100 Facts

[Big D]

What do you think are these facts true?

http://www.powow.com/radio88/wb.htm

I can't find any information to disprove them.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Big D
What do you think are these facts true?

http://www.powow.com/radio88/wb.htm

I can't find any information to disprove them.

Sadly, I would have to say they are true. They certainly cite many sources at the bottom.

Beware, you will now be called a racist for simply presenting the facts. Call me a racist all you like, that page is a huge reason why I say whites are simply superior.

I like fact #100 "FACT #100: The American taxpayers have spent over $2.5 TRILLION trying to upgrade Blacks since the l960's." How far have we come in that time with such substantial assistance? How sad.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Big D
What do you think are these facts true?

http://www.powow.com/radio88/wb.htm

I can't find any information to disprove them.

Though I cannot disprove most of the facts, the author seems to have made a conclusion that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. With the exception of the section on the brain of black people, which I think has no bearing on intellect and I have heard this theory before. Interestingly enough, I've heard of a similar comparison (heck if I can find my source other to say that I know that it exists) between white's and asian's where asians are found to be mentally superior.

I completely acknowledge that it would seem that the whites, on the average, on a world wide comparison, are more "civilized" by the standard generally attributed to civilization. However, I would argue that it is due more the sociological and societal differences rather than physical differences. Even in the US, the concept of the "black ghetto" is amazingly predominant with its own urbanized culture. So much so, that it is a shock for me to visit your large urban centres as a Canadian. Only Toronto in Canada and to a very lesser extent Montreal would such areas exist. Its a question of segregation versus intergration.

A better study would say to take black people that are fully assimilited into our, so called, white Western-American culture and then compare sociological trends. My hypothesis would be that a black person in a suburban, middle-upper income class would perform nearly identical as a white person from the same class.

 

[Big D]

JIMNYC

What I find that holds these facts to be true, is that if these facts had been written about Whites, the facts would be very easy to disprove.

 

[Big D]

Isaac

I think a good question to ask is:

What would be the achivements of blacks if they had never came in contact with any other groups of people?

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Big D
Isaac

I think a good question to ask is:

What would be the achivements of blacks if they had never came in contact with any other groups of people?

No I don't think that is the right question as it avoids the socio-economic and environmental factors that spurred the growth of European civilization. From an anthropological perspective, the black tribes of africa were well better suited to their environment in terms of a healthy, prosperous, hunter-gathering culture. While the lack of game, but excellent soil, in the fertile crescent or mesopotamia saw the advancement of technologically based agriculture in order to support a booming population growth, spurring on civilization. A better question would be if you replaced the whites in europe with the blacks in africa, would a similar course of history of advancement happen. I would hypothesize, yes, however the question is a thought problem at bet.

 

[r3volut!on]

Priorities and Prospects
by Noam Chomsky
http://contemporarylit.about.com/cs/firstchapters/a/hegemony.htm

A few years ago, one of the great figures of contemporary biology, Ernst Mayr, published some reflections on the likelihood of success in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

He considered the prospects very low. His reasoning had to do with the adaptive value of what we call "higher intelligence," meaning the particular human form of intellectual organization. Mayr estimated the number of species since the origin of life at about fifty billion, only one of which "achieved the kind of intelligence needed to establish a civilization." It did so very recently, perhaps 100,000 years ago. It is generally assumed that only one small breeding group survived, of which we are all descendants.

Mayr speculated that the human form of intellectual organization may not be favored by selection. The history of life on Earth, he wrote, refutes the claim that "it is better to be smart than to be stupid," at least judging by biological success: beetles and bacteria, for example, are vastly more successful than humans in terms of survival. He also made the rather somber observation that "the average life expectancy of a species is about 100,000 years."

We are entering a period of human history that may provide an answer to the question of whether it is better to be smart than stupid. The most hopeful prospect is that the question will not be answered: if it receives a definite answer, that answer can only be that humans were a kind of "biological error," using their allotted 100,000 years to destroy themselves and, in the process, much else.

The species has surely developed the capacity to do just that, and a hypothetical extraterrestrial observer might well conclude that humans have demonstrated that capacity throughout their history, dramatically in the past few hundred years, with an assault on the environment that sustains life, on the diversity of more complex organisms, and with cold and calculated savagery, on each other as well.

 

[r3volut!on]

The reason I post that is to point out the following: If whites, and our superior brains hadn't invented all of this wonderful technology that we have we wouldn't have problems like Weapons of Mass Destruction, environmental pollution, heart diseases caused by "fast food" diets, etc. And wasn't it whites who started mass producing tobacco, a product that kills millions? The list of "wonderful" things we've invented over the years could go on and on. And yeah, I'm aware that we've also invented a lot of great things. But we've invented some seriously terrible things too. Atomic bombs. Chemical weapons. Nuclear warheads. The Big Mac.

Native Africans may not be the most vibrant intellectuals, (and I believe even that can be argued) but they at least know how to survive and how to live more in harmony with their environment.

It's the white man that will destroy the world.

Aren't we proud of ourselves.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by r3volut!on
Native Africans may not be the most vibrant intellectuals, (and I believe even that can be argued) but they at least know how to survive and how to live more in harmony with their environment.

It's the white man that will destroy the world.

Aren't we proud of ourselves.

BWAAhahaHAhahAhaHhaAA!!!!!

Did you just say blacks know how to live in harmony? Have you ever been to Harlem? The Bronx? NYC? Trenton? Camden? Detroit? Compton? LA? Atlanta? Yeah, they sure are a harmonious bunch!

And yes, I am EXTREMELY proud not to be like the FACTS presented in the original article. It reminds me that even though I am surrounded by degenerates and animals that I have risen beyond their disgusting ways of life.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by r3volut!on
The reason I post that is to point out the following: If whites, and our superior brains hadn't invented all of this wonderful technology that we have we wouldn't have problems like Weapons of Mass Destruction, environmental pollution, heart diseases caused by "fast food" diets, etc. And wasn't it whites who started mass producing tobacco, a product that kills millions? The list of "wonderful" things we've invented over the years could go on and on. And yeah, I'm aware that we've also invented a lot of great things. But we've invented some seriously terrible things too. Atomic bombs. Chemical weapons. Nuclear warheads. The Big Mac.

Native Africans may not be the most vibrant intellectuals, (and I believe even that can be argued) but they at least know how to survive and how to live more in harmony with their environment.

It's the white man that will destroy the world.

Aren't we proud of ourselves.

I have to admitt I agree wholeheartedly with you. I do so with one main point supporting your thesis in mind. In anthropology it is called appropriate technology . That's to say a technology that is developped that betters ones rapport with their environment in order to promote healthy sustainable growth. Examples over the vast span of years would be slash and burn agriculture, selective forest harvesting, recycling, solar and wind power.

If you isolated both communities ie, our advanced western culture and indigenous cultures and let them run their course, an indigenous culture would be able to sustain itself almost indefinitely since it has developped sustainable technology to support its growth. Examples can be seen time after time in history when indigenous cultures adapted our western technologically based societal values and failed outright. It has also shown that "civilization" is volitile and large powers will undoubtably collapse because their critical mass exceeds what it can support. Examples of failed western-style states (not necessarily european) that had reached their critical mass:

1. Roman Empire
2. Ottoman Empire
3. United Kingdom
4. Timurid Empire
5. Golden Horde
6. Easter Island Kingdom

Examples of sustainable cultures that have existed relatively the same for more than 5000 years:

1. Native american culture
2. Polynesia
3. Savannah tribes of central-southern africa
4. Lappland tribes of northern finnland, norway and russia.


I dare anyone to find one "civilized" society that has existed in its current form for more than 5000 years. I guaruntee you will not find any.

The main point is that a conclusion that western society is superior to indigenous cultures cannot be drawn based on facts relating to a "conquered" people. To do so id anthropologically irresponsible and the more I look at those facts, the more I see the flaw in the approach rather than the facts themselves.

 

[jimnyc]

Re-read "facts" 31-40 again, that's all that matters to me, and that's current reality.

 

[r3volut!on]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Did you just say blacks know how to live in harmony? Have you ever been to Harlem? The Bronx? NYC? Trenton? Camden? Detroit? Compton? LA? Atlanta? Yeah, they sure are a harmonious bunch!

Jim, every time you post a response to anything I say, I'm astounded by what an ignorant, uneducated fool you are. You're an idiot and a bigot and I'm not afraid to say it. You disgust me.

First of all, I said "Native Africans." If I may educate you just a little, Native Africans are Africans who were born on the continent of Africa. They're the ones you might have seen running around in the bush on the Discovery Channel.

Clearly Blacks from Harlem and the Bronx are not Native Africans. And the violence that you claim they all have a tendency toward seems to only appear when they live in cities built by white people.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by r3volut!on
Jim, every time you post a response to anything I say, I'm astounded by what an ignorant, uneducated fool you are. You're an idiot and a bigot and I'm not afraid to say it. You disgust me.

I really don't give a flying fuck if I disgust you or not. Coming from a stupid ass who can't even send a PM to the right people!! Ring a bell?: "i just want to go on record as having said that jimnyc is a fucking asshole."

What's wrong, you have to be a pussy and send people PM's about me? Think maybe next time you can even address the right people. And you're going to call me uneducated?

Of course now that you realize what an asshole you are you are going to come out with guns blaring, knowing your time here was limited anyway.

I hope your Mom is gangraped by the watermelon eating parasites. Go die, monkey lover.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Re-read "facts" 31-40 again, that's all that matters to me, and that's current reality.

I re-read them again. Yes, crime sucks, but it is always indicitive or socio-economic background of the offending party. That's not being apologetic. Every man or woman who is guilty of a crime should not have sympathy. However, i completely reject the idea that genetically blacks have more capacity for crime. That's a ridiculous statement. Look at any place in the world, crime is always done by the lowest economic stratum. In the US, that happens to be blacks. For a Canadian example, look no further than Toronto. Blacks although fairly low for an economic persespective are not the highest per capita crime offender. That place is reserved for the Tamil's where there is a huge, poor immigrant base. Here where I live, it is First Nations because they are the poorest economic stratum.

I reiterate that the trend is not genetic, it is economic.

 

[jimnyc]

I suggest you re-read #40 again.

 

[MtnBiker]

r3volut!on - buh bye.

 

[MtnBiker]

r3volut!on2, did he think it was going to be that easy.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I suggest you re-read #40 again.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that DC is rich because of the various politicians and high ranking government officials. I'm also going to take a wild guess and say that most of them are white.

As for west virginia, let me suggest another factor. According to your 2000 Census, West Virginia has a 36% urban population compared to 100% for Washington DC, 85% Illinois and Florida, 94% California. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't those states some of the highest crime rates in the US as well? Could it just be that urban living results where people live in close prox. breeds contempt?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that DC is rich because of the various politicians and high ranking government officials. I'm also going to take a wild guess and say that most of them are white.

As for west virginia, let me suggest another factor. According to your 2000 Census, West Virginia has a 36% urban population compared to 100% for Washington DC, 85% Illinois and Florida, 94% California. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't those states some of the highest crime rates in the US as well? Could it just be that urban living results where people live in close prox. breeds contempt?

This may be true, but it's coincidental. Where there are blacks - there is crime. The crime rate is higher in nearly all black areas throughout America. They lead the nation in murder, rape, assault, theft... The percentage of blacks in prison or on probation is astounding. This holds true in both urban and rural areas.

The same argument has been held about intelligence and the persons surroundings. Read numbers 9 and 10.

Ask anyone who lives in the NYC area (NY-NJ-CT) why they don't live in Harlem, Bronx, Camden, Trenton... They'll tell you that it's too dangerous and they want a better living. They're just being polite with their words, they don't want to live amongst the blacks because they fear for their lives.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
r3volut!on2, did he think it was going to be that easy.

It's very sad when these people feel the need to reregister when they are banned. Is this board all they have in life? I guess he'll have to go to another board if he wants to continue sending private messages about what a fucking asshole I am. Hopefully next time he'll learn to send it to the proper people.