Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I notice black people tend to be more emotional and expressive and Asian less, and whites intermediate. That's not a knock on any of them.
I don't think emotional is useless, it can be tied to creativity. You can be intelligent and emotional.
Lol....I say that emotions are non nonsensical and you trip all over yourself to respond that you think blacks are more emotional than others.....lol. If I said eating cabbage impedes the ability to think.....you would chime in to note all the black people you see eating cabbage.....lol.
The founding fathers knew that the country was to become an economic melting pot of free will and decisions hence the drafting of the Constitution.
Now the same people to whom the Constitution was specifically written to protect the freedoms of want to tear it down and bite off their noses to spite their face. The leftist-socialist mentality in a nutshell.
And the same socialist minded people use the tenets of Jesus thinking he was all for free rides and handouts.
Jesus preached that you can not overcome hatred with hatred and to be vigilant against hate and evil.
Jesus did not condone holding grudges, violence or hate but to be vigilant against hate and not participate in it.
Republicans are trying to uphold the Constitution and preserve what is left of what has created the most possibility for freedom to exist in America. Democrats want to continue to give their freedoms away to thesocialist-welfare-globalist state and rewrite history and the Constitution to fit their globalist uber-capitalist,economy to fit their dysfunctional agendas.
Race has very little to do with the principles that are happening. Extremism and irresponsibility do.
How can the Democrats be both socialists and uber-capitalists?
I think a lot of whites separate themselves from white extremist groups due to not sharing the emotions of hate, all while sharing most of their reasoning concerning race. They don't have a problem with many of their beliefs about blacks, for example, as much as they have a problem with their hatred and solutions.
Its a deflection to focus on hate. The real connection is in reasoning and beliefs. Its no coincidence that these white extremist groups are almost all conservatives/libertarian/Republican. The rhetoric and mantra of the political right supports the belief and aims of white supremacy. Other than hate, the mainstream white conservative is not all that different from white nationalist. I mean, these extremist groups agenda is best carried through republican ideology.....which is why they vote republican. This is not to suggest that there are no racist white liberals, but rather, I am suggesting that the philosophy and mantra of the Republican/conservative movement implicitly supports white supremacy, at least as it relates to blacks.
I think it's that people who believe in white nationalist sentiment are few in numbers and generally ostracized from the body politick, so the only way for them to have a place is by blending in with Republicans. It would be obvious except that people on the Left spend so much time castigating the right-wing as a whole as being racists. So what happens is the true white supremacists never have to defend themselves or stand out on their own because the left is so busy calling any and every Republican who has ever suggested maybe we should enforce immigration policy or cut entitlement spending a racist. Over time the right-wing seems cozier than they are with white supremacists than they are because they have something in common: they're both accused of being racists all the time.
The more people any label applies to, the less extreme it becomes.
Your posts are the queen of strawman arguments and muddling issues.
LOL, how was my response a strawman when you specifically mentioned haplogroups and genetic clusters and the fact you are a "racial realist" lol.
As I stated - realistically there is only one human race.
If you look at genetic clusters, especially in regards to us Americans, our genetic ancestry does not 100% correspond with our "race." My paternal great grandmother is from a European haplogroup, yet she and her kin on this side of my family are of the "black" sociological race.
The concept of "race" is sociological, not biological. A black person, genetically can be of a European haplogroup.
Again, would you consider them to be "white?"
I'd also mention that I read an article recently about how butt hurt some white supremacists get when they take DNA test and are sad about being part African lol. Lots of white people in this country have an African haplogroup on their paternal side due to a centuries old African ancestor. Ironically, there was a finding that President Obama's maternal side (his white mother) may be a descendant of John Punch, one of the first documented African slaves in the Colony of Virginia. John Punch had children by a white woman.
I personally have a lot of "free" black ancestry. Two of these lines come from cohabiting white women with black men in the late 17th/early18th century. I have black female cousins, who are darker than me who descend from a European female ancestors and male cousins who look white who descend from an African man.
If you are a "race realist" how do you classify people who are sociologically "black" but who have a paternal European haplogroup or someone who looks "white" and identifies as "white" but who has an AFrican paternal haplogroup.
The way someone looks is not a full proof indicator regarding their genetic makeup.
Because constant warfare among themselves led to the advancement in instruments of war (necessity being the mother of invention) and thus having more advance instruments of war allowed them to usurp groups who had inferior weaponry.
So there you have it. Plenty of other people were warring "among themselves," but it's only specific group of people that came up with "more advance instruments of war" that "allowed them to usurp groups who had inferior weaponry." But it didn't stop there, did it? The very same group of people came up with Industrial revolution, and many other well-panned inventions, that reinforced their superiority over other groups and allowed them to take advantage of them. In fact if you'll look in the Old Testament, that's what it's all about - some nations getting upper hand over other ones, when God chooses to work through them. And when he wants to work through them, he gives them victories/knowledge and so on. All while other nations go in exile, or are destroyed, or get subjugated, while someone else enjoys the fruit of their labor. So no big revelation here - that's how things set to work .( I just wanted to explain to you why I think it's all the temporary arrangement, that's coming to an end.)
So now when we've established this fact, in order to explain to you why I think it's only a temporary arrangement that's coming to an end, let's go back to my post # 187 and going fast forward, let's dwell specifically at the 1950ies, that some still consider the "Golden Age of America."
The Whites of this country enjoyed the comfortable, successful life ( the wealthy in particular of course,) during that era, being the ultimate beneficiaries of the WWII. At that, they enjoyed it under the very specific conditions of the "New Covenant" of Christianity, with women knowing their place and men being firmly in charge of the society. Under THESE specific conditions (pay attention please,) Blacks were still segregated, still riding in the back of the bus ( in each and every sense of this word,) and overall looked down upon.
And why this exactly was happening? Let me make a wild guess - when the tenets of Christianity have been removed from American society, and the stigma of pre-marital sex have been removed after the "sexual revolution" of the sixties, who started having children out of wedlock in far greater numbers than White women? Black women of course, ( actually all women of color I'd guess,) but we are talking about Blacks here specifically. And specifically - about the "nucleus family," where mothers and grandmothers are playing the leading role of raising the children. Why? Because I suspect that the dynamics of relations between men and women of White and Black Americans are different to begin with.
White Americans = weaker women, more caring men. Black Americans = stronger women, less caring men. Being brought in chains into White Christian society, the Blacks started simply following the pattern of "Christian marriages", which was ORIGINALLY not theirs at all. Likewise, after the "sexual revolution," the White American women took upon the role, which was originally not theirs.
And this swap couldn't have happened, without the "left" ideas of "sexual liberation" and civil rights movement. And that's why the "minority rights" and "feminism" are interrelated issues for American "left."
Now counting to one-two-three, who do you think is the ultimate beneficiary of this swap, and who/what sets the White American men ( who used to be in charge of their society,) against each other at this point, fighting for all these "left-right" ideas?
I will extend my thought a bit. It was none other than White wealthy woman recently, that was running for the presidency of the United States. And the United States as we know it so far, rule the world.
Now what does the bible/New testament say about the role of a woman? I suspect that what we are observing today in the US, ( the election of Trump, the rising turmoil between the "right" and the "left," between the Whites and the minorities,) is a backlash against the "swap" of the sixties - or rather today's direct consequences of it.
I hope I explained to you why the "order of things" we currently live with, is not going to stick around for long.
So there you have it. Plenty of other people were warring "among themselves," but it's only specific group of people that came up with "more advance instruments of war" that "allowed them to usurp groups who had inferior weaponry." But it didn't stop there, did it? The very same group of people came up with Industrial revolution, and many other well-panned inventions, that reinforced their superiority over other groups and allowed them to take advantage of them. In fact if you'll look in the Old Testament, that's what it's all about - some nations getting upper hand over other ones, when God chooses to work through them. And when he wants to work through them, he gives them victories/knowledge and so on. All while other nations go in exile, or are destroyed, or get subjugated, while someone else enjoys the fruit of their labor. So no big revelation here - that's how things set to work .( I just wanted to explain to you why I think it's all the temporary arrangement, that's coming to an end.)
So now when we've established this fact, in order to explain to you why I think it's only a temporary arrangement that's coming to an end, let's go back to my post # 187 and going fast forward, let's dwell specifically at the 1950ies, that some still consider the "Golden Age of America."
The Whites of this country enjoyed the comfortable, successful life ( the wealthy in particular of course,) during that era, being the ultimate beneficiaries of the WWII. At that, they enjoyed it under the very specific conditions of the "New Covenant" of Christianity, with women knowing their place and men being firmly in charge of the society. Under THESE specific conditions (pay attention please,) Blacks were still segregated, still riding in the back of the bus ( in each and every sense of this word,) and overall looked down upon.
And why this exactly was happening? Let me make a wild guess - when the tenets of Christianity have been removed from American society, and the stigma of pre-marital sex have been removed after the "sexual revolution" of the sixties, who started having children out of wedlock in far greater numbers than White women? Black women of course, ( actually all women of color I'd guess,) but we are talking about Blacks here specifically. And specifically - about the "nucleus family," where mothers and grandmothers are playing the leading role of raising the children. Why? Because I suspect that the dynamics of relations between men and women of White and Black Americans are different to begin with.
White Americans = weaker women, more caring men. Black Americans = stronger women, less caring men. Being brought in chains into White Christian society, the Blacks started simply following the pattern of "Christian marriages", which was ORIGINALLY not theirs at all. Likewise, after the "sexual revolution," the White American women took upon the role, which was originally not theirs.
And this swap couldn't have happened, without the "left" ideas of "sexual liberation" and civil rights movement. And that's why the "minority rights" and "feminism" are interrelated issues for American "left."
Now counting to one-two-three, who do you think is the ultimate beneficiary of this swap, and who/what sets the White American men ( who used to be in charge of their society,) against each other at this point, fighting for all these "left-right" ideas?
I will extend my thought a bit. It was none other than White wealthy woman recently, that was running for the presidency of the United States. And the United States as we know it so far, rule the world.
Now what does the bible/New testament say about the role of a woman? I suspect that what we are observing today in the US, ( the election of Trump, the rising turmoil between the "right" and the "left," between the Whites and the minorities,) is a backlash against the "swap" of the sixties - or rather today's direct consequences of it.
I hope I explained to you why the "order of things" we currently live with, is not going to stick around for long.
LOL....
as I said......a planet full of Africans would last much longer than a planet full of Europeans. You all have to keep inventing stuff because you keep destroying stuff. There is really no net gain in the long run. You advance the present at the cost of the future. That is why you all are trying to find other planets to support life.....because you know you are going to destroy this one....LOL....well.....that's not really funny.
You see....your progress is really an illusion. What you consider "Advancement" is the interim period between getting the benefits of something.....and paying the cost. There are no net gains in closed system.....
The weird thing is that amongst all "peoples", whites have a lower IQ than two of the races they have traditionally hated. First in line are Jews, then Asians. That's a BIG percentage of the world's population right there.
Using their measurements of superiority, they should be approving of Jews and Asians instead of wanting to bring down the average IQ.
Who hates Jews and Asians?
Where do people come up with this stuff? Are you reading comic books with bad guys who are white and they're targeting Asians and Jews?
And how intelligent does it look when posting blanket assertions about an entire group of people as you've done in your post?
Whites absolutely ARE taught that they are victims.
It is this perceived victimization that is at the root of the disaffection shown by that 20-year-old that ran over that young woman.
It is this perceived victimization that is the root of Dylan Roof's murderous rampage.
It is this perceived victimization that led to 45 being elected by a body of poor whites in Appalachia and elsewhere who believe that they wouldn't be poor if someone else hadn't gotten what was duly theirs.
"More likely to help themselves?"
Absolutely not.
More likely to sit on their rears and demand that opportunity is brought to them on a silver platter is what they are.
Oh man. I can't believe what I'm reading.
So you cherry pick a couple of whackadoos and based on those people you judge all white people?
Look... truth to be told, ANYONE in the US born in the poor family has to work harder ( much harder) than those who are born in families with money.
This goes to Whites as much as to Blacks, but Blacks have to "prove themselves" more, because of their stigma in the US.
This part is true.
Some women were told they had to work harder.
Some younger people were told they had to work harder.
Some Mexicans were told they had to work harder.
Some black people were told they have to work harder.
Telling anyone they have to work harder than others in order to prove themselves creates a mindset in people that is wrong. It fosters resentment, bitterness, and racism, sexism, ageism - based on what?
Tell your children they have to work hard in order to get ahead, period, instead of filling their minds with bull crap.
LOL, how was my response a strawman when you specifically mentioned haplogroups and genetic clusters and the fact you are a "racial realist" lol.
As I stated - realistically there is only one human race.
If you look at genetic clusters, especially in regards to us Americans, our genetic ancestry does not 100% correspond with our "race." My paternal great grandmother is from a European haplogroup, yet she and her kin on this side of my family are of the "black" sociological race.
The concept of "race" is sociological, not biological. A black person, genetically can be of a European haplogroup.
Again, would you consider them to be "white?"
I'd also mention that I read an article recently about how butt hurt some white supremacists get when they take DNA test and are sad about being part African lol. Lots of white people in this country have an African haplogroup on their paternal side due to a centuries old African ancestor. Ironically, there was a finding that President Obama's maternal side (his white mother) may be a descendant of John Punch, one of the first documented African slaves in the Colony of Virginia. John Punch had children by a white woman.
I personally have a lot of "free" black ancestry. Two of these lines come from cohabiting white women with black men in the late 17th/early18th century. I have black female cousins, who are darker than me who descend from a European female ancestors and male cousins who look white who descend from an African man.
If you are a "race realist" how do you classify people who are sociologically "black" but who have a paternal European haplogroup or someone who looks "white" and identifies as "white" but who has an AFrican paternal haplogroup.
The way someone looks is not a full proof indicator regarding their genetic makeup.
Is there a point in this jumbo? White Americans average 95% genetically match to European whites. That some people are mixed race in varying degrees doesn't preclude that there are different races. It specifically affirms it. It's not my position to define who is "black" or "white" or mixed or what.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
