TO Fellow Human,

The worst killing ever in colonialist's expansions was when muslims brought their version of things to India, and if you open your eyes you will see that even still today in Sudan the descendants of the original Arab invaders are racially massacering the Negroid/Native population. Today, not centuries ago.

To Reason,

you must be in resonance with some parallel universe if you actually believe that Western Europeans are not the most tolerant cultures on the planet. How do explain the fact that they are, along with US, Australia, NZ, Canada, the most diverse, mixed, with the highest migrant intake of all nations. And, due to the extreme tolerance of the hosts, there is little racial tension apart from that self-generated by certain diasporas. And money isn't the reason for our peace, what of Suadi Arabia and Japan (Koreans who are born in Japan three generations after WWII are still refused citizenship- disgustingly racist and arrogant barbarity)?

To Redneck,

I'm sure the average IQ for whites would have included all whites in the white nations. I wonder how DRASTICALLY the IQ points would stoop for the Asian category if we included ALL ASIANS in ASIA (INCLUDING THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS WHO ARE THE SLAVES THAT ARE BUILDING THE HUGE CHINESE EMPIRE) and not just the tertiary eduacated ones who have migrated to the west.
Have you considered this I wonder? Why is positive racism ok?

To Scooper9,

Yes, generally most Europeans get along well with each other because they have learned to overcome difference after countless wars.
The third world and Mid-East think that war is something westerners can't stomach, war is new to them, old to Europeans. Been there and done that.
And what makes me really angry is by saying this Many believe that I am Racist, when in fact I am merely pointing out that some of the ethnic groups we have invited here have a disproportionate amount of racist thugs or KKK, Nazis that aren't white.
This is the real issue, and those like me are simply not bound by racial barriers, we don't treat people differently because they are not white.
You see, many left-wing people believe that they are good people when infact they are closet assimilationists and tacit white supremicists, because they treat all coloured people like half-witted guests who they don't want to be angry at or indeed tell them when something is wrong, the same way they would if it were a family member.
Just look at how the media treat white public people differnetly from ethnics.
E.G. Frank Sartor gets told to resign for calling his friend "black-arse", John Brodgen stands down over a silly comment, compared to the leaders of the Islamic community such as Keysar Trad, leader of the Lebanese Muslim Association, who is on record at UWS 2002 for telling muslims to ignore discrimination laws and he supprted sheik Shadi's calls for gays to be stoned to death. Sheik Hilaly, the main mufti of the nation, whilst in Lebanon in 2004 praised the 911 murderers. Not to mention every other leader of official Islamic councils in Australia criticizing the governement for not inviting to the terror summit peoeple like Sheik Omran and Hiz-but-tahir leader, who openly support Bin Laden and clearly state that Jews and Christians can not be their friends, let alone their insane policy of forcing the world to submit to Sharia and Islam.

To MatthewS.

There book “The Bell Curve” was written by two Americans and it deals with the patterns of intelligence and how it affects class structure in the USA. All of the extensive data on cognitive IQ in that book is based research which has been done since 1918. That the average Asian has slightly better cognitive IQ than whites is also confirmed by another book I have on Asian education. This book not only confirms this analysis but noted an odd quirk. It claimed that Asians themselves readily admit that their own race has so far been unable to produce the sort of genius’s (Leonardo, Einstein, Michalangelo) who’s thinking has had profound impact upon the human race. This they presume is due to Asian education systems, which stress rote learning and which do not encourage critical thinking. The book pointed out that Einstein himself was sent to a German military school where rote learning was the norm and where he was considered something of a simpleton.

As for whether racism is right or wrong is a matter of social context. Racism is entirely normal in wartime and one US admiral (“Bull” Halsey) was famous for both his aggressiveness and his highly racist (and imaginative!) comments about the Japanese during WW2. I consider racism to be entirely normal and is most prevalent in those cultures who can usually be relied upon to complain the loudest about white racism. Racism is simply a factor of normal in group/ out group hostility, a hostility which usually manifests itself in the defence of territory. The present condemnation of racism is little more than a social fashion intended to bestow the mantle of intellectual and social superiority on those who claim than no man is inferior.

All-, I think your disguise is slipping. Fewer than half your usual complement of spelling errors and non sequiturs in your last post. There are some big words creeping in too - psychopathology, exacerbated, lots of syllables. Do better next time, please.

My theory - that behind the online persona you project here you are in fact a sociology professor gathering material for a paper - is gaining credibility every day. Mind you, in the various race-focussed threads on this forum, within a few weeks you would surely have enough material for an entire book.

Well, professor, it's like this.

Human beings are not, and can never be, perfect. In anybody's definition of the word. I don't expect them to be, nor should you. As such, there will always be a level of personal territorial protection that is determined, even driven, by the aspects of one's personality that react to strangers, differences, colour, religion etc. - highly dependent, as it turns out, on the level of importance the individual attaches to those traits within themselves.

So I can give a stuff about someone else's colour, creed or whatever, but I can see how these characteristics stir up fear and loathing in others. Still don't have a problem with that.

What does get to me is the way some folks, under the guise of erudition or scholarly reputation, wilfully and deliberately stir up these feelings in others, to the point of open antagonism or even violence.

I've mentioned Mosley before in other threads. Go read his work. He was a highly intelligent man, with some very sound and well thought out ideas. But he was also a rabble-rouser, who - through his ability to reach their fear and loathing through his speeches - caused people to do mindless violence unto others.

And that is what I see here, and that is what I am strongly opposed to.

Have a great day.

Thank you Percy, we can understand some of your arguments better when all the cards a laid on the table.
If things were as simple as you would have us believe then the Utopia you aspire would be worth the venture and if academic and science were not hi-jacked it would be easier for the pieces to fall in to place.
I will assert Peter Myers work: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/index.html this represents the academic premise of historical events and Philosophical perspectives, and the Utopian ideology based on the emotional egocentric. Massive read, but have a go.
The host of Drew Fraser’s article on this forum is: John Ray also has an interesting web site and an excellent contribution at. http://users.bigpond.net.au/jonjayray/menu.html : If any, are interested.
For a more radical interpretation of events, and inspiring to a point with over the top rhetoric regarding a religious group. http://www.revilo-oliver.com/index.html .
For a portion of an Ethnic population engaged in Incitements against other Racial or ethnicity you need not look further than the writings of the very substantual contribution of Mohammad: http://answering-islam.org/index.html ;
I hope everyone can Have a nice day

While it's good to see that redneck's sources extend beyond shock jock radio, tabloid newspapers and the Collins Dictionary, he should be aware that the methodology and conclusions of 'The Bell Curve' have been authoritatively debunked in numerous publications by prominent experts in relevant fields.

Also, he should be aware that, in a book of over 800 pages, only one paragraph is devoted to the actual question of 'race' and how this construct may be related to 'intelligence':

"We frequently use the word ethnic rather than race, because race is such a difficult concept to employ in the American context What does it mean to be "black" in America, in racial terms, when the word black (or African-American) can be used for people whose ancestry is more European than African? How are we to classify a person whose parents hail from Panama but whose ancestry is predominantly African? Is he a Latino? A black? The rule we follow here is to classify people according to the way they classify themselves. The studies of "blacks" or "Latinos" or "Asians" who live in America generally denote people who say they are black, Latino, or Asian--no more, no less (pp. 271)."

This is slightly better than Fraser's position, because at least they acknowledge that they are talking about ethnicity rather than race, but this fact seems to escape latter-day eugenicists who wish to bolster their spurious racist arguments.

For accessible discussions that espose the severe methodological and analytical deficiencies of 'The Bell Curve' redneck should take the time to read Stephen Jay Gould's 'The Mismeasurement of Man' or Jared Diamond's 'Guns, Germs and Steel'. For more technical refutations he should consult any of the dozens of refereed articles published in reputable journals in 1994-95 about this sorry piece of eugenic racist claptrap.