 300 on the GATB. On the referral sent to prospective employers, however, the three candidates' scores will appear quite different. The black test-taker will be listed as scoring 83, meaning he or she is in the 83rd percentile of all black applicants. The Hispanic will receive a score of 67 and the white a 45. Or, in other words, to be in the 50th percentile, the score for a black, Hispanic and white applicant, respectively, will be 276, 295 and 308.
In other words, after spending large sums of taxpayer dollars developing a test that can accurately measure as many as 12,000 different job skills, the government fudges test scores reported to employers to make minority candidates seem better qualified than they actually are.
The web site quoted above says that methods of faking scores are "widely described in the literature on testing." They have to be, of course. Computers weren't as available back when data faking was introduced so scores had to be tweaked manually. People who graded the tests had to be told how to "adjust" the scores.
How long did it take for businesses to find out what was going on? Even if the methods of lying systematically to employers weren't published, business folk talk to each other.
A Bum Hire Costs a Bunch
People in government generally have no clue how much it costs a business to make a bad hiring decision.
Employees cost money, time, benefits, and grief. The only reason ever to hire anyone at all is that the value of that person's work to you is more than what the person costs. Whenever a business hires anyone, they expect that person to add net value to the firm. In other words, every employee must be worth more than what he or she costs.
Suppose you're looking for a delivery truck driver. You interview applicants, you look at their scores, you call former employers, and you hire someone. That person doesn't work out.
You've lost your earlier pool of applicants; the best of the ones you didn't hire will have found work so you start over. You've lost whatever the bum cost you, and you lost the value he was supposed to add, not to mention irritating customers because of late deliveries. A bad hire is very expensive for any business.
Governments don't care because people have to deal with them and they can always raise taxes to pay for employees who don't do much work. That being the case, employment agencies don't appreciate how much businesses resent being lied to about the qualifications of the candidates the government sends them.
Businesses have figured out how to un-fudge the data, however, so they contain their resentment. Over time, they figure out how much the government inflates the score of a black driver or a Hispanic roofer. They receive the fudged government scores, make the necessary mental adjustment in the negative to get a truthful picture of the candidate, hire accordingly and get on with life.
There's a lot more risk when you're hiring at the top of the food chain. Suppose you're filling a slot that needs someone from a "respected college" as the Times put it. That person's salary will be greater and training costs can be immense.
One of our friends went to work for a bank just out of college. He spent the first two years in full-time training, on full salary, before he was able to do a lick of work for them. This is not unusual with high-end hiring.
Colleges Lie About Racial Group Degrees
The difficulty is that the "respected colleges" lie about the degrees they award. Every college that gets federal money in any form, including loans to their students, has to toe the government's line and admit minorities on an "affirmative action" basis.
How long did it take for employers to realize that "respected colleges" offered two types of degrees, one for blacks and one for everyone else? Depending on the way they fudge applicant's scores during the admission process, some colleges award three or four kinds of degree depending on how finely they slice the applicant pool.
Suppose you're hiring and your group is eligible for a major bonus if you make your numbers. If this new hire doesn't work out, your bonus will be reduced because your group won't perform as well, so you hire carefully.
The candidate's Yale or Princeton degree looks OK, all the profs give him rave reviews, but he's black. You know you're being lied to because Harvard and Princeton always lie about black graduates. It's your money on the line, if this guy blows it, you'll miss your bonus. What do you do?
You do exactly what the white students and professors did at Princeton while Michelle Obama was there. She described it eloquently:
"My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'blackness' than ever before," the future Mrs. Obama wrote in her thesis introduction. "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second." [emphasis added]
White Princetonians knew that the Princeton administration systematically lies about black students' qualifications. Michelle wasn't really a student, she was a "quota queen." Her colleagues knew it and they let her know they knew it; those selfsame colleagues are now running major corporations and making high-level hiring decisions today, and what they learned in college hasn't been forgotten.
Remember the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz? His head was full of straw, he didn't have a brain. The Wizard took care of that - by awarding him a diploma!
Unfortunately, a diploma does not a brain make, and all employers know it, even if the government hasn't yet caught on.
The Times said, "even those with degrees from respected colleges." What they don't realize is that people who hire candidates from "respected colleges" are hiring at a higher level where they have a lot more to lose from an employee who isn't as qualified as he seems. By now, everybody at that level knows that "respected colleges" lie about minority graduates; a Yale minority degree is actually worth, well, about what a normal community college degree might be.
What the Times should have said was, "especially those with degrees from respected colleges." Nowadays, an affirmative-action diploma is proof of nothing.
What are employers to do when they're lied to? Pass by on the other side. When in doubt, it's safest not to hire the minority person because you know you're being lied to.
That's another way affirmative action holds blacks down.
-
Tools:
What does Chinese history have to teach America that Joe Biden doesn't know?
Gee this sounds so familiar. Oh yeah! Global warming. Does the left ever change?
I wonder if the AGW folks took their cue from the US Department of Labor how to fudge the numbers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dul_hYde0nk&feature=related
Once doesn't do any harm but we repeat this 20, 30 times. Well one can understand why the person doing the hiring might be reluctant to give the black guy that scored in the 99th percentile a try.
Even worse than the hiring managers figuring out that the GATB weighs the test depending on the race of the person taking is if they don't.
If an employer believes that everyone with a 90% scored the same and further notices that black employees that scored 90% perform significantly worse than white employees the employer won't decide that the test is flawed. Instead he is likely to come to the erroneous conclusion that it is the color of the person's skin that makes him a bad employee.
Using bad numbers to put people that happen to be black into positions that they can't handle is hardly a good way to convince people that whites and blacks are equal. Only by putting blacks into positions that they can handle can racism be shown to be wrong.
People must take responsibility for their own actions, for their own success and their own failure. I could complain that my parents and schools didn't prepare me adequately for life or I can learn what I need to learn and deal with the challenges that present themselves to me.
Are things more difficult for a person with similar upbringing to me who happens to have black skin? I honestly don't know. He would certainly have some advantages that I wouldn't, he could have gotten more scholarships at the very least. He would have had to deal with the occasional racist attacks. But I've had to deal with that to (eg no, you being black has nothing to do with me not accepting a second coupon.)
Everyone has their own challenges that they must face and over come. Life is not easy for anyone. Those who accept the challenge and overcome it by their own initiative are those that are able to succeed in life. Those who choose to wait for help are doomed to failure.
Remember that money does not make a person happy. When I refer to success I mean people that are able to live a joy filled life with enough money to put a roof over their head and food on their table. If you can't find joy and happiness with that amount of money then you will never be happy.
How many intelligent and qualified whites or even ASIANS have missed out on going to Yale, Harvard and so forth simply because universities had to have a quota filled, and let in less intelligent and less qualified minorities?
We all know what happened to Berkely's student demographics after they were forced to end race-based admissions.
Traditional print media across the country are dying as more of us tune out their habitual intellectual dishonesty and obeisance to political correctness.
Besides, if all it does is give insight to the other sides way of thinking it is well worth the investment of time. The 'Right' is not right on every issue and neither is the 'Left'.
BY THE WAY WHO ELSE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LESSER IMPROVEMENT OF 'BLACK AFRICAN-AMERICANS'IN SERVICE OF WHITE AMERICA SINCE CENTURIES AFTER THEIR HUNTERS BROUGHT THEM FROM THEIR MOTHERLAND.
I just wanted to point out that their "improvements" in the "motherland" is even worse than it is here, and that, in hindsight, african ancestors did their descendants a big favor by coming to the USA. Otherwise the descendants would still be tossing spears at some poor critter.
All the 'racist' whites can live in an 'all white' part of the United States (it's more than big enough for the 95% of whites who would much prefer to live around their OWN people, thank you very much, and be free of the constant charges of 'racist' 'racist' 'racist' with which we are ALL threatened, every day of our lives).
Then there would be no more 'racist' whites living in the 'multi cultural' country that remained, and therefore no more non-whites would EVER suffer from 'racism' again, because obviously no 'racist' whites would be suicidal enough to actually move INTO a country where they were now less than 5% of the population...
Any comments? I doubt it. The solution is SO easy because the crime against us (enforced 'diversity') was also simple.
Give us proper democracy and MOST whites will vote to live in an all white country. It's only the Jews and their vice like grip on our government and entire media that have allowed our once beautiful, safe and successful countries to be turned into third world hellholes...
I very much doubt that 95% of whites would prefer to live in a white ghetto. I certainly have no more interest in that than I do in living in a black ghetto.
'The Jews' have not, nor has any other group, corrupted anything. People who would blame others for their problems will never fix them. Any person that blames blacks, Jews, or any other ethnic group for social problems in their society is ignoring the very real fact that they have control of their own destiny.
The white trash racists of this world and the blacks demanding reparations are far more a like than either will either admit. They both have failed and seek to place the blame, that is rightly theirs, on someone else.
Jonyfries selfishly said:
"I certainly have no interest in living in an all white nation or part of the nation. I value people and I don't care at all what the the color of their skin happens to be."
And? Who cares what YOU as an individual want? What matters is what MOST people want - that means tens of millions of people. You "value people" do you? How very open minded of you.
But then we see your rank hypocrisy:
"I very much doubt that 95% of whites would prefer to live in a white ghetto."
There are no white "ghettos", I think you're confused. Blacks create ghettos once they reach a critical mass of the population of any area. Or hadn't you noticed.
In fact, you're wrong - 95% of whites DO want to live in all white countries, and I can prove it by the very existence of concentrations of non-whites in certain areas of ALL previously all white countries on Earth. These concentrations can ONLY form if the vast majority of white people both move OUT of areas as soon as non-whites move in, and refuse to move INTO areas with more than a small percentage of non-whites...
No need to ask anybody their opinion, no need to speculate- we can PROVE it by looking at the actual facts - vis a vis the existence of areas in London, for example, which are majority non-white, and which can ONLY have become that way (i.e. gone from 100% white to more than 50% non-white) if MOST white people refused to move into houses that come up for sale in those areas - since white people still (at the moment) vastly outnumber non-whites...
"I certainly have no more interest in that than I do in living in a black ghetto."
And? Who cares what YOU as an individual want? Are you seriously suggesting that just because YOU don't want to live in an all white country (good luck then), that 60 million indigenous white British people should have their country destroyed by third world immigrants?
Simple question:
Why aren't white people allowed to have their own countries any more?
"'The Jews' have not, nor has any other group, corrupted anything. People who would blame others for their problems will never fix them."
Brilliant logic. So the Jews who were expelled from Germany in the Second World War were wrong to blame the Nazis? Idiot.
"Any person that blames blacks, Jews, or any other ethnic group for social problems in their society is ignoring the very real fact that they have control of their own destiny."
In other words, ignore reality, and just let your country continue to be INVADED by third world people - thus turning it into a third world country.
Do you believe in democracy? Or tyranny?
Why aren't white people allowed to have their own countries any more?
Indians still have their own country. Pakistanis still have their own country.
Africans still have their own countries.
Why aren't white people allowed to have their own countries any more?
I won't hold my breath waiting for your reply, because I know you haven't thought any of this through...
I said that whites who WANTED to live with non-whites would be welcome to do so! Yet STILL you can't face the truth of my solution.
Did you not understand the bit about there being NO MORE RACISM because, by definition, all the 'racist' whites would surely move into the all white area?
Care to discuss that part?
Of course not! You're too busy proving to us all how 'caring' you are.
So move to Somalia, or Haiti, since you think "We're all the same"...
I have known and been friends with many Africans. Middle class Africans are just like middle class Americans. Hard working, honest, and trust worthy. Socio-economic back ground plays the largest part in determining how a person views life, not race.
The reason you haven't heard of a 'white ghetto' is because it is impossible to have a 'white ghetto' in America since a ghetto by definition is a poor area populated by a single minority group. However many a trailer park resembles strongly any other ghetto in America, other than the color of the people's skin.
'Third world immigrants' built this country. Every wave of immigration into America was greeted by hostility and hate. Building the trans-continental rail road would have been much more difficult, maybe even impossible, without Chinese laborers. Mexicans today are providing cheap labor that keeps prices at a much lower rate than they otherwise would be. If Americans were willing and able to work the jobs offered for the wage offered than immigrants wouldn't be needed. Quite simply Americans demand more pay than low end jobs can offer. Quite honestly, if Americans are unable to compete with uneducated immigrants who don't speak English than I don't have much sympathy for them.
The strength of America is in its amazing ability to gather from all cultures that 'invade' us that which is beneficial. America has survived many other such 'invasions,' my ancestors were hated just as the Mexicans are today. My ancestors stopped speaking German because people decided that any church that spoke German needed to be burnt to the ground, some times in the middle of a Church service. The Irish, the chinese, the mexicans, it doesn't matter who they are or when they came there are always people to hate them, that attempt to prevent the 'destruction' of their nation. Every time our nation absorbs them and becomes better. Immigrants built this nation. Remember the inscription on the Statue of Liberty; America would be nothing today without immigrants.
The movement of whites out of areas as blacks move in hardly proves that 95% of whites don't want to live with blacks. It may be used as evidence that in the 1950s and 1960s whites did not want to live in the same neighborhoods as blacks. Further even if you could find current examples it would not prove anything unless you were able to show that race was the driving factor. After all older neighborhoods do tend to decay after a while. The house prices may simply be going down allowing poorer people to move into the area. The middle class residents may not like the behavior of the new lower class residents.
Even in the radical example of the Jews (homosexuals, gypsies, mentally and physically handicapped...) being killed by the Nazis my statement is in fact accurate. While I would never say that it was the Jews' fault; simply blaming the Nazis for their horrendous acts did not and will never solve the problem. Just as blaming England for the tax rate in the Colonies would not have solved the problem.
I support neither democracy nor tyranny. Democracy is simply the system where 51% of the people can take all the rights away from the other 49%. Democracy is by no means a guarantee of freedom. The actual system of government isn't what matters, what matters is the protection of economic, social and religious liberties. Any government, democratically elected or not, that does not provide for these basic freedoms must be opposed. Freedom of movement and equality before the law are essential freedoms. To deny these freedoms is to deny the bedrock of what it is to be American.
If you are unwilling or unable to work and compete against the best that the entire world has to offer then you are but a dead weight holding America back from the true extent of its possible greatness.
I don't want to give America back to the whites, I want to give America back to the capitalist souls are are will do what it takes to succeed without any artificial barriers nor aids.
Nobody comes right out and points to race as the driving factor - at least not in public, or to opinion surveyors, unless they want to risk their position and statue. (John Derbyshire is an exception.) People talk about wanting to live in better neighborhoods with better schools and less crime. Whites have learned that in a country under the grip of multi-culti ideology, one must speak in code.
"I very much doubt that 95% of whites would prefer to live in a white ghetto. I certainly have no more interest in that than I do in living in a black ghetto."
This is America; there are no "ghettos."
America does indeed have ghettos, given that the definition of the word (as stated above) is a poor area populated almost entirely by a minority population. I used the word liberally in that sentence, however, I doubt any group of people that value skin color over work ethic and integrity could ever hope to keep up in the world we live in today.
"The strength of America is in its amazing ability to gather from all cultures that 'invade' us that which is beneficial."
I'm curious what aspect of America gives it this strength. Is it something in the air? Or perhaps it's something in the soil - or maybe the water is special. Oh wait, I know! It's the PEOPLE. So I must ask, do Africans and Asians have this same strength? If so, then there is nothing special about America. If not, then surely you must believe there is a specific American culture that the various immigrant groups assimilate to. Then you'd be saying that American culture is superior (in this respect) to other cultures. Some would call you a "racist" for that since it is well known that "American" culture is naught but an offshoot of European culture = WHITE European culture. If you are a believer in "multiculturalism", then by definition, you oppose a single American culture and wish to replace it with multiple cultures. How can you not see the danger in this to the America you hold to be so "amazing".
America's problems aren't because we are multi-racial, per se. It's that we have somehow decided to allow various races to have their own conflicting cultures - and all cultures are NOT created equal, or Western culture wouldn't have invented virtually every innovation that has improved the lives of the common people over the last thousand years. Our Founders would be appalled, it says right on our money what we're supposed to be doing: "E pluribus unum - out of many, one." We're doing the exact opposite and it's a disaster.
So it is with America, many people with many cultures have come to America the essence of America however is not changed by foreigners it is instead strengthened.
America and Europe have different cultures. Europe itself is made up of very different cultures. The French and the Germans are not simply different cultures they are different peoples.
Jeudeo-Christian cultures are more 'successful', ie stronger economically and militarily, on average because the Jeudeo-Christian belief structure emphasizes self determination and self reliance. Further Jeudeo-Christian society do not seek to limit material gains for an individual.
As a side note, I am referring to Jeudeo-Christian society not either Jewish or Christian religious structures which are not always in accord with Jeudeo-Christian society.
Buddhism, for example, teaches contentment with what one has. This ideology is unlikely to get people out developing new technologies or building vast empires. Which is not to say that Buddhism may not produce a happier population (I have no comment nor knowledge on that) simply I am stating that the economic/military prospects will be lessened.
To say that American culture is 'better' would not be correct. To say that American culture is capable of creating wealth would be correct. I am very fond, by and large, of American culture. I enjoy learning about other cultures. I take from them that which will help me be a better person and citizen. I, however, believe that the American culture is what allows me to be happiest and contribute most fully to my society. What is better for me, will not be what is best for everyone.
I am a strong believer in Tradition. Tradition is not blind faith in the wisdom of the past to apply to the future. Instead Tradition is never ending pursuit of the unattainable perfect society. Every generation changes the traditions, makes them their own. This is right and proper. Every generation must be willing to take from other societies that which is beneficial so as to maximize the strength of their society.
Otherwise nations will become like ancient China. The structures that had been its strength, when set in an unbreakable Conservatism, became its greatest liability.
Can you please cite me one example of a non-white/non-Asian society that has successfully adopted Western ways and created a peaceful, ordered nation along the lines of what we had in Europe and America? If Mexican mestizos are fully able to learn the positive aspects of America - then why have they not done so in Mexico? It's not like they are not exposed to those ideals over there.
As for African immigration, while most African immigrants are smarter/harder working than the average African, in the long run they simply bring Africa with them wherever they go. Much has already been written about this but witness what is happening in France (for example). Large swaths of French cities are ruled by savagery and are off limits to whites. Frence cities are being transformed into French speaking Detroits. Clearly the French have a much more solid cultural identity than Americans - and yet this has not improved the behavior of Africans in their midst.
No, I am not confusing "multiculturalism" with "multiracial"; the two go hand in hand. In theory, they are two different things but, in practice, they are one in the same most of the time.
It is a myth that people in the past came to America 'wanting to be American.' Certainly some people did and some people still do. However, the 'littles' of many major metropolitan areas belies the idea that people came here to leave their culture behind. We celebrate St. Patty's day, hardly an English or American holiday.
My ancestors here in America continued speaking German for every day commerce until they were physically forced to adopt English during WWI and WWII. New Ulm MN, where my mother's family is from, has a statue, a very large statue, of Hermann the German, a mythical German that fought and defeated a Roman Army. And if you've ever gone to an Oktoberfest you're celebrating a German Holiday.
France does have many problems, I however am not well acquainted with them. I do understand that Racism in France is stronger than it is here in the States. Also the exclusion of immigrants prevents their eventual inclusion into society. I would also say that laws must be enforced to not allow things such as honor killings.
Kenya has been fairly successful but I'm only aware of that because my sister-in-law is from Kenya. I'm sure there are likely others as well.
1) Are the whites of Western Europe a diverse group in and of themselves?
2) Is it not so that America was founded by not only those of English origins but also of other Western European origins?
If we answer the first question in the affirmative, then we must admit that a 100% white school can still be a richly diverse school - and there is no need to "diversify" it by bringing in "people of color". The same goes for white neighborhoods, businesses and cities. If we answer in the negative, then we must admit that the Irish and German influence you mention is not really (nor has it really ever been) alien to America. The truth, of course, is somewhere in between. Whites ARE a diverse group of people - but Western European whites are still similar enough that there was never any danger of Irish or Germans destroying American culture; their contributions were enrichment and those immigrants were genetically close enough to each other to blend in easily. The reason I bring up the question of the diversity of whites is that most leftists do not consider whites to be diverse enough; they deem it necessary to import non-whites wherever whites comprise 100% of a population. On the other hand, those same leftists see nothing wrong with African communities being 100% black - because "not all blacks are the same and they are diverse" and so we have a gross double standard.
As for question #2, of course the founders of this nation were mostly of English extraction but Irish and Germans were never alien to them. All Western Europe was one big family - even though they were at each others throats much of the time.
As for Kenya being a successful non-white nation that has adopted Western ways, this needs some looking into. I do know that Botswana is pretty nice. I know for a fact that non-whites are capable of having civil societies but I'm not sure if those societies are truly "Western". It would be interesting to look into rape statistics in Kenya and Botswana. It would be interesting to examine the levels of corruption and irresponsible sex/HIV infection rates etc. How many Kenyan neighborhoods are safe for whites and Asians to wonder about it at night? If you leave something of value in a public place, what are the odds of getting it back through the "Lost and Found"?
Strength comes form taking the best from all sides. To say that European stock is better than other stock is nonsense. There have been great and powerful nations on every continent made up of people of every race. Europeans simply did two things better than anyone else, guns and ships. (Yes that's a gross simplification.) Therefore there are things to be learned from every culture. Such as the Japanese's sense of duty and honor, something sorely lacking in America today.
Compared to an Arab sure German's were familiar to the English but they still have very different cultures. Mexicans are of European stock, as much as the Spanish at the very least. Sure you see some Moorish influence but I do believe you'd be hard pressed to say that the Spanish aren't European. Of course the Spanish did intermarry with native populations but the culture is undoubtedly of Spanish decent.
My parents and my brother have been to Kenya. They all reported that it was wonderful. Do you leave things of value laying about? Of course not, there are truly poor people there, poor as could not happen in America. But this is hardly unique, the crime rate in Europe is amazingly high. Sure they have limited murder rates but theft is drastically higher than here in the states.
As to HIV infection rates in Kenya its my understanding that it was better than in other parts of Africa but is higher than here in the states. Irresponsible sex? Really? Have you seen any recent statistics for sexual conduct in America and Europe? Sex only in marriage, or even in a committed relationship is hardly even a commonly accepted idea.
There is no such thing as 'enough' diversity nor as 'too much' diversity. There is diversity handled well, where you expect everyone to adhere to the rules as laid out by where they are. There is diversity handled poorly where you allow people to behave how they will, such as Honor Killings. A single person not expected to live up to the same standards as everyone else in a society will start the decay.
The why of the difference, as stated, is the non-European origins of the immigrants. As I stated above Mexicans are decidedly as Spanish as we are English.
More importantly however is that we've had waves of Chinese immigrants. Gave us chinese food, which while only marginally similar to actual Chinese food is a boon in my opinion.
So then we could say that Asians and Europeans are ok, but lets not let too many pesky Africans in! The issue that the French are having with immigrants being the reason given for the fear. However, the problem is just as likely with the French as it is with the immigrants.
It is my understanding that unemployment is very high in France. This makes it difficult for the immigrants to get jobs, its still, however, better than where they're from. Youth without anything to do tend to start committing crimes. From Egypt towards the end of the medieval period to America today this is always true. Unemployment leads to crime, not because people need food but because they're bored and most forms of entertainment cost money. And really its not like they have anything better to do.
Machiavelli was right on this one, if you want peace keep people busy. He said it in a very different context but it remains true in all contexts.
I should mention that I do have a soft spot, in my heart, for Mideastern culture. I enjoy Mideastern music, foods, dress and find Mideastern people to be, overall, quite attractive. I can also appreciate the good things in other cultures. But I would hate to see Humanity lose its distinct cultures/races and become one big gray mass. In this sense, I do value diversity just as I value diversity in the animal kingdom and decry the extinction of species.
By "irresponsible sex", I meant unprotected sex and extreme promiscuity. This is a deadly combination and seems to be common among blacks wherever they are. Hence their very high STD infection rates all over the world.
I don't doubt that theft rates are high in Europe but I wonder how much of that is due to the destruction of traditional European societies and immigration.
As from Hispanic immigration, I would say that the current immigration into America is a boon. Of course it also causing some troubles.
I believe that most of the issues with large scale immigrations are a result of the government of the nation that is receiving the immigrants. Germanic immigration into Rome was a huge problem for Rome, but then Rome treated Germanic peoples in ways that forced the Germans to fight back against the Romans. Immigration that is met with hostility is always going to cause of hostility back.
U.K. Blacks in London are the source of much, if not most, gun violence.
Canada. Blacks are the main source of gun violence in Toronto and probably other places.
China. Rioting - even though their numbers are still relatively few.
Russia. Nigerian mafia.
Southern Africa. Near extinction of the native Khoisan and now a campaign of extermination against remaining whites. Extreme levels of rape and other crimes.
Australia. So high is their crime rate that even the liberal Aussie government declared them not good candidates for immigration.
France. Africans are the main culprits in the rioting and car burning that regularly rock Paris and other large cities.
Sweden and Norway. Blacks, along with Kurds/Arabs are the majority of culprits in aggravated rapes.
Poland. Though still few in number, they've already had a negative impact by increasing the incidence of AIDS there.
U.S.A. Though brought initially against their will, they've been a scourge upon the nation by draining resources for welfare and special programs, through their high crime rates and high levels of STD's. Some American blacks have excelled and done well but there is no doubt that this country would have fared a lot better without them overall.
Haiti. Brought as slaves and then freed through violent uprising, it's been the armpit of the Western hemisphere ever since. Perhaps they shouldn't have exterminated every white man, woman and child on their half-island...
Japan. Japan is very selective about who she allows in - even so, the crime rate of blacks there is still noticeably higher than that of other foreigners.
With all the above nations, and many more, the only "meaningful" contribution from blacks has been in sports and, to a lesser extent, in entertainment. Notable black scientists can be counted on one hand. Human rights advocate, among blacks, usually means a person whose goal is to advance the cause of blacks. I'd like to know (seriously) how many black advocates there are for the pygmies. How many blacks advocate for whites in Zimbabwe? How many blacks advocated for Asians in Eastern Africa before they were expelled? How many blacks advocated for Lebanese in West Africa when they were being murdered and raped? How many blacks advocate for whites who are stuck in inner cities or prisons in the U.S. and live in constant fear for their lives? For that matter, how many STRAIGHT African blacks advocate for gay rights in Africa? Sorry about the tirade but, in my eyes, a hero is somebody who looks out for OTHERS, not for himself.
It is my understanding that most of the immigration into France is from North Africa. North Africans are decidedly not black.
Further unless you can show that in these cases that race is the most likely reason for this you're showing correlation not causation. For example blacks in South Africa reacting with reverse discrimination should be no surprise to anyone considering the harsh discrimination that they faced for years. The Stanford prison experiment illustrates how power can affect people. The French Revolution provides a concrete example of what happens when those without rights suddenly are put in charge.
Further Africa has been ravaged by European interlopers. Europe attempted to sweep away African culture and hatreds and enforce European style nations and arbitrary boarders. It is hardly any wonder that Africa has had many problems considering what Europe did to its.
This isn't to blame Europe, they were acting in what they believed to be their own best interests. This isn't to excuse any actions of African nations or peoples that are wrong. It is merely to point out that once again the problem is not race, the problem is a cultural history. Africa has been, and still is at least upon occasion, abused by developed nations, intentionally or not, it is the perception that is important here.
People of all races want the same things in life: more security, more money, more power. The only difference is how people seek to achieve those goals. It is education that makes the difference, philosophy and moral instruction. where those are lacking, regardless of race, there will be violence.
If an individual of whatever race, including African, wishes to come to the United States and become an American in all cultural respects, then I don't see why there should be a problem. The trouble arises when, instead, they bring with them the cultural failings that led to failed societies over there, and as a result we get equally failed societies right here. The similarity between "big man" African kleptocracies and most American inner-city governments is painfully obvious and disturbing. Is skin color the problem? Not really; the problem is in cultural attitudes and choices which can be changed by proper education and outside pressure, but aren't being.
Now jony, to your points:
The riots in France were perpetrated mostly by Africans and Arabs (http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/21525/africans-not-surprised-by-riots-in-racist-france.html). My original statement could have spoken of Arabs - but instead I chose blacks as the example so the fact that Arabs also participated does not detract from my statement. When referring to "Africans and Arabs", it is understood that "African" means "black African". Otherwise, it would just be "Arabs". Here's another good article on that: http://www.protectionist.net/2007/12/01/africans-rioting-in-melbourne-adelaide-and-france-again/
Your point about blacks in South Africa having suffered harsh discrimination is not valid. During apartheid, S.A. had an acute illegal immigrant problem - from black African countries. Those blacks voted with their feet that it was better for them to live under apartheid than under black rule elsewhere. Also, what the Bantu/Zulu did to the Khoisan certainly was not because of white oppression. Furthermore, it was white South Africans who voted to end apartheid and give power to the majority blacks. They left black South Africans a solid infrastructure and functioning government. Observe what has become of that...
European colonialism certainly did do a lot of harm to Africa - but it also brought Africans into the modern world and those "white interlopers" have been tirelessly fighting hunger and disease in Africa ever since. How many billions of dollars has the white man spent trying to improve the lot of black Africans? More than most people can imagine. How many whites have traveled to Africa to dig wells, administer vaccines, further education, teach skills and bring electricity to villages? Far more than most can imagine. You should read accounts of African life and mores before colonization. It is not for nothing that they were known as "savages" for human life had no meaning or value to their native rulers. Accounts of pre-colonial black Africans by Arab, Chinese, and European visitors are strikingly similar. So as brutal as the Europeans were, had those Africans been subject to native rulers of similar power, the brutality would have been much worse.
As for the arbitrary borders, that is a great point my friend. In other words, what the Europeans did to the Africans was --- bring them diversity and I know you appreciate what a curse that was. It is bizarre that many of the people who worship ethnic diversity in white societies are the same ones who condemn the Europeans for bringing ethnic diversity to the Africans. Good point; this was an evil deed.
I agree with you that MOST people, of every race/nationality want the same things. But there are differences, at the group level, that make societies (as a whole) differ. Again, you should read Race, Evolution and Behavior.
As to South Africa I do not believe that immigration into South Africa invalidates my argument. Economically it is true that South Africa was far better than many of the nations in the southern part of Africa.
My point is this: When people previously out of power are given power they will abuse those previously in power. Often times even if the people in power previously did not abuse them. Children who are bullied will often bully children weaker than them rather than learning the pain of being bullied they assert what power they can.
To my knowledge South Africa has simply turned the racism around. Exactly what I would expect people of all colors to do. Is it right? Of course not, but it does tend to be human nature to take an eye for an eye.
I have no delusion of a paradise in Africa that Europeans came and destroyed. However there was order and competent, if not benevolent, rule. No nation that I know in pre-modern history showed, what we today would call, respect for life. Reading the Viking epics one clearly understands that life is not 'respected.' However they produced a vibrant and powerful people.
I would say that much of the supposedly good work Europeans do today in Africa actually prolongs the misery. Food aid is the easiest to show as being terrible for a nation. If food is given away for free in an area what happens to local farmers? All out of business. The area becomes entirely dependent upon foreign aid. Most of the farmers switch over to cash crops. South Korea after the Korean War is a great example of this.
We start withdrawing food aid, some of the farms start switching back to food production. However cash crops still tend to do better. As the local food supply shrinks we also go in and provide many medical improvements to the area allowing for larger and larger populations. One bad year for crops and you have mass starvation. Food aid comes in and the cycle begins anew.
Even more importantly such foreign aid allows inept, ineffective, and corrupt governments to remain in power. People will generally not rebel until and unless their lives are threatened. By keeping things just far enough from constant threat of death we maintain the very governments we condemn.
People of all colors have sought to eradicate other people. The Albanians and the Serbs, the Rape of Nanjing, the KKK. It is unfortunately also part of the human condition. Such activities have, for the most part, left western societies because of effective governance. As stated above I believe our aid to the area perpetuates bad governance.
Diversity is a double edged sword, with an established effective government it is a boon. (See the Ottoman Empire, Sicily, and the Iberian peninsula during the middle ages.) Diversity with weak governments that do not protect all parties is a curse. (See the pogroms that occurred against the Jews through out the middle ages and post civil war south.)
Strong governments must form out of a monolithic culture. Otherwise there is too much infighting based around culture. Once a strong government is extant it becomes possible for cultural diversity to emerge. When Europe left Africa individual tribes usually took power in the various nations and abused the other tribes within the borders that they had claimed.
"The successful imposition of Christianity on Africans at home and abroad encouraged the perception that before Whites came, Africans had nothing of either intellectual or spiritual value. Contempt, not curiosity, was the European response to African indigenous knowledge. What was deemed worthy of respect was appropriated to Europe and the African mythic origins submerged."
http://www.metanexus.net/conference2008/articles/Default.aspx?id=10455
"South of the Sahel, traditional medicine and various technologies, including sophisticated iron and bronze metallurgy, flourished prior to European colonization."
http://science.jrank.org/pages/48819/Africa.html
There was plenty of technology in Africa before Europeans came, Europeans simply didn't care to understand it. Europeans were convinced of their own superiority, this is reflected in their writings on all cultures they encountered.
"Smelting iron required placation of spirits. Traditional healers interpreted the spiritual, psychological aspects of the ill and their communities using mediation with the spirits"
http://science.jrank.org/pages/48819/Africa.html
Sure the placation of spirits seemed strange to Europeans; Europeans knew the proper way to heal someone was to pray to Saints and bleed the ill. They also believed too much phlegm caused insanity which is why Norsemen were insane. Africans had to much black bile, which is why they were always depressed. The color of their respective skins being indicative of how much of the four humors they had.
Although I've never seen any papers written on the subject I believe that the Sahara desert played a large role in the limited technology that was extant in Sub-Saharan Africa. Through out the rest of Eurasia technology and information flowed pretty freely from Asia to the middle east and from the middle east to Europe. The Saharan Desert made travel to the south a very difficult and dangerous prospect.
The areas that did have significant contact with Islamic nations were in many ways just as developed as their counterparts to the north. Timbuktu being by far the most famous. Yes Timbuktu is a real place and its wealth in gold dwarfed all other Eurasian-african nations until Spain started importing gold from the Americas. The currency in Timbuktu however was gold. Gold wasn't worth much there, after all it was so common. Instead they used Cowry shells which were not common. Europeans at the time believed this showed the stupidity of the locals.
I've read through the introduction of Race Evolution Behavior and skimmed a couple of the chapters and must say that I am not impressed by the methodology. Populations with high mortality rates always have many children. Families in Europe during the middle ages weren't exactly small. As written in the novel Genji (an ancient japanese novel which culturally accurate to the times) the legal marring age was around 12 years old for girls. So saying that Africans tend to mate earlier and produce more offspring may have far more to do with environmental factors.
Race Evolution Behavior seems to look at current information and biased ancient writings and assume that this is how things have always been. I also find the lack of citations quite troubling. The graphs are cited to the book itself. A book can never be more useful than its citations.
The book also uses vague concepts, for example: "the heritability of IQ is about 50%" (p 30). Stupid parents usually produce stupid children and vice versa I suppose is the idea. However, having a good quantification of that concept would be appropriate considering what the author is attempting to prove.
IQ is also not as good a test of intelligence as people assume it to be. The Flynn Effect I believe proves this. The Flynn Effect is the periodic readjusting of IQ tests to keep the average score at 100. The average IQ goes up by about three points per decade. This would imply that children today are significantly more intelligent (not more knowledgeable but simply smarter) than their great grand parents.
(see the Wiki article on the Flynn Effect.)
As for your second post, there has been ongoing research on race and I.Q. - but, since such research is taboo in most circles, the masses only get highly biased "information" about it. Many have tried to pin racial disparities on culture but to no avail; those racial disparities persist across cultures, across climates and across socio-economic status. It's been a few years since I've read Race Evolution and Behavior. Since then I've read other books on the topic (both for and against racial genetics). I read "Guns, Germs and Steel", which argues what you said about the Sahara but in different terms. I found it an interesting read but, for the most part, irrelevant to race studies (except where Mr. Diamond claims that native New Guineans are intellectually superior to other races due to their genetics). I'd be happy to debate the question of race vs. I.Q. via email if you'd like; the topic may be too involved for a format like this. As for the Flynn effect, it clearly cannot be taken at face value for this would lead us to preposterous conclusions. Rather, it is likely that the "I.Q." that is rising here is not "G" but some other I.Q. that is more dependent on nurture. That I.Q. (G) is about 50% heritable does seem to be the current consensus. I'd like to ask those who claim that it is hardly heritable at all why it is that I cannot raise a kitten as a human and teach it to read. It seems far too convenient, and contrary to evolution, that various human populations would have diverged in so many ways but remained identical inside their skulls. We now know that the human brain has undergone rapid evolution over the last 10,000 - well after the races diverged. It is not reasonable to claim that this evolution was uniform in all areas and under vastly different conditions. Nature is not politically correct, even though many would want it to be. Alternate explanations for the underperformance of Africans (intellectually) may be valid and, at the same time, not preclude the hereditary one. But I ramble (and I'm very tired after a long day at work)...
If there had been significant internal trouble immediately following the Constitutional Convention the Federal Government as we know it today would not exist. Today for there to be significant resistance to the idea of the federal government things would have to get very, very bad*.
Humans have a unique brain. All humans have the same brain structures which provide all humans with the same basic mental skills. Obviously how well an individual can carry out those skills differs greatly. This is why teaching monkey's sign language has allowed for some communication but they do not seem to fully understand sentence structure. Much like the girl who was found having reached adolescence without ever learning to speak (her parents locked her in a room and never spoke to her) she could learn words and what they meant but was never able to truly master language (at least until she disappeared, she didn't like the attention she was getting). So humans are humans, while there are certainly some genetic differences we are all essentially the same in basic capabilities.
However, I will allow, for the sake of this discussion, that it is possible that peoples of different races have different average IQs**. However the differences that you are talking about are nothing too significant. Also averages can be deceiving. I am curious first what kind of average they are talking about (mean, medium, or mode). Secondly I am very curious what the curve looks like, I would assume that they are basic bell curves, as the general population IQ graph is. However that doesn't tell us how sharp the curve is.
Further and more importantly having a population entirely of smart people is not beneficial to a society. While I loath caste systems, Brave New World was right in the need for all different levels of intelligence. So even assuming there is a racial difference in natural intelligence this would not alone be enough to make a particular race undesirable in a society.
* The Tea Parties have no problem with the idea of the Federal Government just with the current job that it is doing.
** I would like to reiterate that I am simply accepting this for the sake of this argument, since the data in Race, Evolution and Behavior was not cited I have no way of verifying it.
That said, I don't see any inherent reason that a decent high-school education cannot be sufficient for the modern equivalent of a ditch-digger job. It's difficult to say what portion of racial problems is due to inherent race differences, versus the political pressures that have destroyed inner-city society and schools which Scragged has discussed many times. The one can be fixed, and the other can't; we might as well concentrate on fixing the one first.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/retard.htm
The arguments made in the book "The Bell Curve" hold true today. So-called "refutations" of that book include serious (and obvious) flaws of logic. One standard deviation (about 15 I.Q. points) is very significant. As in many other traits, the genetic influence on I.Q. becomes more apparent over time. Hence, among children under the age of puberty the black/white I.Q. gap is not significant. The I.Q. of blacks generally increases according to the amount of white ancestry they have. So we find that African blacks average in the 70's and most American "blacks" who excel academically have a lot of white ancestry. But re: "Race, Evolution and Behavior", were there any specific data that you needed sources for?
As for government, as a matter of fact, diversity requires government to be very invasive. Once a government has decided to insure "equality" among races/ethnic groups/religions etc., it must infringe on freedom of association. It must dictate whom businesses must hire, how many of each group colleges/universities must admit/pass, ultimately even (to a lesser extent) how crime and punishment are handled. For a detailed (and very well documented) account of this, read "The Affirmative Action Hoax".
Are all hearts the same genetically? Probably not? Are all livers the same genetically? Probably not. Are all kidneys the same genetically? Probably not. Those are simple organs and yes, they do perform the same functions in all humans. The brain is certainly the most complex organ in our bodies. It would be astounding if, somehow, all humans had the same (or very similar) genetic potential in their brains. The way evolution works is that a species possesses diverse traits and abilities. The environment then interacts with genes and alleles to find the best equilibrium (or the species/race goes extinct). If environments differ, then so will genes/alleles. The brain is not exempt from adaptation; in fact, it is probably even more prone to regional/genetic variation than other organs. All evidence points in this direction but the powers that be find this fact uncomfortable. They have no problems studying mice, dogs or sheep. But, when it comes to their own species, politics come into play and few are able to be objective.
Yes, I agree that every society needs people of various intellectual capacities. Each race has it's own bell curve and there is no shortage of dumb whites or Asians.
As for 'computer jobs' of the future, if the software is well designed then any idiot can use it.
@rhayat1: Black children raised in white middle class homes have an average IQ of 93 (Rushton, 32). Assuming this number is correct (since again he didn't cite the source of his numbers) this would indicate that the natural intelligence of Africans is only 7 points below average for the general population.
I believe you missed my point on the brain structures. My point is not that all brains can do everything equally well but rather that all brains can do everything. Any person of any race (assuming no damage nor genetic abnormalities) can do math, some better some worse, to do spacial reasoning, some better some worse, ect.
I would say that racial tensions became far worse in America once the government started intervening strongly. Today there is a lot of white resentment against blacks because of government programs and laws. The true problem is the government not the blacks. One shouldn't blame blacks for taking advantage of what is offered to them, people of all races would do the same. A strong government, in my meaning, must have the strength to make everyone stand on their own. Not helping any person because of his race or culture. Helping a person because of their race only exacerbates the problems that diversity brings.
Thank you very much for the graph! That article was great. It however does not support your argument. True it would seem to indicate that raw reasoning power is higher among non-Hispanic whites***. However it also stated that a black with an IQ of 70 is less likely to have social issues as a white with an IQ of 70. This would indicate to me that a similar percentage of blacks and whites would be useful in a society.
All of this in my opinion misses the most important element however. Each person must be evaluated on their own merits. To do otherwise it seems to me is morally wrong. Just as I would never want to be judged because of my paternal Grandfather (a drunk) nor because of my father (a successful business man turned pastor), so too is it wrong to judge a person based on the color of their skin.
Even if there was a race where 90% of them were stupid and violent I would refuse to accept a blanket ban on them in a society since that would be unjust to the other 10%.
While tends and averages are important and interesting I am in the end interested in the individual and as long as there is a single exception I will not accept divisions based solely on racial lines.
*I worked in a factory as a temp worker for a week.
**That is in no way to say that these jobs are easy; retail is decidedly not easy.
***Everything in the article referred to non-Hispanic whites so I will use the same so as you not abuse the data provided.
Lucy
We can all see how non-whites benefit from INVADING previously all white countries, so tell us - what do WHITES gain from this?
I know what we've lost: freedom of speech, safety, the ability to celebrate OUR culture and OUR race, the ability to NOT have to worry about 'saying the wrong thing' in case some black person overhears us and gets us sacked from our jobs, the freedom to walk OUR streets at night without being attacked by hate filled third world savages.
Do you want me to go on?
You don't believe in freedom of association. You don't believe in democracy. You therefore don't believe in the Constitution.
You therefore believe in tyranny and totalitarianism.
MOST white people want to live in an all white country, and you know it.
When given a choice, whites move house to get away from non-whites, in their MILLIONS. This happens literally MILLIONS of times every year, when you add up all the white countries on Earth. That is the only evidence you need. Nobody has to be asked, nobody has to be interviewed about it, we can SEE it, because there are hundreds of areas in all white countries, which have more than the national average of non-whites in them, which can ONLY have come about if MOST white people refused to buy the houses which came up for sale in those areas - from the very beginning of the invasion of non-whites...
Oh really? The KKK just wanted to SEPARATE from blacks, like most white people do.
The Albanians INVADED Serbia.
You don't even know what the situation is in France, with regard to the millions of worthless, hate-filled muslims who have infested it, yet think you are qualified to even discuss this topic.
Most white people want to live in an all white country. If even ten million white Americans wanted to live in an all white state of their own, who are you to FORCE them to do otherwise, and how is that 'integration' working for you?
"Global elites view the white Western world as the main obstacle of a future world government. Multiculturalism is a tool used by such elites to dismantle white Western civilization".Pat Buchanan
"If a whites-only nation were set up on a portion of land (leaving the rest of the land for the establishment of non-white nations and the multicult), whites all over would immediately flock to enter it. The effect would snowball since every time a white left the multicult to enter the white nation the non-whiteness of the multicult's remaining population would become more concentrated, which in turn would prompt more whites to leave, and so on. There would be no way on earth to stop this process. It would be like a hypertonic solution behind a semi-permeable membrane drawing water into itself, where whites are both the hypertonic solution and the water being drawn in. The whites-only nation would balloon up unstoppably from the white influx it would receive." -- Unknown source
I have no delusion of a paradise in Africa that Europeans came and destroyed."
My god. It gets worse.
How exactly did the Europeans "destroy" Africa?
What was there BEFORE Europeans came? Nothing. No written language. No manufacturing base, no works of art, no literature, NOTHING.
While blacks were living mud huts, Europeans were inventing just about everything YOU take for granted, which blacks could NEVER invent, since they are less intelligent than us. MUCH less intelligent, and everybody knows this.
Blacks have no RIGHT to live among any other race, unless that race WANTS them to.
Which part of that don't you understand?
The U.S. is soon going to be a third world country, because it is being invaded by third world people. Idiots like you can't even grasp this simple fact, and would rather DIE than admit you're wrong.
Well, I don't want to die, and I certainly don't want to die at the hands of worthless third world INVADERS, who are clearly here to TAKE what they cannot MAKE, a decent, first world civilisation.
>America does indeed have ghettos, given that the definition of the word (as stated above) is a poor area populated almost entirely by a minority population.
That's a perversion of the word "ghetto," which comes from Italian, referring originally to the section of Venice where Jews were required *by law* to live.
In truth, America has no "ghettos." There are slums, there are bad neighborhoods, but we have no ghettos.
In America, the darker the neighborhood, the more trash, chaos, and violent crime exists. Have you read "The Color of Crime" by the New Century Foundation? colorofcrime.com/
It's based on crime statistics compiled by the US Department of justice.
One of its conclusions is one of those hate facts never discussed in the mainstream media.
"The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic."
That's one reason why I and millions of my fellow whites no longer want to live in neighborhoods afflicted by "diversity." I don't want to oppress blacks or mestizos; I just don't want anything to do with them.
>America is for freedom.
What freedom? Freedom to live in a neighborhood of my own choosing? Freedom to hire, fire and promote whomever I want? Freedom to associate with whom I want? Freedom from state-mandated anti-white discrimination in housing, education, and employment under the guise of "affirmative action"?
A pro-white organization does not even have the freedom to organize a conference anymore. Just try to do it and you see your conference shut down through an orchestrated campaign of intimidation and death threats - and the state will do nothing to investigate or prosecute the terrorists responsible.
Dr. Adford is correct. Were anybody to set up a white ethno-state, I'd move there in a heartbeat even if it meant starting over career-wise, washing dishes, or digging ditches.
I would love to see some kind of basis for your statement that such a large percentage of Whites would want to live in a White only nation. I've spent all of my life in white society and have never seen anything to make that statement seem probable.
Democracy is often the tyranny of the majority. So no I do not hold it sacrosanct. However I don't see how you can claim the moral high ground on this since the democratic system is how we got to where we are so I don't think you can claim that democracy is on your side. It appears to me that you are saying the majority of people that agree with you would vote as you want them to.
The KKK wanted to kill or enslave blacks in America. Did they feel the need to take the war to Africa, no. Other examples of whites killing people that are different are the pogroms against Jews during the middle ages. The Crusades into north eastern Germany up towards Russia. The expulsion of Muslims from Spain in 1492 where they had been an important and peaceful part of society in Castile and Aragon before the fall of Granada and unification of Castile and Aragon into Spain.
You stated that: The Albanians INVADED Serbia. I am not sure what you are referring to here since Albania decidedly did not invade Serbia. Kosovo was made up largely of Albanians but Albania did not invade Serbia.
Your statement that there was no technological/cultural base in Africa is blatantly historically false. North African culture is relatively well known, especially Egypt so I assume you are referring to sub-Saharan Africa. However as I wrote above there were powerful and culturally significant nations in Africa, especially Timbuktu which was the most gold rich Eurasian-African nation for quite some time. Did many African people's build with wood? No. Neither did people in the Middle East, after all wood was not abundant. People build using local building materials.
As for technological advances Europe took far more technology from other Cultures than it gave back. Gunpowder and cannons were imported ideas. Sub-Saharan Africa, as noted above, had developed metallurgy which is something that requires a good amount of societal sophistication. However the technology that Europeans stole from the Ottoman Turks (who had stolen it from the Chinese) was simply more than the native technology of Sub-Saharan Africa could fight off.
I'm not sure what makes you feel like you have the right to say that people of African decent can not live with where they please. Obviously individuals must be self sufficient and peaceful. Just because you don't like someone doesn't make them any less deserving of rights.
A brief study of medieval history will tell you that Europe stole from the Byzantine and Muslim Empires to gain its power. It was the exchange of information that made Europe so powerful. True Europe was able to take knowledge/technology and improve upon it but the true areas of scientific growth in Europe were in Sicily, Iberia and the Crusader States, areas where Jews, Muslims and Catholics were able to freely communicate and live.
@Karl Ketzer
ghet·to [get-oh]
-noun,plural-tos, -toes.
1. a section of a city, esp. a thickly populated slum area, inhabited predominantly by members of an ethnic or other minority group, often as a result of social or economic restrictions, pressures, or hardships.
Knowing a word's etymology does not tell you what it currently means.
The statement that there is a correlation between crime and blacks and Hispanics is true. However it is a correlation not causation. Much of that crime is drug related crime. Just as Italians in the 1930s were the source of Alcohol and therefore crime during prohibition.
"A pro-white organization does not even have the freedom to organize a conference anymore. Just try to do it and you see your conference shut down through an orchestrated campaign of intimidation and death threats - and the state will do nothing to investigate or prosecute the terrorists responsible"
It always easier to blame your failure on someone else isn't it? The blacks managed to deal with 'an orchestrated campaign of intimidation of and death threats' and succeed. As with most failures, black, white, or any other color, you blame your failure on others. The reason you don't succeed is because you have very few allies and are incapable of winning new adherents in large numbers.
I heard a rumor that some organization had booked a convention in a hotel and put up a monetary deposit only to have the hotel cancel the conference unilaterally. Is this what you are talking about? Do you have details? Did the hotel violate a contract with you? If so, it would seem that you have grounds for a lawsuit.
I am unsure who said:
The blacks managed to deal with 'an orchestrated campaign of intimidation of and death threats' and succeed.
but that statement is obviously false. Blacks had no power so they had nothing to do with passing the civil rights act or with starting affirmative action. Blacks protested discrimination, but the initiative behind the laws and the programs came from whites, particularly Jewish whites.
I can't for the life of me see why so many Jews supported affirmative action - it gets the government in the business of discriminating by race. Since they say they have been on the wrong end of discrimination for a few centuries, I would think that Jews would argue that it is as wrong to discriminate in favor of someone on the basis of race as to discriminate against.
If they and the other liberals who set up affirmative action had realized what any grandmother can tell you, that if you want your kids to hate each other, all you have to do is treat them differently, they might not have not done that.
The assumption behind affirmative action is that blacks can't succeed without white help, which is as racist as anything the KKK ever said or did.
I would agree that affirmative action is based upon a racist premise, causes racial tension and causes blacks to do less well.
I am not sure what your initial question is in reference to, did you mean to direct that to someone else?
Do you have a problem with an orchestrated campaign of intimidation and death threats calculated to deny people their rights to peaceably assemble and speak? Two of the people who organized the campaign are Jeffrey Imm and Daryle Lamont Jenkins. Imm is white and Jenkins is black is that makes any difference to you.
Also, does your respect for property rights extend to not protecting the freedom of lunch counters to post signs say "whites only"? Companies should be free to hire whites only? Schools free to enroll whites only?
>The blacks managed to deal with 'an orchestrated campaign of intimidation of and death threats' and succeed.
Perhaps the FBI, federal marshalls, US National Guard, and a flock of lawyers from NAACP had something to do with that. Sadly, the federal government is not interested in protecting the rights of white who wish to put on a conference about human bio-diversity. The attorney general - the highest law enforcement officer in the land - is on record stating that federal civil rights laws don't apply to white people.
>Your statement that there was no technological/cultural base in Africa is blatantly historically false. ... However as I wrote above there were powerful and culturally significant nations in Africa,
Let us ponder what the Europeans found when they encountered the secluded zones of Africa (most of East Africa, virtually all of central and south Africa).
No wheeled devices. No scissors or hinges. They had not devised means of joining together pieces of wood. Although cattle were raised, they were not used as beasts of burden. No draft animals. No written language, which in PC-speak means "they had a rich oral tradition." No law codes, no philosophical works, and no literature. No mathematics beyond the most rudimentary. Only primitive methods of construction were known. Very limited maritime skills. They never reached Capa Verde just a few hundred miles of the western coast. Madagascar remained uninhabited until it was settled by people coming from Indonesia - more than 3000 miles away, on the other side of the Indian Ocean - about 500 BC. Slavery, cannibalism, despotism.
It's what you would expect from peoples with an average IQ of 70.
"The King at his own expense liberally maintaineth here great numbers of doctors, judges, priests and other learned men. There are manuscripts or written books, brought hither out of Barbary, which are sold for more money than any other merchandise."
Felix DuBois On Timbuktu (Secondary source)
"The scholars of Timbuctoo yielded in nothing, to the saints in their sojourns in the foreign universities of Fex, Tunis and Cairo. They astounded the most lerned men of Islam by their erudition. That these Negroes were on level with the Arbian Savants is proved by the fact that they were installe as professors in Morocco and Egypt. In contrast to this, we find that Arbs were not always equal to the requirements of Sankore."
Al-Bakir on Ghana (primary source)
"The king [of Ghana] exacts the right of one dinar of gold on each donkey-load of salt that enters his country, and two dinars of gold on each load of salt that goes out. A load of copper carries a duty of five mitqals and a load of merchandise ten mitqals"
Unknown English writer on West Africa (primary source)
"They are very wary people in their bargaining, and will not lose one spark of gold of any value. They use weights and measures, and are very circumspect in occupying the same."
A simple search for primary sources on Africa finds that writers from the 16th and 11th century disagree with your contention. As the Japanese imported Chinese as a written language so to did African's import Arabic as a written language.
You are likely right that cattle were used as beasts of burden, they used camels as their beasts of burden. It is entirely possible that they did not develop modern plows, but then the soil in much of Africa may simply be better than Northern Europe soil, which could not be effectively farmed until the agricultural revolution around 1000 AD.
I find it difficult to believe that Africa did not have the wheel, after all northern sub-Saharan Africa was in contact with the Muslim powers which most certainly did have wheels.
Although I guess you were talking about 'secluded zones.' What was encountered when Crusaders marched north east of Germany... not a whole heck of a lot as far as technology goes. Weird a small number of people isolated from the rest of the world don't develop advanced technology. Who would have guessed it.
Slavery was every where so I'm not quite sure who saying there was slavery in Africa is an attack. Thats kind of like saying there was water in Asia.
I am not familiar with cannibalism in Africa, however while this seems backwards to Europeans; civilizations in other parts of the world also practiced forms of cannibalism. This was fairly common in the Americas.
African Empires were quite large and did require (and have) sophisticated bureaucracy. Empires the size of many African Empires simply can not exist with out complex governmental structures.
Obviously African's aren't the only people to use oral history, it would appear thats where you get your knowledge of history as well.
To the OP you achieved what you intended a racist thread. Congratulations. I learned to never argue with fools. Judgement is coming.