Franklin Ryckaert #racist

Franklin Ryckaert #racist theoccidentalobserver.net

When you know Blacks you understand that:
1) They have little intelligence.
2) They have strong primitive impulses.
3) They cannot control themselves.
4) They must be controled by others who think,plan and decide for them, always keeping in place a strong discipline with immediate punishment for misbehaviour.
5) When that happens they can function just fine,albeit on a low level.
6) When that outer control is however removed,the savage in the Black comes to the surface.

This happened when White control was removed when: 1) African colonies became “independent”,2) Apartheid was abolished in South Africa.3) Jim Crow was abolished in the USA. The oldest example of what happens when Blacks become “independent” is Haiti.After first killing all (French) Whites,then the mulattos,this former model slave society became the most primitive ,savage country of the Western Hemisphere.It is already nearly 200 years “independent” but still utterly backward.
People who think that “oppression” is the cause of Black disfunction cannot explain why Blacks misbehave even more and their situation worsens when that “oppression” is removed.
Blacks behave always and everywhere the same; it is the race,not “circumstances”.Blacks belong to an entirely different line of evolution than that of Europeans or Asians, “civilization” is no part of that.

57 comments

old comment by Passerby

Funny how the only "misbehaving" black people I've ever seen are on episodes of COPS shot in destitute crime plagued shitholes abandoned by civilization when industry dried up and the closest thing you can get to an honest job is drug mule or prostitute. Nowhere in my daily life, where I work, hang out, and shoot the breeze with regular working class men of every imaginable nationality and ethnic background does any black man, any arab, any human being fit this insane notions of yours save a handful of punk ass teenagers and in my experiences they've been white as often as anything else. Just idiots who bought into the idea that fear is power and looking out for number 1 while the weak scurry about is only natural.

It's almost like people who don't live in an atmosphere of constant distrust, desperation, fear, exploitation, and open discrimination are disinclined to go around making life difficult for others. Now stop breeding that atmosphere, you're polluting the world of rational thought with your bile.

If you think I'm some bleeding heart that doesn't hold people accountable for their actions, think again. Some people are just going to be dicks regardless of whether or not the deck gets stacked against them. But remember that they are the ones responsible, not some bullshit about racial predispositions.

Just look at you lot, wallowing in your shit and misery and determined to drag us all down into the muck with you as you sit in your dank basements dreaming of murder and slavery. You can Heil Hitler when you get to Hell, and your attitude will buy you an express ticket.

old comment by ProfessorJimboSpice

@#1541861, Passerby

Funny how the only "misbehaving" black people I've ever seen are on episodes of COPS shot in destitute crime plagued shitholes abandoned by civilization when industry dried up and the closest thing you can get to an honest job is drug mule or prostitute.

Do you ever wonder why every predominantly black society regresses toward this state in time?

Some say it's just the aftershock of colonization? Ethiopia was never colonized, and is still a backwards, frequently war torn and famine riddled country.

Multiculturalism works provided the introduced people are only a few % of the population. Once you surpass that threshhold you'll see ghettos forming - because guess what, non-whites prefer the company of their own kind as much as white folks like yourself. Now if the inhabitants of those ghettos have an IQ disadvantage (as blacks do) they won't be able to compete effectively in the kind of jobs created by the host population, so they'll be living in poverty and - as you'd expect - resent whites for "keeping them down". Really, though it's multiculturalists like you and the facts of nature keeping them down.

Lol, you think you're so smart but you just wrote several angry paragraphs directed at a person who isn't a member of this site and won't read them. This essay was also redundant for your fellow FSTDT members who all have the same beliefs (in spite that you fantasize about rebelling against the system). If I hadn't chanced to be here, your time would've been wasted.

"Dank basements", probably the only reason you're not living in a basement is because your parents are rich enough to pay for your dorm.

old comment by Passerby

@ JimboSpice

Actually the original posters do have a habit of dropping in. Furthermore two of the people I was directing my comment at are directly above me in the comments section and now you've added yourself to that number. You've flopped once already.

Cute how you passed over the part where in plain English I said I have a job and coworkers of varied ethnic backgrounds. Five minutes in the breakroom crumbles these racist notions rapidly. Not that it's any of your fucking business but I pay my own bills. That's two marks against your basic reading comprehension.

Which "black societies" were collapsed without invasion? Do you refer to urban decay in the predominantly white USA?

Places in the US that have degenerated into slums had a much higher percentage of white residents when industry boomed like in Detroit, but when the booms went bust, the bubbles popped, and cheap outsourcing to less regulated foreign markets became the trend all the white people got the hell out of town. Funny how it worked out that they grossed twice the income of coloureds even at the lowest levels of menial labour and could afford to move to areas where work was plentiful. In the US, poor and unemployed become synonymous with vermin and criminal so what businesses remained refused to hire locals even at their previously enjoyed peanut rates and lost business when they themselves were stigmatized as operating
in slums.

Were you referring to Africa instead? Colonized with brutal systematic violence outstripping the most savage tribal warlords and perverting the idea of government to where all authority came from the mouths of cannons and rifles.

In addition having a majority of the continent's natural wealth and resources controlled by foreign interests that had little problem spilling oceans of blood for profit and living on the wrong end of a gun for decades while being told that these atrocities were how 'civilized' socities operate African countries embroiled in civil wars tend to be the proxies of external ideologies. Capitalists VS Communists. Christians VS Muslims. etc. This will screw up anybody's idea of stable and responsible government. You'd be hard pressed to find something horribly wrong in Uganda that isn't being directly inflenced by religious power struggles of fundamentalists in the West and Middle East.

Tell me so-called Professor, while foreign powers no longer officially rule the African continent by what logic do you contend the resulting cultural erosion is insignificant. Look at how drastically Japan's culture changed after being effectively conquered in WW2 and the Japanese were not subjected to the total domination that Africans were.

And yet, there's still a universe of difference between how a black Frenchman and how a black American acts. A black Brit and a black Canadian. Africans and Carribeans. It's almost as if something as insane as local customs, politics, and societal quirks shape their behavior in society at large rather than melanin.

I will believe your assertations that ethnicity and IQ have any manner of correlation when reality stops pissing all over the very premise, which is to say I will never believe it. Excellence in fields of mental prowess depend less on genetics and more on early childhood development and education.

Okay folks, I'm done feeding the troll.

old comment by Vox

This is what happens when you have little interaction with diverse arrays of people. I can tell this guy probably knows few, if any, black people in real life since he seems to honestly believe all or most black people are like black criminals you see getting locked up on "Cops" or that you see mugshots of in the evening news. Anyone who has lived or hanged around black people outside of black people in the most high-crime areas of large cities (and even then most black people there are law-abiding citizens trying to keep their heads down and scratch out a living while avoiding gangs) can verify most black people don't act like that. Let these white supremacists tell it most black people act like "The Infected" from 28 Days Later. Lol

He also has very little knowledge of the world because:

1) South Africa is much better off financially now than it was when Apartheid ended. When Apartheid ended SA had been in a recession since the 1970s and over 65-70% of the population was poor. Now the poverty rate is below 40%, there is a middle-class boom and their average annual Real GDP growth rate has been 5.5%.

2) A quick reading of Haiti's history will answer a lot of why it's so poor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Haiti#Economic_history

The West has been out to get their pound of flesh from Haiti for throwing off colonial shackles since Day 1. Starting with France charging them huge reparations (similar to what France did to Weimar Germany). The 2010 Earthquake didn't help matters at all either...

Various Western countries have tried to weaken Haiti so they can go back to using the citizens as cheap labor beasts of burden.

old comment by Vox

@ProfessorJimboSpice - Studies have shown that white liberals are more likely to live in racially diverse areas than white conservatives. White conservatives are more likely to live in mostly-white suburbs or rural areas, especially out in the Midwest. That's what the term "Middle America" often refers to - largely white rural areas and suburbs in sparsely-populated regions usually in the Midwest. White liberals are more likely to live in or near urban areas or suburbs within major metropolitan areas. Hence where the stereotype of the Starbucks-going, latte-sipping, walking around the city in Birkenstock sandals liberal comes from.

I think most white conservatives realize this too on an instinctive level. Notice white conservatives, especially in the Southern Bible Belt, have a habit of referring to white liberals as "city folk" or stereotype them as out-of-touch urban-dwelling Northern Yankees not tuned in with the "Real America" out in the countryside or mostly-white Levittowns of America? These results are probably due more as a consequence of where people live than them going to those places because of their views. People who live in metropolitan areas live in a world of frequent change and tend to be exposed to a greater array and diversity of people, thus often becoming cosmopolitan-minded and more likely to embrace the idea of a future that differs from the simpler past (Liberalism/Progressivism). People who live in isolated, less diverse areas where their main cultural and intellectual exposure is to family members, generational neighbors and generational family friends, etc. are more likely to see homogeneity as ideal and more likely to be fearful of a future that doesn't look like their vision of "Pleasantville" or "Leave It To Beaver" (Conservatism). There's a reason why Liberals are more likely to reference the changing world their kids grow up in for wisdom while Conservatives are more likely to reference the world "My daddy and granddaddy grew up in" for wisdom.

@Passerby - Exactly. When a person acts up (or behaves well), the individual deserves blame or praise. Not their entire so-called "race". It's funny how white nationalists often bemoan "collectivism" (most WNs being right-wingers) but seem to have a collectivist mindset when judging other people.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

I don't think this describes any of the black people I've worked for or the black-owned companies with which I've done business.

It's part of racism that resentment and brutalization are never thought to be part of the experience of oppression. It's as if the oppressed should emerge being sweet and feeling grateful, or worse, that their treatment requires them to behave at a morally higher standard than the racist himself and that their anger shows them to have somehow deserved the treatment meeted out to them. In the case of blacks, it's "that just shows your barbaric nature..."; in the case of Jews it's "how could you of all people..."

And if black people are so bad at managing their affairs and white people - sorry White people - so good, why is the GDP (PPP) of the Bahamas higher than that of Spain, or Hungary's lower than that of Trinidad and Tobago?

old comment by farpadokly

The answer to this lies partly in the European colonial policy of divide and rule.
For instance, in Rwanda and Burundi, the Belgians deliberately encouraged infighting between the Hutus and the Tutsis, the better to rule them both. European colonies were drawn up by Europeans often without regard to the plurality of tribes and ethnicities within their borders.
Hence, when the Europeans left, a fully formed democracy hadn't had time to organically grow. Often all there was was competing tribes and religions and ethnicities, usually still in thrall to Western economic interests, then being used as a pawn in the Cold War by East and West.
African tribalism might be partly to blame, but that is an issue of culture and not of race. As for Haiti, maybe its endemic poverty and use as a pawn by other powers might have something to do with its instability.

old comment by ProfessorJimboSpice

@ Passerby

Japan is a highly advanced and self sufficient nation, albeit they are suffering a demographic crisis (plummeting birthrate) for reasons unrelated to them being conquered (an interaction between their highly competitive, shame intensive culture, feminism and the impact of modern technology allowing retreat into a virtual life... but we're getting way off topic).

And on the subject, look how comparatively fast and well Asian countries colonized by Europeans (Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia) recovered and advanced, compared to Africans.

I never claimed that society and culture has a negligible influence on human behaviour - NOBODY believes that - you however, ARE claiming that genetics is irrelevant to how people think and act.

(1/2)

old comment by ProfessorJimboSpice

(2/2)

Let me give you the example of dogs, nurturing and training is important to raise a good dog, but anyone with experience of dogs knows the different breeds have different personalities and different levels of intelligence. A gentle Great Dane isn't suited to the role of guard dog.

I will believe your assertations that ethnicity and IQ have any manner of correlation when reality stops pissing all over the very premise

Do you ever wonder why (pre-European) Africans never developed a written language (Ge'ez and Tiffinagh are semitic.)? Do you wonder why they never domesticated the local horse (zebra)? Do you wonder why even the settled Africans (in towns) didn't construct roads to facilitate transport?

old comment by ProfessorJimboSpice

@#1542003, Hasan Prishtina

Trinidad and Tobago has an oil and gas based economy, they're rich for the same reason as the Saudis. Bahama's GDP is ~60% tourism based on them living in a beautiful island chain. Can you give an example of a succesful, predominantly black country with a production based economy or service economy? Also, Hungary has had far less time to recover from communism (just over a generation) than African nations had to recover from colonization.

@#1541924, Vox

@ProfessorJimboSpice - Studies have shown that white liberals are more likely to live in racially diverse areas than white conservatives.

Conservatives also hold to an anti-racist ideology, although they're plutocratic and avaricious which tends to work against blacks in practice.

old comment by

The reason zebras weren't domesticated and used as transportation is simple, practicality. You realize that in the Savannah where zebras live there are also large, agile, predatory cats? Attempting to pen in zebras would attract their attention and dealing with such animals can be difficult even with firearms, especially when they show up in force.

They did, however, use elephants as beasts of war and massive cargo transportation.

The lack of permanent roads is also easily explained: in the savannah with all those predators a regular route quickly become a killing ground, and jungles are too thick without deforesting them first. Europeans had fewer qualms with burning the latter down.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

@ProfessorJimboSpice

1) Saudi Arabia's economy is more dependent on oil and gas in terms of exports, budget revenue and proportion of GDP than Trinidad & Tobago, the latter also having considerable revenue from its financial sector, petrochemicals, steel, manufacturing and tourism. Should we not count Norway as a rich country because its economy is buoyed by oil revenue? Or does this only work for non-white countries?
2) The Bahamas does benefit from being beautiful but it also benefits from having the ability to exploit that beauty in that it provides economic and political stability together with a motivated and well-educated workforce. For example, the Solomon Islands are another beautiful group of islands but that country has had far less success in attracting tourists for the reasons I suggest. Again, you overemphasize the Bahamas' dependence on tourism; financial services and manufacturing also play a major part in the economy.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

(continued)

3) Last time I checked, tourism was an economic service. It tends to provide a lot of revenue and a large number of jobs in Europe, too. About 10% of London's workers, for example, are employed in industries connected to tourism, about the same figure as in Barbados, the world's 51st richest state per capita. Barbados also has a large financial sector, a solid manufacturing base, a big player in database management and claims processing. Not bad for a single island smaller than most US counties.
4) Communism in Hungary, while destructive, did not have the same impact as colonial rule. Hungary was already an industrialized country in 1945 and after 1968 Hungarians were allowed to own and operate small businesses in the service sector. Even the large state businesses were under the control of the Hungarian state and did not exist simply as a means of supplying or enriching the Soviet Union.

old comment by New Face of Rev

"Do you ever wonder why (pre-European) Africans never developed a written language"

Because written language is a learned skill, unlike spoken language. It's not something you just pick up, you need to be taught it. Writing didn't just spring forth fully formed from the indo-european conciousness, it had an inventor, who passed his knowlege on to others. It's not magic, it's like any other invention. The three major European alphabets Greek, Cyrillic and Roman were derived from Pheonician scripts. They didn't INVENT it, they adapted it. Written language has only arisen TWICE in recorded history, once in Sumeria around 6000 B.C. and again in Meso-America around 600 B.C. All other written languages are derivations of these two.

All easily explained without having to resort to any magical brain capabilities.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

Do you ever wonder why (pre-European) Africans never developed a written language (Ge'ez and Tiffinagh are semitic.)?

And "Semitic" people can't be African? Only a few posts above you were telling us what a dump you thought Ethiopia was. Well, Ethiopia is the home of the Ge'ez script and has been in use there since antiquity. So are you excluding the Ethiopians from Africa or aren't you? You can't have it both ways.

Perhaps you can tell us the reason why the Vai script is excluded because speakers of Niger-Congo languages, including users of the Bagam script, aren't African and/or Jondu before contact with white people wasn't in Africa but now finds itself in Liberia.

Besides, many African languages used the Arabic script just as, in the past, a number of European languages did. Using a writing system created elsewhere does not show lack of inventiveness or organization, otherwise Europe would look pretty poor next to Asia from where, as New Face of Rev points out, the Europeans imported writing.

So if you're excluding linguistic groups that have developed their own writing systems, despite your earlier views on the places where they originate, that just leaves the Bantu and groups further south, thereby excluding most Africans. The definition of "African" gets ever narrower.

old comment by I. James

@jimbo

You are seriously comparing breeds of dog to human beings? Race is not breed. Breeds are highly derived forms caused by artificial selection for certain traits- in other words, they are unnatural. Not to mention extremely noticeable- the difference between a black man and a white man(facial structure, skin color, hair texture) is hardly on the same level as the difference between a Chihuahua and an Irish Wolfhound. When it comes to humans, we are all one species, and have largely similar selective pressures, aside from the obvious differences in skin color due to climate, and certain disease and dietary adaptations. Attempts to tie race and intelligence or physical ability have largely proved inconclusive, because even if there were any, it would amount to a tiny blip across a sea of averages, and most likely turn out to be a wash anyway depending on the situation being tested for.

old comment by Passerby

@ Hasan Prishtina, New Face of Rev

Thank you for pointing out that many European civilizations have also imported and adapted written language rather than inventing their own from scratch. I wouldn't have known enough about Ge'ez to have made an informed comment but from what you said it seems to be a regional dialect developed for the primary purpose of spreading a religion through written work. The nutty professer has explicitly stated he believes "genetics" (and I use the term ever so loosely given what he thinks it means) trump locale and regional culture and black people are "genetically" primitives with a learning disability. Attempting to narrow what is and is not African by region directly counters his own assertion. Even if that region adopts it's own variation of a culture with foreign roots it remains unique to the area. And every tired excuse still flies in the face of those who left and assimilated into new cultures peacefully. Here's a hint, for all the black Muslims there have been living in the Middle East since way back when that religion was the most progressive thing around there's only ever been one Detroit and I think I covered that one already.

old comment by New Face of Rev

@ I. James

The most important thing is the phenotypic variance is not evidence of genetic difference. There are 37 sub-species of Grey Wolf. All domestic dog breeds, from the Chihuahua to the Irish Wolfhound, belong to just ONE of those sub-species. 35 of those sub-species appear almost identical to those without detailed knowledge of what to look for.

The point is that that people with only a rudimentary understanding of genetics, like Jimbo, assume that just because you see major differences in physical traits that must mean major differences at the genetic level. It doesn't, it's just phenotypic variance.

Remember, it may not be very kind to say, but every domestic dog is basically just an inbred, horribly deformed wolf. The differences between a wolf and a chihuahua are not at all like the differences between a white person and a black person. It's more like the differences between a healthy human being and the mutant hillbillies from The Hills Have Eyes.

old comment by ProfessorJimboSpice

@#1542468, New Face of Rev

The three major European alphabets Greek, Cyrillic and Roman were derived from Pheonician scripts. They didn't INVENT it, they adapted it. Written language has only arisen TWICE in recorded history, once in Sumeria around 6000 B.C. and again in Meso-America around 600 B.C. All other written languages are derivations of these two.

Writing only appeared once in Eurasia? There's no evidence that Sino-Tibetan writing was derived from Sumerian. They both developed from pictograms, here's a good example:

image

(Sumerian cuneiform)

image

(Old Chinese)

Every race drew pictures, but Africans and Aboriginal Australians never thought to codify them to make an accurate system of record keeping.

Oh, also, old European linear inscriptions are of Neolithic age and predate the Phoenician alphabet.

Just for the sake of argument let's say you're right and other European/Asian people adapted the Sumerian script rather than created their own, why didn't Africans think to follow suit and use this incredibly useful invention?

old comment by Vox

@ProfessorJimboSpice -

"Japan is a highly advanced and self sufficient nation"

Highly technologically advanced? Yes. However, this is a trend that began in the 1970s and 1980s. Prior to that in the 1950s-mid 1970s Japan had an international reputation of being the home of second-rate, shoddy industrial goods. "Made in Japan" used to be a running gag about poorly-made goods. My parents are old enough to remember that growing up. Contrary to White Supremacist fantasy Japan was not always a land of shining prosperity spurred on by the innate "intelligence" of NE Asian people. Prior to the Meiji regime Japan was somewhat of a backwater island with few natural resources and little international significance militarily or economically. Unlike Africa or the Middle East Japan was not conquered and uprooted, they simply had Americans and Brits force them to open up for trade, then sharing technological items and processes with them. The "Miracle of Japan" economic boom that took off in postwar years helped land them on the map.

Self-sufficient? Japan's external debt is almost twice the size of their annual GDP. They've had to SERIOUSLY cut back on a lot of programs, government spending and some infrastructure. J-land isn't really the place to go right now if you're looking for opportunity. Except in some parts of the IT sector.

"albeit they are suffering a demographic crisis (plummeting birthrate)...an interaction between their highly competitive, shame intensive culture, feminism and the impact of modern technology allowing retreat into a virtual life..."

1) What "demographic crisis"? "Low birthrate" doesn't mean "dying out". It means that the population size will stay where it is for the next generation or at most shrink a little. Most civilizations had a near-flat birth rate for most of human history. Everyone didn't die out, did they?

old comment by Vox

@ProfessorJimboSpice -

2) What does Feminism have to do with the birth rate? Unless you're blaming Feminism for there being less housewives who simply live to pop out babies. That has far more to do with the growth of a middle class society. Middle class people can't afford to take care of 4, 5 and 6 kids because each new kid is another $100K - $1 mil of lifetime spending sending them to college. That's why agrarian societies have more kids - each new kid is a future farmhand and they don't have to worry about schooling them.

Sorry, but "Leave It To Beaver" is FANTASY, not fiction. It's not possible for a man to support 3 or more kids and a wife on a single income unless he has a very good-paying job. You can thank de-unionization, "free trade" agreements and Neoliberalism for helping to keep wage growth down since the 80s. Ironically, the conservative dreamland of Beaver Cleaver's world is only possible for most people in a Scandinavian-style Social Democracy. Not a laissez-faire economy. Guys could raise a family on 1 income thanks to unionized jobs that paid enough so that people didn't necessarily have to go to college.

"And on the subject, look how comparatively fast and well Asian countries colonized by Europeans (Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia) recovered and advanced, compared to Africans."

Those countries you listed are all in significant financial trouble (Malaysia is actually still largely a "3rd world country"), particularly Hong Kong which suffered from problems similar to what the UAE is facing in the global property market downturn.

It's funny how White Nationalists love to compare Africa (as if all African countries have the same economic status) to high-income countries, it shows most of them know little about economics.

old comment by ProfessorJimboSpice

@#1542593, I. James

@jimbo

You are seriously comparing breeds of dog to human beings? Race is not breed. Breeds are highly derived forms caused by artificial selection for certain traits- in other words, they are unnatural.

Races are highly derived forms caused by natural selection. The distinction you make between artificial and natural selection is imaginary, selection pressures on a population are what matter regardless whether they're human breeders, wild predators, pathogens or climate change.

Attempts to tie race and intelligence or physical ability have largely proved inconclusive, because even if there were any, it would amount to a tiny blip across a sea of averages, and most likely turn out to be a wash anyway depending on the situation being tested for.

No honest research on the subject of intelligence and race has been done for decades because it doesn't fit the egalitarian doctrine of academia.

Well, lets start with an easy example: Do you ever watch/play sport? Do you notice that blacks consistently dominate some sports like basketball, boxing and sprinting? Maybe it's because their hunter gatherer niche selected for people who could make explosive bursts of speed to catch their prey. Likewise, whites and Asians consistently take the medals in wrestling and weightlifting, and coincidentally, both races have a history of settled vs nomadic life and agriculture. Even most liberals will admit this phenomena is a real thing, why is it so hard to believe that evolution acts on human brains as well as bodies?

old comment by ProfessorJimboSpice

@Vox

What does feminism have to do with the birthrate? It encourages women to prioritize their careers over children. Indeed, the more extreme varieties of feminist claim that women have historically been forced into "reproductive slavery" and used as "incubators" by men and that they should rebel by refusing relationships or pregnancy - of course, men were also forced into the role of providers and defenders of women and children back in the day when the high mortality rate and low technology didn't give people a choice on their role in life. Feminists have retconned simple practicality into male sadism.

Anyway, this is off topic and I'm wasting my time typing essays on a soon to be buried and forgotten thread. It's been fun (not really).

old comment by Vox

@ProfessorJimboSpice - If you're an Economist (like me), your interest in Africa should be piqued right now given Africa is the continent with the most high-growth and rapidly-industrializing economies:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/01/daily_chart

That's thanks to Africa being the continent least affected by the Great Recession, which allowed some African countries to finally get a leg-up in the global market. The Eurozone is in a state of near-panic (as most of us have probably heard, especially in Spain and Greece) and the Economic Tigers of Asia have become stagnant (even China's rapid growth has slowed down by almost half). Ironically the new Tigers of Asia are SE Asian countries WNs consider to be genetically "inferior" to NE Asians. Such as the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam.

"Do you ever wonder why (pre-European) Africans never developed a written language (Ge'ez and Tiffinagh are semitic.)?"

False. I learned that was false years ago with a quick Google search:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_systems_of_Africa

Also, "Semitic" in this sense is a language branch (it's a sub-branch of the Afro-Asiatic family). Did you know that no native European alphabet still exists? All current European alphabets (Latin, Greek, Cyrillic and Germanic) are based off the Phoenician (who were SEMITES) alphabet. The closest things to indigenous European alphabets, Gaelic and Germanic runes, were Indo-European and descended from Central Asian scripts.

Does that say anything negative about Europeans? No. Neither does it about Africans in regions of Africa that never developed an indigenous script.

old comment by Vox

@ProfessorJimboSpice -

"Trinidad and Tobago has an oil and gas based economy, they're rich for the same reason as the Saudis"

The same can be said of countries like Macau which are rich largely due to tourism. Singapore and Hong Kong have a high income due to a big tourism economy and large amounts of international trade flowing through their hands (Hong Kong and Singapore are historically-important trade port islands). They also have tons of wealthy businessmen and foreign investors who live there or own property there. Every country has a material reason why it does well or poorly. If you're looking for a country that's just well-off because its citizens are so inherently superior no such country exists.

Speaking of, South Africa was listed in 2010 as a "Newly Industrialized Country", along with Malaysia that you listed earlier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newly_industrialized_country

A few other African countries are on track as potential future Newly Industrialized Countries in the next 10-20 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G20_developing_nations

old comment by Vox

@ProfessorJimboSpice -

"What does feminism have to do with the birthrate? It encourages women to prioritize their careers over children."

In case it escaped your notice, most career women have children. Feminism encouraged women to get out into the workplace, which also brought up family household earnings. Along with that came a rise in middle class households. Middle-class households cannot afford to raise 4-10 kids unless you plan on most of them not going to college and becoming professionals themselves. It's simply not economically feasible to middle-class households to raise more than 3 or 4 kids unless they're upper-middle class or rich.

The women who DO stay at home and pop out babies every year are the ones who conservatives love holding up as a stereotypes - those are the turbo-breeding moms with 5 or 6 kids and having to apply for welfare to take care of them. Unless you plan to have a household income of more than $150K/year it's not possible in most industrialized countries to raise that many kids without welfare assistance. It's ironic conservatives often hate women who are the real-life realization of their fantasies - women who live to have kids and don't worry about working or careers.

You bash Feminism for getting women out of the household, but what's the first thing out of people (especially conservatives)'s mouths when they see women with 7 kids and not working on Maury Povich? "Get a job!"

"when the high mortality rate and low technology didn't give people a choice on their role in life"

I don't see how high mortality rate and low technology means women should stay at home. Women certainly were not stay-at-home moms in Prehistoric times when technology was even lower and mortality was even higher.

old comment by Vox

@ProfessorJimboSpice -

So many errors.

1) Dogs are bred (largleyt through inbreeding), they did not naturally evolve. Eugenics. No group of humans has a history of being bred for specific tasks. The closest to that might be some African-Americans (slave eugenics).

2) People of West African descent often excel in fast running while East Africans often excel in endurance running. So it's not a lump "blacks" excelling at 1 particular thing. It's different groups of black people doing different things that require different talents.

3) Not many Asian weightlifting or wrestling champions. Most are Europeans.

4) That "explanation" shows your lack of knowledge of history. Most Africans were farmers, ranchers and pastoralists. Not hunter-gatherers. That's an old Colonial myth. Most Africans DO NOT live like the Khoi. Even most rural tribes, like the Maasai, are pastoralists who raise DOMESTICATED LIVESTOCK. Masasi raise mostly cows. About 70% of Africans today are farmers. Hunter-gatherers have been rare in Africa (less than 5% of the total population currently) since the Neolithic Revolution spread to the southernmost reaches of Africa between 500 BCE to 500 CE.

The hunter-gatherer explanation is an example of a non-scientist laymen trying to shoehorn science (not even science since you didn't indicate there are any genes particular to Africans, Europeans or Asians causing these trends) into pseudohistory.

old comment by Vox

@ProfessorJimboSpice -

"Do you wonder why they never domesticated the local horse (zebra)?"

While the zebra was never fully successfully domesticated, Africans used and still use many other domesticated animals including horses, cows, pigs, oxen, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoralism

Heck, even the Khoi use some domesticated animals. The Baguirmi military near the Kanem-Bornu Empire rode on horseback wearing chain-mail, similar to European knights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Baguirmi

"Do you wonder why even the settled Africans (in towns) didn't construct roads to facilitate transport?"

That's also incorrect. Many African cities that were key routes in ancient and medieval trade in Africa have toads to and through the towns. Such as Timbuktu, Mogadishu, Mombasa, Kilwa, etc. The Swahili coastal cities of Africa engaged in maritime trade as far East as Persia, India and China and the Mali Empire traded as far north as the Visigoths and the Celts.

old comment by Vox

@ProfessorJimboSpice -

"Also, Hungary has had far less time to recover from communism (just over a generation) than African nations had to recover from colonization."

As much as Conservatives hate Communism (and as a Socialist I'm no fan of Bolshevism myself), the Eastern Bloc states WERE very industrialized. At their high point in the early 1950s to mid-1970s the GDP of the Soviet Union was half that of the US's GDP and its standards of living were similar to that of Western Europe. The Soviet Bloc largely went downhill in the late 70s to early 90s. Even by the time the Soviet Union fell the former Bloc countries were nowhere near as bad off as most African countries are.

Hungary was nowhere near as bad off as, say, Malawi. Or the Central African Republic. The Bloc countries were in a shape more similar to postwar Germany.

old comment by J. James

@New Face of Rev
That was my point- the comparison is highly inappropriate.

@Jimbo
"selection pressures on a population are what matter regardless whether they're human breeders, wild predators, pathogens or climate change."

Apparently you missed the part where I explained that selective pressures are largely the same across humanity, with exceptions in sun exposure, to list the most major one. But even those are matters of degree rather than anything "black and white," so to speak.

"No honest research on the subject of intelligence and race has been done for decades because it doesn't fit the egalitarian doctrine of academia."

Two things; first, I believe that sentence should read: "No honest research on the subject of intelligence and race with findings that fit my position has been done in decades." Gee, could it be that you are wrong and the research is right?

Second, that's awfully convenient, if modern science over the last few decades is tainted by egalitarian bias, then all that leaves is ancient, biased, debunked White Supremacist "science." Interesting how that works out...

"Do you notice that blacks consistently dominate some sports like basketball, boxing and sprinting? Maybe it's because their hunter gatherer niche selected for people who could make explosive bursts of speed to catch their prey."

Assuming such a causal relationship exists, how on earth do you extrapolate genetics from that with zero proof? It could just as easily be culture, economics, a self-fulfilling prophesy effect, selective bias, a combination of factors, etc... One could just as easily wonder why a whole bunch of white people play Lacrosse and Hockey. Any asshole on the street can point out a correlation, but it takes real science to prove causation, and the science simply isn't there. All we know so far tells us that "race" is a fairly arbitrary construct, and that determining the sum total of "intelligence" other such criteria is completely ruined by subjectivity and the vagaries of culture. In other words, it's safe to assume with things like the Flynn Effect that if we haven't found a really major difference between the races thus far, after centuries of desperate searching, it's likely that that's because there simply isn't one.

"why is it so hard to believe that evolution acts on human brains as well as bodies?"

Of course evolution can affect the brain. You just have yet to prove that it HAS produced a real and quantifiable gap between your arbitrary racial constructs.

old comment by Vox

@ProfessorJimboSpice -

"Two things; first, I believe that sentence should read: "No honest research on the subject of intelligence and race with findings that fit my position has been done in decades." Gee, could it be that you are wrong and the research is right?

That's always the copout with these people. When professionals say things they agree with or want to hear (or things they think confirms what they want to believe is true), they shout it from the rafters. They go "See? SEE!!?? Science PROVES these people are less than/subhuman!" But when professionals say things that debunk their beliefs, and provide evidence, all of a sudden professional institutions are no longer reliable and they're all part of a massive "egalitarian bias" conspiracy covering up the "real" and "damning" info that supposedly confirms their racist beliefs. When you point out that no evidence of such a conspiracy exists, they conveniently say no evidence exists because the conspirators are hiding all the evidence.

You can't win with these people.

old comment by ProfessorJimboSpice

Did you know that no native European alphabet still exists? All current European alphabets (Latin, Greek, Cyrillic and Germanic) are based off the Phoenician (who were SEMITES) alphabet. The closest things to indigenous European alphabets, Gaelic and Germanic runes, were Indo-European and descended from Central Asian scripts.

There are Neolithic inscriptions in Europe predating Phoenician writing, do a search for "The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe : Myths and Cult Images":

image

Apart from that, what of the Cretan hieroglyphs, the inscriptions of Easter Island and the Indus valley script (many symbolic characters, but many pictorial ones as well)? All indicate a transitional phase between pictures and written language and debunk the idea that written language spread from Sumeria as opposed to being invented by locals (except Africans).

While the zebra was never fully successfully domesticated, Africans used and still use many other domesticated animals including horses, cows, pigs, oxen, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoralism

Heck, even the Khoi use some domesticated animals. The Baguirmi military near the Kanem-Bornu Empire rode on horseback wearing chain-mail, similar to European knights:

No evidence that any of this predates conquest and colonization by Arabs (or, previously, by Achaemenid Persians).

The state of African military technology when the Persians invaded:

image

If African domestication of animals was independent of Islamic colonization (which is hard to prove, coz, y'know THEY DIDN'T RECORD THINGS IN WRITING) one might ask why they never farmed the local pigs (warthogs) for food.

old comment by ProfessorJimboSpice

@Vox (again)

False dichotomy (leftists love them) between the polar extremes of a career driven, independent woman who has one child in her mid 30's-40's (if at all) and a young single mom on welfare raising half a dozen kids by different dads.

(1/2)

old comment by ProfessorJimboSpice

(2/2)

Conservatives? Yes, I find them annoying too. They tend to have idiotic beliefs on things like abortion (regardless of circumstance) and paid maternity leave; they are reactionary in the purest sense of the term - knee-jerk opposition without understanding the context of social changes.

Yeah, in most societies both sexes always worked outside the home, however there were a couple of extra responsibilities specific to each gender: Women had the added duty of bearing and raising children, and men had the duty of undertaking exceptionally dangerous work like fighting for their tribe/nation - this isn't even unique to humans it's the pattern for most mammals.

Nowdays, we live in a sick society where men and women alike are told that gender roles are social constructs; childlessness and aggression in women and pacifism and effeminacy in men is actively encouraged by the new left.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

There's no evidence that Sino-Tibetan writing was derived from Sumerian.

I would agree that Chinese writing systems, and those allied to them, do not derive from Sumerian, but they are not alphabets. The Tibetan script, on the other hand, is of Indian origin and thus derived from Sumerian.

Africans and Aboriginal Australians never thought to codify them to make an accurate system of record keeping.

You mistake writing for codification. Africans did codify things in symbols such as those used by the Ashanti or Nsibidi. One can see the same idea in other cultures, such as in records from Samoyed peoples or in Quipus.

Oh, also, old European linear inscriptions are of Neolithic age and predate the Phoenician alphabet.

It is highly controversial to claim that they actually constitute writing. The predominant view at the moment is that they are not.

"Do you notice that blacks consistently dominate some sports like basketball, boxing and sprinting?

100 years ago it used to be the Irish who dominated sports like boxing and of the last fifteen world heavyweight boxing champions of all codes only three have been black. How is this explained by genetic predisposition?

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

No evidence that any of this predates conquest and colonization by Arabs (or, previously, by Achaemenid Persians).

When were the Khoi ever colonized by Arabs or Persians? Difficult to see how this would have affected them, especially if there were no roads and thousands of miles of forest between them.

The state of African military technology when the Persians invaded:

Evidence made around two thousand years after the event by people who may never have seen an African themselves about a conquest which never extended beyond the borders of modern Egypt which, according to you, doesn't count, is hardly reliable. It's particularly amusing considering the Nubians were famous as archers.

Women had the added duty of bearing and raising children, and men had the duty of undertaking exceptionally dangerous work like fighting for their tribe/nation - this isn't even unique to humans it's the pattern for most mammals. Nowdays, we live in a sick society where men and women alike are told that gender roles are social constructs

If such roles were truly genetic then it would be as rare to find alternative arrangements as it would to find a pair of six-fingered gloves. But there are plenty of other such arrangements. For example, there are those where the raising of children is the job of those of both sexes who are no longer economically active, or by children who are older. There are those who are raised after weaning in sexually segregated lodgings for the rest of their life sharing with others in their settlement of the same sex who have no discernable kinship connection to them. Even weaning is done by nursemaids in many different societies. A study of the East End of London made about fifteen years ago based on the 1891 Census shows that there were around 85 different household arrangements in the heart of Victoria's Empire. That does not look to me like something strongly genetic.

old comment by Vox

"There are Neolithic inscriptions in Europe predating Phoenician writing"

Hence why I said all CURRENT European alphabets. Please read carefully next time. All the previous European writing systems were more along the lines of African writing systems such as Nsibidi - what most linguists consider Proto-Alphabets.

"debunk the idea that written language spread from Sumeria as opposed to being invented by locals"

The problem with your theory: Those original scripts fell out of usage completely or almost completely with the introduction of Sumerian/Phoenician script and never developed into specific alphabets. Similar to how indigenous African writing systems fell out of usage in favor of Arabic alphabet.

"(except Africans)"

Again untrue since the African alphabets Osmanya, Tiffanagh and Meroitic script are totally indigenous to Africa. Ge'ez is partly-indigenous (it was significantly influenced by the Old South Arabian alphabet but made significantly different by indigenous Ethiopic peoples):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ge%27ez_script#History_and_origins

"No evidence that any of this predates conquest and colonization by Arabs"

No evidence this was introduced by Arabs. If you're going to make assertions provide evidence.

I'll do you one better: There's no evidence Arabs introduced animal husbandry to Africa for the most part:

http://www.animaltraction.com/StarkeyPapers/Starkey-HistoryAnimalTractioninAfrica-97-draft.pdf

Archaeological evidence of animal husbandry and domestication in Africa goes back millennia. Your answer reeks of the typical European colonialist mentality towards Africa: the assumption that anything more advanced than Stone Age technology HAD to have come from an external source (usually Arabs and Persians are given credit).

old comment by Vox

"The state of African military technology when the Persians invaded:"

This is a depiction of the Persians fighting a rural tribal military unit. Nice try. The urban centers in Africa were significantly different. Try reading ibn Battuta's writings about African cities he encountered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_battuta#Swahili_Coast

Vasco da Gama ended up having to leave Mombasa because the Swahili naval forces there menaced his ship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_de_gama#Mombasa

"one might ask why they never farmed the local pigs (warthogs) for food."

Warthogs don't make for good food and they are much more violent and dangerous than normal pigs or even American wild hogs. Another poster pointed out earlier that comment let us know you know little about animal husbandry. Not all wild animals are suitable for domestication or food. The same question you asked about Africans could be asked of Europeans: Why didn't Europeans domesticate the Auroch?

Answer: Because it's not very suitable for domestication.

"False dichotomy (leftists love them)"

Yes, because we all know you've made no false dichotomies here (not mentioning making the false dichotomy that women have to be baby-makers or man-hating/baby-hating careerists; the baseless supposition that language group = ethnicity, etc.),

"between the polar extremes"

Okay, rightist, what would you suggest that's economically feasible to make your vision come true? How can women raise in excess of 3 kids without having to apply for welfare or govt aid or becoming low-income?

old comment by Vox

@ProfessorJimboSpice -

"Nowdays, we live in a sick society where men and women alike are told that gender roles are social constructs"

Because most of them are. For instance, what you said about child-rearing is historically inaccurate to a degree. Men did a lot more child-rearing in Neolithic societies than a lot of conservatives and right-wingers want to admit to; likewise women did a lot more hunting back then than a lot of modern Westerners realize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_economic_structure

Men usually only hunted big game with other men. Even in those cases it's not uncommon for women to act as scouts for big game hunts (which make up only 25% or less of all hunts). It's still that way today in hunter-gatherer societies.

Has nothing to do with sickness - has more to do with Realism. Because something was a tradition doesn't mean it was logical. Many traditions are illogical, irrational and even harmful. Like slavery, etc.

Franklin Ryckaert #racist theoccidentalobserver.net

57 comments

Confused?