Isaac Brock
Active Member
- Sep 28, 2003
- 1,104
- 44
- 36
Great explanation! Very interesting theory!
Great explanation! Very interesting theory!
W
wonderwench
Guest
- Thread starter
- #22
Absolutamente!
Response to Ike:
I dispute your claim that Canada is more diverse than the U.S. There has never been a country in history which has been such a magnet for immigration as the U.S.
For much of that history, immigrants assimilated and became Americans. Certainly, many groups experienced long periods of prejudice and horrible conditions (slaves, Irish need not apply, Chinese railroad workers). But over time, they were seen as equal Americans.
The hyphenation of Americans has sent the process backwards. Instead of assimilation, we see ethnic isolation. This is not a good thing.
Isaac Brock
Active Member
- Sep 28, 2003
- 1,104
- 44
- 36
I agree entirely on your analysis!
However, Canada certainly is indeed just as diverse, if not more in comparison to the US. I don't say this out of pride by any means, but out of statistics. I can find some if you like! Might be interesting!
W
wonderwench
Guest
- Thread starter
- #24
Question Isaac:
Do Canadians use terms such as African-Canadians, Mexican-Canadians and Arab-Canadians?
Do Canadians use terms such as African-Canadians, Mexican-Canadians and Arab-Canadians?
B
bamthin
Guest
- Thread starter
- #25
The only studies I need to see is the hateful drivel the racist wimps spew out. What is the purpose of them expending energy on their rhetoric? Stupidity is the only answer.
Do a search for your proof. That's the way you like it.
-Bam
nbdysfu
Member
- Nov 17, 2003
- 829
- 29
- 16
Racism, is a fringe mentality in the u.s., at least as I have seen it so far. Big D is the first person I have ever encountered with such a mentality (Oh wait, and that other guy with that dumbass avatar. What was he thinking he was robert byrd or something?)
Ike, if you watch Jerry to form your opinions of all Americans, you have serious problems with discrimination as well.
Bam I don't know how to respond, your post is just so convoluted and lame and this thread was almost going somewhere.
Isaac, what is the history of racial diversity in canada?
Ike, if you watch Jerry to form your opinions of all Americans, you have serious problems with discrimination as well.
Bam I don't know how to respond, your post is just so convoluted and lame and this thread was almost going somewhere.
Isaac, what is the history of racial diversity in canada?
Isaac Brock
Active Member
- Sep 28, 2003
- 1,104
- 44
- 36
Good question. Yup pretty much exactly like that.
Isaac Brock
Active Member
- Sep 28, 2003
- 1,104
- 44
- 36
It's very paralleled with the states, except the major difference is that Canada never had the overwhelming white majority, nor did we ever have a significant black minority since Canada never had or well, needed slaves. There was a major influx of Chinese working on the railways in and around 1867, where a huge minority developped out near Vancouver. To this day, Vancouver is almost one third of asian descent. There is also a huge filipino population in Canada following the political and economic phillipines in the 60's and 70's. Plus we still have french speak folk all accross the country as a historical relic from the New France colonies.
Today there are still huge influx of asians and east indians into Vancouver. Filipino's into the prairie capitals. African refuges in Toronto and Montreal. Tamils in Toronto (actually a big problem there). Canada is one of the few countries where in immigration out strips the natural population growth. (330 000 births, 227 000 deaths and net immigration of 150 000)
B
bamthin
Guest
- Thread starter
- #30
Here you go
Studies going back over 50 years have repeatedly arrived at the same conclusion -- racists have lower IQs than non-racists. The average intelligence quotient (IQ) of all members of the human race is 100 on the Stanford-Binet scale, as illustrated in the bell curves in the figure below. The average IQ of racists is up to 4 IQ points less than this (Montagu 1952 & 1988, Allport 1946, Frenkel-Brunswick and Sanford 1945). The reasons this is true are not entirely clear. Does racism attract the unintelligent or do the unintelligent default into racist mentalities? An exploration of this phenomenon can be most informative.
-Bam
You're reaching, Bam! 
A personal webpage of a 'club' at the university of Penn State? LOL "Students and Youth against Racism". Did you write that page yourself as a comeback? These are hardly studies, they are all taken from magazines and op/ed pieces. Damn good find!
This tells us absolutely nothing about how the 'studies' were conducted, nor does it even cite any actual studies in the bibliography.
I love the very bottom of the page: "Unappoint Bush" <-- Yeah, that sure is an independent study!
How long did it take you to create this humorous webpage?
A personal webpage of a 'club' at the university of Penn State? LOL "Students and Youth against Racism". Did you write that page yourself as a comeback? These are hardly studies, they are all taken from magazines and op/ed pieces. Damn good find!
This tells us absolutely nothing about how the 'studies' were conducted, nor does it even cite any actual studies in the bibliography.
I love the very bottom of the page: "Unappoint Bush" <-- Yeah, that sure is an independent study!
How long did it take you to create this humorous webpage?
A revised and updated version of an article by Steve Brady which originally appeared in April 1987 in Vanguard magazine.
"One of the favourite accusations thrown at the National Front by its multiracialist critics is that we are simply a bunch of bigots, that our stance on race, at the core of our political philosophy, is just ignorant prejudice against people whose skin colour is no more than a superficial manifestation. Is this so? Are our racial policies merely the product of prejudice, or are they instead based on sober realism and the courage to face facts?
Let us start by looking at what 'prejudice' means. The word comes from Latin roots meaning to judge before, or less literally but more usefully, to judge a case ahead of the facts. In modern usage it is generally taken to mean forming an opinion, especially about an issue, person or group of people without knowing, or without taking into account, all the relevant facts. Someone is 'prejudiced' if they judge a case without hearing the evidence, or they ignore the evidence before them because it does not accord with their preconceived opinion.
Certainly, the NF has judged the case as far as the coloured population in Britain is concerned. We know that they were brought here against the best interests, and indeed the wishes, of the vast majority of the native British people.
But has this verdict been arrived at as a result of prejudice, or is it a fair judgement on the basis of the evidence? Are the arguments we use to justify our conclusion merely expressions of bigoted dislike, or are they solidly founded in reality?
Never Fit
We argue, for example, that West Indian and other Negroes will never fit in, as multiracialists claim, to become equal and integrated members of a predominantly White society. This is because they are inherently unfitted to do so intellectually, and are thus condemned to exist in White society as a permanent underclass, confined to the lower social strata and, not unnaturally, bitterly resentful of the alien society in which they are thus trapped. This resentment will inevitably explode into violence, rioting and crime.
To seek to remedy this by artificially promoting Blacks to high office, ignoring their handicaps, is a recipe for chaos. Blacks cannot fulfil these roles competently and Whites quite naturally resent being discriminated against in their own country in favour of aliens.
What are the facts? Over almost seventy years, in study after study, conducted by scientists and educationalists in numerous countries, studies conducted by such bastions of racial rationalism as the Inner London Education Authority, the US Army, and Harvard and Oxford Universities, on every measure of intellectual ability and educational attainment Blacks perform significantly worse, on average, than Whites. In the case of average IQ, for example, the average Negro figure is only 85% of the White average. In fact the higher the proportion of White genes the higher the intelligence: a pure-bred Negro fresh out of Africa scores nearer 70%. If a married couple, perhaps of the sort that would criticise us, parrot-like, for our views, had a child with this order of intelligence they would be seriously concerned, and seek remedial treatment for it. The aboriginal Australian fares even worse than the Negro.
This is not the place for an extensive review of studies of intelligence. Readers can consult Race by Dr. John R. Baker, former Reader in Cytology at Oxford University, published by the Oxford University Press, or The Testing of Negro Intelligence, an exhaustive review of hundreds of studies demonstrating racial differences in intellectual ability by Dr. Audrey M. Shuey, and of course there is The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray.
Worse still for the "We're all equal" crowd, Negroes perform just as badly in comparison with Whites on evoked potential tests, where a light is flashed in a subject's face and the speed and density of the evoked brainwave response is measured on an electro-encephalograph - a test so culture-free it can just as well be given to a dog or cockroach as to a man.
Faced with such facts, multiracialists make various attempts to wriggle off the hook, all of them futile. They argue that all these tests are unfair, that they are written by White people in a White Society and thus are biased against non-Whites. Alas for them, Chinese and Japanese, who are not noticeably more Caucasian and are often very much more culturally distinct from White society than Negroes, actually do as well or slightly better on average than Whites on these "White mens' tests."
At a deeper level of intelligence testing however, there are different forms of intelligence. For example, it is possible to score high according to conventional intelligence scales but have no capacity for creative invention, as a proportion of Whites observably do. In fact it is this creative intelligence which the British possess in abundance: around 80% of everything ever invented was invented by British men.
So the multiracialists fall back on conceding the reality of lower average Negro intelligence, but blame it on environment rather than on innate heredity. "Enough positive discrimination in favour of Blacks will make them our equals" runs their argument, though they are rarely honest enough to state it bluntly.
If "social deprivation" and "racial discrimination" are responsible for the poor performance of Negroes, groups such as the American Indians, who score considerably worse than American Blacks on every measure of social deprivation, would be expected to do worse, or at least as badly, as Blacks. In fact they do a lot better in the same tests.
Advocates of racial equality who argue that differences in intelligence are not innate ignore numerous studies demonstrating that at least 80% of differences in intelligence are inborn, the product of genes, not environment. Read The Inequality of Man by H. J. Eysenck, former Professor of Psychology at the University of London for the facts here.
So-called liberals, when confronted with arguments and facts they cannot defend, resort to underhand and quite despicable tactics, revealing themselves as the most illiberal and intolerant clique of all. An associate of Eysenck in the field of personality and twin studies (studies of identical twins who were separated at birth etc.) was Sir Cyril Burt. When one statistic out of hundreds was discovered to be suspiciously similar to another, such a hue and cry was made, with accusations and connotations of fraud, that even now the stigma lingers, even though Burt's work has been cleared of improper practice and verified in scores if not hundreds of other studies. Eysenck himself, who was half-Jewish, was accused of being a "Nazi." More recently Chris Brand lost his lectureship at Edinburgh University and a book contract for reaching the "wrong" conclusions of his research.
Note that we are not talking about denying the "Holocaust" or some other strongly-held religious or moral doctrine - but about the results of tests which can be made and verified in any psychology laboratory, if not any living room.
Real World
Stepping out from the arcane field of intelligence measurement, what do we see in the real world? We see exactly what honest psychologists' conclusions would lead us to expect. Negroes, innately less intelligent, are at the bottom of every White social heap, but this is blamed by advocates of the dogma and their tan-skinned imitators on "White racism."
So what about Black performance when there are no Whites to be "racist"? What did the Negro accomplish in Africa before the White Man came? As Baker illustrates in Race, virtually nothing.
When our ancestors, hundreds of years ago, spread across the world as explorers, traders and conquerors, what did they find? In Asia, and in the Americas, there were great cities, vast and sometimes ancient civilisations and cultures which featured emperors, poets, law-givers and philosophers, priests, generals and architects. Sometimes there were writings of minds as profound as any in Europe. Mighty buildings, fields sown with native crops, rice is Asia and maize in America, tilled or grazed by domestic native animals. What did they find on the Negro's home turf? Primitive tribes, living in mud huts in the African jungle, frequently eating one another. Negroes without the wheel, without the written word, without a history.
Professor Arnold Toynbee, one of this century's leading historians, summed it up by concluding that of twenty-one civilisations in world history to date not one had been founded by Black men.
Evidence
On the Negro question the evidence is overwhelming. Blacks are, on average, less intelligent than Whites, and they were born that way. Since measured intelligence correlates well with social and educational attainment, it is no wonder that Blacks consistently fail to rise. They always will be at the bottom, unless they are artificially propped up in jobs they cannot do in a pathetic and indeed patronising bid by Whites in a perverse attempt to show how "goody goody" they are.
Unless we actually want ghettos of miserable, frustrated and angry Blacks seething in our inner cities so that middle-class suburban types can drive past in rich synthetic smugness, congratulating themselves on how tolerant they are and how wonderfully multiracial Britain is, we will do the only rational thing, the kindest and fairest thing for the Blacks themselves, and send them home to their own kind. Western-educated and trained Blacks would doubtless rise high in an Africa that seems to be sinking inexorably back to the jungle, perhaps making a vital contribution to Negro welfare.
On this issue our verdict is based on the facts. We have judged the case on the evidence, fairly, and come to the only logical conclusion. It is the multiracialists, who have a hidden agenda, who stubbornly maintain the fiction of racial equality despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
They cannot cite a mass of objective evidence to support their beliefs. At best they can only snipe and smear that which proves our case. Or simply seek, through the Race Acts, to suppress it by imprisoning honest men. It is they, not we, who hold to their opinions in defiance of reality. Dare we say it - it is they, not we, who are prejudiced. "
http://www.natfront.com/prejudic.html
"One of the favourite accusations thrown at the National Front by its multiracialist critics is that we are simply a bunch of bigots, that our stance on race, at the core of our political philosophy, is just ignorant prejudice against people whose skin colour is no more than a superficial manifestation. Is this so? Are our racial policies merely the product of prejudice, or are they instead based on sober realism and the courage to face facts?
Let us start by looking at what 'prejudice' means. The word comes from Latin roots meaning to judge before, or less literally but more usefully, to judge a case ahead of the facts. In modern usage it is generally taken to mean forming an opinion, especially about an issue, person or group of people without knowing, or without taking into account, all the relevant facts. Someone is 'prejudiced' if they judge a case without hearing the evidence, or they ignore the evidence before them because it does not accord with their preconceived opinion.
Certainly, the NF has judged the case as far as the coloured population in Britain is concerned. We know that they were brought here against the best interests, and indeed the wishes, of the vast majority of the native British people.
But has this verdict been arrived at as a result of prejudice, or is it a fair judgement on the basis of the evidence? Are the arguments we use to justify our conclusion merely expressions of bigoted dislike, or are they solidly founded in reality?
Never Fit
We argue, for example, that West Indian and other Negroes will never fit in, as multiracialists claim, to become equal and integrated members of a predominantly White society. This is because they are inherently unfitted to do so intellectually, and are thus condemned to exist in White society as a permanent underclass, confined to the lower social strata and, not unnaturally, bitterly resentful of the alien society in which they are thus trapped. This resentment will inevitably explode into violence, rioting and crime.
To seek to remedy this by artificially promoting Blacks to high office, ignoring their handicaps, is a recipe for chaos. Blacks cannot fulfil these roles competently and Whites quite naturally resent being discriminated against in their own country in favour of aliens.
What are the facts? Over almost seventy years, in study after study, conducted by scientists and educationalists in numerous countries, studies conducted by such bastions of racial rationalism as the Inner London Education Authority, the US Army, and Harvard and Oxford Universities, on every measure of intellectual ability and educational attainment Blacks perform significantly worse, on average, than Whites. In the case of average IQ, for example, the average Negro figure is only 85% of the White average. In fact the higher the proportion of White genes the higher the intelligence: a pure-bred Negro fresh out of Africa scores nearer 70%. If a married couple, perhaps of the sort that would criticise us, parrot-like, for our views, had a child with this order of intelligence they would be seriously concerned, and seek remedial treatment for it. The aboriginal Australian fares even worse than the Negro.
This is not the place for an extensive review of studies of intelligence. Readers can consult Race by Dr. John R. Baker, former Reader in Cytology at Oxford University, published by the Oxford University Press, or The Testing of Negro Intelligence, an exhaustive review of hundreds of studies demonstrating racial differences in intellectual ability by Dr. Audrey M. Shuey, and of course there is The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray.
Worse still for the "We're all equal" crowd, Negroes perform just as badly in comparison with Whites on evoked potential tests, where a light is flashed in a subject's face and the speed and density of the evoked brainwave response is measured on an electro-encephalograph - a test so culture-free it can just as well be given to a dog or cockroach as to a man.
Faced with such facts, multiracialists make various attempts to wriggle off the hook, all of them futile. They argue that all these tests are unfair, that they are written by White people in a White Society and thus are biased against non-Whites. Alas for them, Chinese and Japanese, who are not noticeably more Caucasian and are often very much more culturally distinct from White society than Negroes, actually do as well or slightly better on average than Whites on these "White mens' tests."
At a deeper level of intelligence testing however, there are different forms of intelligence. For example, it is possible to score high according to conventional intelligence scales but have no capacity for creative invention, as a proportion of Whites observably do. In fact it is this creative intelligence which the British possess in abundance: around 80% of everything ever invented was invented by British men.
So the multiracialists fall back on conceding the reality of lower average Negro intelligence, but blame it on environment rather than on innate heredity. "Enough positive discrimination in favour of Blacks will make them our equals" runs their argument, though they are rarely honest enough to state it bluntly.
If "social deprivation" and "racial discrimination" are responsible for the poor performance of Negroes, groups such as the American Indians, who score considerably worse than American Blacks on every measure of social deprivation, would be expected to do worse, or at least as badly, as Blacks. In fact they do a lot better in the same tests.
Advocates of racial equality who argue that differences in intelligence are not innate ignore numerous studies demonstrating that at least 80% of differences in intelligence are inborn, the product of genes, not environment. Read The Inequality of Man by H. J. Eysenck, former Professor of Psychology at the University of London for the facts here.
So-called liberals, when confronted with arguments and facts they cannot defend, resort to underhand and quite despicable tactics, revealing themselves as the most illiberal and intolerant clique of all. An associate of Eysenck in the field of personality and twin studies (studies of identical twins who were separated at birth etc.) was Sir Cyril Burt. When one statistic out of hundreds was discovered to be suspiciously similar to another, such a hue and cry was made, with accusations and connotations of fraud, that even now the stigma lingers, even though Burt's work has been cleared of improper practice and verified in scores if not hundreds of other studies. Eysenck himself, who was half-Jewish, was accused of being a "Nazi." More recently Chris Brand lost his lectureship at Edinburgh University and a book contract for reaching the "wrong" conclusions of his research.
Note that we are not talking about denying the "Holocaust" or some other strongly-held religious or moral doctrine - but about the results of tests which can be made and verified in any psychology laboratory, if not any living room.
Real World
Stepping out from the arcane field of intelligence measurement, what do we see in the real world? We see exactly what honest psychologists' conclusions would lead us to expect. Negroes, innately less intelligent, are at the bottom of every White social heap, but this is blamed by advocates of the dogma and their tan-skinned imitators on "White racism."
So what about Black performance when there are no Whites to be "racist"? What did the Negro accomplish in Africa before the White Man came? As Baker illustrates in Race, virtually nothing.
When our ancestors, hundreds of years ago, spread across the world as explorers, traders and conquerors, what did they find? In Asia, and in the Americas, there were great cities, vast and sometimes ancient civilisations and cultures which featured emperors, poets, law-givers and philosophers, priests, generals and architects. Sometimes there were writings of minds as profound as any in Europe. Mighty buildings, fields sown with native crops, rice is Asia and maize in America, tilled or grazed by domestic native animals. What did they find on the Negro's home turf? Primitive tribes, living in mud huts in the African jungle, frequently eating one another. Negroes without the wheel, without the written word, without a history.
Professor Arnold Toynbee, one of this century's leading historians, summed it up by concluding that of twenty-one civilisations in world history to date not one had been founded by Black men.
Evidence
On the Negro question the evidence is overwhelming. Blacks are, on average, less intelligent than Whites, and they were born that way. Since measured intelligence correlates well with social and educational attainment, it is no wonder that Blacks consistently fail to rise. They always will be at the bottom, unless they are artificially propped up in jobs they cannot do in a pathetic and indeed patronising bid by Whites in a perverse attempt to show how "goody goody" they are.
Unless we actually want ghettos of miserable, frustrated and angry Blacks seething in our inner cities so that middle-class suburban types can drive past in rich synthetic smugness, congratulating themselves on how tolerant they are and how wonderfully multiracial Britain is, we will do the only rational thing, the kindest and fairest thing for the Blacks themselves, and send them home to their own kind. Western-educated and trained Blacks would doubtless rise high in an Africa that seems to be sinking inexorably back to the jungle, perhaps making a vital contribution to Negro welfare.
On this issue our verdict is based on the facts. We have judged the case on the evidence, fairly, and come to the only logical conclusion. It is the multiracialists, who have a hidden agenda, who stubbornly maintain the fiction of racial equality despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
They cannot cite a mass of objective evidence to support their beliefs. At best they can only snipe and smear that which proves our case. Or simply seek, through the Race Acts, to suppress it by imprisoning honest men. It is they, not we, who hold to their opinions in defiance of reality. Dare we say it - it is they, not we, who are prejudiced. "
http://www.natfront.com/prejudic.html
And how about the Tanser Study, done in Canada!
"We have been told that the reason that Blacks do not perform as well as Whites and Asians in school is due to "White racism" or a poor family environment, or poverty, or some other external, environmental reason. Well, we can never solve the racial problems in our schools or our society if we do not understand them, and this environmental theory of intelligence is a complete misunderstanding. It has been conclusively demonstrated that racial differences in academic performance are due mainly to heredity, not environment. One of the more interesting proofs of this is a Canadian study called the Tanser Study.
Before the Civil War in the United States there was a system by which escaped slaves were smuggled to the North. The system was called the underground railroad. I am sure you have heard of it. Now some of the people who operated the underground railroad felt it best and safest to get the freed Blacks out of the United States entirely, and so sent them up into Canada. Many of these Blacks settled around a town called Chatham, in Kent County, Ontario.
In 1939, Dr. H. A. Tanser, the superintendent of schools for Chatham, decided to do, as his doctoral thesis, a comparison of the intellectual performance of the Black students of Kent County with the performance of the Black students of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. The study became a classic. Would you believe, Dr. Tanser found that the Blacks of Kent County were as far behind the Whites of Kent County as the Blacks of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana were behind the Whites of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. After one hundred years there was no improvement in spite of integration. The question has to be asked, if the intellectual inferiority of the Black is demonstrably not a product of environment, and you claim it is not genetic, then what does cause that inferiority? Inferiority it is, beyond any question, and the educational establishment knows that, beyond any question, though the educational establishment today will never tell you about the Tanser study. Look it up. Its official title is Kent County Negroes, 1939, it was published in Chatham, Ontario, Canada and the author is H. A. Tanser, T-A-N-S-E-R.
Since the Tanser study, there have been numerous other studies. May I suggest the fine book, Black Intelligence in White Society, available for $7.50 postpaid through National Vanguard Books, as a starting place for reviewing the literature on this subject.
The results have never differed. The question is, why are we not told these facts in our newspapers, magazines, and television programs? These media constantly promote the idea of racial equality, those this equality can nowhere be found in fact. If they are so sure they are right, why do they suppress public information on the Tanser study and other studies which show that racial difference in intelligence are inherited and largely immutable. The failure to discuss these studies along with any evidence to the contrary, whenever the race issue or "civil rights" are discussed, constitutes a gross violation of intellectual honesty and a lie by omission on the part of the media and our schools. The only weapons the integrationists have in their intellectual arsenal are bookburning, brainwashing and intimidation, that is all they have, they have nothing else, and they know it. If they have anything else, where is it? "
http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/assorted/tanser.html
"We have been told that the reason that Blacks do not perform as well as Whites and Asians in school is due to "White racism" or a poor family environment, or poverty, or some other external, environmental reason. Well, we can never solve the racial problems in our schools or our society if we do not understand them, and this environmental theory of intelligence is a complete misunderstanding. It has been conclusively demonstrated that racial differences in academic performance are due mainly to heredity, not environment. One of the more interesting proofs of this is a Canadian study called the Tanser Study.
Before the Civil War in the United States there was a system by which escaped slaves were smuggled to the North. The system was called the underground railroad. I am sure you have heard of it. Now some of the people who operated the underground railroad felt it best and safest to get the freed Blacks out of the United States entirely, and so sent them up into Canada. Many of these Blacks settled around a town called Chatham, in Kent County, Ontario.
In 1939, Dr. H. A. Tanser, the superintendent of schools for Chatham, decided to do, as his doctoral thesis, a comparison of the intellectual performance of the Black students of Kent County with the performance of the Black students of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. The study became a classic. Would you believe, Dr. Tanser found that the Blacks of Kent County were as far behind the Whites of Kent County as the Blacks of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana were behind the Whites of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. After one hundred years there was no improvement in spite of integration. The question has to be asked, if the intellectual inferiority of the Black is demonstrably not a product of environment, and you claim it is not genetic, then what does cause that inferiority? Inferiority it is, beyond any question, and the educational establishment knows that, beyond any question, though the educational establishment today will never tell you about the Tanser study. Look it up. Its official title is Kent County Negroes, 1939, it was published in Chatham, Ontario, Canada and the author is H. A. Tanser, T-A-N-S-E-R.
Since the Tanser study, there have been numerous other studies. May I suggest the fine book, Black Intelligence in White Society, available for $7.50 postpaid through National Vanguard Books, as a starting place for reviewing the literature on this subject.
The results have never differed. The question is, why are we not told these facts in our newspapers, magazines, and television programs? These media constantly promote the idea of racial equality, those this equality can nowhere be found in fact. If they are so sure they are right, why do they suppress public information on the Tanser study and other studies which show that racial difference in intelligence are inherited and largely immutable. The failure to discuss these studies along with any evidence to the contrary, whenever the race issue or "civil rights" are discussed, constitutes a gross violation of intellectual honesty and a lie by omission on the part of the media and our schools. The only weapons the integrationists have in their intellectual arsenal are bookburning, brainwashing and intimidation, that is all they have, they have nothing else, and they know it. If they have anything else, where is it? "
http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/assorted/tanser.html
B
Big D
Guest
- Thread starter
- #34
Maybe Canada does not have so many problems with blacks, because Canada keeps so many blacks in prison:
http://www.storm.ca/~moparman/globe.htm
http://www.storm.ca/~moparman/globe.htm
Isaac Brock
Active Member
- Sep 28, 2003
- 1,104
- 44
- 36
Honestly, give it a break. That is a ridiculous conclusion. The only places where there are problems with blacks are Toronto and to a much less extent, Montreal because they suffer from ghettoized community development. It's no different than why natives on reserves (urban or rural) are more likely to committ crime. Plus your statistics are INCREDIBLY misleading because they are only of Ontario. If you took the statistics from any other province you would see very different trends. Statistics, used out of context, can be very misleading.
I'll have to agree with this statement. Imagine if the racial crime studies only relied on stats from Harlem, NY? Unfortunately, the trend continues throughout the nation but it's extremely prevalent in Harlem.
The question I ask is, why are more blacks in prison and crime rates higher in so many areas? I don't buy the theory that it's because of poverty. There are many poverty stricken areas that are primarily white that don't have these problems.
B
bamthin
Guest
- Thread starter
- #37
Originally posted by jimnyc
You're reaching, Bam!
A personal webpage of a 'club' at the university of Penn State? LOL "Students and Youth against Racism". Did you write that page yourself as a comeback? These are hardly studies, they are all taken from magazines and op/ed pieces. Damn good find!
This tells us absolutely nothing about how the 'studies' were conducted, nor does it even cite any actual studies in the bibliography.
I love the very bottom of the page: "Unappoint Bush" <-- Yeah, that sure is an independent study!
How long did it take you to create this humorous webpage?
You are wrong. It has references to the IQ studies and they are cross-referenced in the bibliography. They prove that racists generally have lower I.Q.s and are generally less educated. You are wrong. Get over it.
-Bam
Nice try, but they are hardly referenced. There are 26 entries in the bibliography and how many are actually quoted in the article? Why doesn't this "study" actually keep track of what "quotes" are from what study?
There have been HUNDREDS of studies to show that blacks have a lower intelligence than whites. You find ONE study, without proper quotes, done by a nice little club at a college by Anti-Bush students.
Search harder, maybe you can find a few studies on some 'geocities' or 'aol members' websites.
B
Big D
Guest
- Thread starter
- #39
OK, How about this,
In a certain part of Canada they solved their racial problems by keeping blacks off the streets and putting them in prison:
http://www.storm.ca/~moparman/globe.htm
In a certain part of Canada they solved their racial problems by keeping blacks off the streets and putting them in prison:
http://www.storm.ca/~moparman/globe.htm
B
bamthin
Guest
- Thread starter
- #40
jimnyc,
It is a valid piece of research. I find it amazing how you denegrate it and label it biased on one hand and then provide links from two articles from white supremacist web sites in the same threads. natvan.com? They want to free Chester Doles for chrissakes!!
White supremacists are the epitome of what it means to NOT be a patriotic American. This country is an amalgamation of races and religions that combine to create this great nation. All races and religions contribute their own special flavor.
I beleive the Republicans have tapped into this undercurrent of moronic America. White idiots blaming other races for their financial mediocrity when it is really their low I.Q.s and lack of education that put them where they are. They applaud the efforts of Repubs to end Affirmative Action because they are too stupid to realize that this is not an indication of GOP kinship with their demented, delusional view of superiority, it is, in reality, a small part of the general ideology to limit or end government regulation of free enterprise.
As a white person, I am ashamed of these people, with their lower than average IQs. They are an embarrasment to my heritage and one of the biggest terror threats in the US next to El-Queda. I think DK posted a link about a moron bigot group in Texas that had a cyanide bomb that could have killed a thousand people.
The websites you referenced jimnyc are no different than a radical islamist web site calling for jihad against the US. It's all hate, any way you slice it.
-Bam
It is a valid piece of research. I find it amazing how you denegrate it and label it biased on one hand and then provide links from two articles from white supremacist web sites in the same threads. natvan.com? They want to free Chester Doles for chrissakes!!
White supremacists are the epitome of what it means to NOT be a patriotic American. This country is an amalgamation of races and religions that combine to create this great nation. All races and religions contribute their own special flavor.
I beleive the Republicans have tapped into this undercurrent of moronic America. White idiots blaming other races for their financial mediocrity when it is really their low I.Q.s and lack of education that put them where they are. They applaud the efforts of Repubs to end Affirmative Action because they are too stupid to realize that this is not an indication of GOP kinship with their demented, delusional view of superiority, it is, in reality, a small part of the general ideology to limit or end government regulation of free enterprise.
As a white person, I am ashamed of these people, with their lower than average IQs. They are an embarrasment to my heritage and one of the biggest terror threats in the US next to El-Queda. I think DK posted a link about a moron bigot group in Texas that had a cyanide bomb that could have killed a thousand people.
The websites you referenced jimnyc are no different than a radical islamist web site calling for jihad against the US. It's all hate, any way you slice it.
-Bam
Similar threads
- Poll
New Topics
-
-
Turning Point USA college president resigns after racist text chat leaks- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 2
-
-
More genocidal comments from indians that we allowed into this country.- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 8
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
Zone1 For those who've ever wondered if they can or will be saved....- Latest: JustAnotherNut
