Race

[Anonymouse]

...continued

The Caribbean nation of Haiti presents an interesting parallel to the failures of black Africans. Its six million inhabitants are all black, the descendants of slaves. Haiti has essentially been governed by blacks ever since the slave insurrection of 1791, in which nearly all whites were killed. Thus, it has a history of independence and black rule that is much longer than that of African nations. Despite such different histories, Haiti is practically indistinguishable from Africa in terms of GNP per capita, infant mortality rates, average educational level, and all the other indices of modernization. Its governments have been the corrupt shambles that is typical of Africa.

To recapitulate, there is no evidence, either in America or abroad, in the present or in the past, that suggests blacks are as intelligent as other races. All of the evidence points to a significant and durable inequality.

The body of research is now so great that virtually no one who has taken the trouble to look into it remains an egalitarian. There was a time when some reputable scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, Leon Kamin, and Richard Lewontin seriously maintained the egalitarian or environmentalist view. They have now fallen silent. Their views are now echoed primarily by people who know nothing about current research data and show no interest in it. They appear to be driven by some motive other than the search for scientific truth.

That a proposition for which there is no evidence can have become dogma is one of the mysteries of our time. Part of the explanation for this is that a great many people seem to believe that even if racial differences can be proven they must be denied and suppressed. As we will show later in this series, it is vital that racial differences be recognized and accepted.

[anileve]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Did I deny science? When did you prove that a "Negroid" living in Sweden will magically change his morphological and physiological traits to some how resemble a "Caucasoid"? You just assumed it based on the assumption of evolution. When did I not "believe" in FBI or Sourcebook statistics? Why are they "pompous academics" simply because they criticize your worldview of egalitarianism? When did I deny mathematical statistics? In fact, mathematical statistics can be manipulated, as I've already said.

Oh my god! Anon jan, what is not clear here. I am repeating myself here. "My information is researched and based on various non-bias sources, the agenda of these sources is not to display inferiority of races, unlike the statistics which you have posted. Your opinion is a product of 2 factors, one is a result of someones determination to justify hate and superiority of races and the other is the statistics that have been falsely presented. I've done an extensive search on statistics and examined various sources and records, I've also posted my links to let you know the origin of the reports and their credibility, you chose to conceal your sources by saving those images and hosting them on your webspace. However, while I was doing my research I happen to come across this report in particular and guess where it was? I am enclosing the link, those reports are nowhere to be found in the FBI statistics I am also posting a link DIRECTLY to the FBI statistics, which hold more authenticity than the fictitious statistics you've posted. "

No one disputes melanin, if you think that that's some sort of high horse you are touting, get over it. Melanin is indeed fact, when did I deny it? In your emotional filled haze you were quick to overlook my post, much like Fadix, in fact all your side does is overlook my position, and jump to hazy emotional-based conclusions. In fact, it is anthropology and science that you aren Fadix are disputing due to personal assumption. Your idea that "geography" determines race, is fallacious, and itself unsubstantiated. It is based on the assumption that we evolved.

It is not fallacious it's a scientific fact. I even brought examples which you overlooked, I am assuming for your benefit. I'll provide you with some more proof, I'll have to do further research.

This thread is riddled with credible evidence, which you and Fadix have in one way or another dismissed because "it's not good enough" or "its racist". Dan provided pretty valuable information too, despite your side' appeal to your own ignorance of what things ought to be. I cannot do any better, if you the emotional egalitarians overlook simple facts, and misconstrue the message in my posts to fit your ideas of a egalitarian world.

Dan's evidence is "not pretty good", it's biased. If I wanted to convince you that women were naturally more intelligent then men and presented you with a link from some "men-hater" site with some statistics which are no where to be found otherwise, would you believe me? No. Why? Because the source would have a specific agenda to promote superiority and change facts towards their advantage. I think it's obvious, but you still chose to pick material from those prejudice sources. If it's a fact, it should be present elsewhere and you shouldn't have a problem getting your hands on it.

My love, the only emotional one here is you. I simply asked for proof. Provide me with links which support your claims, such as "Blacks are more violent in history and it's a fact", "Race is a fact", links with records of studies which are conducted by organizations that specialize in science, sociology, statistics, crime and anthropology and please, statistics from hate sites are not credible.

You are going in zigzags and not addressing anything in particular and eventually resort to your regular usage of egalitarianism and equality. By all means we are not discussing political or ideological orientation of individuals, just race my dear. No need to get all fired up here.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve Oh my god! Anon jan, what is not clear here. I am repeating myself here. "My information is researched and based on various non-bias sources

Really? Everything has bias, lets get over it. If you sources are not biased how are the souces countering it biased? If your sources support egalitarianism, which has no evidence, other than to dismiss and delegitimize evidence to the contrary, isn't that bias itself? Let's drop this bias card for it is counter productive to the discussion.

Originally posted by anileve the agenda of these sources is not to display inferiority of races, unlike the statistics which you have posted. Your opinion is a product of 2 factors, one is a result of someones determination to justify hate and superiority of races and the other is the statistics that have been falsely presented. "

Despite what you claim, the agenda of these sources are not based on people who want to "justify hate", that is a blanket assertion. When did they justify hate? The idea that differences mean hate is fallacious. "Hate", is a human tendency, nothing relating to race, people hate every sort of thing. Your thinking would imply that we have thought control to somehow control "hate".

As far as your statistics, I have already addressed the issue of the statistics you posted. They are not taking into account different racial groups in the given nations, further one of them even lacks a propery definition and break down of various crimes, thus we are not able to know if "insurance fraud" or "murder" are difference things.

Originally posted by anileve I've done an extensive search on statistics and examined various sources and records, I've also posted my links to let you know the origin of the reports and their credibility, you chose to conceal your sources by saving those images and hosting them on your webspace.

What is your point? You speak of "research" as if its some sort of labaratory which we have no access to. Your "research" doesn't differ from Fadix pretensiousness in asking for credentials, nor mine. It essentally involves searching the web on google.com, and other sites. That is hardly actions I would call "research" for any of us. As for my sources, they speak for themselves, despite guilt by association. Did we even forget what I posted earlier?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

Originally posted by anileve However, while I was doing my research I happen to come across this report in particular and guess where it was? I am enclosing the link, those reports are nowhere to be found in the FBI statistics I am also posting a link DIRECTLY to the FBI statistics, which hold more authenticity than the fictitious statistics you've posted. "

Really? The FBI, it should be known consider "Hispanics" white. I posted a link to the Justice Department and sourced the FBI Uniform Crime Report, as well, your point?

Originally posted by anileve It is not fallacious it's a scientific fact. I even brought examples which you overlooked, I am assuming for your benefit. I'll provide you with some more proof, I'll have to do further research.

You have provided no "factS" other than the biological fact of "melanin", assuming that all race is, is melanin. You contend that "environments" make races "change". This is unsubstantiated, it is assumed by evolution. Do you seriously think that someone will change their physiological and morphological traits simply by changing their geography?

Originally posted by anileve Dan's evidence is "not pretty good", it's biased.

How is it "biased"? What isnt "biased" that is against egalitarianism?

Originally posted by anileve If I wanted to convince you that women were naturally more intelligent then men and presented you with a link from some "men-hater" site .

How are the academics and authors which Dan posted 'haters"? Simply because they provide evidence contrary to egalitarian fiction. You are assuming too much and appealing to your sense of "what things should be", than you like to admit. I don't see any hatefulness with what he posted. You have to prove that somehow they are hateful, not merely assume and make magical leaps that since they provide data that is contrarian to egalitarianism, it is "promoting hate". Such logic is indeed fallacious.

Originally posted by anileve with some statistics which are no where to be found otherwise, would you believe me? No. Why? Because the source would have a specific agenda to promote superiority and change facts towards their advantage. I think it's obvious, but you still chose to pick material from those prejudice sources. If it's a fact, it should be present elsewhere and you shouldn't have a problem getting your hands on it.

Guess, what the sources you keep trashing as 'hate" are not "hate". They are simply "hate" and "racist" because of your own bias. If you dropped your bias, and tried to prove how they are "hateful" other than the same old "they provide evidence for racial differences they MUST be promoting hate", then this would have a place as criticism.

And what isn't superior and inferior in this world? If nothing and no one is equal, it means the world has traits of superiority and inferiority, despite what you want to believe. Unless you can prove that we are all equal and identical egalitarianism remains as irrational as the day was spawned.

Originally posted by anileve My love, the only emotional one here is you.

Riiiiight. And it was you and Fadix who immediately began whining of "racism" and "hater" and "they promote hate" or "you are diverting the topic of the thread". I'm sorry, I have been tried to maintain the most calm position without baseless name calling and appealing to my emotions of what the world 'ought' to be.

Originally posted by anileve I simply asked for proof.

And you received alot of it. That you choose to disregard it, is no one's fault except ideological bias and preconceived views on how the world should be. We aren't equal but we shouldbe equal, hence the famous egalitarian phrase "just because we don't have equality doesn't mean we can't try".

Originally posted by anileve Provide me with links which support your claims, such as "Blacks are more violent in history and it's a fact", "Race is a fact", links with records of studies which are conducted by organizations that specialize in science, sociology, statistics, crime and anthropology and please, statistics from hate sites are not credible.

The information you are asking for has already been provided in this thread. Look hard.

Originally posted by anileve You are going in zigzags and not addressing anything in particular

Geee, I can say the same about you. Does this prove anything? No, but you and Fadix make alot of such useless statements.

Originally posted by anileve and eventually resort to your regular usage of egalitarianism and equality.

Your point? You and Fadix resort to "hater" or "racist", like the boy who cried wolf. What is your point really? The reason why I use the terms egalitarian and equality are because they are the central premise of your guys' argument, and it is flawed premise. It is not real, and the conclusion you draw from the premise do not follow, i.e. non-sequitur.

Originally posted by anileve By all means we are not discussing political or ideological orientation of individuals, just race my dear. No need to get all fired up here.

Yes it remains that it is ideological and political orientation that makes us think the way we do, and ignore information that is contrarian to our way of thinking of the world. And no, I'm not fired up.

[Darorinag]

Dan's evidence is "not pretty good", it's biased.

And yours isn't? but of course, radical feminism is not biased, is it? Anti-racism isn't biased either, is it? Any opinion is biased against a certain thing. That is what makes them opinions.

If I wanted to convince you that women were naturally more intelligent then men and presented you with a link from some "men-hater" site with some statistics which are no where to be found otherwise, would you believe me?

Oh so you need double and triple documentation from different experimentors with the SAME results and statistics and numbers so that you would believe it?

Of course, any scientific proofs and statistics on a revisionist site would be "unbelievable", wouldn't they? But aren't pro-that-the-holocaust-happened sites biased too? And so if revisionists cannot be taken "seriously" because, well, it comes from revisionist sources/websites, where are they supposed to post their articles? on not-so-free-speech holocaust forums/websites? Your argument doesn't hold. That an anti-racist scientist conducts research on race doesn't make him "biased" but that a "racist" scientist conducts research on race makes him "biased" and therefore "unreliable"? how does that work?

Because the source would have a specific agenda to promote superiority and change facts towards their advantage.

Because the source would have a specific agenda to promote equality and change facts towards their advantage. How does that sound?

I simply asked for proof.

Yes and we provided you just that, except that you kept bringing excuses and saying they are invalid because they are "biased." You are begging the question here. That their results show something you don't like makes them biased? Where does scientific objectivity stand here?

Provide me with links [...] with records of studies which are conducted by organizations that specialize in science, sociology, statistics, crime and anthropology and please, statistics from hate sites are not credible.

Prof. Philippe Rushton.
J. Philippe Rushton is a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Rushton holds two doctorates from the University of London (Ph.D. and D.Sc) and is a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations.

AGAIN, that people use such research results to promote their own cause does not mean that the results were racist and wrong to begin with!!!

And this will be the last time I am going to post about Dr. Rushton's degrees and point out your fallacy of "if people use it to advance racism, the study must be racist and utterly biased."

statistics from hate sites are not credible.

Why aren't they? And how are they "hate sites"? How is insisting on racial differences hatred of others? You are YET to prove that Prof. Rushton is a white supremacist. And remember, that his work is used by white supremacists does not mean that he is one. So go ahead and provide a link that PROVES (not just claims) that Mr. Rushton is indeed a white supremacist. And keep in mind that just because someone is a racist (or an anti-racist) doesn't mean that one cannot conduct serious and correct scientific experiments. And you also need to prove IF and HOW the results of an experiment were skewed for the purpose of political agenda, something you have failed to do in Rushton's case. Instead of disqualifying the arguments, you are disqualifying the arguer.

And statistics from your anti-hatred sites are credible? Because they are "not biased"? and they don't, by any chance, have some bias against white supremacists which causes their statistics to be skewed and hence the "number of white victims of violent crime" to be close to none? so you see, i can claim the same things as you, and neither of us would have an advantage over the other on that issue!

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve Hate has no color, physical attributes or economic conditions, it feeds on fears and snowballs into violence.

Here you state this, that hate has no color, physical attributes, or economic conditions, therefore making "hate" a universal human phenomenon and indeed part of human nature, and it is not bound by race or color or anything. It is a human tendency.

Originally posted by anileve Discrimination is an offspring of a marriage between hate, anger and fear.

What isn't discrimination? We have already been through this thousand of times before. Discrimination is the natural and cognitive ability of people, humans acting, to differentiate. Note: Everytime we choose something, someone, or someplace, over something else, we are discriminating. If I choose to marry an Armenian, and not a non-Armenian, I am discriminating. If I choose to not live in Compton or Inglewood or South Central, and live in Glendale, I am discriminating. Your logic would imply that we shouldn't discriminate and be mindless robotic humans. Your logic further implies that we should somehow control thought to make people act a certain way. In other words that is not moral. To be moral we have to have the choice. Man in order to be a moral agent, must have the ability to choose, to choose to do good, to choose to do evil, etc. There is nothing that one can point to, that to any egalitarian, is not in some way "discrimination".

Originally posted by anileve It spreads its poisonous tentacles across people, nations and continents. It exists between Armenians and Turks, Blacks and Whites, French and British, Jews and Muslims, Irish Protestants and Catholics (just look at an ongoing violence in Northern Ireland, where so many have died).

Obviously. But what you stated here now, contradicts your earlier statement, that humans indeed do not put hate on physical appearance, economics, culture, religion, class, race. Hate is not somehow just "limited" to race, your initial statement claimed, or what I understood from reading it to the best of my abilities.

Originally posted by anileve By acknowledging an existence of race and superiority you validate it and give it room for growth.

This assumes that all hate is restricted to race, when "hate" is indeed a human tendency. Your assertion that because "admitting to race" breeds violence, we shouldn't talk of race, like it is a sacred word the gods commanded to never utter, is fallacious. Earlier you said hate has no color, nor physical appearance, and indeed it is a human trait, and this would contradict that position by trying to pin it only on race.

If we take your logic and apply it to Marxian thought, which boasted endlessly of egalitarianism and class conflict, we would therefore not talk about "equality" or "classes", since obviously admitting "classes" exist, and we are aiming for "equality", as produced so much violence, and half of the globe was tangled in communist revolutions and violence. This position proves everything and nothing.

Originally posted by anileve If you have certain expectations most likely they will be justified.

I have expectations of Charleze Theron to knock on my door and ask me to be my girlfriend. It is not justified, it is based on an idea of the way I would like the world to be, hence the position of egalitarianism.

Originally posted by anileve If you believe that Blacks are inferior to Whites that is exactly what you will stumble upon.

This is not a belief, it is, quite aptly put, a matter of history as the different races developed differently.

Originally posted by anileve You see only what you want to see, and not what is reality. you claim your personal experiences and your assumptions to constitute a reality. So it presents itself in the light you yourself have created.

I disagree dear. If we see only what we want to see, it implies that reality is subjective, then you claim that since we see what we want to see, we don't see reality. If we see what we want to see, then obviously reality doesn't exist, so why claim we dont see "what is reality"?

[Anonymouse]

This is perhaps one article of its kind that best explains my viewpoint, and it is from my very favorite libertarian and individualist website on the planet.

-----------------------------------

WHY RACE MATTERS: RACE DIFFERENCES AND WHAT THEY MEAN
Michael Levin
Praeger, 1997, xi + 415 pgs.

Michael Levin has gotten himself into enormous trouble with his fellow philosophers by adhering to a standard maxim in the philosophy of science. Levin's trouble starts when he rejects a common explanation for a widely recognized, and deplored, social phenomenon: the social and economic inequality of the races in American society. Levin's rejection of the conventional account would be sufficient in itself to embroil him in controversy. But, as a good philosopher of science, he has taken a further step; and it is this that has led his liberal colleagues to throw up their hands in horror.

In empirical science, to find problems for a theory usually does not suffice to overthrow it. You must come up with an alternative account that better explains the data. Thus, astronomers long knew the severe difficulties of the Ptolemaic account. But they did not reject it until the competing Copernican theory arrived on the scene. (Matters differ in philosophy, where to show that a theory cannot withstand counterexamples often is enough to eliminate it.)

Unkind readers may dismiss the foregoing as typical philosopher's hairsplitting, but its practical importance cannot be gainsaid. Our author begins from some widely acknowledged demographic facts about American blacks. As conventional leftist opinion has it, precisely these facts mandate extensive affirmative action programs. The sorry social facts in question arise from discrimination and oppression, both past and present.

Professor Levin dissents. Discrimination against blacks, says Levin, does not explain their problems. What does? It is here that our author goes beyond other authors such as Thomas Sowell, who also rejects the discrimination view. Levin claims that genetic factors lie at the heart of disparities in income and performance.

As befits an outstanding analytic philosopher, Levin responds with care and imagination to objections to his contentions. One instance from his long discussion must here stand good for the rest. Stephen J. Gould, a Harvard paleontologist of Marxist leanings, has in The Mismeasure of Man argued that a general intelligence factor, called "g" by its proponents, is a scientific myth. The g-factor, Gould maintains, should not be reified; it is a mere artifact of statistics. It has been extracted through a disputable method called "factor analysis."

Levin readily acknowledges that the derivation of g depends on a particular method of analysis. But this by itself shows little: "all Gould actually shows, claims to have shown, or can show is that--what no one would deny--the reality of g is not logically guaranteed by its factorial extraction" (p. 53). A scientific theory need not exclude its rivals as logically impossible. We may rightfully accept it should it allow us to tie together a wide and varied set of facts.

Given the radical nature of Professor Levin's conclusions, the question of course arises: Is he correct? I shall say only this. Anyone who proposes to challenge Levin had better be well versed in statistics, intelligence testing, and evolutionary biology, all of which our author appears to have mastered. I venture to suggest that the so-called Flynn effect poses the sharpest challenge to our author's case. The mean IQ of Western populations has risen over the past sixty years, but surely people are not more intelligent than their parents and grandparents. Does this not suggest that IQ tests do not adequately measure intelligence? I shall leave it to readers to judge the adequacy of our author's ingenious answer (pp. 128 ff).

Does not the very attempt to suggest that racial differences may be politically relevant strike at the essence of libertarianism? Should not each individual be judged on his own merits? Levin himself is a thoroughgoing libertarian; and as he sees matters, his conclusions about race support rather than contravene his politics. Americans today find themselves confronted with all manner of affirmative action programs. Blacks, it is alleged, must receive special benefits in education, employment, and housing to compensate them for the malign effects of past oppression.

These programs interfere in drastic fashion with the free market; but, faced with the claim of justice, what is a classical liberal to do? He cannot combat these programs unless he challenges their root assumption--the view that blacks' social problems stem from the unjust treatment accorded them. Unless the premise is overthrown, a classical liberal must allow, on grounds of justice, interferences with the social order he favors. (One might, I suppose, claim that the affirmative action proposals, even lacking a rationale in justice, are consistent with classical liberalism; but most advocates of these programs have, no doubt wisely, declined to tread this path.)

One might here object that even the need to combat affirmative action does not justify Levin's resort to race. Is it not possible to counter the claims of its supporters in some less controversial way? In a passage crucial to the book's case, Levin denies this: "[W]hy raise the contentious genetic issue at all? It must be raised because it is widely, and reasonably, assumed that among environmental factors, only oppression can produce an attainment gap as large as the one between the races.... Once environmentalism is accepted, the compensation argument returns at one remove: superior ability may give whites an advantage but, the cause of the superiority was a wrong, a wrong that must be annulled" (pp. 271-72).

Whether Levin's contention is correct will, one imagines, be subject to strong challenge by supporters, in the style of Thomas Sowell, of the cultural account of the black-white gap. In any event, our author is not yet done with the compensation principle. He shows that even if one accepts the principle that blacks merit recompense, it is a task of surpassing difficulty to arrive at an acceptable compensation principle.

But, once more, to Levin these problems are of secondary significance. Unless one asks whether the race gap stems from white misdeeds, one has not penetrated to the essence. "Taking the origin of the race gap as the heart of the matter explains why criticisms of preference that do not reach that issue, however forceful they may be on their own terms, are dismissed as picky, legalistic, and irrelevant" (p. 251).

Although Levin's case is carefully argued, I suspect that most of his colleagues will ignore this book. But even for those in the grip of egalitarian prejudices, to do so is a serious mistake. Levin has poured into his book a large number of stimulating ideas on many vexed philosophical questions.

Most notably, he offers the best noncognitivist account of moral values that I have read. In his view, values are not objective properties, that we intuit, as states of affairs; they are the results of biological adaptation. People do indeed believe their values to be objectively correct; but their belief is a conceptual blind spot. We must, if Levin is right, entertain at the time of action a false belief in value-objectivity at the time of action. Ingenious, no doubt; but is it not an advantage of the intuitionist theories Levin rejects that in them people are not saddled with inescapable false beliefs? But of course intuitionist theories have their own problems, a fact Levin is not slow to point out.

And can an appeal to the evolutionary advantages of cooperation give us the Kantian principle of morality Levin endorses? Why would evolution favor cooperative behavior with all human beings rather than only with members of one's own group? I must admit, though, that Darwin himself is here on Levin's side. In The Descent of Man, he claims that the extension of cooperation beyond the bounds of one's own tribe is the result of a simple inference.

Also not to be missed are Levin's note about Quine on the indeterminacy of translation (p. 80) and his refutation of John Rawls's argument that choosers in the original position would not try to maximize average expected utility (p. 289). One finishes Why Race Matters admiring both the author's courage and his immense technical virtuosity.

http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=117&sortorder=issue

[Anonymouse]

Since Fadix thinks that only white people can be "racist", or people that dare confront egalitarian fiction, I will post "hate speech", as the liberal lefties like to call it, done, not by whites, but by non-whites. Of course the usual irrational liberal egalitarian excuse for this is that their "hate" is "justified" due to years of "white oppression". This sort of speech would immediately be condemned as "racist" and "hateful" if done by "white" people, and you would have all sorts of "town meetings" and "diversity programs" and other things that teach "tolerance". But this is normal and justified when done by non-whites. Woe to hypocrisy.

-----------------------------

"Bust a Glock; devils get shot. . . . when God give the word me herd like the buffalo through the neighborhood; watch me blast. . . . I'm killing more crackers than Bosnia-Herzegovina, each and everyday. . . . don't bust until you see the whites of his eyes, the whites of his skin. . . . Louis Farrakhan . . . Bloods and CRIPS, and little old me, and we all getting ready for the enemy"

-"Enemy"; Ice Cube, Lethal Injection, 1993,

"Like my niggas from South Central Los Angeles they found that they couldn't handle us; Bloods, CRIPS, on the same squad, with the Essays [Latino gangbangers] up, and nigga, it's time to rob and mob and break the white man off something lovely"

-"The Day the Niggaz Took Over"; Dr Dre, The Chronic, 1993

"Dropping verses, casting curses, throwing these hexes on the devils. . . . respect to Farrakhan, but I'm the jungle-don, the new guerrilla, top-ranked honky killer. . . . what do blacks do; they just keep on blowing devils away. . . . evil xxxxing cracker. . . . I'm tightening up the laces to my steel-toed boots, so I can walk, stomp; we stomp this devil down in the park"

-"Planet of da Apes"; Da Lench Mob, Planet of da Apes, 1994

"Deal with the devil with my motherxxxxing steel [handgun]. . . . white man is something I tried to study, but I got my hands bloody, yeah. . . . I met Farrakhan and had dinner"

-"When Will They Shoot"; Ice Cube, The Predator, 1992

"Actual fact you need to be black. . . . everyday I fight a devil. . . . I grab a shovel to bury a devil. . . . the battle with the beast, Mr. 666. . . . my mind rolled to a 7th level; grab my bazooka and nuke a devil. . . . with black, I build; for black, I kill"

-"Fightin the Devil"; RBX, The RBX Files, 1995

"I love black women and I hate xxxxing crackers. . . . I destroyed a whole city like Sodom and Gomorrah or Babylon. . . . devils choke from the gunsmoke. . . . I'm swelling devils' melons. . . . send your asses to Kings County; solo pro-morgue supplier"

-"Graveyard Chamber"; Gravediggaz, 6 Feet Deep, 1997

Samuel Lin (Asian student at the University of California at Berkeley on what should be done about white men who date Asian women) - "I think we should f---in' kill them all. Get your own ladies. Stick to your own flavor." [Carrie Chang, "White Light," Monolid Magazine, Vol. 2, No. 1.](added 4/10/03)

Mario Obledo (former California secretary of health and welfare and co-founder of Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund: "We're going to take over all the political institutions of California. California is going to be a Hispanic state and anyone who doesn't like it should leave. If they don't like Mexicans, they ought to go back to Europe." [interviewed on radio station KIEV, Los Angeles, June 17, 1998.] (added 6/29/03)

Mario Obledo (former California secretary of health and welfare and co-founder of Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund: "We're going to take over all the political institutions of California. California is going to be a Hispanic state and anyone who doesn't like it should leave. If they [Anglos] don't like Mexicans, they ought to go back to Europe." [interviewed on radio station KIEV, Los Angeles, June 17, 1998.] (added 6/29/03)

Ice Cube (black rap musician) -- "Ice Cube wishes to acknowledge white America's continued commitment to the silence and oppression of black men. . . . White America needs to thank black people for still talkin' to them 'cause you know what happens when we stop." [pamphlet included in his 1992 album The Predator.] (added 2/05/03)

Chancellor Williams (author of The Destruction of Black Civilization) -- "The necessary re-education of Blacks and a possible solution of the racial crisis can begin . . . only when Blacks fully realize this central fact to their lives: the white man is their Bitter Enemy." [Phil Collier and David Horowitz, The Race Card, 1997, p. 104.] (added 2/05/03)

Amiri Baraka (poet laureate of the state of New Jersey) -- "Come up, black dada nihilismus. Rape the white girls. Rape their fathers. Cut the mothers' throats." [from "Black Dada Nihilismus".] (added 2/05/03)

Paul Mooney (black comedian) -- "White people are scared, because minorities are taking over. White people are worried because they can't out-f*** the Mexicans --minorities in numbers alone are taking over, and white folks are scared because they are afraid that we are going to do to them exactly what they've done to us. And they are absolutely right. When the s*** turns around, we are going to treat you exactly like you've treated us: like s***."[ Danyel Smith, Full Moon, The Bay Guardian, 3/3/93.] (added 2/05/03)

[anileve]

Now Anon, was that really necessary? I think you have taken this completely off topic and out of context. You misunderstood, Not Fadix, nor I are in support of any hate, be it white, green, yellow or purple. Same debate would have risen if a black person was making misinformed allegations by generalizing whites and claiming superiority of blacks. You are forgetting the central points of this thread and keep tending to 101 directions. Let’s keep the focus, please.

Following are the central points.

===============
1. Is Race a myth or a fact?

2. Some groups are more violent than others is itself a result of "race" and not "socio-economic" causes.

3. Blacks or Negroid are by far the most violent in society is not a "racist" statement, it is a realistic statement.

4. The fact that blacks on average have higher levels of testosterone than Caucasoids or Mongoloids, shows why they are more violent, as testosterone and aggression provide a clear link, as any non egalitarian psychologist will tell you.

This statement by you: "men are more violent than women is itself grounded in testosterone, and why more younger men commit crimes than older men. " has nothing to do with race, in fact it contradicts your statement regarding blacks being more violent than other "races" due to the latter statement in which you clearly show that testosterone regardless of the race is the decisive factor in provoking violence. Although I personally think it's complete bullcrap, but that is besides the point. We shall examine this statement later.

5. It's a fact that Whites are more intelligent than Blacks.
================

These are the focus points here, the main claims that you have made and ones we are addressing. Not "equality" or "Marxism" or "egalitarianism" or "hate lyrics". Statistical and scientific and sociological facts.

Please provide valid proof for each one, point by point. Otherwise everything is becoming quite tangled in this thread.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve Now Anon, was that really necessary? I think you have taken this completely off topic and out of context. You misunderstood, Not Fadix, nor I are in support of any hate, be it white, green, yellow or purple. Same debate would have risen if a black person was making misinformed allegations by generalizing whites and claiming superiority of blacks. You are forgetting the central points of this thread and keep tending to 101 directions. Let’s keep the focus, please.

I haven't "misunderstood", Fadix has. My thread is about race, not just intelligence. He came in here with his "wisdom" and conceit, demanding credentials and accusing me of "diverting the topic" by posting "articles" and "trash" that has nothing to do with the thread, yet he displayed the same in the other thread and how he has "studied" the Holocaust for "5 years". Do I care? He loves himself, so do I but dammit take a chill pill. Contrary to what you folks think this thread means anything that is race related. Issues, biology, intelligence, crime, cutlure, etc. If you want to talk about what you think should be talked about you are free to go to Fadix' self styled thread on "fighting racism".

Originally posted by anileve Following are the central points.

===============
1. Is Race a myth or a fact?

2. Some groups are more violent than others is itself a result of "race" and not "socio-economic" causes.

3. Blacks or Negroid are by far the most violent in society is not a "racist" statement, it is a realistic statement.

4. The fact that blacks on average have higher levels of testosterone than Caucasoids or Mongoloids, shows why they are more violent, as testosterone and aggression provide a clear link, as any non egalitarian psychologist will tell you.

This statement by you: "men are more violent than women is itself grounded in testosterone, and why more younger men commit crimes than older men. " has nothing to do with race, in fact it contradicts your statement regarding blacks being more violent than other "races" due to the latter statement in which you clearly show that testosterone regardless of the race is the decisive factor in provoking violence. Although I personally think it's complete bullcrap, but that is besides the point. We shall examine this statement later.

My example was merely drawing an analogy, and this was the results of Mr. Rushton, which Dan posted, which is seen as being "racist". It hasn't contradicted anything. How has it contradicted? It is a fact that younger men have more testosterone than older men, hence leads to more aggression. It is a fact that men have more testosterone ergo more aggression than females, and within humanity, those that are black have more testosterone ergo, are more aggressive than others. This is not contradiction.

Originally posted by anileve 5. It's a fact that Whites are more intelligent than Blacks.
================

These are the focus points here, the main claims that you have made and ones we are addressing. Not "equality" or "Marxism" or "egalitarianism" or "hate lyrics". Statistical and scientific and sociological facts.

Please provide valid proof for each one, point by point. Otherwise everything is becoming quite tangled in this thread.

These are not the only claims regarding race that I have made. How can you and Fadix tell me what I am thinking when I made the thread? I have made the claim that races do exist and are found on a biological level, not limited to intelligence, but crime, as well as biological differences in morphology, and as well as cultural development. It's just you and Fadix cherry picked and totally misunderstood my whole point, and he found it in his 'wisdom' to make his own thread, which in reality belongs in this thread, but since he likes to feel the aura of importance as the 'expert', indeed he loves being the expert on everything, as others will accuse me of it as well, since he's on the other forum displaying the same conceit. If he was rational he wouldn't need to resort to childish whining and making another thread accusing me of "diverting the topic" since he couldn't stand someone disagreeing with his 'wisdom'.

As for point by point, what is it that your side cannot grasp? I hate to say it but it was entirely you folks that misconstrued the meaning of this thread, the evidence presented, and the intent on my behalf. If your side is too emotional to deal with a "sensitive" topic that threatens to crumble the view that "we are all equal" then by all means you should avoid this thread, as it is controversial and evidence that race is real has been posted here a thousand times, right here in this thread, which your side has dismissed. Now those that claim "race is not real" cannot present any evidence that it isn't real, the only logical position is to dismiss and delegitimize those that do.

If you feel this is getting tautological then you don't have to participate and the only people that made it a tautology are you and Fadix, sorry.

[Fadix]

Edited by loseyourname: Both of you guys need to cool it. Get back to the topic or move on.