POV: You are on a literal European ultranationalist forum that uses outdated far-right sources

[GavintheFurry]

Hello. I am here to inform you guys that this "anthropology" you guys are into is nothing other than white supremacist pseudoscience that is rather VERY outdated. This "science" you guys also use is also widely discredited by modern science and it is due to human adapation to certain climates, etc. This isn't anthropology. Rather, this is promoting the very idea that certain "phenotypes" of peoples exist and there are reasons as to why they're inferior and why some are more superior by applying those said "sciences" (eg, y'all think blacks are probably more closely related to non-human primates than are "Nordids", thus they must have a lower IQ). While some of this may be quite interesting to look at and is fun to talk about it, this is essentially promoting scientific racism. At the end of the day, all of the sources you use and the books you read covering these issues are nothing but from very outdated sources that come from a white nationalist perspective. The real reason as to why these "subhumans" you're speaking of seem more "inferior" to whatever your race is is due to the fact that the Third World has never gotten the chance to truly ever develop due to years of imperialism, colonialism, and genocide from imperial superpowers at the time being). You exploited them, and you guys have no clear understanding of the theory of dialectical materialism, in which poorer and impoverished countries are the way they are due to existing material conditions caused by capitalism and the First World exploiting the weaker ones (no, I do not like the EU like you uneducated righties think. The EU is literally a woke Euopean colonialism club that actively aids in exploiting nations that are less developed.


You guys are a bunch of reactionaries who don't want to read a book that actually criticizes the theory of there being human phenotypes.
And no, I am not a troll trying to fuck with you guys. This is actually coming from a far-left perspective, and I really think this website is truly just the Gen X version of /pol/.

Fuck every one of you reactionary chuds. Touch some grass and read theory.

[SouthDutch7991]

I mean if you completely failed to fight off imperial and colonial powers and prevent them from dominating you maybe you kinda are inferior?

[Jacques de Imbelloni]

https://images.genius.com/56575abfd393e880c6ce136c0b008c93.1000x887x1.jpg

[Jacques de Imbelloni]

How To Kill A Furry - 100

https://www.redditstatic.com/desktop2x/img/renderTimingPixel.png



Your traditional shotgun to the face.

Boiling them alive in reused vegetable oil.

Starving them in an empty room.

Amputating their limbs with a plastic knife.

Feeding them to a bear.

Driving over their bodies with an army tank.

Sending them to Afghanistan.

Crucifixion.

Dipping them into vats of hot mustard.

Suffocating them with their own fur.

Dragging them through a three mile cheese grater.

Injecting nitroglycerin into their body.

Setting their head on fire.

Pushing them underneath a working press.

Tripping them over into a bed of nails.

Pouring a bucket on piranhas down their throats.

Forcing them into a meat grinder and making chilli con carne out of them.

Shooting them with paintballs for seventeen hours.

Shoving their faces into a deep fryer.

Pouring acid onto their stomachs.

Sacrificing them to a giant spider.

Deporting them to Guantanamo Bay on twenty three fake charges of child molestation.

Telling Freddy Kruegar that a Furry called him a douche.

Inserting several lit fireworks into their arse.

Harpooning them in the mouth.

Giving them to Paris Hilton for adoption.

Putting them in a death match with Spock.

Drowning them in a toilet.

Setting up a rigged and wired R.P.G behind their front door.

Doing the typical “flaming dog poop” trick, while replacing the poop with a landmine.

Throwing them into an active volcano.

Burning their bodies with nacho cheese.

Putting them in a trash compactor.

Dropping them into a giant blender.

Pushing them off a cliff.

Shoving them into a room full of hungry lions.

Burying them alive in a coffin full of snakes.

Introducing them to “I.T”.

Sending assault troops into an Anthrocon.

Smothering them into a giant ball of fairy floss.

Pouring hot caramel into their eyes.

Injecting glue into their bloodstream.

Severing their muzzles off with a chainsaw.

Forcing them into battle with a Balrog.

Inserting a powerful vacuum cleaner down their throats.

Dumping them into the North Sea.

Force feeding them toxic waste.

Torturing them on a stretch rack.

Placing a bottomless cage of rats onto their faces.

Premature mummification.

Setting up a giant thumbscrew on their heads.

Throwing them into an iron maiden.

Stoning them.

Pouring hot liquid metal down their throats.

Annihilating them with a minigun.

Flaying them alive.

Rolling a giant boulder over them.

Using a Voodoo doll to tear them apart.

Driving over their heads with a bulldozer.

Throwing shuriken at their foreheads.

Rolling a lawnmower over their backs.

Impaling them with your national flag.

Cremating them alive.

Tying them in a sack and then throwing them into a river.

Sending them up into the Sun.

Electrocution.

Skewering them on top of Big Ben’s tower.

Throwing them into shark infested waters.

Strangling them with a razored wire.

Dipping them in burning sulphur.

Tying a vest of dynamite onto them.

Feeding them into a coal burner.

Tripping them over into a jet turbine.

Feeding them to a twenty foot cicada.

Rubbing a power sander over their faces.

Burning them on a stake.

Placing a bear trap in their mouths.

Dropping an atomic bomb over a Furry convention.

Driving them into a paper shredder.

Shattering their vertebrae with a wooden mallet.

Hammering a wooden stake into their hearts.

Performing a deadly Russian Omelette on them.

Simply kicking them to death.

Stabbing them repeatedly with a pencil.

Sticking their heads underneath a moving helicopter blade.

Planting an electric coil in their toilets.

Nailing them onto a dartboard.

Stabbing them in the back with a screwdriver.

Serving them poisoned tea or coffee.

Drilling several holes into their skull.

Dropping a classical hundred ton weight on top of them.

Throwing them onto a highway of moving traffic.

Filling their mouths with concrete.

Hanging them with their own intestines.

Coating them with plastic explosives.

Throwing them at the mercy of P.E.T.A.

Deporting them to Ethiopia for food.

Tying them to a train track.

Cutting off all possible Internet connections they may have.

[GavintheFurry]

The name was from a long time ago, but ok.

[GavintheFurry]

As for an explanation as to why I joined here such a long time ago was because I was not very educated on these matters and I thought all of these things about different races and such were interesting. Later (like 2019-ish), I looked more deep into this and sites like these aren't much different from /pol/ or Stormfront. I found out about this site through a YouTuber called Masaman. And as a matter of fact, Masaman isn't a white supremacist who believes in stupid shit like "white genocide" or whatever. They're just someone who's fond of learning about different cultures, languages, etc. But somehow, his viewer base took advantage of his enthusiasm and applied it to white supremacist thought. Yes, Masaman referenced the site on one of his videos, but he more than likely doesn't anymore, because I think I remember watching it around mid 2018, meaning it could've came from 2018 or earlier. I know I don't know much about his politics, but I think I remember hearing from somebody that he's actually progressive??

[GavintheFurry]

Read one of my replies. The user was from a long time ago. I'm not a furry anymore lmao. Plus, I don't know how to change my user

[JamesBond007]

Hello. I am here to inform you guys that this "anthropology" you guys are into is nothing other than white supremacist pseudoscience that is rather VERY outdated. This "science" you guys also use is also widely discredited by modern science and it is due to human adapation to certain climates, etc. This isn't anthropology.

Modern anthropology is pseudo-science because the Jew Franz Boas removed it from Darwin's theory of Evolution.

You leftists like Evolution because it supports atheism but dislike it on the other hand because it supports racism. Darwin was also clearly racist .

BTW, modern 'science' is mostly politically motivated statistical manipulation outside of physics so most modern science is false :

Here is your beloved modern science :



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

The name was from a long time ago, but ok.

Once a furry, always a furry. That sub-culture does not draw normal people.

[Volvado Seja]

Ok furry

[JamesBond007]

Hello. I am here to inform you guys that this "anthropology" you guys are into is nothing other than white supremacist pseudoscience that is rather VERY outdated. This "science" you guys also use is also widely discredited by modern science and it is due to human adapation to certain climates, etc. This isn't anthropology. Rather, this is promoting the very idea that certain "phenotypes" of peoples exist and there are reasons as to why they're inferior and why some are more superior by applying those said "sciences" (eg, y'all think blacks are probably more closely related to non-human primates than are "Nordids", thus they must have a lower IQ). While some of this may be quite interesting to look at and is fun to talk about it, this is essentially promoting scientific racism. At the end of the day, all of the sources you use and the books you read covering these issues are nothing but from very outdated sources that come from a white nationalist perspective. The real reason as to why these "subhumans" you're speaking of seem more "inferior" to whatever your race is is due to the fact that the Third World has never gotten the chance to truly ever develop due to years of imperialism, colonialism, and genocide from imperial superpowers at the time being). You exploited them, and you guys have no clear understanding of the theory of dialectical materialism, in which poorer and impoverished countries are the way they are due to existing material conditions caused by capitalism and the First World exploiting the weaker ones (no, I do not like the EU like you uneducated righties think. The EU is literally a woke Euopean colonialism club that actively aids in exploiting nations that are less developed.


You guys are a bunch of reactionaries who don't want to read a book that actually criticizes the theory of there being human phenotypes.
And no, I am not a troll trying to fuck with you guys. This is actually coming from a far-left perspective, and I really think this website is truly just the Gen X version of /pol/.

Fuck every one of you reactionary chuds. Touch some grass and read theory.
The left distorts science for political purposes.

by Michael Rienzi

Racial egalitarianism has failed to produce the "fair and just" society promised by social engineers. At the same time, there has been a marked reawakening of racial and ethnic identity in the post-Cold War world. In response, the left has adopted a new strategy: Deny the very existence of race! This is why we so frequently hear that "race is a social construct, with no biological validity" and that "science proves we are all the same." Ironically, it is in connection with progress in understanding the human genome-progress in the very field that will definitively prove the biological reality of race-that we most often hear that race is nothing more than "superficial" surface characteristics.

Against this view, there are first of all the obvious physical differences between human population groups that everyone recognizes. There is also genetic evidence that can be used independently of traditional methods to classify different human populations into racial groups that are virtually identical to those based on the allegedly "superficial" traits studied by traditional physical anthropology. As Professor Glayde Whitney has written in these pages:

"These data are therefore a virtually irrefutable demonstration of the reality of race-a purely statistical analysis of allele frequencies [genetic differences from one group to another] gives results that are essentially identical to the racial groupings established by traditional anthropology."

An honest evaluation of the data confirms the reality of race. But let us look at the arguments on the other side.

"We are 99.9 percent (or some other number) genetically identical; so there can be no race differences and no races."

Although it is true that human populations share roughly 99.9 percent of their genes, it is also true that humans share over 98 percent of their genes with chimpanzees, and a very high amount with animals like mice and dogs. Many of these genes produce basic body structures all mammals have in common; differences between organisms are caused by very small genetic differences.

Current evidence suggests that all the sex differences between men and women are the result of just one genetic difference-one gene (the Testes Determining Factor) out of an estimated 50,000-100,000! This would mean men and women are 99.998 to 99.999 percent genetically identical, yet no one suggests that sex is a mere "social construct." In like manner, the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees, which no one denies, can be described as 12 to 20 times the genetic differences between racial groups.

Tiny genetic differences can have huge phenotypic consequences because genes are ordered in a hierarchical fashion. Some genes are "master genes," and control the expression of a number of other genes, each of which may further control several other genes. Also, the expression of each gene is controlled by regions called "promoters" and "enhancers," usually located in front of the functional part of the gene. A small change in the promoter region of gene "X" can alter its expression. X may control genes A, B, C, D, E, F. Gene A in turn may control its own set of genes. Even if all of the genes other than "X" are identical between two groups, the one difference in "X" would be sufficient to produce large group differences.

It is not the quantity of genetic difference that is important, but the nature of the differences: which genes are different, in what ways they differ, and the consequences of these differences. Breeds of dogs are analogous to human races. It is likely that different breeds are as close genetically as different races of humans, but there is no doubt that these subtle variations result in significant differences in appearance, intelligence, and behavior.

It is also worth considering that a butterfly and the caterpillar from which it developed are 100 percent genetically identical! The genes do not change; the enormous differences between caterpillar and butterfly result from the activation of different genes at different times. This should give some pause to those who think a 0.1 percent difference in tens of thousands of human genes "makes no difference."

"There is more genetic variation within human groups than between groups; therefore, group differences are invalid."

This is another very popular argument that, although true, does not at all mean that race is of no significance. The flaw in this argument is the same as in the "99.9 percent argument," in that it stresses quantity-genetic "bean counting"-rather than the importance of genetic differences and their consequences. Indeed, there is more genetic variation within groups than between groups, but if this variation does not influence the expression of important genes, it is not of much consequence. There is considerable genetic variation between siblings and between parents and children, but this does not alter the fact that they are more closely related to each other than to strangers.

Once again Prof. Whitney has demonstrated the absurdity of the "variation" argument. He points out that one could take the total genetic diversity contained within the population of Belfast and a troop of macaque monkeys and give it an index of 100 percent. Surprising as it may seem, more than half of that diversity will be found both in the population of Belfast and in the monkey troop. There is great genetic diversity even between two individuals who are very similar to each other. This does not, of course, mean that Irishmen are more like macaques than they are like their neighbors, though this is precisely the way the there-are-no-races advocates use the argument when they apply it to humans.

Prof. Whitney explains that just as in the case of the genetic differences between men and women, "the meaningful question about racial differences is not the percentage of total diversity, but rather how the diversity is distributed among the races, what traits it influences, and how it is patterned." Small genetic differences can translate into important physical and behavioral differences.

"Population variation is continuous and human traits vary across a spectrum, so discrete racial entities do not exist."

This is a scientific way of saying that since hybrids (racially or ethnically mixed populations) exist, no single race exists. This is an amazingly popular argument, even though it is easily refuted. No one has ever thought the existence of hybrid populations of animals means these animals cannot be classified into distinct groups. This is self-evident. Your dog may be a mix of German Shepherd and Great Dane, but this does not mean there are no German Shepherds or Great Danes. The existence of dog hybrids means only that different breeds of dog can mate and produce offspring. Dogs and wolves-separate species-can mate and produce offspring but it is still easy to tell a dog from a wolf.

There are certainly places in which there has been much human mixing and where there are racial gradients-Central Asia, Latin America, North Africa. The existence of hybrid populations in these areas in no way disproves the existence of other populations that are genetically more differentiated-in Europe, the Far East, and sub-Saharan Africa.

This "continuous variation" argument is so illogical it is a wonder anyone takes it seriously. The existence of mixtures does not invalidate the existence of the original components of mixtures. The fact that red and yellow can be mixed to produce orange hardly means that red and yellow are illusions or do not exist. Although racial gradation is far from being a perfect and continuous gradient, even those variations in nature that do lie along such a gradient can be classified into distinct groups. The continuous variation of light frequencies in the rainbow, for example, are easily grouped into the distinct colors that virtually all people recognize.

"All human populations are mongrels, there is no such thing as a pure race; thus, there is no such thing as race."

This argument is related to the previous one, except that it says we are all hybrids, so there is no such thing as race. First, no scientists talk about "pure" races. What does racial "purity" mean, anyway? It is true that certain populations are more genetically differentiated and distinct than are other more hybridized groups. If we consider Englishmen, Central Asians, and Koreans, we can make the relative statement that Koreans and Englishmen are more genetically (and phenotypically) distinct and differentiated than Central Asians, who are in some respects intermediate between East Asians and Europeans.

This does not imply that either Koreans or Englishmen are "pure," which would presumably mean they can all trace their ancestries to a single population at a certain time. The English, for example, are a predominantly Nordic population made up of Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Normans/Vikings, Romans, and possibly early Mediterraneans. Many European groups are similarly composed of multiple related strains; if having an ancestry of different but relatively similar European groups makes someone a "mongrel," then indeed we are all mongrels. But this does not invalidate in any way the concept of race, or the fact that the various "mongrel" populations are still genetically and phenotypically distinct from each other and thus are separate races. Both genetically and physically, Englishmen clearly belong in the European group and Koreans in the Northeast Asian group.

The "we are all mongrels" arguments fails in two ways. First, the various stocks that have gone into producing many of today's ethnic groups were relatively similar to each other, so it stretches the definition of the word to call them "mongrels." How different were the Anglo-Saxons from the Celts? Likewise, would a person of mixed English and German ancestry be considered a "mongrel?" French-Italian? Do we call the millions of white Americans of mixed European stock "mongrels?"

Second, mixtures of related stocks can stabilize over time, and form a new, unique, and separate ethnic group, race, or breed. Such is the case with the various European ethnic groups, formed by mixtures of related ethnic strains. Europeans could be bred for hundreds-perhaps thousands-of generations without producing offspring that look like Africans or Asians. The reverse is also true. Even if today's races are the result of ancient mixtures the mixtures are distinct and extremely stable.

"Population differences are superficial and only skin-deep."

This is simply not true. Many consistent group differences have been found in intelligence, behavior, brain size, resistance to disease, twinning rates, speed of maturation, etc. Prof. Arthur Jensen has gathered irrefutable proof of racial differences in average intelligence. In Race, Evolution and Behavior Prof. Philippe Rushton has not only documented the large number of other racial differences but shown how they fit the varying reproduction strategies followed by different racial groups. Sometimes the race-does-not-exist argument appears to be a desperate attempt to shut down the argument about racial differences that the left has clearly lost. Since egalitarians have nothing to say in the face of mountains of evidence for racial differences, they have suddenly shifted their ground and try to pretend that race itself does not exist.

Even the most anti-racist medical doctors recognize that transplant donors and recipients often have to be matched not just on the basis of race but on close ethnicity within race, because inter-racial transplants are likely to be rejected. They also know that people of different races react differently do the same drugs and suffer from different diseases. To say these differences are only "skin-deep" is completely at odds with reality.

"There has not been enough time for racial differences to have evolved."

This is an odd argument because there has clearly been enough time for physical differences to evolve. Pygmies and Norwegians presumably once had a common ancestor but are now so different from each other a biologist from another planet might well think them different species. This argument therefore is an attempt to deny differences in average intelligence or other mental traits. In Why Race Matters Professor Michael Levin shows that the IQ difference between Europeans and black Africans has had more than enough time to develop during the estimated 4,400 generations since the two groups split from a common ancestor. According to his calculation, it would have required a rate of selection per generation of 0.000106 against recessive genes, a very small rate of genetic change that is the equivalent to a change in 11 individuals per 100,000 per generation. In nature this is an extremely slow rate of evolutionary change.

"The white race-like all the others-is a social construct."

Here we begin to see the motivation behind all of the "there is no such thing as race" nonsense. If people of European descent can be convinced that race does not exist, in particular that their race does not really exist, there will be no resistance to the displacement of whites by the forces currently at work in America, Europe, and elsewhere. People will not defend something they have been convinced is not real.

If-against their own instincts and the clear evidence of their senses-whites can be made to think race is an illusion they can have no reason to oppose across-the-board integration, miscegenation, and massive non-white immigration. If whites are mixing with and being displaced by people who are really no different from themselves nothing is being lost.

The irony, of course, is that when it comes to "affirmative action"-policies that penalize whites-the very people who say race is a social construct insist that it is a valid basis for preferential treatment. People who say race is not biological somehow have no difficulty claiming to be "black" or "Asian" or "American Indian" if there is an advantage in doing so.

Nor in the vast majority of cases is there the slightest disagreement about who belongs in which race. Children can distinguish race unerringly by the age of two or three. Nature is parsimonious and does not often endow its creatures with senses to distinguish things that do not matter. An inborn ability, acquired at a very early age, of who are "our people" and who are not is essential to group survival. Any attempt to override or downplay that ability is a direct attack on the group itself.

Needless to say, it is only whites who parrot obviously absurd notions about race and who pretend that indifference or even disloyalty to race is a virtue. Non-whites have a healthy consciousness of race and know that it is a fundamental part of individual and group identity. They must be hugely amused by the potentially suicidal silliness they hear whites urging each other to believe.

The claims of certain demagogues notwithstanding, Europeans are both a cultural and a biological reality. Like all racial and ethnic groups they have the right to preserve that reality and to resist efforts to obfuscate science in an attempt to eliminate races in fact, as well as name

[JamesBond007]

I mean if you completely failed to fight off imperial and colonial powers and prevent them from dominating you maybe you kinda are inferior?

* FACT: The average white IQ is 100; the average American black IQ is 85; the average African black IQ is 70 (borderline retarded). There has never been a civilization worthy of the name founded by blacks, and blacks have not even been able to retain the civilizations which have been created for them by whites ("white colonialism"). Note: Contrary to black propaganda, the ancient Egyptians were not black -- their sculptures, portraits and mummies all clearly show Caucasian features. Second note: Critics commonly claim that blacks score low on IQ tests because such tests are culturally biased. In fact, however, as black Prof Walter Williams has pointed out, blacks actually do BETTER on tests that are culturally biased.

[Anglo-Celtic]

I see. Why do you hate White babies?

[Anglo-Celtic]

The name was from a long time ago, but ok.

It's a great name. You're a great satirist, and it's fun to read great parodies.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

* FACT: The average white IQ is 100; the average American black IQ is 85; the average African black IQ is 70 (borderline retarded). There has never been a civilization worthy of the name founded by blacks, and blacks have not even been able to retain the civilizations which have been created for them by whites ("white colonialism"). Note: Contrary to black propaganda, the ancient Egyptians were not black -- their sculptures, portraits and mummies all clearly show Caucasian features. Second note: Critics commonly claim that blacks score low on IQ tests because such tests are culturally biased. In fact, however, as black Prof Walter Williams has pointed out, blacks actually do BETTER on tests that are culturally biased.

I take issue with Black and Black African IQ scores for a few reasons. I'm about to eat so I might come back to this later.

[Voskos]

A...

Many of them became like this after posting on here for years. And yes they're mostly reactionary, ironically though they view themselves as politically moderate. I don't blame them, I blame the world they evolve in.

Hell, even in non european countries right now everyone's racist and sticking to their own people. It's pathetic but that's how it is. Poverty is one of the factors here, since the current pseudolibertarian system of wealth inequality basically always needs a pseudoargument to reproduce itself.

The only thing that's really free in their world (the world that they , ironically, support) is bashing foreigners/mentally ill people, people who failed their carreers etc.Bashing the weak.

And here's where the final factor weighs in:
pack mentality , the mentality of the agressively, idiotically, egitistically narcissistic crowd that is being dominated by the infallible elites.

[vader]

this is the one time i'll agree with a furry.

[JamesBond007]

Many of them became like this after posting on here for years. And yes they're mostly reactionary, ironically though they view themselves as politically moderate. I don't blame them, I blame the world they evolve in.

Hell, even in non european countries right now everyone's racist and sticking to their own people. It's pathetic but that's how it is. Poverty is one of the factors here, since the current pseudolibertarian system of wealth inequality basically always needs a pseudoargument to reproduce itself.

The only thing that's really free in their world (the world that they , ironically, support) is bashing foreigners/mentally ill people, people who failed their carreers etc.Bashing the weak.

And here's where the final factor weighs in:
pack mentality , the mentality of the agressively, idiotically, egitistically narcissistic crowd that is being dominated by the infallible elites.

The principal axiom -- and fallacy -- of the philosophy which in the present day goes by the name of liberalism is that any given human life  possesses infinite value. It is this axiom which explains the liberals' eagerness to feed the starving third-world masses, in spite of the fact that such feeding will not stop starvation, but will make it all the worse once an infusion of food has made it possible for those who are starving to add to their numbers. It is this axiom which explains the liberals' abhorrence of the death penalty, even for those persons who have committed the most heinous and despicable crimes. It is this axiom which explains the liberals' opposition to war, even when the enemy is clearly opposed to the democratic principles which make the liberals' self-righteously resounding protests possible. And it is this axiom which so arouses the liberals' anger when scientists, in the study of their carefully-gathered statistics, conclude that some racial, ethnic or other groups may be inferior to others, thereby implying that -- since the value of some people is less than that of others -- that therefore not all those values are indeed infinite. "There is, however, a notable exception to the above axiom, which is that liberals, in favoring a woman's right to abortion, do not seem particularly concerned with the lives of the unborn. I am not sure why this exception has arisen -- or indeed that it is an exception, as liberals may well be split on the issue -- but my suspicion is that it has much to do with liberal opposition to religion, and particularly the liberal distaste for the views of religious fundamentalists on abortion, who maintain that every fetus possesses that apparently-imaginary entity known as a 'soul'. "Because of this seeming exception, we may avoid use of the above-stated axiom and conceptualize the liberal dilemma in a somewhat different but possibly more enlightening way: We may say that liberalism is given to  taking the easy and short-sighted way out, rather than trying to seek a  long-term and more permanent solution to problems. In a general way this is manifested in all the cases cited above: (1) For starving people, the immediate solution to their anguished cries is to simply feed them, rather than to suffer thru the longer-term (and actually more humane) process of letting them starve. (2) For criminals, the easy solution is to heed their heart-rending pleas let them go free, rather than to consider the long-term consequences of doing so. (3) For war, the easy short-term solution is to do nothing, rather than to take up arms in a conflict that will be full of blood, sweat, toil and tears. (4) For allegations of racial inferiority, the easy and short-term solution is to tell everyone that they are just fine and in no way inferior, thereby avoiding any immediate conflict with the many groups whose variance from the norm insures that many will be inferior in many ways in comparison to others. (5) In the case of abortion, the easy and short-term solution is simply to get rid of the fetus which, tho it may be a person in some sense, is clearly not enuf of one to stand up and complain. "We may extend the above observations concerning the liberals' tendency to accept the easy short-term solution by noting several other significant liberal positions which accord with this analysis: (1) The tendency of liberals to shy away from disciplining their children is an immediate and short-term solution to their children's unhappiness, but fails to give the children the basis for self-imposed discipline which they will need later in order to adapt to the extra-familial world. (2) The reluctance of liberals to force their children to master basic educational skills in favor of studying whatever the children's little minds find interesting again satisfies the immediate desire for short-term happiness of both parents and children, but fails to address the long-term problem of the children's acquisition of necessary skills. (3) The liberal horror at telling ethnic or other jokes in which someone is made fun of satisfies the short-term need to be inoffensive to others, but ignores the long-term need to deal with the incongruities and perceived differences (and offensiveness) of others. "It is, I think, the short-sighted outlook of liberals which makes those of a different stripe feel that liberalism is one of the most revolting moral doctrines imaginable.

The essence of the criminal mentality is that it seeks immediate rewards without regard to long-term consequences. It is the criminal who wants to rape rather than date, to take the money and run, or to shoot now and ask questions later. Because criminal behavior is always characterized by such incredible short-sightedness, it is not altogether unreasonable to wonder whether criminality does not reside in the physical architecture of the criminal's mentality and emotionality, and to conclude that it is something akin to -- and just as innocent as -- a severe case of myopia

[JamesBond007]

this is the one time i'll agree with a furry.

"When will they ever learn?"

The seductiveness of liberalism is that the great majority of its positions represent what is right taken to a wrong extreme. In race, liberals are right to think that men should be equal before the law, but wrong to think they are equal in intelligence, behavior, racial characteristics or in any other substantive way. In gender matters, liberals are right to assert that women should not be chained to hearth and home, but wrong to think that women can be just like men or that most women would be happy in a role other than that dictated by 'anatomy is destiny'. In sexuality, liberals are right that sex does not have to be rigidly limited to marriage, but wrong to think that sex is merely another form of recreation such as picnics or quoits. In homosexuality, liberals are right to assert that there is no argument about taste, and that there is no reason to regulate the behavior of consenting adults in private; but wrong to assert that homosexuality is equal in social desirability to heterosexuality, that homosexuals are fit for familial relationships such as marriage and child-raising, or that homosexuals belong as scoutmasters, soldiers, teachers or the like. In religion, liberals are right that God is dead, but wrong to think that an institution like religion, which has proved its value and staying power over thousands of years of social evolution, can be safely destroyed without first developing new institutions which will produce equally effective moral suasions and social stability. In short, by being half-right, liberalism has been worse than completely wrong, because what came before -- no matter how mistaken in some cosmic sense -- had at least passed the test of time, while liberalism has not only failed every test to which it has been subject, but is on the verge of leaving the world's greatest civilization in ruins, and in the process extinguishing the small but very special group of men and women who produced that civilization -- the white race -- in a genocide of the rising tide of Turd-world color.

[JamesBond007]

I take issue with Black and Black African IQ scores for a few reasons. I'm about to eat so I might come back to this later.

race is a major division of the human species. Its members, though differing from one another in many minor respects, are nevertheless, as a whole, distinguished by a particular combination of features, principally non-adaptive, which they have inherited from ancestors alike as they are themselves. These distinguishing features are most apparent in body, where they are both structural and measurable, but manifest themselves also in innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development as well as temperament and character.

Like many White people, I once thought that the only difference between the races was the color of skin. After all, I had been taught this in school as well as by the many television programs which either directly or indirectly promote this idea of racial equality.

However, as I grew older, I came to think twice about this idea, and as I learned more about the world (I had an avid interest in history), it became clear to me that if the races were truly “equal”, they would have contributed to the world equally. Also, it became clear to me in my contacts with other races that the other races did not think or act the same as White people. There was a definite difference between us and I later learned that these differences are caused by biological differences.

There are only two ways people can be equal. One way is to be the same physically; the other is to be the same mentally. Considering the former first, are people the same physically? No. We have tall and short, thin and fat, young and old, White and Black, strong and weak, fast and slow, plus all sorts of mediums and in-betweens. No equality is to be seen among individuals. As to differences among races, there are many differences such as head shape and facial features, physical maturity at birth, brain formation and cranial capacity, visual and auditory acuity, body size and proportions, number of vertebrae, blood types, bone density, length of gestation period, number and distribution of sweat glands, rate of infant development of alpha brain waves, fingerprints, ability to digest milk, hair forms and distribution, odor, colorblindness, genetic diseases (such as sickle cell anemia and Tay Sachs), galvanic skin resistance, pigmentation of the skin and eyes, and susceptibility to infectious diseases.

If there are this many physical differences, it would be silly to think that there would be no mental differences, and indeed we do find that they not only exist, but are of great significance.

The brain is the most important organ in the human body. It comprises only 2% of our total body weight but uses 25% of all the calories we consume. The brain never sleeps; it works around the clock keeping the body functioning. Besides the thinking process, it operates the heart, respiratory and digestive systems, and directs the body’s resistance to disease.

In his epic book The Story of Man, Professor Carleton S. Coon (former President of the American Association of Anthropologists) wrote that the weight of the average Black brain is 1249 grams, compared to the weight of 1380 grams of the average White brain, and that the average cubic capacity of the Black brain is 1316 cubic centimeters, and was 1481 cubic centimeters in the White Man. He also found that brain weight and size is greatest in Whites, with Orientals second, Blacks third, and Australian aborigines last.

The differences in brain size between the races is in large part due to the differing sizes and shapes of the skull. Any anatomist, for example, can look at a skull and instantly tell you if it belongs to the White or Black race, and this is borne out by the fact that when a person’s body is found, that person’s race can be determined even if it is completely decomposed and only the skeleton is remaining.

The Black skull is narrow with a low forehead. It is not only smaller but is thicker than that of the average White. The hardness and thickness of the Black skull has much to do with their success as boxers, for they can generally absorb more blows to the head than their White counterparts. The area of the brain termed the cerebral cortex is the most recently evolved and most complex part of the brain. It governs the most advanced types of mental activity, such as mathematical ability and other forms of abstract reasoning.

Dr. Coon wrote that there is a considerable difference between the Black brain and the White. The frontal lobe of the Black forebrain is less developed than that of the White. Thus, their ability in the performance of thinking, planning, communication, and behavior is more limited than in Whites.

Professor Coon also found that this area of the Black brain is thinner and less grooved on the outer surface than in that of a White person, and that the development of this part of the brain ceases at an earlier age in the Black, thus limiting further intellectual advancement. Nor is Dr. Coon alone in his conclusions.

The following researchers, in the listed years, using different procedures, showed the differences to run from 2.6 to 7.9% in favor of Whites: Todd (1923), Pearl (1934), Simmons (1942), and Connolly (1950). In 1980, Khang-cheng Ho and associates, working at the Case Western Institute of Pathology, determined that White men had brains 8.2% larger than those of Black men, while White women had brains 8.1% larger than those of Black women. (Women’s brains are smaller than men’s if measured absolutely, but larger in proportion to their body size).

Even more important than brain size are differences in brain shape, fissuration, the number of pyramidal neurons, and supra-grandular layer thickness. It has long been known that the depth of fissuration is related to superior intelligence, and the brains of Whites have deeper fissures in the frontal and occipital regions. In 1932 and 1934, studies by F.W. Vint showed that the supra-grandular layer of Black brains is 16% smaller than it is for White brains.

Black infants mature faster than White infants. Their motor skills develop earlier, along with their mental alertness, but they later start falling behind, so that by the age of five, Whites have not only caught up, but have developed a 15 point I.Q. advantage. By age six, the larger brain size of young Whites is clearly evident. (Of all the I.Q. tests that have ever been given, most show the I.Q. differences to run from 15% to 23% with 15% being the more common).

Studies by Todd (1923), Vint (1932 & 1934), Pearl (1934), Simmons (1942), Connolly (1950), and Ho (1980 & 1981) showed major differences between the races in both brain size and development, and hundreds of psychometric experiments have again and again confirmed the 15 point average I.Q. advantage that Whites hold over Blacks. However, such studies are very much discouraged today and there would be a frenzied effort to suppress them if they did take place.

Indeed, studying the biological differences between the races seems to be one of the only topics in our country that is “off limits” to talk about. The findings of Professor Audrey Shuey, in a monumental compendium of 50 years of I.Q. tests entitled, The Testing of Negro Intelligence, are that the Black, on the average, scores 15 to 20 points lower than Whites. This research has recently been confirmed by the bestseller, The Bell Curve.

The average overlap (in which exceptional Blacks score the same as Whites) is only 11%. Equality would require a 50% overlap. According to Professor Henry Garrett, author of Children: Black and White, for every one gifted Black, there are 7 to 8 gifted Whites. He also states that 80% of gifted Blacks are of mixed blood. In addition, the researchers Baker, Eyseneck, Jensen, Peterson, Garrett, Pinter, Shuey, Tyler, and Yerkes all agree that Blacks are inferior in reasoning and abstract thought, numerical calculation and conceptual memory.

It should also be noted that those of mixed blood score higher than those of pure Black ancestry but lower than those of pure White ancestry. This explains why light-skinned Blacks are almost always more intelligent than dark-skinned. An easy way for you to examine whether this is true or not is to look at the “Blacks” on television, particularly on news programs. Many of them have as much or more White blood than Black, and as a result, are more capable of communication more on a par with Whites.

The argument has been made that I.Q. tests are somehow “culturally biased.” However, this can be easily refuted by the fact Asians right off the boat from Asia, totally unaccustomed to our culture (which certainly cannot be said of American Blacks), outperform Blacks on these tests. Also, American Indians, who clearly are the most socially disadvantaged group in America, also outperform Blacks. Lastly, poor Whites with few advantages still outperform upper class Blacks who have been thoroughly integrated into our culture.

Furthermore, every I.Q. test which has been given by the U.S. Dept. of Education, all branches of the Armed Forces, state, county, and city boards of education, have always found that Blacks test on an average of 15 points lower than White children. If the tests were culturally biased, it would be practically impossible that each test, which contains a great variety of questions, could possibly be biased to such a precise degree.
The chart below from the Society for Research on Child Development demonstrates that the vast majority of Black children score in the lower range on I.Q. tests.




As an I.Q. of 85 to 115 is considered normal, it can be seen that the majority of Black children fall below this. It can also be seen that many more White children than Black have I.Q.’s of more than 100.


The difference in raw brainpower is not the only mental difference between Whites and Blacks. According to J.P. Rushton’s analysis, Blacks are more excitable, more violent, less sexually restrained, more impulsive, more prone to crime, less altruistic, less inclined to follow rules, and less cooperative. The crime statistics, the impulsive and violent nature of most crimes that Blacks commit, the fact that integrated schools require more discipline and oftentimes the presence of police than do all-white schools, and the more willingness on the part of Blacks to participate in riots would all seem to confirm Mr. Rushton’s observations.

Thomas Dixon, author of the book which became probably the greatest movie of all time, “The Birth of a Nation,” perhaps put the idea of racial equality between Whites and Blacks best when he wrote the following:

”Education, sir, is the development of that which is. Since the dawn of history the Negro has owned the continent of Africa—rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet. Yet he never picked one up from the dust until a White man showed to him its glittering light. His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled. A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use.

”He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour. In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud. With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail!”


At one time, when there was much more expression of free thought and the media was not so thoroughly under Jewish control, the books of science and reference readily expounded upon the facts above. The Book of Popular Science, Vol. 11, 1931 edition, page 515, for example, stated the following under its “Chapter on Primitive People”:

”The verdict is that the Negro does belong to an inferior race. His brain capacity is poorer, its construction simpler . . . It is in this respect that alcohol and other drugs which paralyze self-control are his enemies.”

A second example is a direct quote from the section on “NEGRO” in The Encyclopedia Britanica, 11th Edition, page 244:

”The colour of the skin, which is also distinguished by a velvety surface and a characteristic odour, is due not to the presence of any special pigment, but to the greater abundance of the colouring matter in the Malpighian mucous membrane between the inner or true skin and the epidermis or scarf skin. Excess of pigmentation is not confined to the skin; spots of pigment are often found in some of the internal organs, such as the liver, spleen, &c. Other characteristics appear to be a hypertrophy of the organs of excretion, a more developed venous system, and a less voluminous brain, as compared with the white races.

”In certain of the characteristics mentioned above the negro would appear to stand on a lower evolutionary plane than the white man, and to be more closely related to the highest anthropoids (apes). The characteristics are length of arm, prognathism, a heavy massive cranium with large zygomatic arches, flat nose depressed at base, &c.

”Mentally, the negro is inferior to the white. The remark of F. Manetta, made after a long study of the negro in America, may be taken as generally true of the whole race: ‘the negro children were sharp, intelligent, and full of vivacity, but on approaching the adult period a gradual change set in. The intellect seemed to become clouded, animation giving place to a sort of lethargy, briskness yielding to indolence. We must necessarily suppose that the development of the negro and white proceeds on different lines. While with the latter the volume of the brain grows with the expansion of the brainpan, in the former the growth of the brain is on the contrary arrested by the premature closing of the cranial sutures and lateral pressure of the frontal bone.’ This explanation is reasonable and probable as a contributing cause...”


Why has this information been removed? Simply put, it has been removed because it did not conform to the agenda of the government and media. Please remember that until the 1960s, racial differences between the White and Black races were almost universally known and accepted. These are the biological facts of race. I realize that they may not be “politically correct” but facts are no less facts if they are “politically correct” or not.

It is not hatred to state these biological facts that the White race possesses more intellectual capability than the other races any more than it is hatred to state that humans possess more intellectual capability than animals and some animals possess more intellectual capability than other animals. Science has nothing to do with hatred, but with reality.

[vader]

James Bond typing up essays in less than 1 minute. Pure genius :cool: :coffee:

[aherne]

Go and attend next gay parade

[SouthDutch7991]

* FACT: The average white IQ is 100; the average American black IQ is 85; the average African black IQ is 70 (borderline retarded). There has never been a civilization worthy of the name founded by blacks, and blacks have not even been able to retain the civilizations which have been created for them by whites ("white colonialism"). Note: Contrary to black propaganda, the ancient Egyptians were not black -- their sculptures, portraits and mummies all clearly show Caucasian features. Second note: Critics commonly claim that blacks score low on IQ tests because such tests are culturally biased. In fact, however, as black Prof Walter Williams has pointed out, blacks actually do BETTER on tests that are culturally biased.

Not even modern Egyptians are "black" unless you follow strictly retarded hypo-descent classification. They're middle easterners who cluster 80-90% with Europeans. Ancient Egyptians had much less southern arab admixture and thus plotted even closer, with population averages at somewhere around 93-96% Caucasian. It's sad how afrocentrists claim egyptians when many actual sub-saharans were enslaved by those very same ancient egyptians. Egyptians were the contemporaries of greeks, today they still are the most caucasoid country in North Africa.

[lei.talk]

You guys are a bunch of reactionaries
who don't want to read a book
that actually criticizes
the theory of there being human phenotypes.

[Incal]

Nice try but this forum is mostly made of introverts, aspies and autists (and those are the milder cases) so they will choose to ignore what you just posted, even if you are right. They'd rather live in the world they've already created and feel comfortable with than trying to get out of their "comfort" zone, even if that means the truth.

[White Swan]

Well, this. changes. everything.
Thank you for letting us know.

And I mean that with the utmost sarcasm.

[Universe]

Third World has never gotten the chance to truly ever develop due to years of imperialism, colonialism, and genocide from imperial superpowers at the time being).
That may be right, but I'm not sure about it. Ethiopia was never colonized (apart from a 5 year long occupation by Italy during ww2), yet its development level is average by subsaharan standards. That tells me Africa's development would've been the same without colonization.

Also, Asia had the same development level as Africa from early to mid 1900s, but then Asia started to develop.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

I'm not sure about that. Ethiopia was never colonized (apart from a 5 year long occupation by Italy during ww2), yet its development level is average by subsaharan standards. That tells me Africa's development would've been the same without colonization.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGHhzSwC1Js

[Eliades]

Read one of my replies. The user was from a long time ago. I'm not a furry anymore lmao. Plus, I don't know how to change my user

Marxist and former Furry, should tell us just how ignorant you are lol

[White Swan]

The locals will even tell you they do not have hospitals, schools, and infrastructure because they "did not have the opportunity to be colonized by whites".

And didn't the post-apartheid government beg the white farmers to return after pushing them out?

As a woman, I know it feels all warm inside when you think you are comforting the afflicted, but you should really make sure that's what you are actually doing before getting too carried away.

[rothaer]

Hello. I am here to inform you guys that this "anthropology" you guys are into is nothing other than white supremacist pseudoscience that is rather VERY outdated. This "science" you guys also use is also widely discredited by modern science and it is due to human adapation to certain climates, etc. This isn't anthropology. Rather, this is promoting the very idea that certain "phenotypes" of peoples exist and there are reasons as to why they're inferior and why some are more superior by applying those said "sciences" (eg, y'all think blacks are probably more closely related to non-human primates than are "Nordids", thus they must have a lower IQ). While some of this may be quite interesting to look at and is fun to talk about it, this is essentially promoting scientific racism. At the end of the day, all of the sources you use and the books you read covering these issues are nothing but from very outdated sources that come from a white nationalist perspective.

You are right in that point that phenotype athropology is pretty overrated here. Also there is some irrationalism about people being obsessed with that. Such phenotype athropological approaches do have a legitimation for some restricted purposes, population statistics etc., but are indeed outdated as referring just to a very small and also unimportant (the shape of a nose separately has no impact on the living conditions of a population) proportion of human inter-group hereditable variety.

But I'm not sure that this helps your agenda. Because scientifically somewhat fuzzy defined races are replaced by very up-to-date genetic clusters, that are able to perfectly catch and define human differences, also inter-group ones. To put it provocatively: This will be the new and perfectly founded "racism".


The real reason as to why these "subhumans" you're speaking of seem more "inferior" to whatever your race is is due to the fact that the Third World has never gotten the chance to truly ever develop due to years of imperialism, colonialism, and genocide from imperial superpowers at the time being).

See the applicable answer by "Universe".


You exploited them, and you guys have no clear understanding of the theory of dialectical materialism, in which poorer and impoverished countries are the way they are due to existing material conditions caused by capitalism and the First World exploiting the weaker ones (no, I do not like the EU like you uneducated righties think. The EU is literally a woke Euopean colonialism club that actively aids in exploiting nations that are less developed.

Half true. In the competition the weaker ones are getting exploited, yes, but if you compare exploited and not exploited Third World countries, you will note that the not exploited ones regularly do have an even lower development level. So exploition is no legit excuse for being underveloped.


You guys are a bunch of reactionaries who don't want to read a book that actually criticizes the theory of there being human phenotypes.
And no, I am not a troll trying to fuck with you guys. This is actually coming from a far-left perspective, and I really think this website is truly just the Gen X version of /pol/.

Fuck every one of you reactionary chuds. Touch some grass and read theory.

Unfactual.

[Roy]

Don't cry. Or maybe do cry ... we love your saltiness!

And no it is inherently ''white supremacist'' either unless you see it everywhere as a result of being woke, it's only a context that one can superimpose on it and nothing more but you make here a sweeping generalisation instead because it suits you.

[offbrand]

So stunning and brave. :picard2:

[Miko]

Hello. I am here to inform you guys that this "anthropology" you guys are into is nothing other than white supremacist pseudoscience that is rather VERY outdated. This "science" you guys also use is also widely discredited by modern science

In which way is discredited??? Because in the era of the "racism" scare after the World Wars and magically we realized 2 centuries of science were somehow all wrong?
Because we "discovered" that the very similar Africans were our ancestors about the same time we were accepting the dispossesion of Whites in South Africa???
Or is it because Stephen Jay Gould falsified the measurements of skulls???
Maybe it's because CANCEL CULTURE, that's been for decades silencing racial differences and inventing a fake "antirracist" One World.



The real reason as to why these "subhumans" you're speaking of seem more "inferior" to whatever your race is is due to the fact that the Third World has never gotten the chance to truly ever develop due to years of imperialism, colonialism, and genocide from imperial superpowers at the time being). You exploited them, and you guys have no clear understanding of the theory of dialectical materialism, in which poorer and impoverished countries are the way they are due to existing material conditions caused by capitalism and the First World exploiting the weaker ones

What??? You really believe that you can fund a conquest of the Americas and an Industrial Revolution with nothing???
ENGLAND industrialize first, then colonize to gain resources, but INDUSTRIALIZED FIRST.
Spain revolutionize Indigenous (and World) agriculture.


Believing that the 3rd Wolrd is because the 1st World is not seeing that certain countries aren't just able to have done anything else that exporting raw materials.
And denying the fact that Euro countries worked what we got by saying "it's the 3rd World" is bullshit.