It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by squandered
Is there another way to define a good slave then base it on the best IQ scores?
I know that this isn't n actual distinction, but IQ and obedience go hand in hand.
Bad data will give you bad thoughts.
~The proportion of Jews with IQ’s of 140 or more is estimated to be about six times the proportion of any other ethnic group. ~ Although Jews constitute only about two-tenths of one percent of the world’s population, Jews won 29 percent of the Nobel Prizes in literature, medicine, physics and chemistry in the second half of the 20th century. So far this century, the figure is 32 percent.
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by vcwxvwligen
What a surprise, not all revolutions create stable democracies.
The patriot act was for and by elites, and I can only wonder what made you put it with two historical revolutions.
Traits of white people, ok I will name a few, we like to eat bread, as opposed to rice,
we also tend to drink a lot of milk.
While religions do flourish among us, we tend over all to not be all that religious. We don't have ancient civilizations who worshiped their rulers as gods, and over all we tend to embrace democratic styles of government.
The age of Catholic induced divine rights of kings was a relatively short period in European history.
I could go on, but either you get it or you don't. Probably you will cite a few bad examples and throw in some strange third and pretend you said something intelligent.
Funny how those 1 or 2 people usually lived in ancient Greece or a sprawling estate during a more "chivalrous" time in history.
What in the world ever gave you this idea? Oh ya, the place where you were brain washed, er, eduamacated. Look up a biography of Newton, he wasn't an aristocrat.
Civilizations have sprang up all over the world and done great things, and created great philosophies, built by people of all colors and many cultures.
Belittle George Washington Carver all you want, he made some great contributions to science. A black man developed the cotton gin, which was also a major contribution.
Dr. Alejandro Zaffaroni, born in Uruguay, pioneered the drug delivery market, given special entrepreneur award by Clinton.
When is the last time an Asian American invented anything? Are you kidding? What planet do you live on? Look up the list of latest Nobel prize winners.
Seriously, you need to do something to erase your programming, because clearly you have been programmed by the PC crowd.
Originally posted by bowtomonkey
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
The thing is white people made it work.
There was something in their culture that brought the best ideas to the fore - say 1% of what was there to be had. We all know how many wasted ideas died in cultures that didn't see the benefit but your use of white people belies a real problem in your thinking.
I have a tasty tangent. If one guy sees the way to jet propulsion, 20 more do at the same time. The race is on. Some of your examples are proof of that... This is factual - there were many at the same time on that one.
Me, I've been led to dreams with blueprints I still can't understand, but I was 10
To me, I've two thoughts. 1. I could help win a war but my ideas may go wasted and, 2. some other more worthy recipient gets the glory, later - as and when.
There's no point going to extremes to highlight the people who had an idea but didn't use it. Sure they are as great as the next guy, but they failed in their society and they failed. That's how history writes itself. Smarter people than you or I understand nothing else. Call them elites.. your shortfall paints you as a post-digger. Massa never brought you high. What are you fighting?
I hate PC
You can be what you what to be.
Just not on your terms.
This is how the elites bastardize history. They give all the credit for accomplishment to a few people, when in fact all of the great accomplishments that have advanced human beings have came from cultures, not superior individuals. All great discoveries and new developments came from periods where everyone was asking the same questions and looking for the same answers. Numerous people contributed to the developments, most of them anonymously.
This is how they paint average working class whites as undeserving of their success, that they are lucky to be born in a rich nation. For the elites to admit that white culture, not the elites, is responsible for most of the success of the first world nations, would reveal that the elites do not deserve their lofty positions.
Originally posted by frugal
The scottish are the morrally toughest and strongest folks who work incredibly hard on the planet. Why
do you think the Romans built Hadrian's wall? Who do you think ran the Brittish out of America?
I know my Scottish ancestrial roots, we are frugal hard, hard workers. Don't go to Kentucky unless
you are a strong person. No terrorist will ever go there the people are tough!
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Long-lost late replies for the win!
Why? Because they're white? Hardly. See, this is where you, and Poet, and several others just aren't connecting. Race does not confer super powers. Unless you count such things as an abundance of body hair, dry earwax, long shins, or steatopygia as "super powers."
All these achievements by white people; They are primarily a product of money.
Europe got a technological jump over the rest of the world starting in 1493, and due to the way technology works, managed to retain this technological advantage, in great part by actively using that technology to prevent the advancement of people elsewhere.
None of this is due to white people being white. If it were, Europeans would have already been vastly ahead of the world. But they weren't.
In almost every way, Europe in 1491 had parity with other places in the world - The Maghreb, the Ottoman Empire, India, Samarkand, China, Japan, the Sultanate of Banten, Mexica, Cahokia, Zimbabwe, Mali, and Tawantinsuyu were all completely comparable to the Holy Roman Empire or Spain or England at the time. Europeans at the time said as much. There were no pretensions of white superiority, or even of European superiority. They openly admired and envied Timbuktu and Istanbul, lusted for the wealth of Ceylon and China, and were amazed by the scientific and cultural achievements in Morocco and Egypt. The Spanish were completely awestruck by what they found in the New World, as were the English even though the English only saw the burned hulk of what once was.
Were the Kievans and Poles non-whites at the time, and suddenly "became" white sometime in the mid-16th century? Obviously not.
There is no inherent quality to white people that gave them an advantage. Not cultural, not biological, not mystical. Even the best contender for such a quality - having a greater resistance to the effects of old-world diseases than the Indians did - is a trait shared by pretty much everyone through Europe, Africa, and the southern half of Asia, and thus hardly qualifies as a "white" thing (not that you guys would claim it anyway, given that such a resistance requires generations of living in diseased conditions.)
Europeans "made it work" because they managed to rob the bank first.
Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by poet1b
I would agree to you. The white culture needs to be revived, not revised, revived. It needs to come back, we need to bring this kind of culture back to the people. If we don't, then we will join in the mindless masses of people that blatantly obey the words of the Elite.
Gold doesn't create technology. If all it took was gold, than the Spanish should have easily defeated the Brits, because they had a lot more gold.
What changed wasn't the amount of gold, but Spain's attempt to take control of Europe. This pushed the Brits and the Dutch into the colonization of the Americas. They were so successful because they had better ships and better weapons.
More importantly, they had thrown off the yoke of Catholicism.
Great Britain was the only really industrialized nation in the world; that her predominance in commerce, transport, insurance and finance was great, and in most cases increasing; that she possess the most extensive colonial empire ever seen, yet one which was to multiply in size during the century; and that, despite occasional scares, her naval strength and potential was virtually unchallengeable. What was more, she managed to maintain this dominace, this peace of Britain, at a cost to the nation of £1 or less per annum per head of population in defence expenditure - equivalent to somewhere between 2 and 3 per cent of national income. Rarely has such a position in the world been purchased so cheaply. This special place of Great Britain in the 19th century was rooted in her industrial revolution, and in the fact that her main European rivals had been crushed by 1815 through a long series of wars.
Britain enjoyed effortless naval supremacy in the years following 1815 not only because every one of the other powers found it impossible to build and man the same number of warships, had an insufficient merchant marine to back it up in time of war, lacked adequate overseas bases and possessed an industrial strength that was infantile by comparison, but also because they made little effort, either individually or collectively, to mount any sort of prolonged challenge to thie mastery. Circumstances had given the British manifold advantages which they were not slow to seize; yet to a certain extent their worldwide maritime predominance existed by default. Their rivals simply did not wish to spend the time and energy necessary to curb it. One reason for this was that Britain's activities in the post-Napoleonic decades were not a great danger to other nations.