Let's talk about Race

Consistent patterns are scientific. As opposed to the pseudoscientific garbage and lies from your side.

 

Look at my scenarios. I'm asking you if you believe that Blacks can not sustain an advanced society even if they had the wealth and resources and even if we selected for the most intelligent Blacks to run and live in this hypothetical society. You said Blacks can't do it which means that you believe that there is something about being Black that prevents Blacks from succeeding. You have deviated from a scientific position in to a purely ideological view which one can only interpret as racist. Unless you have some logical explanation for your claim it is not defensible.

What is it about Black people that prevents them from organizing an advanced society under any circumstances including having the wealth, resources and genetics to do so?

Answer the question. I really don't see a way out for you. You have to do some incredible mental gymnastics to defend your racist position as scientifically valid when my scenario controls for both environmental and genetic factors.

 

Your "scenario" doesn't "control" for anything and you're babbling.

 

Yes, it does. You just don't want to answer the question.

 

I'll give it a shot. Many African countries DO have the wealth and resources to be successful, yet are not.

Feel free to give your explanation for why you think your position isn't a racist one, even though "we" might breed the most intelligent blacks to run this speculative country.

 

Which African countries do you think have the wealth and resources to be successful?

There's nothing racist about what I'm saying. The position of Mikemikev and AmericanNationalist is that certain groups can't run successful nations presumably under any circumstances. So what I'm saying is, ok, let's do a thought experiment. Let's say that you give a group of Blacks all the wealth and resources of a first world nation. Additionally let's say that only intelligent Blacks (say IQ over 120) are allowed in to this country. Can they then run a successful nation? If not, why not? My thought experiment controls for both environmental and genetic factors. Even if Blacks were on average less intelligent for genetic reasons as racialists claim (we know there are intelligent Blacks so we can dispense with absolutes) we can still select for the most intelligent Blacks and run our experiment. If your answer is still no, Blacks can't run a successful country even under these circumstances then I want to know why. I think the obvious answer is that anyone who holds this position does so to maintain a racist ideological view and their position is not scientifically defensible.

Mikemikev and AmericanNationalist are clearly wrong. Blacks can run a successful nation under certain circumstances and they are just being racist to suggest otherwise.

 

What proportion of Blacks have an IQ over 120? Ever heard of regression to the mean? But I'll grant you that selecting only the top Blacks and creating a "country" (possibly on Ellis island) would be less dysfunctional. Nobody would dispute that. So what's your point?

You seem to just be dodging the realities and the point at hand with pointless fantasies.

 

Regression to the mean wouldn't be a factor because we could increase the population with higher birth rates and the new mean would be an IQ of 120. I'm glad that you concede that in my hypothetical scenario the country would be "less dysfunctional" indicating you are not totally biased/insane but as far as fantasies go AmericanNationalist's scenario was also hypothetical. He said that only Whites could rule a country like America because of genetic differences between races and I'm showing that this isn't true. Given the hypothetical opportunity to run the country any group can do it because all groups have intelligent people. They just need the right environmental conditions.

 

I guess AmericanNationalist is talking realities and not wasting time with hypothetical irrelevant imaginings.

 

No, his scenario is also hypothetical because no one is handing over America to Black people or anyone else to see if they can run the country.

 

These are all poor countries. They don't have the wealth to compete with first world nations.

There's nothing racist about it.

A) I am simply talking about providing the wealth and resources of a first world nation.

B) Racialists believe Whites can run a successful country whose populace is not too dumb because of low IQ folk. They believe Black countries are unsuccessful because the people are on average too dumb. What I'm saying is, ok, suppose they are right, then let's only allow smart Blacks in to this new country. Now can this Black nation be successful? Both environment (wealth and resources) and genetics (high IQ population) are controlled for. The population is still Black and the thought experiment answers the question of whether Blacks can run a successful nation. Mikemikev concedes that under these circumstances they can.

Try to understand why I proposed this thought experiment. I do not condone racist or eugenic policies. My point is that the idea that Blacks or any other group can't run a successful country under any circumstances is not scientifically defensible. The reason we don't see successful Black nations today is because of differences in environmental quality. It's not because Black people are too stupid to run a government. The modern global economy was shaped by European colonialism aimed at benefiting Europeans and that is why European countries are the wealthiest in the world today, not because they are smarter but because they stacked the deck in their favor. AmericanNationalist is the one being racist saying that Blacks can't run a successful country even if they were in power in America. I'm saying that being in power with the right wealth and resources is what makes you successful in the first place.

So you're saying that Black majority countries are not successful because of corruption? All of them?

 

They all have the resources to be rich and successful. America has not always been rich, but became rich over time. In part because of it's resources, in part because of it's culture, it's values.

Again, European nations and America built their riches, they weren't given them by people to provide an experiment, theoretical or no. They had systems that allowed and provided for both the hope and the reality of upward growth. They have both fought for other countries to have these same values, sometimes successfully, others not so much. The values a culture has is what makes the culture or nation what it is. Look at Zimbabwe, once the breadbasket for all of Africa. Today, it's a mess. Can you tell me what changed?

Pretty much, yes. The culture, the values. There is an assumption that everyone WANTS to be what you would classify as successful. Many of these people don't even consider it. They believe they are successful as they are, and just want to be left alone.

 

"Race" never mattered to the Militia of Rome; why should it ever matter to the Militia of the United States?

 

Tell that to Al Sharpton and his ilk. It's funny how whites like you think blacks appreciate your kowtowing.

 

Why would my skin tone make a difference. Or anyone elses? You seem to be aware of practises I haven't heard of, what is your expertise in Kow towing, is it like cow-tipping?

 

You've got to kow-tow if you want to hon-nob with the hoi-polloi

btw, kow-tow means "knock head," literally to bow down and knock your head on the ground.

 

My Korean friend told me the Chinese emperor forced the Korean king to kowtow until his head was bleeding.

 

Human races don't really exist

 

I agree; it is pretty much all about talk and not about achievement for the sole surviving species in the Homo genus.

 

Homo sapiens sapiens is a subspecies which can be divided into races. "Race does not exist" is Marxist nonsense.

 

human beings aren't different enough to categorize us into different races, like we can with dogs and cats.

 

I'd say the opposite is true, but the conclusion is the same. Human beings are so diverse both between and within groups that talking about race is pointless.

I mean, hell, DNA testing shows we're all mutts anyways.

 

what I meant was, the genetic difference between so-called "human races" is too small to be considered actual races.

the difference between dog and feline races is much greater than between human so-called races.

if one walks from central Africa, to the Middle East, to Turkey, through the Balkans, through central Europe, up to Scandinavia, one will see a very gradual but progressive lightening of skin color, eye color, and hair color.

if human races were real, there would be HARD borders with sudden and distinct changes in human phenotypes.

 

yeah but you'd need to have at least passing knowledge of high school level biology to comprehend that, which sadly is lacking in this forum...