Spaniards and Portuguese

The nigger skulls look primitive.

eyesinthedark wrote:

What do you want me to say, that your crutch is not a crutch, that your coping mechanisms are not coping mechanisms?

You come here, obviously mentally impaired, and you want an award? This isn't the special Olympics.

You are sick, you need help.
I cannot help you, you must help yourself.

I can only call a spade a spade, and not feed your sad sickness, your delusions, though they beg to fed, oh how do they plead.

There are many dichotomies worth exploring. Perhaps none more intriguing than the pro life Hellenes and the anti life Hebrews. Now, the Hebrews use their philosophy against us, they try to lower us Goy down to their level, Greek and Chinese alike. The Chinese are more Jewish in spirit than their Japanese cousins, comparatively Slaves, err, Slavs are more Jewish in spirit than their western cousins, which is why they sold out their genes and memes to communism so enthusiastically and so readily. You see communism is a lie, a sickness, it is a supernatural, social doctrine, just as Christianity is a supernatural, physical doctrine. Ha, have you seen Conan the Barbarian? Conan is the Greek, Thulsa Doom and his followers are the Jews. "Steel isn't strong boy, flesh is stronger". Why do you think so called "Guru's" from India drive the best cars, drink the finest wine and eat the best food? But I digress.

Why must you struggle against reality.. against yourself?
Have you been infected?

Life IS a struggle for survival? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought just a moment ago you were saying we cannot possibly fulfill ourselves here, in this world, that what we long for can only be fulfilled by another world, implying that we weren't made for this world. This may be true to an extent, but it is far from being the hole truth, if it were, we would all be Gnostics.

Perhaps what you meant to say was- you acknowledge the truth- our purpose is to survive, to preserve our genes, our life and the life of our brothers, sisters and children, the life of our family 1st, the life of our friends and race 2nd, and the life of our species 3rd. This is nature, this is reality, it seems you no longer deny this. You say because this cannot be fulfilled, this life is meaningless, hopeless, contradictory, absurd, and we'd be better off dead. Why don't you end it then? So far you have failed to respond to this adequately, maybe because you're echoing sentiments not your own, or you're confused, I'm not sure.

Now, you may never admit this to yourself, because you're so rational and scientific, and you know it, you're so with it, but here is what is lurking in your subconsciousness, I have seen it, and it is precious. You believe there is a spark of the divine in us all. It is this spark that makes us who we are, not our genes, not even our memes, and it is this spark that makes us all one. This spark is immortal, perfect, let's call it spirit, or love, and it longs only to be at home with God in the afterlife. Lucky for us, life is merely a journey, not a destination, we're just passing through. This doctrine says little or nothing about reality, but it says everything about the adherent. it is philosophical crack, heroin, Marxism is the secularized variant, a doctrine and a drug so popular amongst vermin.

The will to live, to preserve our existence, cannot be fulfilled indefinitely, directly, but through our family, friends, race, species and through our cultural/memetic achievements, it can be fulfilled indefinitely, indirectly. We don't know, whether our species will cease to exist or not, we don't know, whether our species will be altered beyond recognition or not. The alligator and the crocodile haven't changed much in 100s of millions of years. Perhaps the cosmologist are wrong (admittedly a long shot), maybe the earth has always been around, maybe species don't change all that much. What if humankind has always been, and always will be, so long as it continues to will itself, a chance in hell, I know, but it's all we've got. Perhaps, before our star explodes, we will invent technology to travel to other worlds. Perhaps we're a continuation of an alien race, life may travel from planet to planet via asteroids and/or spacecraft.

Now, even putting all speculation aside, I think even if we knew our species will die, millions of years from now, most people would still choose to go on, to procreate, to eat, drink and be merry, for this life is all we have with certainty, so we make the most of it, and we only ever seriously contemplate ending it when it becomes too much to bare, because life has dealt us a most unfortunate hand, environmentally and/or genetically. Life may have dealt you a poor hand, but you're still here, talking to us, trying to convince us of something, influence us, impress us, so you still have some life left in you. I think you're fooling yourself when you speak so negatively about life, but you're not fooling me. You are projecting your present negativity onto the universe and onto me, you mistakenly think we should all adopt your attitude.

all that above speaks of your own fear, not mine. isn't that ironic?

you call me mentally impaired when you completely miss the point? the point is that it does not matter who ends up surviving and who ends up dead in the great scheme of the universe. what is it that you are not getting?

do you know what will happen tomorrow? ten years from now? a million years from now? no.

it's you who is afraid to face the point i was making. you need to ask yourself why?

it's your 'delusion' that you are luckier that you need to go on, otherwise perhaps you won't be motivated. this is the point so it's really a nonissue to blame me for it. lol

you also mention a bunch of nonsense that is very telling such as there is no way to fullfill ourselves which i never stated and of course is untrue. of course life is a struggle but fulfilling ourselves is not going to be without it's thorns. again, that has nothing to do with the point. those who survive to carry on are still not luckier than those who don't. i just don't get why it's not understood, it's almost comical in light of how the members of this forum think they are of superior intellect. excuse me, special olympics? you can have your delusions, that you have no delusions or are of superior intellect. lol

btw, it's interesting you mentioned sickness, delusions, crutch, coping mechanisms etc.

let me clue you in on something: EVERYONE has some form of delusion, crutch or coping mechanism. as for sickness, that's a low-ball shot. you don't know me and for all i know, you could be the one with a sickness.

i am sick and i need help and i'm begging you to help me??? what???

i can see right through your post. it's YOU who are afraid of my post. i wasn't begging you for anything. YOU could not stand the point i was making, it made you very afraid. you NEED the delusion that those who survive are luckier in order to go on. i don't understand it but some people obviously do need that.

Vanitas wrote:

cranapple wrote:

on second that, i agree on this point vanitas and will lean toward a more buddhist perspective on this one.

it really does not matter to me who goes extinct. in the great scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. we are all hamsters in the wheel anyways.

Of course, the Buddhist perspective. But is that a perspective at all one asks, or simply an inherited aspect of your own racial past? Your default nature?

Perhaps some grow tired of this world, and embrace a return to the Flux. But death is not the end, it is merely a tool of evolution. For others it offers a new beginning as a rotting corpse provides a feast for the living. It makes space and resources available for the emergence of new life, new species which are an improvement on the old. Others will come after us, and things will come to pass that you cannot imagine. It is for that world that one also fights, not only for this, because as clearly as one can predict the trajectory of the asteroid, one can predict the direction evolution is going from where it came.

The liberal deception that evolution can go in any direction or is completely random is an attempt to conceal the very direction it has taken over the past billion years, towards ever increasing intelligence, self-awareness and imagination... towards an increasingly complex, expanding mental space. But if one is to survey the hominid world one finds great incongruity in the quantity and quality of these traits, leading one to an inevitable conclusion.

The question then becomes why have those races with a surfeit of these qualities chosen to conceal this fact? Who profits from this?

and what happened to this great intellect of yours, cuz i've yet to witness it??

very clever (not) deflection of the point and it has nothing to do with it. again, resorting to race? is that all you've got? just because i said that i will lean toward a buddhist perspective on a certain point, doesn't make the point incorrect. this is where you reveal your ignorance but assume you are the more intelligent.

do i have to spell the point out for you?

it doesn't matter who survives and who does not. if you survive and others don't because they are inferior, then so be it. does that make you happy? wasn't this your schpiel all along? survival of the fittest? now, you assume it's buddhist? no, the buddhist perspective was of the larger picture.

are you capable of any honesty at all or are you always full of shit?

this is what makes you so pathetic and inferior, even if you were to be the one to survive. you need to believe you are luckier, you need to believe that you've beaten the other in order to validate your existence because that is what you've based yourself on, that you are luckier, that you are smarter, wealthier, suffering is less etc. without the other, you have to just face yourself and the fact life is a fucking struggle with it's ups and downs, just like everyone else. besides the fact life is extremely difficult. it's 'comforting' and a convenient distraction to be reminded of your fortune based on other's relative misfortune. all this is actually motivated by fear as well.

so this is the real issue with you and eyesinthedark: other races have rubbed you the wrong way, to put it lightly, so you want them out or extinct. well, we all feel that way about someone or group. the difference here is that the weakness is you need to feel superior than another, which is honestly pathetic in this context. if they are extinct, you need to feel superior to the dead or something. lmfao

your whole post is ego masturbation. anyone with a modicum of intelligence reading it can smell the stench off it but you think it's not noticeable.

if what you want is for other races to go extinct, then that's your perogative. to the extinct, it does not matter but you will be there to mightily congratulate yourself if that will make you happy. lol

btw, wtf is up with all this gibberish? is it philosophy or is it just philosophy used to complain about the world?

ya see, it's the latter. no different than what everyone does. everyone wants the world the way they want it.

you can 'delude' yourself that it's just others who are 'delusional' and not you. lol

what's even more comical is the pretense that it's other races who are the problem when it's your own race as well that is acting against your own wishes. that's quite a conundrum, isn't it? hmm..

you know, like how the world is not going the direction you would like or how a river is not flowing the direction you would prefer? lmao.

you know what? the world has not acted the way i want it too either. lol

now, who is not facing up to reality? hmm..lol. vanitas, that was quite funny. you know, your question to 'me' for something i'm not responsible for nor have any power to change. lol

aww, vanitas, i sympathize with ya. i'm sorry the world isn't the way you want it. isn't it annoying? it wouldn't be so heinous or pathetic if you weren't so dishonest by pretending that somehow others whining is delusional but you aren't. it just makes you even more freakishly delusional.

it must be difficult to face the fact that so many of your race are involved in interracial relationships or have offspring that are a product of them as well as have friends of different races. it must be difficult to realize this fact, in light of your particular utopian fantasies. oh sorry, what you think is supposed to be but for some reason, isn't. my, that's so original too, like, no one else feels this way.

it must be difficult to face that there are hordes of multiracial offspring in the next generation and that can't be undone as well as even if there are prejudices, it doesn't work in a black/white fashion. for instance, there are plenty of prejudiced or even racist people in the west but each has their own. there are those who may have friends, spouse, or offspring of one race but dislike another and every combination imaginable. this is why the vision of the future you want will never be. it's just unrealistic because they will not turn from their own offspring, spouse or friends. the ink has been tossed and it can't be recovered. that's hard to swallow, isn't it? though you can just wax on about how things 'should' be like all of us or it might be possible that you could form a small band of like-minded and settle somewhere, maybe in antartica. well, there is also a lot of racial tension in europe as well but again, by the time anything can turn in the direction you would want, it isn't going to make much of a difference.

it must be difficult that people are often different from you and have conflicting interests.

it's okay, you can keep blaming the jews, which even if they deserve part of the blame, others are along complicitly. also, if it will make you feel better, you can wish that asians are next. that way, we'll all be equal.

why those like you are delusional is your lack of self-honesty. you want to believe that there is no natural side effects or price for anything related to your race but only others. there are pros/cons to every attribute. whites love to bring extreme disparate elements together and are a volatile people that love controversy. this gives you creativity but also has it's price and you favor religion that is forceful toward others and is all a product of your own nature. you may think others are inferior, say even asians but your blindspot is they are superior in other attributes, even if it's not as flamboyant. your people's extreme narcissism has an inherent stupidity in it as well. you overextend and are prone to decadence.

you know what my ideal world would have been? that everyone just stay in their corner of the world but that's not how the world works. so what do i do? just enjoy what i like for the time that i have because that's all we can do.

cranapple wrote:

Vanitas wrote:

cranapple wrote:

on second that, i agree on this point vanitas and will lean toward a more buddhist perspective on this one.

it really does not matter to me who goes extinct. in the great scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. we are all hamsters in the wheel anyways.

Of course, the Buddhist perspective. But is that a perspective at all one asks, or simply an inherited aspect of your own racial past? Your default nature?

Perhaps some grow tired of this world, and embrace a return to the Flux. But death is not the end, it is merely a tool of evolution. For others it offers a new beginning as a rotting corpse provides a feast for the living. It makes space and resources available for the emergence of new life, new species which are an improvement on the old. Others will come after us, and things will come to pass that you cannot imagine. It is for that world that one also fights, not only for this, because as clearly as one can predict the trajectory of the asteroid, one can predict the direction evolution is going from where it came.

The liberal deception that evolution can go in any direction or is completely random is an attempt to conceal the very direction it has taken over the past billion years, towards ever increasing intelligence, self-awareness and imagination... towards an increasingly complex, expanding mental space. But if one is to survey the hominid world one finds great incongruity in the quantity and quality of these traits, leading one to an inevitable conclusion.

The question then becomes why have those races with a surfeit of these qualities chosen to conceal this fact? Who profits from this?

and what happened to this great intellect of yours, cuz i've yet to witness it??

very clever (not) deflection of the point and it has nothing to do with it. again, resorting to race? is that all you've got? just because i said that i will lean toward a buddhist perspective on a certain point, doesn't make the point incorrect. this is where you reveal your ignorance but assume you are the more intelligent.

do i have to spell the point out for you?

it doesn't matter who survives and who does not. if you survive and others don't because they are inferior, then so be it. does that make you happy? wasn't this your schpiel all along? survival of the fittest? now, you assume it's buddhist? no, the buddhist perspective was of the larger picture.

are you capable of any honesty at all or are you always full of shit?

this is what makes you so pathetic and inferior, even if you were to be the one to survive. you need to believe you are luckier, you need to believe that you've beaten the other in order to validate your existence because that is what you've based yourself on, that you are luckier, that you are smarter, wealthier, suffering is less etc. without the other, you have to just face yourself and the fact life is a fucking struggle with it's ups and downs, just like everyone else. besides the fact life is extremely difficult. it's 'comforting' and a convenient distraction to be reminded of your fortune based on other's relative misfortune. all this is actually motivated by fear as well.

so this is the real issue with you and eyesinthedark: other races have rubbed you the wrong way, to put it lightly, so you want them out or extinct. well, we all feel that way about someone or group. the difference here is that the weakness is you need to feel superior than another, which is honestly pathetic in this context. if they are extinct, you need to feel superior to the dead or something. lmfao

your whole post is ego masturbation. anyone with a modicum of intelligence reading it can smell the stench off it but you think it's not noticeable.

if what you want is for other races to go extinct, then that's your perogative. to the extinct, it does not matter but you will be there to mightily congratulate yourself if that will make you happy. lol

So you admit there's no such thing as humanity?

If not, then please point out the skull in the fossil record that is identical to that of all existing hominids.

Thanks.

PS: Here it is again in cased you missed it the first time round:


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

eyesinthedark wrote:

The nigger skulls look primitive.

That's because they are.

Blacks fit into the category of homo erectus much more accurately than homo sapien, which they don't fit into at all.

They are physical creatures, not creatures of knowledge (sapience), being more of the body than the mind.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Quote :

You think that the berbers were less culturally productive than the "europeans"?

Berbers aren't Egyptians, so yes. As for Egyptians/North Africans as a whole, I suppose it's a little subjective, but I think we've achieved far more than they have. They certainly haven't contributed much in the last 2000-3000 years. I think they're more intelligent and civilized than Negros but, not quite as evolved as Whites.

Berbers aren't Egyptians, but Egyptians are largely Berbers (with a twist of black).
Egypt was the center of science, art, technology, culture, trade, etc for over 3 thousand years. Everything that were were able to contribute is rooted in their knowledge, that they dug out of nature themselves. There is no discussion about our achievements without their achievements. They haven't contributed much lately, but neither have the Greeks, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, etc. To say that they haven't contributed lately and that diminishes their importance is very short sighted.

Quote :

Quote :

I didn't bring it up to justify or excuse anything. You started off with proposal that the Iberic people are different from the rest of Europe. Thus, it only makes sense that you should explore the differences. The Berber occupation of Europe was exclusively restricted to the Iberic peninsula. If you are interested on the subject, you should look into it. Another brief observation, we're talking about the Berber occupation, the plague, the renaissance, the exploration of the sea/conquest of new territories, etc without even mentioning the period in which they occurred. It's kind of important.

Important how, specifically?

As important as it is to take several steps back to understand a Monet. Looking at a small piece, all you see is a splatter of paint.

Quote :

Quote :

What do you mean when you say that they had the opportunity? That being the same as other Europeans and having the same means, they should have contributed as much?

Not that they should have.
Since their circumstances were and are so similar to Western Europe, why didn't and don't they accomplish, more?
I don't think they're dumber than other Europeans, from what I remember their IQs are even a little higher than Brits.
Perhaps they're not as creative, imaginative of a people?
More than anything, I think they have a more complacent, conservative attitude. This is in part due to their culture and in part due to their genetics. They don't desire to be at the forefront and in the lime light the way, say, Italians do. Italians have something to prove, they want to be the leaders, the pioneers, they want to leave a mark on the world. This ambition, this passion, this.. arrogance, call it what you will, I don't think the Portuguese and the Spanish have it.
Does this mean I think less of them? No, not necessarily, I'm just making an observation, I'm trying to find alternative explanations to the standard environmental explanation, which is why I selected Portugal and Spain, for they had all the resources and opportunities the rest of Western Europe had, so it must be due to lack of will or ability, that they did not seize those resources and opportunities.
The Spanish seem happy to occupy the background in European cultural and political affairs. they're a simpler, quieter.. duller people than the French or the Brits.. that's my take. You can accept that if you want, I don't really care, but if you don't, I would like to hear your argument.

You wear me down. Sigh.
Let me sum it up for you.

The occupation of the iberic peninsula started in the 8th century AD and lasted all the way to the 14th and even 15th century AD. It didn't happen all at once and it didn't end all at once. The moors were constantly conquering and losing territory for 800 years, and the europeans (the christians) were also constantly conquering and losing territory for those 800 years. It forced that region into a very military, ready to fight type of mentality.

The rest of the continent did not have to fight muslim invaders on their land. Up until then, the east and the west had been pretty isolated, divided into eastern and western roman empires, and among other things due to that whole church schism thing (easter orthodox versus western roman/latin). But when the Bysantine empire was weakening and being attacked by the turks, they lauched the crusades under orders from the pope, and a lot of Italian and French, German, and English nobility ended up in the east. The iberic people, of course, had their hands full at the time.
This contact with the arab world, with the eastern empire, brought them a lot closer to the ancient arab and greek writtings, which began to get translated to modern languages, and that is one of the events that largely triggered the 12th century renaissance you hold in such high regard.

So by the time the refinements in science and technology provided by the renaissance became available, the people of the iberic peninsula had been fighting non-christian people and establishing christian grounds for a very long time, longer than everyone else. The crusades and the defense of christian territories was in everyone's mind. It was the next logical step to further their conquers to farther lands, to put heathens under christian rule. Thus they took to the sea.
Meanwhile, the rest of Europe was getting their butts kicked in the east and returning home. The riches they sacked from arab and turks, and from the very Bysantine empire they went to protect, along with the black death eliminating 1/3 of the poorest allowed for a huge concentration of wealth. All those ancient literary masterpieces and all that money at hand, they did what they did.

This is not only high-school level history, it's free and one click away from anyone with an internet connection. There is no need to ponder on skull shapes and complacent natures, the history of mankind is a long chain of events.
Edit: replacing some BCs with ADs. Duh.

Quote :

Quote :

Have you considered the possibility that their focus on conquest might have been what stopped them from being as productive in other endeavors?

It sounds to me like you don't have th picture yet.

The Brits especially, but also the French, the Dutch and the Swedes were also focused on conquest. I'm not sure, but I think the achievements of the Dutch surpassed those of the Portuguese. This isn't merely about pre-20th century either. What have they done for us lately? Let's face it, they're not on the world stage the way the other Europeans are. There's something different about their character, their spirit, something more, Asiatic, or North African.. which is fine.

The Brits, French and Dutch were late in the game. Each of those countries had their own reasons and I am sure you can google that one. Pretty much everywhere they went, the spaniards and portuguese had already been.
BTW if you think that the Dutch surpassed the Portuguese, it may surprise you to know that portuguese is the official language of 7 countries, and is natively spoken in several more.

Vanitas wrote:

No it doesn't my dear, because in the case of race and gender it is already following a religious credo of equality and sameness. There's no money and hence no research grants and hence notoriety and hence no career in daring to question the central doctrines of secular liberalism.

If you exclude people from the system then you exclude a potential market place as well as labor and raw resources and that is what this is all about - capitalism. Women's rights has fuck all to do with altruism or caring about females.

Tell that to anthropologists of the 19th and early 20th century.

Quote :

Why don't we start with a simple exercise. I post an image of the human fossil record, below, and you explain to me why only a minority of the worlds population - white Europeans, some Arabs and Indians - demonstrates a skull of the type 'N' or 'M', whilst a large majority - black sub-Saharans - are more similar to 'I' or 'J' but with greater prognathism (a larger, more protruding jaw) as in a 'F' or 'G'? According to the logic of liberal anthropologists all the hominid strains present in this image should be extinct with the exception of 'N'.

Where is this one species, this one humanity that secular liberals tells us exists?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

We know you to be the queen of strawman, but sometimes you just exceed yourself.
I would like you to point me to any, ANY, liberal or not, scientific paper that states that there is only one shape of skull in the homo sapiens species, or in any other world wide species for that matter.
It's an observable fact that there are notable physical differences in people from different regions of the world even within the same racial group
The first record of "N" that we have is from 195000 years ago. It has since then adapted to the most varied environmental conditions.
Luckily, nowadays we have genetic science to go by, so that we don't need to rely on such inconclusive and highly mutable features as bone shapes. Yay for science.

Thank God that modern science has already mapped the human genome and out of the 3 billion chemical bases (A, T, C, G) each human shares with an other human being, about 99.9% of them....leaving 0.1% of them are different which is about 3 million or so.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
This number is not small, if you consider that with a chimpanzee we share 97% of our DNA making the 3% difference quite obvious.
Furthermore, in reference to small and big differences, and how "small" has now come to mean same...with the Butterfly Effect in Chaos Theory a butterfly flapping its wings on the other side of the globe can cause a tsunami here.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

We can say that Evolution Theory is based on how small mutations accumulate to produce large divisions.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The difference between twins might be even smaller and still we witness in twins a divergence in character and even a divergence in appearance...as one might be slightly taller or more rounder or more outgoing.

When we think of change we are not talking about a spasmodic leap in direction but in a gradual accumulative effect that builds and builds until there is a splintering off.

Therefore the common cat evolved from a shared ancestor with the lion but this divergence did not occur spasmodically but gradually and when one group of the same ancestor splintered off and experienced a period of genetic isolation.
Now, the time of genetic isolation and inbreeding required is what is still unknown.
What is known is that human populations during the early periods of human evolution did experience periods of genetic isolation.

There is no such thing as a difference which is "too small to matter"...because this is a form of self-censorship and because divergence is what existence is all about.
What is another name for divergence?
Change.

We might go as far as to say a man, the very same man, is never the same one in all periods of his existence.
What keeps him together as a cohesive unity is memory....DNA and experience is a form of memory.
But this is another subject dealing with identity.

Quote :

all that above speaks of your own fear, not mine. isn't that ironic?

you call me mentally impaired when you completely miss the point? the point is that it does not matter who ends up surviving and who ends up dead in the great scheme of the universe. what is it that you are not getting?

This is merely your opinion, where is your argument?

Here is an argument- If Australopithecus thought and felt the way you do now, you wouldn't be here. You dishonor him and you're a hypocrite.

Quote :

do you know what will happen tomorrow? ten years from now? a million years from now? no.

This is an argument, but not a very good one. I don't know for certain what will happen when I cross the street, but I take steps to make a positive outcome more likely.

Quote :

it's you who is afraid to face the point i was making. you need to ask yourself why?

There's nothing wrong with fear if it's founded on truth. Fear is a sign that an animal still has some life left in him. Numbness is not a virtue. Everything you preach is meant to induce an alcoholic, numbing sensation in the mind. You're spreading disease and filth wherever you go. You make it so you're unable to feel fear or hope, with your Buddhist indifference.

Here's a thought, why don't you crawl under a rock and die? After all, it doesn't matter in the great scheme of things, and everything we do produces an equal amount of pleasure and pain, joy and sorrow, thus no one is better off than anyone else, thus why feed a starving baby, he's just as well off as you? Why not be a homeless man or a crackhead, if no one is really better off than anyone else?

Quote :

it's your 'delusion' that you are luckier that you need to go on, otherwise perhaps you won't be motivated. this is the point so it's really a nonissue to blame me for it. lol

This is not my belief, I never said people who are unluckier than myself should kill themselves.

Quote :

you also mention a bunch of nonsense that is very telling such as there is no way to fullfill ourselves which i never stated and of course is untrue. of course life is a struggle but fulfilling ourselves is not going to be without it's thorns. again, that has nothing to do with the point. those who survive to carry on are still not luckier than those who don't. i just don't get why it's not understood, it's almost comical in light of how the members of this forum think they are of superior intellect. excuse me, special olympics? you can have your delusions, that you have no delusions or are of superior intellect. lol

btw, it's interesting you mentioned sickness, delusions, crutch, coping mechanisms etc.

Right, just keep telling yourself that, and maybe one day, you'll believe it, and then you'll be a full blown retard, you'll have reached nirvana. You know what, you've convinced me. I'm going to quit my job, for being homeless isn't any less fortunate than having a home. I'm going to go buy a shitload of crack and smoke it all because nothing matters in the end, Jesus is coming and it does not matter whether I'm good or bad, right or wrong, happy or depressed, we're all going to die and it's the "spirit" that matters.

Quote :

let me clue you in on something: EVERYONE has some form of delusion, crutch or coping mechanism.

I knew this already, no one's perfect, however, some people are better than others, and some people have it better than others. This is an objective fact, you dolt, why must you insist on denying reality, does it comfort you to imagine your betters are just as sick and depraved as you? Allow me to clue you in one something, friendo. We often here people criticize others for thinking in black and white. Now black and white thinking ought to be criticized, but do you know what is equally retarded, retard? Grey thinking, not shades of grey (my preferred thinking style), nitwit, grey thinking. According to grey thinkers- every person and every circumstance is equal in value, possessing a value of 0. This is not reality, fucktard, this is your distortion of it, this is your religion, your coping mechanism. Like any coping mechanism it does not exist to explain reality, rather, it exists to explain away reality when it's convenient for you, like when you're imagining your betters, and it is temporarily dropped like when you comb your hair and shave your beard before going to work. Your very existence is a contradiction of your belief system. if every situation was equal in value and happiness, then why not jump off a bridge, why not take a shit on the floor of a McDonald's, why go on a diet, why go to the gym, why select a girl with a prettier face?

Quote :

i am sick and i need help and i'm begging you to help me??? what???

i can see right through your post. it's YOU who are afraid of my post. i wasn't begging you for anything. YOU could not stand the point i was making, it made you very afraid. you NEED the delusion that those who survive are luckier in order to go on. i don't understand it but some people obviously do need that.

You're the one who was getting emotional, I see you have put on a facade to convince me you're not upset. Clever.

The next thing you'll be telling me is that a carrot is not a carrot. That Hunger is fullness, life is death and ugliness is beauty, and then we'll know you're well on your way to becoming a full blown retard, but for now at least, you're a half retard, a selective retard.

how does it go... enough of this mundane bable you two

Satyr wrote:

Thank God that modern science has already mapped the human genome and out of the 3 billion chemical bases (A, T, C, G) each human shares with an other human being, about 99.9% of them....leaving 0.1% of them are different which is about 3 million or so.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
This number is not small, if you consider that with a chimpanzee we share 97% of our DNA making the 3% difference quite obvious.
Furthermore, in reference to small and big differences, and how "small" has now come to mean same...with the Butterfly Effect in Chaos Theory a butterfly flapping its wings on the other side of the globe can cause a tsunami here.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

We can say that Evolution Theory is based on how small mutations accumulate to produce large divisions.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The difference between twins might be even smaller and still we witness in twins a divergence in character and even a divergence in appearance...as one might be slightly taller or more rounder or more outgoing.

When we think of change we are not talking about a spasmodic leap in direction but in a gradual accumulative effect that builds and builds until there is a splintering off.

Therefore the common cat evolved from a shared ancestor with the lion but this divergence did not occur spasmodically but gradually and when one group of the same ancestor splintered off and experienced a period of genetic isolation.
Now, the time of genetic isolation and inbreeding required is what is still unknown.
What is known is that human populations during the early periods of human evolution did experience periods of genetic isolation.

There is no such thing as a difference which is "too small to matter"...because this is a form of self-censorship and because divergence is what existence is all about.
What is another name for divergence?
Change.

We might go as far as to say a man, the very same man, is never the same one in all periods of his existence.
What keeps him together as a cohesive unity is memory....DNA and experience is a form of memory.
But this is another subject dealing with identity.

Your dear friend Ms. Polygenism will certainly disagree.

Well then that settles it, does it not, my dear?
Your counter-arguments are impeccable and so artistically formulated.
You are a worthy recipient of the title "modern".

There is no counter argument.
My post can be taken to mean that I agree with what you say, and that your opinion is more aligned with
mine than with vanitas.

Satyr wrote:

Both, dear.


Your past cannot be overcome, though it can be ignored or forgotten.

I am my ancestry....but my ancestry is not the same as yours.
Our common ancestor is our bond, how we dealt with it, what happened from then to now, all participates in our distinctive characters and characteristics.

That in your bloodline you've "re-dipped" your genetic pool into the primal, or the more base, is part of who and what you are.
You carry it with you.

I see what you mean.


Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you said once that you are also part african... the part that matters you said. It almost made me laugh.
Were you being facetious?

Obviously he was being facetious.

phoneutria wrote:

There is no counter argument.
My post can be taken to mean that I agree with what you say, and that your opinion is more aligned with
mine than with vanitas.

Are you saying that you are a bit embarrassed about your black blood?

Unfortunately I am in no part African....unless I go hundreds of generations back.
All Caucasian.

Satyr wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

There is no counter argument.
My post can be taken to mean that I agree with what you say, and that your opinion is more aligned with
mine than with vanitas.

Are you saying that you are a bit embarrassed about your black blood?

Unfortunately I am in no part African....unless I go hundreds of generations back.
All Caucasian.

No, I am saying that everything you posted aligns with a single origin hypothesis, which is the mainstream hypothesys backed by terabytes of research, as opposed to polygenism, which is backed by a few dozen racist whackos in denial, such as our dear friend vanitas.

photoneutria wrote:

I would like you to point me to any, ANY, liberal or not, scientific paper that states that there is only one shape of skull in the homo sapiens species, or in any other world wide species for that matter.

This isn't just about skull shapes retard. The graphic shows supposedly EXTINCT hominid lineages you idiot. I haven't even moved on to discussing other physical characteristics which these lineages possess and how they are found in those hominids today that have these similar skull shapes, such as bone density, cranium size, muscle to fat ratio, brain structure, intelligence, etc, etc... as I was trying to keep it simple for your tiny little mind. But one learns that trying to teach a little trolling bitch is both tedious and pointless.

Quote :

The first record of "N" that we have is from 195000 years ago. It has since then adapted to the most varied environmental conditions.

This is typical of the dumb shit white liberals love to parade as logic. Humans all originally had the skull shape 'N' and then this changed shape as they migrated around the world, regressing back to a more primitive morphology, apparently, in the very place it first evolved? Well, were the changes a result of environmental conditions or not you turd?

Dear idiot, the truth is that it never evolved to begin with. Evolution requires internal change, when it stops happening an organism has reached the end of its evolutionary line. There are many organisms on Earth that have not changed in hundreds of millions of years, despite moving into widely disparate environments. A sub-Saharan African community put into Europe is not going to change into white people after x number of millennia you naive little dolt.

Quote :

Luckily, nowadays we have genetic science to go by

And how does genetic science occlude physical reality idiot? Do you think you can make reality go away if you stare hard enough at a strand of DNA? Do you think DNA evolved separately from the organism that houses it, is not the organism simply a projection of it? How ironic that you complain about others not looking at the bigger picture and yet do exactly that here.

DNA was discovered and decoded by whites, molecular biology the same, and all the technology needed to unlock it. It's interesting that blacks today have less say over their identity and destiny than they did during slavery. The goal posts have simply been moved by the alpha race, the game deepened. The simulacrum is doing its job magnificently. But you cannot see the bigger picture can you bitch? You are a white liberal simpleton, feeding off her emotions, supporting blacks and other minorities against what you perceive as ignorant, working class racist whites. You are an altruist, and the powerful knowledge modern science gives you feeds your self-righteous, liberal arrogance but makes you nothing more than a pathetic puppet in this post modern drama.

phoneutria wrote:

Satyr wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

There is no counter argument.
My post can be taken to mean that I agree with what you say, and that your opinion is more aligned with
mine than with vanitas.

Are you saying that you are a bit embarrassed about your black blood?

Unfortunately I am in no part African....unless I go hundreds of generations back.
All Caucasian.

No, I am saying that everything you posted aligns with a single origin hypothesis, which is the mainstream hypothesys backed by terabytes of research, as opposed to polygenism, which is backed by a few dozen racist whackos in denial, such as our dear friend vanitas.

Dear moron, races could have evolved in Africa. Different hominid strains existing side by side in competition with each other, until some were driven out.

The question is how far back can one trace the empirical evidence for the evolution of man?

This is when I, once again, opt to stop wasting my time on you.
If you later decide to return to a more reasonable tone, we can talk again just like grown ups do.

Now go take a walk outside and cool your little head ok?

phoneutria wrote:

This is when I, once again, opt to stop wasting my time on you.
If you later decide to return to a more reasonable tone, we can talk again just like grown ups do.

Now go take a walk outside and cool your little head ok?

Did it hit you so hard that you imagine it is me in paroxysms of rage?

Enjoy your stroll.

Quote :

Blunderpuss, do you understand anything of history?


Human Migration map
Follow the visual aid...

Now notice the timeline.
From where did humans settle into the Nile Delta?
Here, allow me to help you:
Ancient Egyptian Civilization

While the sub-Saharan Negroes were still rubbing sticks together it was from Asian that the people who founded the Egyptian Civilization came from.
There they mixed with the indigenous Negroes who were still mastering the craft of pissing upright.

These locals were probably Negroes that floated down the Nile.
From there some influence downriver must have occurred...but nothing to brag about.

Tell us what grand inventions and thoughts came out of Ethiopia.

I am so disappointed in you. I fully expected you to jump on the opportunity. Oh well.
On a lighter note, you posted a timeline. I love timelines, they put things into perspective.

I'll tell you about Ethiopia, but your post is so messy that I need to get things in order. Hold on.

Quote :

Liberal nitwits have been using Egypt as an excuse for decades because to the question "why didn't the Negroes ever produce a civilization comparable to Babylon or China or the Greeks?" they have nothing to show except some primitive sculpting and mud huts.

The map clearly shows that the Egyptian Civilization began after, AFTER, the populations came out of Africa, evolved for thousands upon thousands of years and then reentered Africa from the north.

We know that for a fact. But we also know for a fact that when a drought hit the Nile in 90000BC, people settled in the upper Nile and evolved there much like in every other region. There is a very ancient tradition of farming and fishing in the upper Nile, with the first evidences of barley harvest appearing at 17000BC (you can put that at "pretty fucking early" on your timeline), and along with it, social and cultural development that aligns with farming and rain cycles, and fertility.

These were the people who dealt with torrential rain seasons that brought devastation along the Nile, which made farming in the lower Nile impossible until a way to control the waters was devised. It was them who created the first dykes in the upper Nile around 7000BC. In case you lost track of your timeline, the dynastic period didn't come around util about 3100BC).

And who were the people who created the whole concept of royalty, you may ask. And here is a funny thing. For some reason, when you are doing superficial reading like you did, you find the history of Egypt starting in the 3rd dynasty.

Between 4000BC and right before the 1st dynasty, a more sophisticated political and religious order began to form in the upper Nile, and priests/scribes became an emergent class. The earliest known Egyptian style royal burial ground is in Qustul, Nubia, which is believed to be "the seat of Egypts' founding dynasty". And the 1st dynasty pharaoh, the one who united the Upper and Lower Nile under one kingdom, and was the first to associate himself with the image of a god, was Narmer (or Menes), a Nubian.

That's right, Satyr, Nubia. The people that the Bible refer to as Kushites, and that the Greeks called Aethiopians.
I read that Aethiopia means "the people with the burned faces". Is that true?

I wish you had read about Ethiopia like I asked you to. You may have found the records of Herodotus. He knew that the Aethiopians were as black as the people living in Sudan nowadays. And you may have read about Qustul, Ta-Seti, Aswan... You may have noticed that the white crown, which is the symbol of pharaonic royalty, is a Nubian artifact. You may have noticed that the Egyptians referred to themselves as K.mt, which means black, and that they referred to the Upper Nile as the Land of the Gods. You may have come across the Narmer Palette showing the first depiction of an Egyptian king. But instead, you leave it to me to tell you about this, as if I have any responsibility in teaching you free and easily available ancient history.

So at this point, I'll recommend you further reading. The University of Chicago's Oriental Institute has a lot of information on this, and you may also be interested in the work of Timothy Kendall.
Or not, do whatever you want. Just don't come to me with this 9th grade textbook bullshit again. My time is short, I will simply ignore it.

Quote :

The alligator never evolved from a certain point onward because it did not have to. It found a niche, was successful there, and there it stayed.
This is called stagnation...I also call it retardation when this also results in a reversal such as when a mind is sheltered and never has to fend for itself or think for itself.

I've said this about a thousand times, but here you are, another moron asking for it.

Retard, the Negroes were dominated because they never had to evolve beyond a certain point. They were in the primordial lands of humanity; they were comfortable there.
They didn't have to think too much, they never faces extinction as the Caucasians did during the Ice age, they never had to struggle to survive in areas unwelcoming to the human species.
They stagnated, only advancing enough to become even more comfortable or to compete with each other within their environment.

The oceans were encompassing them, and in the north the vastness of the Sahara kept them genetically isolated...except for that thin sliver of the Nile.

The Caucasians, on the other hand, experienced a kind of genetic renaissance...a genetic one...never-mind the alter one which actually produced the Renaissance.
They had to think to survive, those that innovated methods of coping with the harsh conditions of the north lived and propagated the others died.

And here is a hilarious piece of "what the fuck were you thinking".
In the first portion of your post, you provide evidence that there was a long period of such drastic drought and desertification that caused the entire area to be evacuated. And here you state as a matter of fact that these people never endured hardship!
That wasn't the only phase of desertification either. As you may know (and I sort of doubt it at this point), there wasn't a Sahara Desert before. There was a progressive scenario of hardship in that region during the entire history of humanity.
Not to mention that the yearly flooding season is so sudden and violent that everything that was built would be destroyed every year. It wasn't even possible to farm and to herd in the Lower Nile until means of controlling the water were devised.
You make it sound like all these monkeys had to do to stay alive was to stretch their arms and reach for a sweet juicy fruit.
So tell me, blunderpuss. do you know anything about history?

Quote :

Stupid, race is real, it is an actual fact....that today race-mixing is blurring the lines is another matter.....something I am writing about in my essay...yes....The Feminization of Mankind.

I never for a second intend to imply that race is not real. The cringeworthy matter of this discussion here, is the attempt to prove that certain peoples are, by any criteria, better than others at birth.
Why we are discussing this, I have no idea. This isn't philosophy and there isn't a single thing to gain from this discussion. I perceive it as an attempt to reach for some type of embedded superiority that sets one apart from the rest by default, which is, interesting enough, an entirely white tendency. Everyone else seems to be at peace with their nature.

Here is an excellent book to counter the kind of crap the Brazillian idiot in the above post made.

It's written by a professor of history from Bristol University, not some black sitting in his bedroom in the Bronx with access to the internet and a dictionary, trying to ape a man of letters.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

This volume argues that the Afrocentric movement is guilty of reproducing all the central features of the outmoded Euro-racist scholarship. Offering a mostly fictional history of Africa and its diaspora, centred on ideas about ancient Egypt, it suggests that Afrocentrisum is a symptom of, rather than a cure for, political and economic problems. The author traces the sources and ancestries of the movement, and analyzes the writings of its leading proponents including Molefi Asante, Cheikh Anta Diop and Martin Bernal. He bases his study on wide-ranging research in the histories of both Afro-America and of Africa itself with the aims of demolishing the mythical "history" taught by black ultra-nationalists and suggesting paths towards a more accurate historical picture of Africa.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

phoneutria wrote:

We know that for a fact. But we also know for a fact that when a drought hit the Nile in 90000BC, people settled in the upper Nile and evolved there much like in every other region. There is a very ancient tradition of farming and fishing in the upper Nile, with the first evidences of barley harvest appearing at 17000BC (you can put that at "pretty fucking early" on your timeline), and along with it, social and cultural development that aligns with farming and rain cycles, and fertility.

Dear woman, Ethiopia is not even comparable to anything I consider Higher Civilization.
Nubia?
Really?
Dear, what came out of Nubia...and don't just offer me trinkets and mud-huts or walls build in a circular fashion.
What technologies...what innovations...what thoughts?

Hardship, dear, is a fact of life.

Now focus...Those experiencing evolutionary pressures in Africa did not experience them on the scale those who left Africa did.
Whatever environmental conditions pressured the populations there were not comparable to the environmental conditions confronting those who were forced to emigrate out of their primordial homelands.

In Europe for example the homo sapient population, also competing with Neanderthal man, almost went extinct during the Ice Age...which means, dear, that only the best and the brightest and the most innovative managed to survive.
It is said that the human population there must have fallen to the hundreds.
There was no mass extinction in Africa, dear.

Arte-facts and drawings on cave walls and bright little jewelry does not make a civilization on a level of an Egypt or Mesopotamia or in China or later in Greece and Rome.

This near extinction, dear, also explains why Jews, the Ashkenazim, are amongst the brightest. They experienced the Holocaust...and some would say the Black Plague, which devastated Europe during the Middle Ages, produced the Renaissance.

Sweetie, I know you wish to live in a world where all are the same and all are loved and all are kept safe and sound...but that's not reality.
Babycakes, when Europeans were building empires Africans were still sharpening stones and making ivory trinkets and wearing grass as skirts.
You can't explain away the outcome by evoking luck or by comparing a primitive culture to a more sophisticated one. If you do then you should also say that a chimp is lower than a human because of bad luck or that they too have a sort of culture in that they make tools and share in vocalizations.

That Africans have produced nothing on a level that Jews have, for example, who also suffered from persecution and prejudice cannot just be ignored or offered naive explanations to avoid hurting their feelings.
There is something admirable in Native American culture but it cannot be compared to what developed in Europe.

Little girl, if life was supposed to be fair and no divergence happened and nobody dominated and nobody was hurt then there would be no species and no life as we know it.

But you live in a declining culture and so you still can't differentiate the qualitative differences between negro influenced music of shaking your ass in sexually explicit ways and talking about love incessantly, with what is known as Classical music or with European art in general.
Even your modern pop rooted in Negro primal drumbeats was a result of Negroes coming into contact with the more lyrical European music.

King Tutankhamen's face painstakingly reconstructed by 3D CT scans.

Does this look like the face of a sub-Saharan African?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Vanitas wrote:

Here is an excellent book to counter the kind of crap the Brazillian idiot in the above post made.

It's written by a professor of history from Bristol University, not some black sitting in his bedroom in the Bronx with access to the internet and a dictionary, trying to ape a man of letters.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

This volume argues that the Afrocentric movement is guilty of reproducing all the central features of the outmoded Euro-racist scholarship. Offering a mostly fictional history of Africa and its diaspora, centred on ideas about ancient Egypt, it suggests that Afrocentrisum is a symptom of, rather than a cure for, political and economic problems. The author traces the sources and ancestries of the movement, and analyzes the writings of its leading proponents including Molefi Asante, Cheikh Anta Diop and Martin Bernal. He bases his study on wide-ranging research in the histories of both Afro-America and of Africa itself with the aims of demolishing the mythical "history" taught by black ultra-nationalists and suggesting paths towards a more accurate historical picture of Africa.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Although I agree with you in general, I do not agree with you on some minor details.

It might be true that life spontaneously emerged in multiple areas but some cross breeding must have occurred to produce a common species.
But I cannot agree with this Adam and Eve scenario either. Modern Liberal in their desperation imply a common ancestor as if one single individual must have produced all of us. They like this idea because it leads to a common ancestor which makes us all one big happy family.

My positions fall somewhere in the middle.
I would say that life emerged as single-celled organisms in multiple areas and that these mingled and combined or shared DNA to produced mufti-celled organisms.
Fast forward, and we're at a point where a population of a species sharing DNA which they exchange began forming into social unities because they could not compete on their own.

I would say that this happened in more than one area and not at the same time period.
I would say that the social ones out-competed the solitary ones, by leaving behind more offspring.

So, although we can trace our heritage back to common roots we cannot trace them back to one singular one....or to some primordial Adam and Eve pairing.

Having said that, this Afro-centrism is a modern ploy to reinvent history so as to deal with the fact that sub-Sahara never produced anything comparable to what Europeans or Asians did... and this is why they were so easily dominated and taken as slaves.

[quote="Vanitas"]Here is an excellent book to counter the kind of crap the Brazillian idiot in the above post made.

It's written by a professor of history from Bristol University, not some black sitting in his bedroom in the Bronx with access to the internet and a dictionary, trying to ape a man of letters.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

This volume argues that the Afrocentric movement is guilty of reproducing all the central features of the outmoded Euro-racist scholarship. Offering a mostly fictional history of Africa and its diaspora, centred on ideas about ancient Egypt, it suggests that Afrocentrisum is a symptom of, rather than a cure for, political and economic problems. The author traces the sources and ancestries of the movement, and analyzes the writings of its leading proponents including Molefi Asante, Cheikh Anta Diop and Martin Bernal. He bases his study on wide-ranging research in the histories of both Afro-America and of Africa itself with the aims of demolishing the mythical "history" taught by black ultra-nationalists and suggesting paths towards a more accurate historical picture of Africa.

I know that you find the smell of your own feces delightful, but if you took your head out of there for a moment you'd see that you are so above and beyond the worst form of blatant racism that when you acuse me of bias I can't help but laugh inside.
Ignore the fact that everything in my post is backed by archeological evidence, and that the references I posted are highly respected.
Why don't ignore my posts altogether. You don't seem to have a problem ignoring everything else that you don't like.
The blissful life of a blameless denialist is at your reach.

Read this my dear friends. I promise it is very brief.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]