Equality is ultimately just discrimination reversed: South Africa

[Debaser11]

I acknowledge racial differences, however, racial differences are due to climate and human adaptation surrounding that. Races are best adapted to their environment, same with races of animals, that's how natural selection works. Yeah, sure, anyone of any race can survive anywhere now, because of technology, but back in the days when humans were still crawling around in caves and using rudimentary stone tools, that was not the case.

Many of them, yes. Some mutations just happen that are selected independently of whether or not they necessarily affect survival in a particular environment. Not every phenotype is an environmental tool.

Even the mental differences can be chalked up to environment.

To a certain degree, yes. But I absolutely reject the idea that intelligence is not heritable. For example, if Einstein grew up in Papua New Guniea (and had his exact genes of course), he still would have been a very smart cookie. It's almost certain that he would have been the smartest person around his neck of the woods. Yet, it's very likely he would not have formulated his theory of relativity because of his environment. Yes, the environment helps intelligence but you have to have a baseline biological intelligence to work in Einstein's field to begin with. I could never be Einstein even if I had the best education in the world.

And I think there are more Europeans and Asians that demonstrate this higher level thinking than Africans (especially sub-Saharan negroes). Anthropological findings, while not conclusive, do give hints as to why this is the case (gray matter in the brain, cranial capacity, etc.) People accept other biological claims with less evidence than what some psychologists and anthropologists have uncovered about race. No one wants to be a "racist."

The claims have been made that Europeans and Asians have higher IQs than Africans, but this is not entirely the case.

Except that decades of research have shown that such is the case. Consistently. Over time and space. On what grounds do you so readily dismiss their findings? Even Dr. James Flynn and Dr. John Naisbitt (two of the most prominent figures that have debated racial IQ with the likes Dr. Philippe Rushton and Dr. Arthur Jensen) seem anemic, outmatched, and not as well-versed on the subject.

IQ tests measure logical intelligence, which Eurasian people tend to be stronger in. People of African extraction, though, tend to have higher spatial intelligence.

IQ tests are also the largest predictor (out of any test) of socio-economic standing. They'd be a lot more in vogue if it weren't for the uncomfortable clustering of results by race. They are tests that measure important levels of thinking. I know at some levels the U.S. government, when it comes right down to hiring for important positions, will test for IQ. Don't hold me to this, but in the U.S., I think the FBI and the Marines both issue some sort of IQ test.

People of African extraction have higher spatial intelligence?! Every scholar I've read that's written specifically on the subject of spatial intelligence has written that it's East Asians who score the highest on spatial reasoning. I have never run across one claim (even from people like Flynn) that Africans score HIGHER on such an intelligence test. Caucasians (especially Ashkenazi Jews) tend to beat the East Asians pretty soundly on verbal tests, though (which are obviously a bit more "culturally biased"). Again, I HAVE NEVER seen anyone claim that Africans (especially negroes) exhibit better spatial intelligence. They always cluster at the bottom near Aborigines.

There is a reason for this: the wildlife in Eurasia is easily domesticable which allowed for agriculture and husbandry, which requires logical intelligence. The wildlife in Africa, not so much, so Africans had to rely on hunting which requires spatial intelligence.

Did you read Guns, Germs, and Steel? That's what this argument sounds like.
Are you claiming here that it was both higher "logical" intelligence and a friendlier environment that lead to modern European society?
There are many criticisms of Jared Diamond's book, which makes a huge deal about environmental impacts in the interest of downplaying racial mental differences. (And Diamond clearly had an agenda; he actually stated in the film based on his book that Papua New Guineans are "AT LEAST" as intelligent as Europeans....right...)

I think the part of your claim in bold underplays how difficult it was for the Eurasians to domesticate animals that we take for granted now while it overplays the difficulty involved with domesticating African animals. No one was stopping Africans from domesticating Zebras the way Eurasians domesticated horses, for example. Even the farming techniques in sub-Saharan Africa were primitive by Eurasian standards.

And yes, I have heard the claim that Africans have better vision. I have heard Dr. William Shockley allude to such studies which show that African negroes have better sight. That is not "spatial intelligence," though. Intelligence should not be in any way confused with better sight. And yes, it's very likely that the negroes with good vision were selected for due to the dangerous predators in Africa and the demand that hunting in the savanna would have had for sharp vision.

This difference can be seen in the ancient writing systems of Eurasian and African cultures, while the former use scripts, alphabets, or abjads which take logic to interperit, the latter use glyphs.

Don't conflate all African cultures. Egyptian and even Nubian culture are miles away from negro culture (which had no written language).

I actually wonder if there are any statistics out there on race an car accidents, because driving a car takes spatial intelligence as well. Would be interesting.

That's not all it takes to avoid accidents. You also need intelligence and prudence to avoid such accidents. I have little doubt blacks have a higher accident rate. I don't know this for certain. But I doubt their better vision (assuming that it is true and substantial) really makes much of a difference when many of them lack so many other important traits necessary to function successfully in a developed world.

I should also point out, though, that ancient Europeans did not have a concept of "whiteness". They saw themselves as whatever tribe they were in, and other people, even those who looked like them, as foreigners. The concept of "whiteness" only dates back to the 18th century or so. Not that old.

I understand. But again, I don't think that makes the term meaningless. And I think anyone writing about how Acadians are not Bulgarians is really missing the point. Years ago, Aztecs and Mayans had no concept of what a "Latino" was. They embrace the term today but still retain their own cultures within that umbrella term. Furthermore, I don't think it's fair to associate people who use the term "white" with the worst elements of white nationalism. Not every person that gravitates toward that term is a cultural vandal like I've seen implied in some of these posts.

[Psychonaut]

IQ tests are also the largest predictor (out of any test) of socio-economic standing. They'd be a lot more in vogue if it weren't for the uncomfortable clustering of results by race. They are tests that measure important levels of thinking. I know at some levels the U.S. government, when it comes right down to hiring for important positions, will test for IQ. Don't hold me to this, but in the U.S., I think the FBI and the Marines both issue some sort of IQ test.

I can't speak for the FBI, but before you can join the military (any branch), you have to take the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery which tests both general intelligence (the GT portion) and a range of specific intelligences. Different jobs require different types of scores, with the more intellectually demanding ones requiring a high GT. As I'm sure you've guessed, this means there's a stark demographic divide between my branch (which requires the highest GT), Military Intelligence, and truck drivers (which require the lowest).

[Curtis24]

Anyway, the problem with racial ideology is that its not necessary to prevent miscegenation, since modern day races self-segregate; and its totally unable to stop racial immigration or declining white birthrates, since the causes of both phenomena are deeply rooted in human nature, and are not caused(contrary to popular belief) by Leftist social engineering; nor can they be changed through education or any kind of mass movement.

So what's the point? The white race will preserve itself, albeit in much smaller numbers. European culture will be preserved in the areas that whites live in. Mass amounts of Third World immigrants will move into Europe and America, albeit they will live segregated from Europeans with their own cultures.

No amount of proselytizing will change these outcomes...

[Psychonaut]

No amount of proselytizing will change these outcomes...

I tend to agree with this, but perhaps for different reasons. Our decline can no more be prevented than can old age in any other type of organism. Athanasia is fiction.

[Debaser11]

Anyway, the problem with racial ideology is that its not necessary to prevent miscegenation, since modern day races self-segregate; and its totally unable to stop racial immigration or declining white birthrates, since the causes of both phenomena are deeply rooted in human nature, and are not caused(contrary to popular belief) by Leftist social engineering; nor can they be changed through education or any kind of mass movement.

So what's the point? The white race will preserve itself, albeit in much smaller numbers. European culture will be preserved in the areas that whites live in. Mass amounts of Third World immigrants will move into Europe and America, albeit they will live segregated from Europeans with their own cultures.

No amount of proselytizing will change these outcomes...

I'm pretty damned fatalist, but I'm not that fatalist.

Speaking for myself, I come off as more a racial ideologist than I am. Outside the forum, it occupies little of my time. For example, I'm bad at phenotype recognition and I have quite a racially diverse circle of friends--probably more so than the average person. (It goes without saying that these discussions do not really come up among most of these friends but some of the nonwhites are surprisingly more realistic about this stuff than you'd expect given how defensive about the subject Europeans are.) I actually think living in a diverse society has contributed a bit towards making me racially/culturally conscious. Though I have diverse friends, I don't buy the propaganda that the media shoves down my throat and I think my country has lost something precious from its past by following this model and hyping it as our greatest strength at almost religious levels. And contrary to what I you wrote, I don't think this was necessarily inevitable.


I also just don't like people downplaying race and then pulling a bait and switch and arguing in favor of racial quotas, affirmative action, and tax programs that disproportionately favor nonwhites. So if I come off as a racial ideologist here, it's because race has real consequences in the world we live in. For example, side-stepping the issue of race and then wondering why we have so many prisons is a bit disingenuous when you look at minority crime rates and then continue to import more and more of them into your country.

I believe race is at the nexus of a great deal of other political problems that need to be solved. Will a race war happen? I honestly have no idea. It doesn't seem likely but I wouldn't rule it out on some level. It may be framed differently. Not that I think they will lead us to a war, but look at the Tea Party crowd. They are the most angry group of people in the U.S. and they happen to be overwhelmingly white. That's not a coincidence but at the same time whatever struggle that emerges and perhaps breaks the U.S. apart may not be framed around race explicitly but it could be understood to be implicitly. It's too early to know.

Will race ever be talked about the way it should be? Again, not likely. Will the white race die out completely? Again, I don't know but it is constantly giving up ground in the U.S. and the longer it ignores racial reality, the less it will have if things do reach a critical mass as there become less and less areas to flee to in order to self-segregate. Like it or not, a large part of why the world is the way it is (in a good way) is due to white influence. It's hard for me to just be ambivalent about its decline. I love Western culture but I see little evidence that it can be sustained by nonwhites. It may be a losing battle, but I don't like to sit back quietly as you do and watch Europe and the U.S. change on the whole for the worst.

[Austin]

Anyway, the problem with racial ideology is that its not necessary to prevent miscegenation, since modern day races self-segregate; and its totally unable to stop racial immigration or declining white birthrates, since the causes of both phenomena are deeply rooted in human nature, and are not caused(contrary to popular belief) by Leftist social engineering; nor can they be changed through education or any kind of mass movement.

So what's the point? The white race will preserve itself, albeit in much smaller numbers. European culture will be preserved in the areas that whites live in. Mass amounts of Third World immigrants will move into Europe and America, albeit they will live segregated from Europeans with their own cultures.

No amount of proselytizing will change these outcomes...

I wouldn't say that. If things get bad economically then anything is possible, especially in terms of what before was supposedly impossible.

[Curtis24]

I agree, but for things to get economically bad enough that white Americans/Europeans would eject racial minorities from their countries, it would have to be a second Great Depression. That won't happen. Western economies are fundamentally strong because of geographic and cultural reasons that won't change within the next century. Even a small culturally Western minority can prop up a country economically, as South Africa shows...

Debaser: I'll respond to your post in more detail later, but first a different tangent...

I believe that Europe and America will become "multicultural", in other words different ethnic groups - including Western whites - will be allowed to practice their own cultures in different spheres within a single country. But for multiculturalism to really work, you need an authoritarian government, since in a democracy the majority will try to enforce their beliefs on everyone. I concede that WEstern governments, both in America and Europe, will become increasingly authoritarian precisely because of the need to manage racial minorities with non-Western attitudes. this point is worthy of its own thread really, but basically majority rule will be scrapped in favor of a system where the rights and culture of Westerners(not just whites, since I think many of the more prosperous minorities will become WEsternized) is maintained. Muslims and Mexicans can do what they want in their own neighborhoods, but they won't be able to democratically impose their beliefs on the white minority.

[Debaser11]

Yes, perhaps we need another thread with the topic more specifically geared toward where you'd like to take this discussion. I'd love to participate.

I'll just say, if I thought the races really worked the way a show like Law & Order had me believe they did, I'd be less fretful about the race situation. For a long time, I did swallow that media BS, too.

I share your view about democracy. My realization about democracy's defects hastened my transition from liberal (in the contemporary sense) political persuasions among other things.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

It's horrible that there are many of my countrymen who live in such poverty, without any help whatsoever from the state. Certainly moving.

However this video perpetuates some erroneous stereotypes that I want to address:

Afrikaners are not industrious outside of government help, etc.

Complete bullshit. The vast majority of Afrikaners have done very well after the fall of apartheid, exactly because they are so industrious and know how to look after themselves. But, as with most ethnicities, there is a class divide. The people in this video are not normally the types you hang out with anyway, whether they have a job or not. It is misleading to portray them as somehow representative of Afrikaners (although perhaps good in the sense that it would accumulate sympathy for the Afrikaner/white cause in SA abroad).

It's almost like gathering a bunch of Jerry Springer Americans, and portray them as your average American white person.

The vast majority of scientists, intellectuals and academics in SA are Afrikaners, not English-speaking whites.

Having said all this, the government official in the end is a prick and I would cut his balls off if I ever meet him face to face.

I was involved in obtaining social grants for the poor whites.
It is soooo difficult to bypass some frigging public official,who in all cases of females,walk around with a stupid wig just to look more European,but can not see beyond the plight of the white.
To me they have not changed in the 16 years they tried to run this country, from the time they came down the trees.

There is even discrimination by the majority of whites towards the poor whites.
Worst of all are the educated white kids adopting the kaffir behaviour of indiscipline,drugs,sex and shunning advice of their elders.
The English kids are the worst.

[Grumpy Cat]

There is even discrimination by the majority of whites towards the poor whites.
Worst of all are the educated white kids adopting the kaffir behaviour of indiscipline,drugs,sex and shunning advice of their elders.
The English kids are the worst.

That's not just in South Africa. You pretty much described Canada to a tee. Especially bolded.