Why the Elites hate white culture more than any other.

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.

You are all slaves to the elite.
Some of you just work for a lot less.
Slavery is the new religion.

reply to post by RRokkyy

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.

Portuguese immigrants from Goa, India, are the "smartest" people in the world, with those having IQs over 140 estimated to be approximately 11 times the proportion of any other ethnic group.

"Bad data"...indeed.

My comments regarding IQ in my previous posts go with the disclaimer that IQ testing is not what people think it is, and it's record of being an abused tool is clear. This probably goes double with data concerning the Jews. Here is a group that has a strong identity that has been exploited by our masters, and whose natural group characteristics are being harnessed for other purposes. Almost any "data" about such a targeted group should be considered suspect.

Some may not realize it, but a century ago, scientists might just have well spoken about the higher rates of Jewish retardation, due to presumed inbreeding that occurred in the European ghetto. Strange.

A hundred years from now, what will they be talking about? Well, my point isn't to say any particular group is "smarter" than another, although it's likely that such a thing is true, it's more about how this data is seemingly so manipulated, and manipulating.

Obviously, the whole issue of IQ is very complex, probably not well-suited for the typical discussions that might go on, but that doesn't stop it from enjoying a high place of honor in our thinking, and when the time comes to stir controversy, this tool of our masters has been well-prepositioned to do it's multifaceted job.

In the meantime, I think that IQ testing has been used to gather data considered useful by our masters. As others have pointed out, intelligence is by no means the only factor that would be involved in formulating the "perfect slave", but undoubtedly, it is a significant factor.

Now, back to the Jews. A whole thread could be devoted to how they are seemingly being used to play a central role by TPTB. Lots of reasons for it, but we don't want to derail the thread.

RRokkyy you provided an off-site quote about a rather "high" incidence of Jewish IQs over 140. Anyone reading it "should" be suspicious, right off the bat. It's clearly a bit of modern Jewish propaganda, IMO, but completely aside from that, the whole thing could have little scientific merit (although, no doubt they have something to back up, what they're pushing).

"What if" someone told you something similar about a different group, than the one "chosen"? Like in my ridiculous parody replacing Jew, with Port o'India. All of a sudden, things get clear. Exaggerations can have that effect, as long as they're set alongside a related exaggeration. But if we encounter the exaggerations alone, perhaps with a respected scientist's name tacked on at the end, sadly, many will simply believe it, on the spot!

Here's an important point, anyone who knows anything about IQ tests knows that they're notoriously worthless on the two extremes of the scale. In other words, just as it's difficult to draw a line between "imbecile" and "idiot" (the old technical terms), it is just as difficult to draw lines at the "genius" level.

As it was recognized many years ago, the IQ tests were always about the "middle" ground. Eugenicists used to openly write about such things, before Hitler came along, and an older version of PC came down, severely limiting the discussion.

In a book published in 1939, by Amram Scheinfeld titled You and Heredity, these issus were openly, and honestly presented, IMO. In his discussion about IQ, after covering the extremes, which tend to naturally be insignificant when it came to reproductive "risk", he then treats of the mid-zone:

...It is the very large class of the higher type of feeble-minded, the morons, which concerns us most...Those classed as morons reach a mental development at maturity no further than that of a hypothetical "normal" child of twelve. Only by an intelligence test can they be distinguished from persons of normal mentality...pg. 155

Here we're getting closer to the crux of the matter! And yet, from our master's perspective, it would not necessarily be to use the info for the "betterment" of humanity, not at all. If we accept that they are looking for better slaves, the IQ test would only be part of the puzzle, but now they could better "quantify" this important aspect, and plug it in to the bigger picture.

The bigger picture might include how IQ relates to scholastic performance, job "choice", political interest, etc. Eventually, "risk profiles" might be developed, that might help guide the herd in the desired direction. If "conformity" is a desired trait (as some have pointed out), then how can TPTB best tell that such a thing is present, in the population in question. Merely "good grades"? No, since that might only indicate "higher" intelligence. But taking substantial amounts of diverse data together, as they "track" many lives through the system, "someone" could potentially make use of the data, to eventually engineer desired traits, given enough time and resources.

JR

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 squandered
reply to post by RRokkyy

 

We will requite proof of a vasectomy before you can come.

I'll just have myself cloned.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by vcwxvwligen

 

What a surprise, not all revolutions create stable democracies.

I'm not sure that cutting off the penises of priests is "creating a stable democracy." The French Revolution was so bloody that they beheaded their own leaders.

The patriot act was for and by elites, and I can only wonder what made you put it with two historical revolutions.

Dick Cheney isn't white? What is he, a member of the illustrious Jewish "race" ?

Traits of white people, ok I will name a few, we like to eat bread, as opposed to rice,

Central Asians don't each much rice, either. They eat a food called "naan," which is like pita bread, in place of rice in a traditional dish. Traditionally, only aristocrats in India ate rice, and it was really good rice that is still quite expensive.

we also tend to drink a lot of milk.

There are Africans who drink lots of milk. Some Africans survive on a diet of goat's milk, honey and small game or wild tubers.

As you can see, your silly stereotypes aren't even based in fact.

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.

You should learn a bit more about medieval Europe.

The age of Catholic induced divine rights of kings was a relatively short period in European history.

No, a short period in English history. Spain is still Catholic and still has a king. Norway, Finland, Iceland, Greenland and Belgium are all technically monarchies. Britain doesn't have a written constitution. The British monarchs are being paid a welfare check not to take back control from Parliament.

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.

Probably, let's see.

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.

Strange that you mention Newton, because Newtonian physics are now being challenged by quantum theoreticians.

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.

Great, but your original premise was that only white cultures have made any significant impact on humanity, mainly by looking for someone to pick a fight with.

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.

Unfortunately things facts never make it to the textbooks except during Black History Month, which happens to also be the shortest month of the year. There is no white history month, because every month is white history month.

Long-lost late replies for the win!

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.

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. As I brought up long ago, the Spanish were first to hit the New World, and thus first to smash and pillage the civilizations there. This gave the Spanish an enormous influx of gold, which rushed through the whole of Europe, to the point where gold very nearly became worthless. This flush of wealth of course spurred technological development; not the least in the military, to protect the sources of cash from Spain's competitors. At the same time this flux of money from the New World effectively killed any and all trade with the rest of the world, resulting in Europe becoming very insular. Naturally this had an economic impact on the other end of those same trade routes, leading to collapses, recessions, and an increase of poverty, which has the opposite effect on technological advancement.

And of course, as described by the theory of accelerating change, higher technological development begits even higher technological development; in shorthand, technology snowballs. 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.

In fact, great swathes of Europe were what we could consider absolutely backwards and uncultured. Do you know why the Mongols didn't conquer Europe? It certainly wasn't because the Europeans put up a good fight; they got rolled in every battle. It was because the Mongols saw nothing of worth in Eastern Europe. They found a culture that was barely sniffing the iron age, which had no wealth and no learning, and only mediocre war tech that was obviously inferior to what the Mongols had. Europe was judged to not be worth the trouble it would take to get horses through the forests. This was only two centuries prior to the Spanish "Discovery" of the New World. 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.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


You paint a picture of white people that flies in the face of reality. You use different standards for non-white people suggesting they're inherently superior just so you can say white people are the most evil.

I see that you've spent a lot of time with your crusade against white people and concocted a lot of evidence against them.

It's a shame that you came here with preconceived notions. It's sad that you are so determined to rob people of their pride because you hate their race. You don't even read what people write when you try to pick a fight with their race.

Of course you are wrong. You already know that but you strive to win an undefinable intellectual debate because for some reason that is worth something to you, despite reality being much easier to comprehend.

I'm not saying white people are better, but like everyone they have their qualities. You can't debunk that fact or ague away every achievement they claim.

I suppose you have been a victim of racism. You seem to assume we're all racist. Your agenda is obvious, obviously. It's just strange how you take yourself seriously. Without the hate you would think differently. Too bad you'll continue to take out your racial angst against all white people as that won't help your problem.

I doubt you would cope with life without having a vendetta against something, so be grateful for white people. They are giving your life purpose.

reply to post by vcwxvwligen


Man you have some twisted logic.

You can't see the difference between a revolution and the Patriot Act?

Yeah, Indian food and Chinese food are so similar to European diets. We must only have Indian aristocrats here in the Bay Area, cause rice is their main diet staple.

There is A tribe that drinks milk in Africa, so clearly there can not be a white culture. Men all over the world urinate standing up, so clearly their is no such thing as culture.

A constitutional monarchy is not a monarchy. The medieval period is a short period in European history. Spain is the exception, while in the rest of the world, monarchies have been the rule.

500 years after Newton revolutionized science, and leading to most technology we enjoy today, scientists taught on Newton's principles are finally starting to move beyond Newton. So your point is?

I don't know where you got your education, but you should sue, because you don't even have rudimentary reading skills.

WHAT I SAID IN MY ORIGINAL POST ON THIS THREAD

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.

Most of the first world nations are white, but somehow to give whites credit for their success is wrong, according to people like you.

They didn't have black history month when I went to school, and we were taught these things.

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!

Most Scottish Americans where loyalist's, meaning way more fought for the crown then for Freedom.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Dude, NO ONE KNOWS WHY the Mongol Empire turned around and went home.

I know the Russians avoided battle by super surrendering to the Mongols. I know all of Western/Eastern Europe was building castles and upping their fortification crazy fast in fear(which would of neutralized the Mongols advantage as excellent horsemen). After that period Europe was super fortified(a process which began because of the Viking and Islamic invasions into Europe) and just not worth it.

The Mongols could very well have lost their empire if they invaded Europe and lost their Horseman based Army to constant siege warfare. Personally I think that had a lot to do with it. Europe didn't have much gold at that time, the only thing it had was grain and more soldiers/ an already broken and enslaved people-feudalism.

---
P.S European military tech was advanced enough to push Islam out of Europe. And European knights would have been a serious pain for the Mongol horse archers(whose tech was more similar to the Vandals or the Huns[actually Huns and Mongols I believe are related] then a civilized people).

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


If the Europeans were so inferior, how did a group of rag tag freemen march into the Middle East and conquer the Muslims, take over Jerusalem, and rule it for over a 150 years?

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.

The Mongols weren't looking for gold, they were looking for food. The Mongols never fought any formidable European armies, only the Pols and the Hungarians. It would have been interesting to see how well they would have done against the Vikings.or the Germans.

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.

And like you said, they are not fit to run such a country. They will just run it like a company, if the company runs aground, then they run and abandon the place.

If the Elites are looking at this post, I have a request for them. Step down and stand down for 5 years, Don't even think about rising up, or hurting us in anyway, because if you do then we, the ones who are free, will kill you and any connections that might rise up in your place. However, if you don't stand down and step down, once you see this, then we have every right to rebel.

You try to take our weapons, you have trampled the constitution, and have don't so many other crimes that you must pay in blood, not money or gold, in blood.

plenty of people of all races have risen up against the evils of their day.

the only thing i care is that someone rises up to lead us out of this mess tell me it matters what colour their skin...

reply to post by UcDat


Yeah, I don't think skin color has anything to do with it. It is a matter of culture, and looking at what some cultures do that enable them to succeed, and then following those examples that proved successful.

I used the term white, because it succeeds in tying together many cultures that have done very well over the last half a millennium, which would include of course Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia, and the way that Japan and S Korea have copied many aspects of white culture that has enable them to become so successful.

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.

Amen to that. =)

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.

You do realize Nazi Germany was founded by people with similar mindsets and that many Germans were turned into completely mindless intellectual zombies, right?

Right now, as I type this, msnbc is airing a "new" show called, "Erase the Hate". Can you guess what it's about? White racist skinheads!!! And it's rehashing old material from the 80's, and having their "experts", the SPLC, which is a zionist anti-white hate group.

This is further proof the MSM is a zionist propaganda machine that supports anti-white racism, because the are showing the bad "racists" as white. Why won't they show the Nation of Islam, and what they believe, or the New Black Panther Party? Or La Raza? It's because they are programming society to believe it is the honkys that are the racists, yet near every day we read reports of black racist mobs attacking and even killing lone whites, which the media downplays, or doesn't report at all.

This is America, and it's racist against whites, and it completely ignores non-white racism, which is the prevelant racism, and the "accepted" racism, yet so many lives are being taken. The mass acceptance of anti-white black racists has far surpassed the numbers of attacks and violence the KKK ever did.

Yet, here we have msnbc, with their zionist anti-white experts the SPLC, telling the ignorant armchair zombies, that the racist bad guys are the dreaded honkies.

reply to post by AverageJoe1


And to repeat my response.

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.

By the way, the British colonies produced very little gold. They were simply far superior sailors, and Britain was more advanced in industrialization and trade.

Here is a good read on the subject.

homepage.eircom.net...

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.