Jay, what are you saying? You have moved on from the goose stepping, and zig heiling of a past group of fanatical believers in white supremacy. Your reading has now extended beyond the work of de Fuhrer himself and his "fascinating" literary masterpiece, Mein Kampf. The outward appearance may have changed, but the message is still the same.

Paul we can't accept it because it isn't true, only the truth matters, if we're bully boys we're pummeling people with honesty and objectivity.
What Dynastic China didn't leach from India and Japan it imported from the classical European world, it's religion, philosophy, political and economic systems are all imported from other societies, the Chinese contribution to our understanding of ourselves, our world and the universe is precisely zero, even Indians have made more of a contribution..
To your second post, the answer is yes but I must correct you on one point, Hitler wasn't a White Nationalist, he would have laughed at the idea and dismissed us as cowards.We already live in multiracial societies and we have no other option but to deal with the world as it is,Hitler had the opportunity to move away from multicultural Austria to a relatively more homogenous nation but that option is not open to any White person today.

None of the early centres of civilisation were in Europe. The land between the Tigris and Euphrates developed a hydraulic civilisation first. The first civilisations were based on controlling the rivers. Other early centres were in Egypt in Africa, the Indus valley and China in Asia. Joseph Needham has generated monumental studies on Chinese technology. The Chinese were first in many areas. They had the blast furnace 1,700 years before it came to Europe. There were later civilised areas in Greece and the Americas.

However, civilisations can advance and decline. In the Indus valley literacy disappeared for 1,000 years apparently as a result of nomadic invaders. The Greek and Roman civilisations disappeared into the depths of the Dark Ages – possibly due to the advent of Christianity. Some scholars date the Dark Ages from the murder of Hypatia in 415 CE, a pagan female mathematician, astronomer and teacher, by a Christian mob. During the European Dark Ages Islamic civilisation flourished. Cordova and Baghdad were great centres of culture and learning. The great universities of Islam were open to Christian, Buddhist, Jewish and other non-Muslim scholars. Apparently the Islamic Dark Ages had the same cause as the European Dark Ages. The Islamic clerics took over in the fourteenth century, and the great Islamic universities were turned into centres of theology. Ijtihad or the spirit of inquiry became limited into investigations and study of the Muslim religion. As Europe came out of their Dark Ages with the Renaissance and Enlightenment the Islamic world entered into their Dark Ages.

Civilisation is restricted to no race, religion or ethnicity. Where the conditions are ripe for it, it arises. It can also decline. Timbuktu was once a great centre of culture. Now it is an African backwater. When Greece was glorying in its Golden Age the British were painting themselves blue and worshipping trees.

Mahatma Gandhi, on being asked, “What do you think of Western civilization?,” was reported to have answered, “I think it would be a good idea”.

In my view faith breeds ignorance, and doubt encourages knowledge.

Last night Jay called me "an Anti Racist, a moron or a teenager or all three". I take name-calling as sign that the name-caller is losing the argument, but thought I might respond this time.

Anti-racist, yes! I am anti-stereotyping people by race.

Moron - I checked through my post: grammar OK, no spelling mistakes, logical argument based on evidence, mm, maybe a well-educated moron? Or maybe the definition of moron here is 'disagrees with Jay."

Teenager: Ditto, good grammar, no spelling mistakes, familiarity with anthropological and biological concepts. A high-achieving teenager? Maybe a young genius? Thank you Jay, at my age, I'll take that as a complement

Re hybrid vigour and exogamy. I would usually avoid claiming scientific expertise. In this forum you are likely to be shot down as an elitist know-it-all or someone will bring up the global warming debate and claim that all scientists are frauds (well, at least the ones on the other side).

But this is an area I know something about. As a biologist, I am using 'hybrid vigor' in its biological sense not a racial "European-Australoid, European African, Asian-African".

Any population of organisms that reproduces within a limited gene pool is likely to concentrate deleterious genes - we see this in breeding pedigree dogs. There are some well-known examples in humans - Ashkenasy Jews for example, a small group which has intermarried for a long time and exhibits a range of diseases linked to gene mutations concentrated by intermarriage. Another example is haemophilia in the royal lineages of Europe. (Recent exogamy in Royal families will minimise this in future - Kate, Mary).

But even without extreme consequences, there will be a concentration of faulty genes in any small group that tends to intermarry. If you look at family trees for small rural areas say in England, they tend to 'collapse' - that is, the number of unique ancestors doesn't increase exponentially back (2,4,8,16,32,64 etc). Rather a few generations back the same ancestors will appear in multiple lines, and people who marry will have several (sometimes many) of the same great-great-grandparents in common. Recessive genes causing illness or other issues would be more likely to appear in both partners with serious results for their children.

When, in Australia, someone from Scotland married someone from Kent, and their offspring's spouse was the child of an Irishman and a Yorkshire woman, that was much less likely to happen. The subsequent generations, out-marrying further (ie to children of say Italian-German background), would be even less likely to have genetic illnesses. Taking it, further, exogamy between European and Chinese/Indian etc. people diminishes the risk of concentrating deleterious genes. (Of course until recently, there wasn't a lot of opportunity for exogamy at that level)

Continued.
Jay's examples: "Have you ever wondered why Jesse Owens or Usain Bolt turned out to be such physically impressive individuals. Hint: It's got something to do with inbreeding within a small gene pool, not hybridisation and outbreeding, it makes sense that that's why Africa which has the greatest genetic diversity among it's populations and a pre disposition to promiscuity and polygyny has so many people with sub 70 IQ's and severe physical handicaps."

That is contradictory. 'Inbreeding within a small gene pool' does not equal 'greatest genetic diversity' does not equal 'pre-disposition to promiscuity and polygyny'. Inbreeding leads to less genetic diversity. Polygyny is cultural not genetic. Promiscuity is within the eye of the beholder, and anyway seems to be common to all humans (are not men of religion who prey on children 'promiscuous'?) Sub-70 IQ - evidence please. Severe physical handicaps - poor medical facilities?

Africans do exhibit a range of physical attributes that make them good at certain sports - these are the result of longer-scale evolutionary adaptation to environment. I didn't need to 'wonder' it's been widely researched in biology/sports medicine.

"Why Jews test well above other ethnic groups in academic areas?" This is cultural, due to long-term high regard for intellectual skills. It is partly due to the nature of Judaism (the religion of the book) but also to the historic exclusion of Jews in Europe from many professions and activities. Any ethnic group can do the same if they value learning and have access to education. (My family has managed this change in 1-2 generations).