White superiority debunked

[MarcosZeitola]

It certainly does not appear that our forum's white members do their race a lot of good when it comes to either proving or disproving anyone's superiority. Likewise, the loudest black members on this forum have already been exposed as frauds moving furniture while pretending to be international businessmen on track to win Nobel prizes...

I suppose if you are suffering from an inferiority complex of your own, the best way to beat it for some people is to prove that the race you belong to, at least, is superior to other races. But it does not make you any less inferior yourself.

It's like with nationalism... you will endlessly read historical books about battles your ancestors won, about great accomplishments from those born within the same borders as you. Hoping this will somehow elevate your own personal value. But, it doesn't. There's a lot of great American inventors, doesn't make you an Edison. There's a lot of black athletes, doesn't make you a Muhammad Ali.

[sentinel89]

Another one of these types.. I can't tell you how many I've run into:

"White people are devils! White people are stupid! White people stole everyone else's cultures!"

then...

"There is no such thing as race!"

[Winston]

Now that we understand extreme intelligence is a byproduct of immune system issues. Everything becomes clear: http://www.medicaldaily.com/why-smarter ... ill-270039 Nerds are almost always ugly, sickly, weak people.

What about all those other studies linking intelligence with good looks? There is a correlation there too, proven long ago. Attractive people tend to be more intelligent than ugly people. But that was about general intelligence, and didn't apply to genius types or super intellectual types.

If whites aren't superior, then why do they always win in organized warfare against brown and black people? Why do whites invent almost everything, from planes, trains, cars, radios, to TV's, computers, light bulbs, etc? Black people didn't invent those things. Whites and Jews did.

And what about the proven Race-IQ correlation? I posted scientific papers about it before. They were ignored.

Even Morgan Freeman in an episode of "Through the Wormhole" called "Is There a Superior Race?" admitted that there was a Race-IQ correlation and that whites and asians had higher IQ's than blacks, even if raised in the same culture/environment.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2169878/?ref_=ttep_ep2

[Winston]

Here you go. Scientific proof that whites and asians have higher IQ's than blacks.

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedric ... n/Race.htm

7
Out of Africa

The latest theory of human origins -- Out-of-
Africa -- provides the final piece to the
puzzle. It explains why r-K theory accounts
for race differences in body, brain, and
behavior. As races moved out of Africa they
evolved away from r-type behaviors and
toward K-type. Moving out of Africa meant
increasing brain size and IQ, but
lowering reproduction, aggression
and sexual activity.

Based on his theory of evolution, Charles Darwin thought Africa was “the cradle of mankind.�
He did not have any fossils from Africa to support his theory but he concluded that humans came from
Africa based on watching the chimpanzee and the gorilla. If the African apes were our closest living
relatives, it made sense that humans first evolved on the only continent where all three species lived.
Evidence from genetics, the fossil record, and archaeology have since all proved Darwin correct.
The human line began with the African fossil species called Australopithecus. Later human ancestors
Homo erectus and then Homo sapiens also appeared first in Africa.
Homo sapiens were fully human. They were in Africa less than 200,000 years ago. Moving to the
Middle East about 100,000 years ago, they then spread out across the world. They replaced the
Neanderthal and Homo erectus groups they met either by fighting or competing for food.
When modern humans left Africa they began to develop the racial traits we see today by adapting
to the new regions and climates. The first split in the human line took place about 100,000 years ago
between groups that remained in Africa (ancestors to modern Blacks) and those who left Africa. Then
about 40,000 years ago the group that left Africa divided once again, into the ancestors of today’s Whites
and Orientals.
This history of moving first out of Africa into Europe and then later into East Asia explains why
Whites fall in between Orientals and Blacks on the life history variables. The split between Africans and
non-Africans happened first, almost twice as early as the split between Orientals and Whites.
The Out of Africa theory explains the good fit between the r-K life history traits and race
differences. It is hard to survive in Africa. Africa has unpredictable droughts and deadly diseases that
spread quickly. More Africans than Asians or Europeans die young -- often from tropical disease. In these
African conditions, parental care is a less certain way of making sure a child will survive. A better
strategy is simply to have more children. This tilts their life history toward the r-end of the r-K scale. A
more r-strategy means not only more offspring and less parental care. It also means less culture is passed
from parent to child, and this tends to reduce the intellectual demands needed to function in the culture.
And the process continues from one generation to the next.
In contrast, the humans migrating to Eurasia faced entirely new problems -- gathering and storing
food, providing shelter, making clothes, and raising children during the long winters. These tasks were
more mentally demanding. They called for larger brains and slower growth rates. They permitted lower
levels of sex hormones, resulting in less sexual potency and aggression and more family stability and
longevity. Leaving the tropics for the northern continents meant leaving the r-strategy for the K-strategy -
- and all that went with it.
40

The Evidence

How can we know if the Out of Africa theory is true? To answer that question, we have to look at
the evidence from genetics, paleontology, and archaeology.
The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues
looks at thousands of genetic DNA comparisons of the races. Geneticists count the number of gene
mutations in each group to measure which groups are most closely related and when the groups split from
one another. These DNA studies support the Out of Africa theory that the split between Africans and all
other groups was the first to take place.
Fossils of prehistoric humans tell us that early steps in our evolution took place in Africa. Homo
sapiens lived in Africa between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, but they only reached the Middle East
about 100,000 years ago. Earlier hominids such as the Neanderthals were very different from modern
humans. They had faces that jut further forward and they had larger front teeth than any living Europeans,
Africans, or East Asians. Neanderthals had denser bones, thicker skulls, and more pronounced brow
ridges than any modern humans. By comparison, all living humans are alike, despite our race differences.
Archaeology tells us the same story. The crude, Early Stone Age culture (termed Lower
Paleolithic) of Homo erectus, existed more than one million years before Homo sapiens appeared. The
Early Stone Age tool kit had hand-axes, choppers, and cleavers, all very similar in shape. However, the
Middle Stone Age tool kit of the Neanderthals (termed Middle Paleolithic) included more advanced stone
tools and the use of bone.
When modern humans first appeared on the scene 100,000 years ago, things started to change in
major ways. The Late Stone Age tool kit (termed Upper Paleolithic) was highly specialized. It consisted
of thinner blades struck off of stone cores to make knives, spear barbs, scrapers and cutters. Standardized
bone and antler tools appeared in the tool kit for the first time, including needles for sewing fur clothes.
The Late Stone Age tool kit contained tools made of several parts tied or glued together. Spear points
were set in shafts and ax heads in handles. Rope was used to make nets to trap foxes, rabbits, and other
small animals. Advanced weapons like barbed harpoons, darts, spear-throwers, and bows and arrows gave
Late Stone Age people the ability to kill animals from a safe distance.
Survival in Northeast Asia about 40,000 years ago also required warm clothing. Archeologists
have found needles, cave paintings of parkas, and grave ornaments marking the outlines of shirts and
trousers. We know that warm furs were worn. Fox and wolf skeletons missing their paws tell us that these
animals were skinned to make fur clothes. Houses were dug into the ground to provide insulation. These
large dwellings were marked by post holes and had walls made from mammoth bones. Fireplaces and
stone lamps were used to light the long Arctic winter night.

Geography and Race

Africa is warmer than the northern continents, but it is a less stable habitat. Droughts, storms, and
diseases from viruses, bacteria, and parasites cause high death rates, even today. Without modern medical
care, insuring survival in Africa means having many young (r-strategy). In the more stable environments
of Europe and Asia, survival is insured from having fewer young, but caring for them very well (Kstrategy).
The environment of Eurasia produced physical differences between the races. Northern Europe’s
cloudiness meant less sunshine. This decreased the intake of vitamin D, so lighter skin and hair were
needed to let more sunlight get in. As a result, Europeans born with lighter skin and hair were healthier.
They had more chance of having children who would survive and reproduce.
East Asia was even colder than North Europe, but with less cloud cover and more sunlight. There
a thicker layer of fat helped to insulate against the cold. This gives many Orientals a so-called “yellow�
complexion because it reduces the visibility of red blood vessels close to the skin. Meanwhile in Africa
melanin gives the skin a black color to protect it from the scorching rays of the sun.
41
Climate differences also influenced mental abilities. In Africa, food and warmth were available
all year round. To survive the cold winters, the populations migrating northwards had to become more
inventive. They had to find new sources of food and methods for storing it. They needed to make clothing
and shelters to protect against the elements. Without them the people would have died. Both parents had
to provide more care to help their young survive in the harsher climates.
Whites and Orientals in Eurasia had to find food and keep warm in the colder climates. In the
tropics, plant foods were plentiful all year round. In Europe and Asia they were seasonal and could not be
found during many winter and spring months.
To survive the long winters, the ancestors of today's Whites and Orientals made complex tools
and weapons to fish and hunt animals. They made spearheads that could kill big game from a greater
distance and knives for cutting and skinning. Fires, clothes and shelters were made for warmth. Bone
needles were used to sew animal skins together and shelters were made from large bones and skins.
Making special tools, fires, clothing and shelters called for higher intelligence. Moving “Out of
Africa� meant moving into a K-type life-history strategy. That meant higher IQ, larger brains, slower
growth, and lower hormone levels. It also meant lower levels of sexuality, aggression, and impulsive
behavior. More family stability, advanced planning, self-control, rule-following, and longevity were
needed.

Conclusion

Fossil records, archaeology, and genetic DNA studies of the living races support Charles
Darwin’s insight that we evolved in Africa. Humans then spread to the Middle East, Europe, Asia,
Australia, and then to the Americas. As humans left Africa, their bodies, brains and behavior changed. To
deal with the colder winters and scarcer food supply of Europe and Northeast Asia, the Oriental and
White races moved away from an r-strategy toward the K-strategy. This meant more parenting and social
organization, which required a larger brain size and a higher IQ.

Additional Readings

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Menozzi, P., & Piazza, A. (1994). The History and Geography of Human Genes.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stringer, C. & McKie, R. (1996). African Exodus. London: Cape.

[Winston]

In science, there Is no such thing as race:

If that's so, then how come DNA can distinguish between the races? See this FAQ below about why race is real and provable.

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedric ... n/Race.htm

Is Race a Useful Concept? (Chapter 1)

Q: You write as if race is a valid biological concept. Aren't you only repeating the stereotypes of 18th and 19th century Europeans?

A: True, there is a 200-year history of "European" research on race. But similar descriptions were made by Arab and Turkish writers nearly 1,000 years earlier and some can even be traced back to the ancient Greeks. Today, new methods of genetic DNA analysis agree with the original classifications made by early European scientists based on their observations.

Q: But isn't race "just skin deep"? Don't most scientists now agree that race is a social construct, not a biological reality?

A: Biological evidence shows that race is not a social construct. Coroners in crime labs can identify race from a skeleton or even just the skull. They can identify race from blood, hair, or semen as well. To deny the existence of race is unscientific and unrealistic. race is much more than "just skin deep."

Q: Your three major racial categories overlap and it isn't possible to assign each person to a race. So isn't your three-way racial classification scheme somewhat made-up?

A: Yes, to a certain extent all the races blend into each other. That is true in any biological classification system. However, most people can be clearly identified with one race or another. In both everyday life and evolutionary biology, a "Black" is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa.

Page 43
A "White" is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in Europe. And an "Oriental" is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in East Asia. Modern DNA studies give pretty much the same results.

Q: Doesn't the Out of Africa theory imply that we are "all Africans under the skin"?

A: Yes and no. The theory is that Homo sapiens first appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Then some groups migrated north about 110,000 years ago into Europe and Asia. A further split took place between the "ancestral Whites" and the "ancestral Orientals" about 40,000 years ago. True all humans are brothers (and sisters). But we all know that brothers and sisters can still be very different from one another.

Q: All Whites aren't the same. All Blacks aren't alike. Neither are all Orientals. Isn't there more variation within races than between them?

A: There is a lot of variation within each of the three races. The full range of variation will be found within any of the major racial groups. Still, group averages are important. Each racial group has a bell curve distribution with some people at the high end and some at the low end, and most people in the middle. Groups with a high average will have many more people at the high end and not so many people at the low end. The 6-point IQ difference between Orientals and Whites and the 15-point IQ difference between Whites and Blacks means that a higher percentage of Orientals and a lower percentage of Blacks end up in the highest IQ categories. Those percentages have real implications in school and at work. The same is true for crime. Most people of any race are hard-working and law abiding. There is no "criminal race." However, the difference in average crime rate means that a much higher percentage of Blacks can fall into a life of crime. The 85 average IQ of criminals is almost identical with the 85 average IQ of Blacks, so IQ is related to crime. Although Blacks make up only about 12% of the U.S. population, each year they commit about half of all crimes.

Q: Why do you base so much of your argument on the differences between the three major races? Are you not ignoring divisions and sub-groups within the three races?

A: Of course there are subdivisions within the three major races. The Oriental group can be subdivided into Northeast Asians (such as the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans) and the Southeast Asians (such as the Filipinos and Malays). Black and White groups can also be subdivided in the same way. Nevertheless, my simplified three-way division serves a purpose. In science, a concept is useful if it groups facts so that general laws and conclusions can be drawn from them. The three-way classification is scientifically justified because it shows a consistent pattern for many different traits, with Orientals at one end, Blacks at the other, and Whites in between.

Are the Race Differences Real? (Chapters 2 through 5)

Q: Haven't you just chosen the studies that fit with your three-way race pattern and ignored all the ones that do not?

A: If that were true, where are the studies I have ignored? I have not ignored any important studies. Whenever averages are used from several studies, the same three-way pattern of race differences appears.

Q: Aren't some of the studies you use, especially those on race and brain size, very old? Haven't they been shown to be examples of racist bias rather than honest reports of scientific facts?

A: No. Even the most recent studies, using the latest technology (such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging to

Page 44
measure brain size), give the same results as the older studies. These state-of-the-art studies of brain size are reviewed in Chapter 4. They are much more precise studies than the older ones, but produce almost exactly the same results. Only "political correctness" caused the early findings to "vanish" from the scientific radar screen. If there is any bias, it is on the part of those who choose to misrepresent both the older studies and the recent research on race and brain size to justify a social agenda they want to promote.

Q: Aren't you really producing the race differences by averaging the results of many studies? Wouldn't it be better just to look at the very best studies?

A: Using an average of all the data is better than using any single measurement or study. When you take an average, the errors fade and real differences appear. Hundreds of studies published in the best journals show the three-way pattern of race differences.

Q: Isn't it possible to get a pattern of race differences in brain size (or IQ or any trait) simply by using the studies that support the point you are trying to make?

A: That's exactly why it is better to average all the data. Averages are used for many sports competitions including some Olympic events, public opinion polls about upcoming elections, or the stock market performance with the Dow Jones Average. The same is true when studying race, brain size, IQ, and crime.

Is the Relationship Between Race and Crime Valid? (Chapter 2)
Q: Your three-way pattern in race differences in crime is based on official reports of arrests and convictions. But don't self-report studies show that there are no race differences in crime?

A: Self-reports show a smaller race difference than the official arrest and conviction records. However, self-reports are only valid as a measure of less violent crime. They often include minor items like "Have you ever been in a fight?" or "Would you worry about being in debt?" Unlike official crime reports, they often give no facts about the frequency of criminal behavior . Self-reports do not distinguish between career criminals and first offenders.

Q: But don't the arrest and conviction statistics from U.S. police departments and the FBI reflect America's history of racism?

A: INTERPOL Yearbooks show the same three-way pattern of race differences in crime. African and Caribbean countries have twice as many violent crimes per person as do European countries and three times as many as do the Asian Pacific Rim countries like Japan and China.

Q: Aren't Black Americans really the victims of crime, not the cause?

A: Many Blacks are indeed victims of crime. And there are many White and Oriental criminals. Nevertheless, the criminals are disproportionately Black. U. S. Department of Justice statistics report that Blacks are 60 times more likely to attack Whites than Whites are to attack Blacks. For the 20% of violent crimes that are interracial, 15% involve Black offenders and White victims; 2% involve White offenders and Black victims.

Page 45
Is the Relationship Between Race and Reproduction Valid? (Chapter 3)

Q: Doesn't the evidence on race and penis size come from 19th Century stories by racist Europeans in colonial Africa?

A: The earliest findings come from the Arabic explorers in Africa and one study by a French army surgeon originally published in 1898. More up-to-date information comes from the World Health Organization. Their studies show the same three-way race pattern as do all the other studies.

Q: Isn't the material on race and sex a kind of pornography? Isn't race controversial enough without bringing sex and AIDS into the picture?

A: One World Health Organization study I mentioned in the previous answer examined penis size in order to provide the right size condoms to slow the spread of AIDS. Finding out which groups are most at risk for sexually transmitted diseases can help slow their spread and save lives.

Is the Genetic Evidence Flawed? (Chapter 5)

Q: How can you talk about a genetic basis for intelligence, criminality, or sexuality? No one has ever found a gene responsible for any of these. Brain size and structure may be genetic, but we still do not know exactly which genes are important for IQ or how they work.

A: New research is providing the answer. Every day the newspaper or TV reports that someone has just found a gene for alcoholism, intelligence, impulsivity, aggression, longevity, or other human behavior. When the Human Genome Project has finished mapping all our genes, we will know even more about the genetic basis of behavior.

Q: Isn't this Genetic Determinism?

A: I never claimed that race differences are 100% genetic. Obviously, environmental factors are important. The scientific argument is really between "hereditarians" and "egalitarians." Hereditarians, like myself, think the best explanation of why the races differ involves both genes and environment. Egalitarians claim the races differ for 100% cultural reasons and some of them feel so strongly about it that they try to stop even discussion or research on the genetics of race.

Q: You use twin studies to show how much is caused by genes and how much is caused by environment. Isn't it really the interaction of the two that matters?

A: Of course, every trait is the result of the interaction of heredity and environment. But if interaction is so important, why do identical twins who are brought up in different homes grow to be so much alike? It is because heredity plays a big role in development. The older we get, the more our genes, rather than our childhood environments, take control.

Q: Even if heredity is important for individuals, does that really tell us anything about race differences?

A: The evidence in Chapter 5 shows that genes do contribute a lot to race differences. Evidence comes from trans-racial adoption studies. Oriental, Mixed- race (Black-White), and Black children adopted into middle-class White homes grow to resemble their true biological parents, not the White families who raised them. Mixed- race (Black-White) infants grow up to have IQs between the IQs of pure Black and pure White children. Oriental children raised in White homes obtain IQs higher than White children, even if they were malnourished in infancy.

Page 46
Q: But don't most experts believe that the cause of race differences in IQ is environmental, not genetic?

A: A survey done by Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman in the 1987 American Psychologist found that a majority (52%) of scientists said the Black-White IQ difference was partly genetic. Only 17% said it was entirely cultural. More recently, a special task force of the American Psychological Association agreed that there was a three-way pattern of race differences in brain size and IQ. Perhaps because of political correctness, the Task Force threw up its hands about the causes and decided to play it safe by saying "no one knows why" (see the 1996 and 1997 issues of the American Psychologist.).

Is r-K Theory Correct? (Chapter 6)

Q: You use r-K Life History Theory to explain race differences. You claim that Blacks are less K than Whites who are less K than Orientals. Haven't you twisted r-K theory to fit your own ideas about race differences?

A: Not at all. The key for understanding K-selection is the predictability of the environment. Tropical areas like Africa are less predictable because of parasites and sudden droughts. Therefore they select for an r-strategy rather than a K-strategy.

Q: Doesn't the r-K theory apply only to differences between different species, not to races within the same species?

A: It applies to both. Humans are very K compared to other species. Still, some people are more K than others. Highly K-selected men, for example, invest time and energy in their children rather than the pursuit of sexual thrills. They are "dads" rather than "cads." The r-K theory was first used to explain differences within species. I have applied it to race differences within humans.

Aren't Environmental Explanations Sufficient? (Chapter 5)

Q: Couldn't the life-history differences you talk about just be the best response to cultural conditions? Since Blacks live in poor environments doesn't the r-strategy make sense? How can you invest if you have nothing to invest?

A: That could be, but the facts say no. Well-to-do college-educated Black women have more sexual intercourse at an earlier age and suffer greater infant mortality than do poorer White women who haven't gone to college. That fits with the r-K theory of race differences, but not with an environmental r-K theory. Orientals who have a poorer environment than Whites, have less sexual intercourse, start at a later age, and have lower infant mortality. Again, that fits with the r-K theory of race differences, but not with an environmental r-K theory.

Is Race Science Immoral? (Chapter 1)

Q: Why haven't I read this information on race differences in newspapers or seen it on TV? Isn't studying race differences immoral?

A: In the 1950s the liberation movements in the Third World and the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. convinced many people, including journalists and politicians, that it was wrong to look at race differences. The goal of equal rights seemed to require not just political, but biological sameness. Many people wanted to believe that race differences were not at all genetic, and some were willing to distort the

Page 47
social sciences by separating them from the biological sciences. This book tries to put all the behavioral sciences back together again.

Q: Can any good come from your theory of race differences, even if it is true? Weren't theories about race differences the reason for racism, genocide and the Holocaust?

A: The Nazis and others used their supposed racial superiority to justify war and genocide. But just about every idea -- nationalism, religion, egalitarianism, even self-defence -- has been used as an excuse for war, oppression or genocide. Science, however, is objective. It can't give us our goals, but it can tell us how easy or difficult it will be to reach our goals. Knowing more about race differences may help us to give every child the best possible education and help us to understand some of our chronic social problems better.

Q: Wouldn't we be better off to ignore race and just treat each person as an individual?

A: Treating others as we would like to be treated is one of our highest ethical rules. So is telling the truth. The fact is that each of us is influenced by our genes and our environment. Treating people as individuals does not mean we should ignore or lie about race differences. Scientists have a special duty to examine the facts and report the truth.

Q: Why did the Charles Darwin Research Institute publish this Y2K version of the abridged edition? What happened to the original publisher?

A: Transaction Publishers printed 100,000 copies under their copyright. They sent 35,000 to scholars around the world - members of the American Anthropological Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association, and the American Society for Criminology. Then the Progressive Sociologists, a self-proclaimed radical group within the American Sociological Association, along with some other "anti-racist" groups, threatened Transaction with loss of a booth at its annual meetings, advertising space in journals, and access to mailing lists if they continued to send out the abridged edition. Transaction caved in to this pressure, withdrew from publishing the abridged edition, and even apologized. They claimed that the Transaction copyright should never have appeared on the book and that it had "all been a mistake." These events sadly confirm what I wrote in the first abridged edition -- that some vocal groups in academia and the media forbid an open discussion of race. They fear any open discussion of race research, all of which has appeared in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Truth, however, always wins out in the long run.

Closing Thoughts

The information in this book shows that the races differ in important ways. They differ, on average, in brain size, intelligence, sexual behavior , fertility, personality, maturation, life span, crime and in family stability. Orientals fall at one end of the three-way pattern of differences, Blacks fall at the other end, and Whites usually fall in between. Only a theory that looks at both genes and environment in terms of Darwin's theory ofevolution can explain why the races differ so consistently throughout the world and over the course of time. Both science and justice call for us to seek and tell the truth, not to tell lies and spread error. While the research in this book first appeared in peer-reviewed academic journals, many in the media, the government, and unfortunately even in the universities and colleges, skillfully avoid all such evidence. Hopefully this abridged edition will help set the record straight and make the latest scientific findings on race,evolution, and behavior open to all.

Page 48
If we want to understand human behavior , the social sciences must get back together with the biological sciences. This book is a step in that direction. When we look at both genes and environment we may be able to understand human problems. With that knowledge, society can then go about trying to solve them. The first step is for all of us to be as honest as we can be about race,evolution, and behavior.

[Moretorque]

Now that we understand extreme intelligence is a byproduct of immune system issues. Everything becomes clear: http://www.medicaldaily.com/why-smarter ... ill-270039 Nerds are almost always ugly, sickly, weak people.

What about all those other studies linking intelligence with good looks?

Mr. Wu you completely debunk this, you are very handsome but your not very smart.

As far as the blacks not being smart you have to realize all the other races are just lightly modified blacks so we are really just more intelligent niggers. So the blacks are actually the smartest thing to ever walk the earth! besides StarChild of course but he doesn't count because he isn't of this world.

[DrMorpheus]

Okay, so the question still stands. How does this debunk so called "White superiority"? Also, we've established that Europe's a shit hole. Parts of Asia are really a shit hole. Africa's a war torn, bubonic plague ridden shit hole, that is also filled with AID's, and a perfect moist, tropical perfect environment for every kind of disease and bacteria to grow.

...So, what's your point? How does this prove whites are "less superior" as you put it?
Your arguments make no sense, and are based on purely emotional logic. Your emotional logic shows through your every posts, and it should be embarrassing to you, but isn't, because you are dense -and your delusion & need for attack is that strong.

It sounds like, to me, you are jealous. You have a deep seated inferiority complex that you must attempt to exorcise by attacking the white race, because you feel inferior when compared to it. Maybe, the issue is with you?
Take care

It's doesn't make sense to you because you're stupid

http://twilightoftheidols.org/extreme-i ... or-health/

[DrMorpheus]

Now that we understand extreme intelligence is a byproduct of immune system issues. Everything becomes clear: http://www.medicaldaily.com/why-smarter ... ill-270039 Nerds are almost always ugly, sickly, weak people.

What about all those other studies linking intelligence with good looks? There is a correlation there too, proven long ago. Attractive people tend to be more intelligent than ugly people. But that was about general intelligence, and didn't apply to genius types or super intellectual types.

If whites aren't superior, then why do they always win in organized warfare against brown and black people? Why do whites invent almost everything, from planes, trains, cars, radios, to TV's, computers, light bulbs, etc? Black people didn't invent those things. Whites and Jews did.

And what about the proven Race-IQ correlation? I posted scientific papers about it before. They were ignored.

Even Morgan Freeman in an episode of "Through the Wormhole" called "Is There a Superior Race?" admitted that there was a Race-IQ correlation and that whites and asians had higher IQ's than blacks, even if raised in the same culture/environment.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2169878/?ref_=ttep_ep2

Your ignorance is laughable. Nothing you posted is scientific

http://twilightoftheidols.org/the-hered ... -last-leg/

[DrMorpheus]

In science, there Is no such thing as race:

If that's so, then how come DNA can distinguish between the races? See this FAQ below about why race is real and provable.

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedric ... n/Race.htm

Lol, educate yourself man.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/05/race ... world-html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics

[DrMorpheus]

It certainly does not appear that our forum's white members do their race a lot of good when it comes to either proving or disproving anyone's superiority. Likewise, the loudest black members on this forum have already been exposed as frauds moving furniture while pretending to be international businessmen on track to win Nobel prizes...

I suppose if you are suffering from an inferiority complex of your own, the best way to beat it for some people is to prove that the race you belong to, at least, is superior to other races. But it does not make you any less inferior yourself.

It's like with nationalism... you will endlessly read historical books about battles your ancestors won, about great accomplishments from those born within the same borders as you. Hoping this will somehow elevate your own personal value. But, it doesn't. There's a lot of great American inventors, doesn't make you an Edison. There's a lot of black athletes, doesn't make you a Muhammad Ali.

This coming from an ex-neo Nazi fat guy claiming to be living in the Philippines with a loving family while online 24 hours a day

But hey, he's trying to change....it's hard to give up your beliefs. Just ask a reformed homosexual what he's thinking about doing a chick in the ass