how do republicans explain the new health care system?

Deflection.

Remarkable. So you think race/skin color has something to do with advancement ?

Yes.

Lets start with the Atlantic slave trade shall we? The largest forced mass exodus in recorded history. 9-11 million Africans forcibly removed to work as slaves in the New World. Some historians have argued that this destroyed successive generations of Africans, destroying their overall capacity to grow.

Why wasn't Africa developed at all before this?

[/quote]Go look at the world map. European borders are intricate, often very hard to draw. African countries are geometrically easy to draw. That's because the great white man arbitrarily barged onto their land, drew a line in the sand without consideration for local, religious or cultural values. When the great white master was done exploiting publicly he left a largely ill equipped crop of leaders and a multitude who don't recognize the nation state as the white man does. Any sane leader leader they got, the great white man decided to kill. Patrice Lumumba, Thomas Sankara and Steve Biko come to mind.[/quote]Europe has had arbitrary borders, so has Asia. Yugoslavia, China includes a large number of minority ethnic groups, India is divided into dozens too. None of them are shit holes on the scale of Africa. Plus, even relatively homogenous nations (Lesotho, Swaziland, arguably Liberia since it was founded with few initial ethnic divisions) are still broken.[/quote]

Thirdly how you define progress, values and growth matters. For all intents and purposes India is more democratic in terms of civil liberties than Singapore. Yet economically, Singapore is proportionately far wealthier. Similarly, Africa's threshold should take into account the overall situation, education, healthcare and system of rule as well as intervention.

They have no education, no healthcare, no system of rule. By every conceivable benchmark except AK-47's per capita, they are terrible. They are also way behind where they were when ruled by whites.

By the same logic, I can ask why Eastern Europe is severely less wealthy than say UK or Switzerland. Nothing to do with their skin color or racial origin. Everything to do with historic circumstance.

>nothing has to do with...racial origin
Is propaganda so ingrained in you that you cannot fathom groups evolving differently and having different attributes? Eastern Europe, your example, is infinitely superior to most of Africa, despite "imperialist" Russian interference, and ethnic divisions in Ukraine, Romania, and ex-Yugoslavia.

Edited 5/10/2017 11:37:05

To name a few:

>Reproduction is bad and we should replace it(this includes the "peafowls" thing)

>High average IQ groups should rule over ones with lower average IQ, or at least have great benefits compared to them (Note that this discriminates on a level of groups, not individuals) (in other words:Jews should rule the world because they were persecuted and have thus become better than everyone else)

>Science and rationalism are good, emotions and particularly romantic ones are bad(i.e. we should all be robots)

>Some cultures are objectively bad and should be done away with

I see the both of you entirely missed the point. Exploitation and foreign interference is the answer. Lack of faith in the nation state is the answer. Lack of skilled workers and a survival of tribalism again due to centuries of exploitation.

Europe has had arbitrary borders, so has Asia. Yugoslavia, China includes a large number of minority ethnic groups, India is divided into dozens too.

Ah yes Yugoslavia. You mean the country that after Milosevic the ethnic racist rose to power and decided to ethnic cleanse for Greater Serbia right? Of course its arbitrary. The West stood by with their hands in their pockets. Don't believe me read the book 'Unfinest Hour, Britain and the Destruction of Bosnia' by Brendan Simms. India is irrelevant because the British Raj could never force their values on age old Indian customs. As far as the Indians were concerned, the white man was above their Brahmin.

Is propaganda so ingrained in you that you cannot fathom groups evolving differently and having different attributes?

Or I actually bothered to look at the facts before rushing to the racist conclusion. Racism in itself didn't exist in its modern form until eugenics came to the forefront of Empires. Something that's being overturned day by day.

In my mind National Socialism was a largely rational movement and the SS was probably one of the most clinical and calculating entities that have ever existed.[i/]

Strongly suggest you read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. As for calculating. Hahahahaha. Inhumane, barbaric and brutal. The leaders only coherent idea was 'blame everyone but us' for our faults. Don't believe me ask any history student who doesn't buy the ill conceived race ideas some jingoistic kook came up with.

Edited 5/10/2017 18:17:08

How has this not been downvoted into oblivion yet? I'm tired of seeing it.

It would be rational to exterminate all ZK's like you.

I am sorry, but to say that Native Americans were more andvanced than Sub Saharan Africa is just absurd, Tabby. The First were stuck in the stone age with the notable copper exeption in the Andes. Sub Saharan Africa was the periphery, but still part of Afroeurasia. They just lacked about 200-400 years behind. By that thesis, you could say Africa has its Thirty Years War (Kongo War) just ended. Of course it would be devastated.

Yes Europeans partly destroyed the Native American civilizations [i/]

Fully.

Had advanced civilizations actually existed in Africa at the level of China or Turkey colonialism would not even succeed in Africa.[i/]

Cherry picking once again. Turkey in its modern form did not exist until post WW1. Until that point it was the Ottoman Empire. Mind you the sole reason why the West won against the Ottomans was exploiting the New World.

I am sure your ideal solution for Africa would have been what the British did to Australia. Dump their convicts, send their worst so they can't come back, ignore the natives and lay back while the cultures died out.

You and I cannot be the judge of what cultures are relevant to this world and whats not. Because the European prevailed over other doesn't make it the 'best'. And by no means does it excuse the atrocities committed under their banner. Similarly barbaric practices of the Natives or Africans cannot be condoned. But enslavement, exploitation based on this ridiculous idea of eugenics can rightly be mocked and damned to the annals of history.

Why ? Because for every racist argument there is 100 reasons why the rest of the non-whites suffer. 9/10 thanks to the good ol' white mans interference.

^
So you are saying a high-IQ group monopoly of the world is possible? More importantly, how do you know that would be a good thing?

also you just avoided every other point eisenheim made

Edited 5/10/2017 19:48:40

thanks for reminding me that I'm living in a world where people think advancement is relative to the amount of your skin's exposure to the sun.

even better is that the ratio is believed to be inversed - believing that being exposed to sun for longer periods makes you dumber...

^
+1

Speaking of Native Americans they aren't a spent force. Not even now. There is a country filled with them called Mexico and even right now that country still exists and is a reasonably developing nation. Natives in South America have their own states as well, such as Peru, Paraguay, etc.

Let me know when the Navajo or Cherokee get their own country.

How has this not been downvoted into oblivion yet? I'm tired of seeing it.

Ah yes, a topic is brought up that you can easily not click on but instead, since it isn't socially acceptable, you shut it down.

Ranek: maybe Africa would be better today without white interference in its history. However, if we accept that, we must look at it:

Africa was better, for both Africans and whites, when whites were in control. And you will not acknowledge this objective fact. You will call it racist. But it is very simple: to fix Africa, put whites in control.

Secondly, you didn't answer why Africa was so much worse than Europe before outside meddling. The answer to that is simple - racial differences


On the matter of Native Americans vs Africans, Africans had better technology, but also access to European/Middle Eastern influence technologically. Indians were also much more peaceful, and had, at least in the south, civiliations more advanced culturally if not technologically.

How do people who make racist genetic arguments explain Tabby?

Since "Republicans" are being elided with "racists" and also because healthcare came up, here's Richard Spencer at AltRight.com on healthcare: https://altright.com/2017/05/04/why-we-get-healthcare-totally-wrong/

Clint, if you're still on this thread: what's a "conservative?" What are you aiming to conserve? Also, are you a Baby Boomer?

Edited 5/11/2017 08:53:36

How do people who think blacks and whites are equal and we should let Africans into Europe explain the phenonena of Rhodesia and now South Africa, where as soon as whites lost control they went downhill?

your question already includes the answer, but maybe you should explain why blacks and whites are different in your opinion?

Races with their average IQ better than or even equal to that of blacks do better than blacks on average for whatever reason.

How do you measure the IQ without a reliable IQ-test? not to mention the IQ of an entire ethnicity? btw. everyone can make nukes with the right ingredients. You'll find the construction plan on google. and what has food and infrastructure to do with differences between black and whites?

Edited 5/11/2017 20:44:47

>everyone can make nukes
Patently false, African countries can not make nuclear weapons. The Republic of South Africa built nuclear weapons with WHITE EUROPEAN scientists during its apartheid era.

Nuclear construction like most modern engineering was pioneered by Europeans. Nuclear weapons are a product of Europeans. A group with an average IQ of 75 would have a difficult time producing original modern marvels. (Africans tried to build a plane out of basic materials and it was laughable, look it up.) There are social obstacles to building high-tech in low-IQ population.

Edited 5/11/2017 21:02:48

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#/media/File:2016_UN_Human_Development_Report.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita#/media/File:GDP_per_capita_(nominal)_2015.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate#/media/File:World_map_of_countries_by_literacy_rate.svg

Why is sub-Saharan Africa lagging behind the world in terms of internationally recognized standards of human development despite trillions in charity from the first world?

Do they lack natural resources? No. Africa is home to large deposits of oil, gold, and diamonds. In fact, the wealthiest man ever, Mansa Musa, was an African King. Additionally, countries like Japan and South Korea have moved passed their lack of natural resources to become the 3rd and 11th largest economies, respectively.

But they were pillaged by Imperialist Europeans, right? The whole world was once occupied by Europeans with few exceptions. Sub-Saharan Africa still lags behind India and South Korea, who have greater claims to exploitation.

The combination of a warm climate and backwards cultural traditions have seriously harmed the evolution of the Congoid and it will take centuries for blacks in more favorable conditions to advance, at which point they will still be behind the ever improving Caucasoid and Mongoloid.

Edited 5/11/2017 22:24:29

oh boy. there is nothing left to say =D
Tabby Im glad you agree to facts. that is somehow remarkable - at least these days.
Although Im still uncertain, if you guys are just trolling, uneducated or simply stupid.
ever heard of neocolonialism?

however and never mind: Matthew 7.6“Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under foot and turn and maul you.

neocolonialism in south korea? =D seriously?
so, social and economic oppression is their own fault?...