Thread: Eugenics: Why are "racist" white countries so much richer?

Originally Posted by Heroclitus

Britain, full of jutes, angles, saxons, italians, africans, normans, celts, picts, scots, vikings and jews in the eighteenth century.

The jutes, angles, saxons, and vikings were very closely related. And actually the celts made much less of a genetic contribution to the islands than many people would like to believe, at least according to modern genetic studies. The primary genetic stock in the British Isles before the year 900 was Brythionic (welsh, scotts). True the Romans had conquered the half the island before then, but not many Romans actually settled to island. As for the jews, they certainly had an influence of british banking and finance, for better or for worse according to the opinions of some historians.

There were no Poles or French People anywhere zero. No French people not even in Louisiana??? COOL! *TILT*

Can I change my username to arkan-sass with no silent (s) RSVP.

Just a couple of comments on the chart. Scotch is a whisky. Scottish is a nationality and not a race. Mexican and West Indian populations come from completely different races. Not many blacks or mulattos in Mexico, not many indians in the West Indies. The spaniards killed them all and imported black slaves. All the other caucasians listed aren't races either, they are nationalities just like caucasian Scottish. The chart wasn't very well thought out. I would tend to ignore whatever it is trying to say. I would, in fact, tend to disbelieve the pie charts.

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

The average Japanese, Korean, and coastal Chinaman score on average 5 or 6 IQ points higher than the average European.

However, the average African scores about 30 points lower, the average Amerindian about 20 points lower, and the average Aboriginal Australian about 35 points lower than the average European.

See where I am going with this?

______________________________ __

Feast on this:



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

Yeah, it all comes down to priorities. I laugh when I see some people that think Orientals are more intelligent. What I see is cultural priorities. I find that the Chinese, Japanese, and Jews tend to emphasize education over sports.

I majored in math in college and in one class, everyone thought the two oriental girls that sat down front would be top of the class. It came down to me and a Caucasian girl. As hard as I tried, I would always be one or two points behind her.

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

If Eugenics do not matter, as most politicians and ivory tower academics would have you believe, why are the countries that historically employed Eugenic policies (Germany, Canada, Australia, etc.) so much better off than countries where Eugenic policies were never in place (Mexico, Brazil, the Caribbean, etc.)?

>>>

Could it be that centuries of smart, scientific breeding, as opposed to the wanton race-mixing festivals of the lower latitudes, gave certain European and North Asian peoples genetic advantages that aided in the spreading of their respective civilizations?

>>>

Guns, Germs, and Steel.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

The jutes, angles, saxons, and vikings were very closely related. And actually the celts made much less of a genetic contribution to the islands than many people would like to believe, at least according to modern genetic studies. The primary genetic stock in the British Isles before the year 900 was Brythionic (welsh, scotts). True the Romans had conquered the half the island before then, but not many Romans actually settled to island. As for the jews, they certainly had an influence of british banking and finance, for better or for worse according to the opinions of some historians.

What a pile of racist drivel. And very inaccurate, Brythionic languages were of course Celtic languages and the genetic make-up of Britain is largely Celtic. And the Scots did not speak a Brythionic language at all but spoke Gaelic, being an Irish people. It may be that Pictish was a Brythionic language as was the language of Cornwall and Cumbria. What was remarkable by the standards of communication in history was how people of different ethnic backgrounds and different languages, expanded through trade and migration. In fact civilization can be measured by the extent to which peoples traveled, intermarried and mixed. The sea was the link between peoples and the ultimate domination of the world by Britain was based on the triumph of human curiosity, ambition and endeavor over the narrow inward looking chauvinism of the xenophobe.

Empire was at once an oppressor and liberator: its ships carried soldiers but also ideas (that shaped Sun Yat Sen for example), which Empire's exploiters could not contain. And so hundreds of millions of people now look to Britain with cultural affection (like Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese freedom fighter and daughter of great anti-imperialist) And rightly Britain welcomes this embrace. We have always been a hotchpotch though. We were ruled by foreigners and strangely this means that we always have been an incalcitrant and resistant people. As Tom Paine said: "Though not a courtier will talk of the curfew bell, not a village in England has forgotten it". We knew which foreigners were our enemies, they ruled us and made us foreigners in our own land. And eventually we broke them down and assimilated them, from Simon de Montford onwards.

So we have found much solidarity with the stranger, have developed a strong tolerance for the emigrant and have taken their ideas and melded them with our own. This is the greatness of Britain, that we really are a rich and diverse nation, and by the standards of every age, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman, Elizabethan, Victorian or today, we have been an outward looking people, looking out at the sea and its waterways, welcoming the new to our shores. Britain gave the world industry, liberty and law. And Britain stood up against the Nazi jackboot, the stunted brutality of a Teutonic myth, the grunting sheep of nations who would follow their leaders down the path of darkness, inward looking and cowards all. It was us half-breed, mischling, mongrels who gave the world modernity, whether Celt, saxon, Dane, Jew, gypsy, African, Hugenot or whatever. Those who lived looking in on themselves stagnated and withered. We have always had the right dreams:

Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a' that,)
That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth,
Shall bear the gree, an' a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that,
It's coming yet for a' that,
That Man to Man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that.

Robbie Burns 1795

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

No, I am proud of my heritage.

So you personally were the driving force behind all of those things?

Originally Posted by Zook

Zimbabwe was the "bread basket" of Africa when a White man was their leader. Now it's a hell hole of poverty and violence like most of the other black-run African countries.

Europeans developed their systems of statehood naturally and of their own accord, whereas it was all thrust on the Africans by colonialists.

I think Africa is actually comparable to Eastern Europe, though, where corruption and poverty are still common, which is pretty much the case in both parts of the world. So, are Slavs also somehow inferior? Or is there something else going on? I think it comes down to historical momentum and autonomy.

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

No, I am proud of my heritage.

That's silly. You don't know what contributions members of different ethnicities from around the globe have made in the development of these things. You think Apple and airplane manufacturers only hire WAS(P) engineers?

Originally Posted by Heroclitus

It's interesting how the vulgar science of neo-Nazi mythmakers crumbles at the most superficial examination.

The modern world was founded by Britain, probably the world's most ethically diverse nation for its time, full of jutes, angles, saxons, italians, africans, normans, celts, picts, scots, vikings and jews in the eighteenth century and further racially enriched thereafter. Pax Brittanica, or the system of global governance that gave the world English as its international language, and liberal capitalism as its dominant political system, passed to Pax Americana. This was even more ethnically diverse than Britain, where global dominance, wealth and technology was driven by a "mongrel nation" that was so ethically diverse that the Nazis hated it with a vengeance.

It is certainly true that British and American intercation with new races has involved much bloodshed, tyranny and oppression. But it is equally true that it has been the thrilling opening of their societies and economies to these different racial types that has enabled them to flourish like no other. Ultimately Britain and the US triumphed over the monoracial hegemonies of Germany and Japan. Progress has been spurred on sharply by racial diversity and will continue to be so. This makes sense, because the de-stabilizing exposure of one culture to another shakes up the pot and innovation will inevitably emerge. The individuals who have led this have invariably been immigrants as well.

well, they have a common culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglicanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_monarchy
http://projectbritain.com/behaviour.html

gotta love the term "bottom burps" BTW. LOL