On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:32 PM, Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 11:21:25PM -0800, Kurt Buff wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:33 PM, <jam...@echeque.com> wrote: >> > Whites, on the other hand, are better at technological creativity than >> > anyone, even East Asians (though the Japanese are pretty good), and, >> > closely >> > related to this, better at war. The current technological superiority of >> > East Asia is substantially dependent on white and Eurasian emigres, among >> > them emigres fleeing the tribal violence and political repression in >> > California and Silicon Valley. >> > >> > The current white inferiority at war is the result of women in the >> > military. >> > If we return to the early nineteenth century style army, where logistics >> > are >> > classified as camp followers rather than soldiers, and part of the duty of >> > camp followers is getting soldier's dicks wet, where the soldiers are all >> > male and the camp followers disproportionately female, we will return to >> > winning. >> >> I used to be much more an admirer of Rand - nowadays not so much. >> However, sometimes quotes from her are so very apropos: >> >> “Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes.” >> -- Ayn Rand >> The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism >> >> "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It >> is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to >> a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and >> characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal >> body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, >> not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and >> actions of a collective of ancestors. > > It is politically correct to acknowledge that the black man is > genetically predispositioned to physical prowess - running for > example. > > To acknowledge genetic features such as the sloped/slanty eyes of the > asian, is also accepted as politically reasonable. > > But to ever suggest that the genetic characteristic of mental (as > opposed to physical) aptitude is ascribed to the white fella's > genome, is an immediate cause for summary lynching; > > as the "enlightened" Ayn Rand here apparently vehemently belittles, > “Racism is … crude primitive collectivism … [and ascribing/ saying > that] intellectual traits are produced and transmitted by internal > body chemistry”; > > Aka, acknowledging that genetics plays any part, whatsoever, in > mental aptitude, is one of the greatest sins of our time! > > Quite incredible when you think about it, becuase either the fact is > true, or it is not, and in either case, the age of reason was meant > to result in humans who simply enquire as to what the fact truly is, > rather than how quickly can we crucify someone who ponders or tests > such a trait, to determine its veracity. > > Simply astounding, but this is the "modern" world where white skinned > folk (men in particular) are vilified in general, even for broaching > such subjects. > > > Welcome to The Ministry of Truth.
All human characteristics can be plotted and fall on a bell curve, including intelligence. this is also true of definable sub-populations. I'm guessing that you fall within 1/2 standard deviation from the mean for intelligence, one way or the other. Let us presume that, for the purposes of argument, that the median for African-Americans is shifted left 1/2 standard deviation (which I don't believe to be true, but bear with me). If both of my assumptions are correct, that means that millions of African-Americans are smarter than you. That must really burn, to know that. Kurt