The failure of multiculturalism and multifaithism

Rumy Hasan, a senior lecturer at the University of Sussex, argues, faith based identity politics have contributed to an increasingly divisive school system, which undermines children's right to a broad, critical and tolerant secular education.

The spat between Michael Gove and Theresa May focuses on the failure to tackle Islamic extremism in Birmingham's schools. Whether such failure can be attributed to one party or the other is, in fact, a moot point. The real problem has deeper roots: it resides in the failure of multiculturalism and multifaithism. Given that both the previous and present governments describe Britain as being a multi-faith society, it is entirely to be expected that leaders of those groups for whom their faith trumps all other indicators of identity, will seek robustly to instil the imprimatur of the values and practices of their religion. In this context, recent statements made by Prime Minister David Cameron and Communities Secretary Eric Pickles that Britain is essentially a Christian country, are most unhelpful in that they provoke many within the faith minorities to emphatically say "no we are not", and to assert their own non-Christian faith identity with even greater vigour.

This fundamental truth has not well been understood by the political establishment. Rather, like the previous government, the present coalition government's concern has been on tackling Islamist terrorism following 9/11 and especially since the 7th July 2005 bombings. It is precisely this thinking that led Michael Gove to appoint Peter Clark, former National Co-ordinator for Counter Terrorism, to review the evidence of the Trojan Horse plot. This detracts from core of the problem of heightened faith identities that are facilitated by high levels of segregation in communities and in schools.

Indeed, concerns about segregated schooling go back decades. As far back as 1985, the Swann Report on education highlighted the dangers of "separate schools" for ethnic minorities. Two decades later, Barry Sheerman, chairman of the Commons Education Select Committee, warned in 2005: "Do we want a ghettoised education system? ... Schools play a crucial role in integrating different communities and the growth of faith schools poses a real threat to this. These things need to be thought through very carefully before they are implemented". In a similar vein, in 2007, Commission for Racial Equality Policy Director Nick Johnson cautioned that Britain risks becoming a "mini America" dominated by racially and religiously determined schools, and warned: "If a Muslim child is educated in a school where the vast majority of other children are also Muslim, how can we expect him to work, live and interact with people from other cultures when he leaves school? This is a ticking time-bomb waiting to explode". Given that practically nothing has been done to tackle the roots of the problems, that is, to tackle the very high levels of segregation and promote genuine integration, such a proverbial "time bomb" has indeed exploded in Birmingham, and will doubtless do so in many other towns and cities.

A natural consequence of residential segregation is that schools in inner cities have also become segregated: in the 21 Birmingham schools that were inspected by Ofsted, children of Muslim parents comprise over 90 per cent. Channel 4 News reported that in one school, only one child was non-Muslim; the white mother of the child thought that though a secular, state, school, it felt like a Muslim faith school. Indeed, this is precisely what has been happening: parents and governors of these schools are attempting to convert them into de facto Muslim faith schools. And here is something that has not been remarked upon: what is giving cause for concern re attempts by Islamists to take over state schools in Birmingham is precisely what has been made lawful in free schools and faith schools. Abandoning children to such schools, which are plainly not fit for purpose for modern Europe, is nothing short of a dereliction of duty.

The rising level of segregation is not only a phenomenon of "white flight" but also the flight of those from other religious-ethnic minorities. Polite society may not notice, but the stark reality is that Hindu and Sikh parents do not wish to send their schools where there is preponderance of Muslim children and vice versa. So what have arisen are "mono-faith" neighbourhoods and schools. Given the enormous importance of the formative years in life, this phenomenon can have a highly significant and lasting effect on how children from different backgrounds relate to each other. Put bluntly, there is likely to be a deleterious impact on integration and cohesion from heightened levels of segregation of children and this surely does not at all augur well for the goal of a socially cohesive society. If segregation of communities is not a desirable outcome and is an obstacle to improving social cohesion, then it is certainly also true for children in schools.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2014/06/schools-and-the-failure-of-multiculturalism-and-multifaithism

---

You realise that India is a Multicultural society, Vikaryan?

Funny how you, a supposed Indian, a person who hails from perhaps the most multicultural nation on Earth would claim that Multiculturalism is a danger to the West.  I wonder why?   ::)

Or is your name actually "Vik Aryan"?   ;D

Multiculturalism is a stupid idea.

It was devise by Poles who were pissed off by not being taken seriously be actual cultures (Russia and Germany) for centuries.

Soren wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 10:26pm:

Multiculturalism is a stupid idea.

Yet every nation, except for one is multicultural, Soren.  Can you guess which one that is?   All Multiculturalism does is recognise that reality.   ::)

Most societies have been and are multicultural, but it's when you enshrine it in law that it becomes problematical.
Multiculturalism as it is now is simply the ruling Elites response to the social movements of the immediate past, the Anti-Vietnam War Movement, Feminism etc, they didn't like the general population realising that they could unite and force change upon society, so they set up multiculturalism as a mechanism to "divide and rule", and it's working well, isn't it?  >:(

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 12:42am:

Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 10:26pm: Multiculturalism is a stupid idea. Yet every nation, except for one is multicultural, Soren.  Can you guess which one that is?   All Multiculturalism does is recognise that reality.   ::)

Vatican? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Japan? Mongolia? North Korea?

austranger wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 12:54am:

Most societies have been and are multicultural, but it's when you enshrine it in law that it becomes problematical. Multiculturalism as it is now is simply the ruling Elites response to the social movements of the immediate past, the Anti-Vietnam War Movement, Feminism etc, they didn't like the general population realising that they could unite and force change upon society, so they set up multiculturalism as a mechanism to "divide and rule", and it's working well, isn't it?  >:(

Not quite.  It was actually in response to the perceived failure of monoculturalism to satisfy the needs of the varied Immigrant communities.  Nothing to do with "Leftist movements".  The Immigrants felt that their cultural heritage and contribution was being belittled and ignored by mainstream Australia and their needs were not being answered.  The Politicians, seeking votes responded to this perceived lack of response from the dominant cultural group within Australia.

One massive benefit which gets forgotten by the detractors of Multiculturalism is the resuscitation of our own indigenous culture, which the dominant, Anglo-Saxon/Celtic colonial culture had set out so effectively to destroy through forced religious conversion/suppression of culture/breakup of families/theft of lands/starvation/slavery/etc.   Australian society is all the richer for it and the accommodation of immigrant cultures.

Soren wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 11:14am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 12:42am: Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 10:26pm: Multiculturalism is a stupid idea. Yet every nation, except for one is multicultural, Soren.  Can you guess which one that is?   All Multiculturalism does is recognise that reality.   ::) Vatican? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Japan? Mongolia? North Korea?

All are multicultural, Soren   ::)

It is Iceland and even that one is changing as more immigrants arrive.   Even Japan is multicultural, despite their Government's denial of it and attempts to eradicate anything except the dominant Japanese culture.   ::)

Yes, that's right folks - Every country is multicultural and always has been!

Such is the disingenuousness of Brian Toss.

Here's a new weapon -- political correctness

Political correctness. It has become a propaganda tool — mind control to limit freedom of speech and designed to lay blame where there is no blame.

Racism is its greatest weapon, followed by homophobic thinking, with religion as another weapon.

Once those cards are played in the business world, it becomes a financial problem.

A few control by whining because others won’t speak up, and this helps political correctness thrive.

Looks like the government controls political correctness to keep followers in line.

http://amarillo.com/opinion/letters-editor/2014-05-15/letter-heres-new-weapon-political-correctness

Political correctness gone too far

In the Indiana Daily Student for Friday, March 21, the story of Keith J. Sampson was reported by Sara Amato. Mr. Sampson was charged with “racial harassment” for reading a history book checked out of the IUPUI library titled “Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan,” by Todd Tucker. Sampson’s crime? Reading it in front of fellow employees who were black thus creating a “hostile atmosphere of antagonism.” This would be just ludicrous if it was not so dangerous. Using this same logic, a Muslim reading the Koran on break in front of Christians or atheists would be just as guilty. This scenario can be played out ad infinitum. But what it amounts to is that we have institutionalized “Thought Police” whose job it is to insure everyone thinks, speaks and writes only politically, morally, racially, religiously and politically correct thoughts. We have accepted the premise of the “Doctrine of Overriding Outrage” which is that some group(s) have decided for the rest of us that certain issues and ideas are so significant that there is no point in discussing them any longer (e.g.: religion, race, sex, politics). Calm dispassionate (even passionate analysis is a waste of time). They ask, ‘Why tolerate ideas that are so obviously wrong?’” It is time to restore freedom.

http://www.idsnews.com/article/2008/04/political-correctness-gone-too-far?id=60268

---

... wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 1:39pm:

Yes, that's right folks - Every country is multicultural and always has been! Such is the disingenuousness of Brian Toss.

So, prove me wrong, Wesley.   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 6:18pm:

You realise that India is a Multicultural society, Vikaryan? Funny how you, a supposed Indian, a person who hails from perhaps the most multicultural nation on Earth would claim that Multiculturalism is a danger to the West.  I wonder why?   ::) Or is your name actually "Vik Aryan"?   ;D

India may be multicultural but its not the most multicultural on Earth. It is however one of the most racist ! The caste system is living proof of that !

Multiculturalism is an anti-Western ideology that was strangely enough created in the West.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 1:34pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 11:14am: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 12:42am: Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 10:26pm: Multiculturalism is a stupid idea. Yet every nation, except for one is multicultural, Soren.  Can you guess which one that is?   All Multiculturalism does is recognise that reality.   ::) Vatican? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Japan? Mongolia? North Korea? All are multicultural, Soren   ::)

Bollocks.

Soren wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 8:43pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 1:34pm: Soren wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 11:14am: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 12:42am: Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 10:26pm: Multiculturalism is a stupid idea. Yet every nation, except for one is multicultural, Soren.  Can you guess which one that is?   All Multiculturalism does is recognise that reality.   ::) Vatican? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Japan? Mongolia? North Korea? All are multicultural, Soren   ::) Bollocks.

Vatican draws its population from around the world, Soren.

Saudi Arabia contains several different Arabic sub-cultures and differing religious groups.

Iran, contains several different cultural and religious groups, including, *GASP*, Jews, Christians and even Zoroastrians.

Japan,contains several different "racial", cultural and religious communities.

Mongolia, contains several different cultural and religious communities.

North Korea, contains several different cultural and religious groups, despite the DPRK Governments effort to suppress them.

Care to try again, Soren?   ::)

That's right folks - if a country contains even one person from a foreign culture, it is multicultural.

Such is the disingenuousness of Brian Toss.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 12:30am:

Soren wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 8:43pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 1:34pm: Soren wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 11:14am: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 12:42am: Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 10:26pm: Multiculturalism is a stupid idea. Yet every nation, except for one is multicultural, Soren.  Can you guess which one that is?   All Multiculturalism does is recognise that reality.   ::) Vatican? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Japan? Mongolia? North Korea? All are multicultural, Soren   ::) Bollocks. Vatican draws its population from around the world, Soren. Saudi Arabia contains several different Arabic sub-cultures and differing religious groups. Iran, contains several different cultural and religious groups, including, *GASP*, Jews, Christians and even Zoroastrians. Japan,contains several different "racial", cultural and religious communities. Mongolia, contains several different cultural and religious communities. North Korea, contains several different cultural and religious groups, despite the DPRK Governments effort to suppress them. Care to try again, Soren?   ::)

In that case every country and place on earth has always been multicultural. Even Nazi Germany.

So what is 'multiculturalism', then? What the hell was introduced a few decades ago under the name of 'multiculturalism' if we, like everyone, have always been multicultural.

Please explain, Brain.

Obama’s self-appointed mission in life is to destroy the most productive and beneficial culture in history. Obama’s mentors shared a bitter hatred for middle-class values, starting with his mother and father, followed by his Muslim madrassa teachers in Jakarta, then Frank Marshall Davis in Hawaii, on and on, culminating in Jerry Wright, who calls our culture of freedom and productive work “middleclassness”.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/06/dangerous_times_obama_the_betrayer.html

---

Wow!  Amazing!  American society was so weak it took only six years for the President to destroy it?  It must have been so ramshackle all it needed was one push to overturn it!

So, if it was that dilapidated, most of the undermining must have occurred well before Obama appeared in the Oval Office.  Gee, all those nice, white, Christian Presidents.  Who'd have thought they were undermining white American culture all those decades?   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The Only Way to TRUE PEACE is to POINT OUT TRUE EVIL and DESTROY IT!!!

---

I have no White Guilt

delicioussweettears:

   
Quote:

I’m mostly white, and I am not ashamed of it.     I feel no guilt.     I do not feel guilty for the enslavement of Africans.     I was not involved in that, so why should I feel guilty?

http://delicioussweettears.tumblr.com/post/34316022096/i-have-no-white-guilt

http://loveyouramerica.tumblr.com/post/91126026442/i-have-no-white-guilt#notes

---

vikaryan wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 4:16pm:

The Only Way to TRUE PEACE is to POINT OUT TRUE EVIL and DESTROY IT!!!

Which is what most of us is doing in mocking you and your foul, racist, immature posts.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

... wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 8:19am:

That's right folks - if a country contains even one person from a foreign culture, it is multicultural. Such is the disingenuousness of Brian Toss.

I thought you claimed that was a typo.  Looks to me like its now become an attempted insult.   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 4:21pm:

vikaryan wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 4:16pm: The Only Way to TRUE PEACE is to POINT OUT TRUE EVIL and DESTROY IT!!! Which is what most of us is doing in mocking you and your foul, racist, immature posts.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Still trying to defend the indefensible, I see!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Development of Jewish Strategies for Survival in the Multicultural World

by Andrew Joyce

The unstated but expected outcome of these efforts will be a strongly identified next generation, which has married and reproduced within the group, and will remain loyal to Israel and to broader Jewish goals. In effect, the measures currently being devised by world Jewry are the beginnings of what will inevitably be a well-funded, well-organized effort to inoculate young Jews against many of the effects of multiculturalism which continue to ravage young Whites.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/07/development-of-jewish-strategies-for-survival-in-the-multicultural-world/

Mark Green
July 4, 2014 - 5:17 am | Permalink

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/07/development-of-jewish-strategies-for-survival-in-the-multicultural-world/#comment-198742

Whites are at a disadvantage in this modern competition since white (racial) solidarity–unlike Jewish solidarity–is taboo in America. Why? The dominant Jewish narrative effectively bars whites from forming ethnic/racial teams the way Jews do. This keeps whites divided and off balance when competing against Jews.

At the same time, this double-standard allows Jewish teams to flourish. Jewish alliances enhance Jewish unity, boost Jewish morale, increase Jewish cooperation, and instill in Jews a sense of collective purpose. But please don’t mention this. (Saying so is considered antisemitic).

An entrenched double-standard has taken root. Within it lies a murky and complex set of rules which emanate from a collection of ancient stories, modern myths, and concocted taboos. Together, they form the Big New Jewish Narrative.

The six pillars that sustain this Narrative are: fascism, racism, The Holocaust, democracy, freedom and human equality. I don’t want to spoil the ending here, but the good guys in this grand drama are–without a doubt–those poor, brilliant, equality-loving, highly democratic and ever-suffering Jews!

And if you don’t believe me, just turn on your TV or pick up a bestselling book.

Jews are definitely on the rise. Witness: money, commitment, power, pride, cohesion, and visibility.

Whites however are moving in reverse. We are rapidly being displaced and we’re losing control of our culture, language and country. But please don’t mention this. (Views of this kind are considered ‘reactionary’ and maybe even racist!)

Whites are clearly on the defensive. The other team is clearly on the offensive.

Culturally, organized Jewry uses Hitler/Nazism (and KKK imagery) to smear any and all European-derived American who dares advocate for nurturing alliances based along (white) kinship lines, even though Jewish kinship alliances are exactly what organized Jewry is nurturing now and has always nurtured. So why the double-standard? It’s good for the Jews.

And how do they get away with it? That’s where the official Holocaust narrative comes in.

According to the Official Story: Jews have no choice. We (lesser souls) keep persecuting them and killing them. And for no good reason! So they absolutely MUST stick together. All the hatred/discrimination directed at Jews is ‘Just because they’re Jews’. That’s it. End of story. Incredibly, the root of the problem is not about Jewish beliefs or even what Jews do. It’s all about us bad guys and our ‘virulent’ antisemitism.

So what’s a good, decent American supposed to do? Fight fascism of course! The Big Problem CLEARLY is antisemitism and white racism for sure. Now go!

Thus, Jews remain proud, militant, guilt-free, unified and (justifiably of course) defensive while countless whites feel ashamed, disorganized, demoralized, and even estranged from their own racial brethren. Their team is winning. Ours, not.

The ‘white community’ (may I use that expression?) may now coalesce along (non-discriminatory) corporate/business interests, regional boundaries, religious faith, or narrow ideological differences such as liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican. That’s pretty much it.

Jews however can be wide-open, Jew-loving Israelis/settlers/Holocaust survivors or just plain wonderful Jews! They can work as teams with strictly Jewish objectives. And isn’t that great?! And if you don’t like it, don’t blame them. Blame Hitler. Antisemitism made them this way.

Just don’t get in their way.

Unfortunately, atomized, white Americans are now in a box. Jews–playing on the Jewish team–not only get to play by different rules, but these same cultural programmers play an enormous role in managing/shaping modern political orthodoxies. They also contribute millions of dollars to BOTH political parties at the same time. Even countless Christian churches are now under the Jewish/Zionist thumb.

These downtrodden Holocaust survivors (and their descendents) also write/edit the screenplays for many of the shows our neighbors/friends/children watch. They also happen to censor/edit much of the news that average Americans consume as well. Industrious, aren’t they? Nothing wrong with that!

Jews are America’s foremost gatekeepers. (And come to think of it, they seem to have a lot of clout in Europe, too.)

Jewish billionaires even have millions of us cheering for their multiracial professional sports teams that represent various cities, even though most of the athletes moved to these unfamiliar urban areas only after signing multi-million-dollar contracts. It’s a magnificent spectacle for the masses and advertisers and the owners and their mistresses. Interestingly, these teams also happen to very much resemble our new multiracial army which also fights under the direction of powerful Jews. Go Team Go!

Curiously, while Americans cheer for their favorite professional team as well as our troops (God Bless our Troops!) millions of poor, uneducated, Spanish-speaking meso-Americans pour through unguarded US borders, forever changing American civilization. Forever.

Can we talk about it? (Is it racist to do so?) Unfortunately, Jewish intellectuals and their minions now insist that the US is a ‘proposition nation’. (see: ‘Democracy, equality.’)

Race doesn’t matter here. Not n

---

Except Israel is a multicultural and multifaith nation, Vik. 


Quote:

The religious affiliation of the Israeli population[vague] as of 2011 was 75.4% Jewish, 16.9% Muslim, 2.1% Christian, and 1.7% Druze, with the remaining 4.0% not classified by religion.[2]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Israel]Source[/url]

So, 24+% of the population isn't Jewish.  Your anti-Semitism is as usually out of touch with reality.   ::)

If Diversity Is Strength, Why Is Iraq Breaking Up?

So how do we know that something like what’s occurring in Iraq, or in Ukraine, or other troubled places in the world, can’t happen in the United States? Consider the current ingredients in the explosive cocktail that is today’s America. “Diversity” is the reigning ideology. Simultaneously, the historic Anglo-European majority is dwindling, and the current system is rigged against it.

Minorities, meanwhile, are encouraged to agitate collectively. In particular, a burgeoning Latin American population is being encouraged to think of itself as “Hispanic” although most are Mexican, and to assert its group rights, some flagrantly revanchist. On top of it all is the Obama administration, a Minority Occupation Government openly hostile to the historic American nation. Yes, what could possibly go wrong?

https://www.vdare.com/articles/memo-from-middle-america-if-diversity-is-strength-why-is-iraq-breaking-up

---

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

Except Israel is a multicultural and multifaith nation, Vik.  Quote: The religious affiliation of the Israeli population[vague] as of 2011 was 75.4% Jewish, 16.9% Muslim, 2.1% Christian, and 1.7% Druze, with the remaining 4.0% not classified by religion.[2] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Israel]Source[/url] So, 24+% of the population isn't Jewish.  Your anti-Semitism is as usually out of touch with reality.   ::)

Well I hate to break the news to you, but

Zionism = racism

An honest assessment of Israel by the journalist Gideon Levy. Gilbert Achcar described the mindset behind this kind of racism a couple of years ago.


Quote:

For a person of Jewish descent, there are two ways of drawing lessons from the Nazi genocide of the European Jews: one leads to saying "Never again to us, the Jews"; the other "Never again" tout court. The former conclusion stems from a narrow ethnic outlook, reversing the Nazi perspective by taking the side of "the Jews" against the rest of the world. In both cases, "the Jews" are singled out as a particular group of people with extraordinary features: whereas the Nazis saw them as the embodiment of evil to the point of trying to annihilate them, the holders of the Jewish ethnocentric perspective believe that the defence of "Jewish" interests - which like all brands of collective interest, whether national or class or whatever, is a hotly disputed notion, with rare occasional unanimity on what it could mean - is a value superseding all others. In the name of this defence, they end up denying the humanity of the victims of Israel, the purported "State of the Jews", just as most oppressors throughout history have denied their victims' humanity.

Now we are witnessing the latest violent consequences of this ideology. --PG

http://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading/2014/07/06/zionism-racism

Our wretched Jewish state
Source: Haaretz

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.603232

Now we know: In the Jewish state, there is pity and humane feelings only for Jews, rights only for the Chosen People. The Jewish state is only for Jews.

By Gideon Levy
Published 05:34 06.07.14

The youths of the Jewish state are attacking Palestinians in the streets of Jerusalem, just like gentile youths used to attack Jews in the streets of Europe. The Israelis of the Jewish state are rampaging on social networks, displaying hatred and a lust for revenge, unprecedented in its diabolic scope. Some unknown people from the Jewish state, purely based on his ethnicity. These are the children of the nationalistic and racist generation – Netanyahu’s offspring.

For five years now, they have been hearing nothing but incitement, scaremongering and supremacy over Arabs from this generation’s true instructor, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Not one humane word, no commiseration or equal treatment.

They grew up with the provocative demand for recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state,” and they drew the inevitable conclusions. Even before any delineation of what a “Jewish state” means – will it be a state that dons tefillin (phylacteries), kisses mezuzot (doorpost fixtures with prayer scrolls), sanctifies charms, closes down on the Sabbath and keeps strict kashrut laws? – the penny has dropped for the masses.

The mob was the first to internalize its true significance: a Jewish state is one in which there is room only for Jews. The fate of Africans is to be sent to the Holot detention center in the Negev, while that of Palestinians is to suffer from pogroms. That’s how it works in a Jewish state: only this way can it be Jewish.

In the Jewish state-in-the-making, there is no room even for an Arab who strives his utmost to be a good Arab, such as the writer Sayed Kashua. In a Jewish state, the chairman of the Knesset plenary session, MK Ruth Calderon (from Yesh Atid – the “center” of the political map, needless to say), cuts off Arab MK Ahmed Tibi (United Arab List-Ta’al), who has just returned all shaken up from a visit to the family of the murdered Arab boy from Shoafat, impudently preaching to him that he must also refer to the three murdered Jewish teens (even after he did just that).

In a Jewish state, the High Court of Justice approves the demolition of a murder suspect’s family home even before his conviction. A Jewish state legislates racist and nationalist laws.

The media in the Jewish state wallows in the murder of three yeshiva students, while almost entirely ignoring the fates of several Palestinian youths of the same age who have been killed by army fire over the last few months, usually for no reason.

No one was punished for these acts – in the Jewish state there is one law for Jews and another for Arabs, whose lives are cheap. There is no hint of abiding by international laws and conventions. In the Jewish state, there is pity and humane feelings only for Jews, rights only for the Chosen People. The Jewish state is only for Jews.

The new generation growing in its shadow is a dangerous one, both to itself and its surroundings. Netanyahu is its education minister; the militaristic and nationalist media serves as its pedagogic epic poem; the education system that takes it to Auschwitz and Hebron serves as its guide.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

Except Israel is a multicultural and multifaith nation, Vik.  Quote: The religious affiliation of the Israeli population[vague] as of 2011 was 75.4% Jewish, 16.9% Muslim, 2.1% Christian, and 1.7% Druze, with the remaining 4.0% not classified by religion.[2] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Israel]Source[/url] So, 24+% of the population isn't Jewish.  Your anti-Semitism is as usually out of touch with reality.   ::)

“In the Jewish state, there is pity and humane feelings only for Jews, rights only for the Chosen People. The Jewish state is only for Jews.”

—  Gideon Levy
Our wretched Jewish state

Source: Haaretz

http://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading/2014/07/06/zionism-racism

---

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

Except Israel is a multicultural and multifaith nation, Vik.  Quote: The religious affiliation of the Israeli population[vague] as of 2011 was 75.4% Jewish, 16.9% Muslim, 2.1% Christian, and 1.7% Druze, with the remaining 4.0% not classified by religion.[2] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Israel]Source[/url] So, 24+% of the population isn't Jewish.  Your anti-Semitism is as usually out of touch with reality.   ::)

---

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

Except Israel is a multicultural and multifaith nation, Vik.  Quote: The religious affiliation of the Israeli population[vague] as of 2011 was 75.4% Jewish, 16.9% Muslim, 2.1% Christian, and 1.7% Druze, with the remaining 4.0% not classified by religion.[2] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Israel]Source[/url] So, 24+% of the population isn't Jewish.  Your anti-Semitism is as usually out of touch with reality.   ::)

You need to be careful with 'racist' labels.

“In the Jewish state, there is pity and humane feelings only for Jews, rights only for the Chosen People. The Jewish state is only for Jews.” — Gideon Levy, Our wretched Jewish state

Source: Haaretz

http://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading/2014/07/06/zionism-racism

---

Yep, Zionism is racism but it also Jewish Supremacism based heavily upon the Talmud.

In fact, Zionism may also be called Talmudism.

Zionists are the biggest race-haters in the world and they hate White Europeans more than any other race of people.
Which is why they have been instrumental in establishing multiculturalism/multiracialism in ALL White Western countries.

As the majority of Zionists are Jews and the majority of Jews are white Europeans, how can they hate white Europeans, Taipan?   As usual, your convoluted thinking falls down flat when exposed to logic.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Article author: Volunteer Writer / Published: 8th day of Þrimilce-mōnaþ 2264.RE / 8th day of Þrimilce-mōnaþ 2014

THE JEWISH-ONLY-ISRAEL:

MALICIOUS, GENOCIDAL, RACIST-HYPOCRISY  :o :o :o

http://nationalistasatrunews.com/international-news/the-jewish-israel-malicious-genocidal-racist-hypocrisy.html

So what's new in the illegitimate, Jewish-Supremacist State of Israel? 

-Nothing, just more of the same genocidal, hypocritical, subversive and insidious manipulations and crimes against humanity.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking at Independence Hall in Tel Aviv, announced a plan to introduce legislation that “will enshrine the country's status as the nation state of the Jewish people”.


Quote:

Yes indeed, it's yet more staggering proof of Jewish Supremacist hypocrisy that has fallen on the selectively deaf ears of the Western media.

It will be written into law that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, and no one else.


Quote:

And yet Jews boast about being on the front lines of the promotion of inter-racialism and multiculturalism in all our nations.

The legislation is not even trying to hide the Jewish-Supremacism, in a move that will expose the Jewish racist roots of all the conflict in the Middle East a& Globally that emanates from Israel: It does not even state Israel for the Israelis, but Israel for the Jews as do the Jewish symbols visibly painted on the sides of (US taxpayer funded) Merkava battle tanks and F16s that bombard defenseless Palestinian civilians with weapons that are illegal under the Geneva convention.

The same Jewish symbols and Jewish-psychopaths who burned hundreds of children alive in the sieges on the few Palestinian inhabited areas of Palestine, that have existed non-stop in a state of de-facto ethnic-cleansing and war for the last 70 years.

A true crime against humanity. Effectively, a non-Jewish person born in Israel, who spent much of their evolutionary ancestral history there also (exempli gratia: Palestinians), will not be a citizen of Israel; they can, at best, be an unwanted guest.


Quote:

Jews – the great humanitarians and promoters of multiculturalism?

The truth is that Jewish activists promote such not out of principle but in order to achieve their fanatical and unrealistic racial aims of making Europeans disempowered minorities (and extinct after that) whilst establishing their own ethno-state.


Quote:

“To my great regret, we have seen recenty, there are those who do not recognize this natural right. They seek to undermine the historic, moral and legal justification for the existence of the state of Israel as the national state of our [Jewish] people.”      “ It is impossible to speak out in favour of a Palestinian nation-state just to preserve the Jewish character of the State of Israel, and at the same time, to oppose recognizing that the State of Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people. Supporting the creation of a Palestinian nation-state and opposing the recognition of a Jewish nation-state undermines, in the long run, the principle of the State of Israel's [hypocritically justified] right to exist.”     -Prime Minister of the "Jewish State" Benjamin Netanyahu

Meanwhile, his 'Chosen'-ite brethren outside of Israel have the gall to control countries populated with Europeans with their behind-the-scenes political financiers and special interest groups, such as AIPAC, the SPLC and the ADL in the USA, or the Conservative and all mainstream parties' Friends of Israel groups in the UK and Europe, all working towards the cultural destruction and genetic defilement of our folk utilizing mass-immigration as a weapon of mass-ethnic destruction.

What is doubly disgusting about this outrageous double standard, is the fact that we Europeans in Europe, unlike the Jews of Israel, have far more right to the lands we live in, for we evolved in them and are their sole inhabitants for the last 50,000 years, unlike Palestine.

It is essential to the survival of a people to maintain their own identity, culture, traditions, and a territory to call home.

This natural right the Jews demand for themselves and refuse for us. It is both shameless and shameful.

But they do not care, for Jewish Supremacists exist on a level of perceived constant racial-warfare and they will use any means possible, hypocrisy and manipulation are their weapons of choice.


Quote:

As the motto of Mossad openly states (in Hebrew):     "Through deception, thou shalt do war".

This waging of war can only by default be waging war against non-Jews. That in itself shows you everything you need to know to realise why you should oppose the existence of Israel and the power of Jewish Political-Psychopaths and Jewish Supremacists in our nations themselves.

Case in example: James Harding the Jewish CEO of the BBC, who has openly declared war on English employees

It is amusing to note the outrage that the billionnaire LA Clippers owner, Donald Sterling (real Jewish name= Tokowitz), has caused in the controlled media recently. Having been caught on tape speaking ill of Negros, he is very much being presented as a European, rather than a Jew, using the manipulative, undefined and selectively defined term; 'white' : to achieve the intended inverted-headline of "A rich, White racist" instead of "Jewish racist mentality exposed", etc.

You know, if the Joose control everything why are they persecuted so much?  Seems to me the Joose get a lot more stick than the deserve from bigots like you Vik.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Taipan wrote on Jul 9^th, 2014 at 6:54am:

Yep, Zionism is racism but it also Jewish Supremacism based heavily upon the Talmud. In fact, Zionism may also be called Talmudism. Zionists are the biggest race-haters in the world and they hate White Europeans more than any other race of people. Which is why they have been instrumental in establishing multiculturalism/multiracialism in ALL White Western countries.

The most racist people on the planet are the Japs. Second are the Arabs.

Go google it.

Why are the Arabs not looking more like Africans?

Soren wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 11:14am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 12:42am: Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 10:26pm: Multiculturalism is a stupid idea. Yet every nation, except for one is multicultural, Soren.  Can you guess which one that is?   All Multiculturalism does is recognise that reality.   ::) Vatican? --> FUN! Saudi Arabia?  --> FUN! Iran? --> FUN!  Japan?  --> FUN! Mongolia?  --> FUN! North Korea?  --> FUN!

:D :D

Taipan wrote on Jul 9^th, 2014 at 6:54am:

Yep, Zionism is racism but it also Jewish Supremacism based heavily upon the Talmud. In fact, Zionism may also be called Talmudism. Zionists are the biggest race-haters in the world and they hate White Europeans more than any other race of people. Which is why they have been instrumental in establishing multiculturalism/multiracialism in ALL White Western countries.

The promotion of Black and Gay culture is a jewish conspiracy..  8-)

http://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1385/96/1385962921182.jpg

|dev|null wrote on Jul 9^th, 2014 at 1:03pm:

You know, if the Joose control everything why are they persecuted so much?  Seems to me the Joose get a lot more stick than the deserve from bigots like you Vik.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Sheer genius.  Just like asking "If Tony Abbott is the Prime minister, and the prime minister is the most powerful person in the country, why can't he make you guys like him?"

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 12:30am:

Saudi Arabia contains several different Arabic sub-cultures and differing religious groups.

Link please to prove this is tolerant of other peoples belief systems!


Brian Ross wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 12:30am:

Iran, contains several different cultural and religious groups, including, *GASP*, Jews, Christians and even Zoroastrians.

Link please to prove these people are tolerated by the majority!



Brian Ross wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 12:30am:

Japan,contains several different "racial", cultural and religious communities.

They are the most racist country on the planet, second only to Saudi Arabia. Fact!

Care to get off the piss Brian so that the sane might have a chance of an answer that is not formed by an ignorant person like the Brian Ross of American TV who has been called by other reporters in that country "Sorr Brain". Care to do that so all that is Australian is not blighted by your racist bigoted hatred rants.

Taipan wrote on Jul 9^th, 2014 at 4:39pm:

http://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1385/96/1385962921182.jpg

No answer then!

Like most ignorant people!

I have been informed by Brian it is Bliss!

vikaryan wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 10:54pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 8:31pm: Except Israel is a multicultural and multifaith nation, Vik.  Quote: The religious affiliation of the Israeli population[vague] as of 2011 was 75.4% Jewish, 16.9% Muslim, 2.1% Christian, and 1.7% Druze, with the remaining 4.0% not classified by religion.[2] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Israel]Source[/url] So, 24+% of the population isn't Jewish.  Your anti-Semitism is as usually out of touch with reality.   ::) You need to be careful with 'racist' labels.

I am always careful with labels.  "Anti-Semitism" isn't a "racist label", it is a description of your arguments against Jewish people.   If anything, it is an example of religious bigotry, as you appear not to consider any Semites other than Jews being worthy of your criticism...   ::) ::)

Adamant wrote on Jul 9^th, 2014 at 7:02pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 12:30am: Saudi Arabia contains several different Arabic sub-cultures and differing religious groups. Link please to prove this is tolerant of other peoples belief systems! Brian Ross wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 12:30am: Iran, contains several different cultural and religious groups, including, *GASP*, Jews, Christians and even Zoroastrians. Link please to prove these people are tolerated by the majority! Brian Ross wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 12:30am: Japan,contains several different "racial", cultural and religious communities. They are the most racist country on the planet, second only to Saudi Arabia. Fact! Care to get off the piss Brian so that the sane might have a chance of an answer that is not formed by an ignorant person like the Brian Ross of American TV who has been called by other reporters in that country "Sorr Brain". Care to do that so all that is Australian is not blighted by your racist bigoted hatred rants.

As usual, your attack shows that you lack the ability to understand my point.  There is a difference between Multiculturalism and multicultural.  The nations that were listed are examples of the latter, not of the former.   Multiculturalism is the political recognition of the existence of a multicultural society, Adamant.   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 9^th, 2014 at 8:51pm:

Adamant wrote on Jul 9th, 2014 at 7:02pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 12:30am: Saudi Arabia contains several different Arabic sub-cultures and differing religious groups. Link please to prove this is tolerant of other peoples belief systems! Brian Ross wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 12:30am: Iran, contains several different cultural and religious groups, including, *GASP*, Jews, Christians and even Zoroastrians. Link please to prove these people are tolerated by the majority! Brian Ross wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 12:30am: Japan,contains several different "racial", cultural and religious communities. They are the most racist country on the planet, second only to Saudi Arabia. Fact! Care to get off the piss Brian so that the sane might have a chance of an answer that is not formed by an ignorant person like the Brian Ross of American TV who has been called by other reporters in that country "Sorr Brain". Care to do that so all that is Australian is not blighted by your racist bigoted hatred rants. As usual, your attack shows that you lack the ability to understand my point.  There is a difference between Multiculturalism and multicultural.  The nations that were listed are examples of the latter, not of the former.   Multiculturalism is the political recognition of the existence of a multicultural society, Adamant.   ::) ::)

And have you noticed that only Western liberal democracies have the 'political recognition'?

Meaning - only western liberal democracies are cultured enough to be hospitable to often strange and even hostile cultures. Western liberal democracy is the only cultural soil in which the 'political recognition' occurs, demonstrating right there and vividly that not all cultures are equal.

Soren wrote on Jul 9^th, 2014 at 10:14pm:

And have you noticed that only Western liberal democracies have the 'political recognition'? Meaning - only western liberal democracies are cultured enough to be hospitable to often strange and even hostile cultures. Western liberal democracy is the only cultural soil in which the 'political recognition' occurs, demonstrating right there and vividly that not all cultures are equal.

Not quite, Soren.  There are many non-Western democracies and other governments which recognise the multicultural nature of their nations in official policy, such as India (non-Western democracy), China (non-Democracy, non-Western) and Malaysia and Indonesia (Muslim, non-Western democracies).   ::)

Zio-Nazis run wild in Occupied Palestine

During the past week, Israeli Jews have been forming lynch mobs in the streets to hunt down and brutalize Arabs. Their actions remind many observers of the Nazi gangs that chased and brutalized Jews in 1930s Germany.

Israel’s policy towards its neighbors is also reminiscent of Nazi Germany’s. Hitler famously sought “lebensraum,” meaning “territory believed necessary for national existence or economic self-sufficiency.” So he launched wars of aggression and colonization, intending to seize and occupy territories in the Slavic east.

Israel has been launching blitzkrieg wars for lebensraum on a regular basis since the Zionists began seizing Palestinian territory in 1948. These invasions are blatant violations of the Nuremburg Principles, which state that aggressive war is the supreme war crime. Yet Israel excuses itself by claiming that, because it was founded (in part) by refugees from Nazi Germany, it has the right to engage in Nazi-style behavior.

Zionism and Nazism have something else in common: racial superiority. Both Nazis and Zionists believe themselves a “master race” or “chosen people” whose destiny is to lord it over lesser beings. The Nazis looked down on Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, Arabs and Africans in exactly the same way that Zionists look down on Arabs (and goyim in general) today.

Zionist racism, like Nazi racism, is virulent to the point of being genocidal. As international law professor Francis Boyle says, “Zionism’s ‘final solution’ to Israel’s much-touted and racist ‘demographic threat’ allegedly posed by the very existence of the Palestinians has always been genocide, whether slow-motion or in blood-thirsty spurts of violence.” Just as the Nazis dedicated themselves to building an ever-expanding Reich free of the taint of lesser races, the Zionists are likewise bent on ethnically-cleansing an ever-larger slice of Palestine. After that, hard-line Zionists promise, comes the entire Middle East from the Nile to the Euphrates.

The Gaza Strip – which some call the world’s largest open-air concentration camp, others the new Warsaw Ghetto – is once again being bombed. Israelis are wondering aloud whether Netanyahu is planning another bloody ground invasion. Seasoned Mideast observers such as Alan Hart, the former top BBC Mideast correspondent, even warn that one day soon Israel may launch a wider Mideast war that would allow the Zionists to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine under the “fog of war.”

The post-World War II slogan “never again” is obsolete. It is happening again. The new Nazis – the Zionists – are running amok in Palestine and pushing the world towards total war.

KB/HSN

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/08/370368/zionazis-run-wild-in-palestine/

---

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 12:19am:

Soren wrote on Jul 9th, 2014 at 10:14pm: And have you noticed that only Western liberal democracies have the 'political recognition'? Meaning - only western liberal democracies are cultured enough to be hospitable to often strange and even hostile cultures. Western liberal democracy is the only cultural soil in which the 'political recognition' occurs, demonstrating right there and vividly that not all cultures are equal. Not quite, Soren.  There are many non-Western democracies and other governments which recognise the multicultural nature of their nations in official policy, such as India (non-Western democracy), China (non-Democracy, non-Western) and Malaysia and Indonesia (Muslim, non-Western democracies).   ::)

They are multiethnic, Brain, not multicultural.


Not actively massacring your neighbours doesn't make you multicultural.


Try again.

Soren wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 10:26pm:

Multiculturalism is a stupid idea. It was devise by Poles who were pissed off by not being taken seriously be actual cultures (Russia and Germany) for centuries.

That's right, dear boy. Without multiculturalism, you'd be up there in the North Sea, sniffing cheese with the best of them.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. You people do like to stick together.

Correlation not causation, innit.

Karnal wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 1:12pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 10:26pm: Multiculturalism is a stupid idea. It was devise by Poles who were pissed off by not being taken seriously be actual cultures (Russia and Germany) for centuries. That's right, dear boy. Without multiculturalism, you'd be up there in the North Sea, sniffing cheese with the best of them. Not that there's anything wrong with that. You people do like to stick together. Correlation not causation, innit.

Without multiculturalism and the "giving nature" of anglo/celtic Australians you'd be rotting away in pooh hole Pakistan.

fractalign wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 8:20pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 6:18pm: You realise that India is a Multicultural society, Vikaryan? Funny how you, a supposed Indian, a person who hails from perhaps the most multicultural nation on Earth would claim that Multiculturalism is a danger to the West.  I wonder why?   ::) Or is your name actually "Vik Aryan"?   ;D India may be multicultural but its not the most multicultural on Earth. It is however one of the most racist ! The caste system is living proof of that !

The caste system has nothing to do with race. Race means very little in India - class and status means everything.

Karnal wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

fractalign wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 8:20pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 6:18pm: You realise that India is a Multicultural society, Vikaryan? Funny how you, a supposed Indian, a person who hails from perhaps the most multicultural nation on Earth would claim that Multiculturalism is a danger to the West.  I wonder why?   ::) Or is your name actually "Vik Aryan"?   ;D India may be multicultural but its not the most multicultural on Earth. It is however one of the most racist ! The caste system is living proof of that ! The caste system has nothing to do with race. Race means very little in India - class and status means everything.

Race wouldn't matter in India because they don't have other races.

hermoine wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 1:16pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:12pm: Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 10:26pm: Multiculturalism is a stupid idea. It was devise by Poles who were pissed off by not being taken seriously be actual cultures (Russia and Germany) for centuries. That's right, dear boy. Without multiculturalism, you'd be up there in the North Sea, sniffing cheese with the best of them. Not that there's anything wrong with that. You people do like to stick together. Correlation not causation, innit. Without multiculturalism and the "giving nature" of anglo/celtic Australians you'd be rotting away in pooh hole Pakistan.

I was Anglo-Celtic years before I became Pakistani, dear.

People can change, you know.

hermoine wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 1:18pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:17pm: fractalign wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 8:20pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 6:18pm: You realise that India is a Multicultural society, Vikaryan? Funny how you, a supposed Indian, a person who hails from perhaps the most multicultural nation on Earth would claim that Multiculturalism is a danger to the West.  I wonder why?   ::) Or is your name actually "Vik Aryan"?   ;D India may be multicultural but its not the most multicultural on Earth. It is however one of the most racist ! The caste system is living proof of that ! The caste system has nothing to do with race. Race means very little in India - class and status means everything. Race wouldn't matter in India because they don't have other races.

Are you willing to put money on that?

Karnal wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 1:19pm:

hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:18pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:17pm: fractalign wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 8:20pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 6:18pm: You realise that India is a Multicultural society, Vikaryan? Funny how you, a supposed Indian, a person who hails from perhaps the most multicultural nation on Earth would claim that Multiculturalism is a danger to the West.  I wonder why?   ::) Or is your name actually "Vik Aryan"?   ;D India may be multicultural but its not the most multicultural on Earth. It is however one of the most racist ! The caste system is living proof of that ! The caste system has nothing to do with race. Race means very little in India - class and status means everything. Race wouldn't matter in India because they don't have other races. Are you willing to put money on that?

Sure there are. I'm talking large numbers of other races like in western countries. I'm not talking about 500 poms and 1,000 african's.

Karnal wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 1:19pm:

hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:16pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:12pm: Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 10:26pm: Multiculturalism is a stupid idea. It was devise by Poles who were pissed off by not being taken seriously be actual cultures (Russia and Germany) for centuries. That's right, dear boy. Without multiculturalism, you'd be up there in the North Sea, sniffing cheese with the best of them. Not that there's anything wrong with that. You people do like to stick together. Correlation not causation, innit. Without multiculturalism and the "giving nature" of anglo/celtic Australians you'd be rotting away in pooh hole Pakistan. I was Anglo-Celtic years before I became Pakistani, dear. People can change, you know.

So you hate yourself then.

You didn't answer my wager, dear. Yes or no?

Karnal wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 1:22pm:

You didn't answer my wager, dear. Yes or no?

You're are getting it mixed up with multi ethnic dear.

hermoine wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 1:22pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:19pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:16pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:12pm: Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 10:26pm: Multiculturalism is a stupid idea. It was devise by Poles who were pissed off by not being taken seriously be actual cultures (Russia and Germany) for centuries. That's right, dear boy. Without multiculturalism, you'd be up there in the North Sea, sniffing cheese with the best of them. Not that there's anything wrong with that. You people do like to stick together. Correlation not causation, innit. Without multiculturalism and the "giving nature" of anglo/celtic Australians you'd be rotting away in pooh hole Pakistan. I was Anglo-Celtic years before I became Pakistani, dear. People can change, you know. So you hate yourself then.

I'm only an honory Pakistani, dear. I was granted this status by the old boy.

He's entrusted with this authority by the Pakistani College of Psycho Analytic Sciences (sic) in Lahore.

I believe it's an online facility. On Google, the address comes up as Lahore Junction Railway Station.

hermoine wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 1:26pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:22pm: You didn't answer my wager, dear. Yes or no? You're are getting it mixed up with multi ethnic dear.

Are you willing to put money down on my confusion and give Wikipedia the final say?

You still haven't said.

:-/
Karnal wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 1:28pm:

hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:22pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:19pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:16pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:12pm: Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 10:26pm: Multiculturalism is a stupid idea. It was devise by Poles who were pissed off by not being taken seriously be actual cultures (Russia and Germany) for centuries. That's right, dear boy. Without multiculturalism, you'd be up there in the North Sea, sniffing cheese with the best of them. Not that there's anything wrong with that. You people do like to stick together. Correlation not causation, innit. Without multiculturalism and the "giving nature" of anglo/celtic Australians you'd be rotting away in pooh hole Pakistan. I was Anglo-Celtic years before I became Pakistani, dear. People can change, you know. So you hate yourself then. I'm only an honory Pakistani, dear. I was granted this status by the old boy. He's entrusted with this authority by the Pakistani College of Psycho Analytic Sciences (sic) in Lahore. I believe it's an online facility.

Still not betting, dear?

Karnal wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 1:32pm:

Still not betting, dear?

I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians.

I say, that's a big change. You've gone from thinking:


Quote:

Race wouldn't matter in India because they don't have other races.

To:


Quote:

India has very few of any race other than mixed asians.

In less than 5 minutes, too. What prompted this change of thought, dear?

Did you do an anthropology degree at the old boy's alma mater?

Karnal wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 1:41pm:

hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Still not betting, dear? I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. I say, that's a big change. You've gone from thinking: Quote: Race wouldn't matter in India because they don't have other races. To: [quote]India has very few of any race other than mixed asians.

In less than 5 minutes, too. What prompted this change of thought, dear?

Did you do a quick anthropology course at the old boy's alma mater?

[/quote]Well they don't have big populations of Caucasions and negroids. They don't have significant populations of eastern asians either . They are basically all the same racially with tiny ethnic difference. It's just fact. As far as culture goes they don't have a significant representation of most cultures on earth.

hermoine wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 1:45pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:41pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Still not betting, dear? I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. I say, that's a big change. You've gone from thinking: Quote: Race wouldn't matter in India because they don't have other races. To: [quote]India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. In less than 5 minutes, too. What prompted this change of thought, dear? Did you do a quick anthropology course at the old boy's alma mater?

Well they don't have big populations of Caucasions and negroids. They don't have significant populations of eastern asians either . They are basically all the same racially with tiny ethnic difference. It's just fact. As far as culture goes they don't have a significant representation of most cultures on earth.
[/quote]

No, they don't have caucasions and negroids. You've been doing your research, I see. Marvellous stuff.

Old boy, could you make this one a Pakistani? I do think he makes the grade.

Karnal wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 1:48pm:

hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:45pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:41pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Still not betting, dear? I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. I say, that's a big change. You've gone from thinking: Quote: Race wouldn't matter in India because they don't have other races. To: [quote]India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. In less than 5 minutes, too. What prompted this change of thought, dear? Did you do a quick anthropology course at the old boy's alma mater? Well they don't have big populations of Caucasions and negroids. They don't have significant populations of eastern asians either . They are basically all the same racially with tiny ethnic difference. It's just fact. As far as culture goes they don't have a significant representation of most cultures on earth.

No, they don't have caucasions and negroids. You've been doing your research, I see. Marvellous stuff.

Old boy, could you make this one a Pakistani? I do think he makes the grade. [/quote]All India has  is hordes of little skinny brown people with bad toilet habits, a repressive caste system and an out of control breeding pattern. Pakistan has all that plus a polluted propensity for a stupid religion.

hermoine wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 1:45pm:

As far as culture goes they don't have a significant representation of most cultures on earth.

You seem to have watered down your views somewhat, Hermoine. Shall we take a look at "the facts"?


Quote:

Indian people. Indian people or Indians are citizens of India, a populous country in South Asia containing 17.31% of the world's population, and people of Indian heritage. The Indian nationality consists of many regional ethno-linguistic groups, reflecting the rich and complex history of India. ... India has more than two thousand ethnic groups[citation needed] and every major religion is represented, as are four major families of languages (Indo-Aryan – a branch of the larger Indo-European language group –, Dravidian, Austroasiatic, and Tibeto-Burman) as well as a language isolate (the Nihali language[34] spoken in parts of Maharashtra). India's castism history is extremely complex; nevertheless, distinct racial divisions between peoples still exist as established by modern anthropologists, despite the fact that the national Census of India does not recognize racial or ethnic groups within India,[35] but recognizes many of the tribal groups as Scheduled Castes and Tribes (see list of Scheduled Tribes in India).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_people

So - 17% of the world's population (more than Europe); over 1500 different languages; racial groups as distinct as Andaman Islanders in the Indian Ocean, Tibetans/Mongolians and white Central Asians in the north, a host of Aboriginal tribal groups, along with the Aryans and Dravidians in the mainstream Indian population; and a significant proportion of every religion in the world, from Animism to Christianity to Zoroastrianism.

But they "don't have a significant representation of most cultures on earth?"

You might want to revise this one as well, dear.

hermoine wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 1:56pm:

Pakistan has all that plus a polluted propensity for a stupid religion.

Oh, I know. I've lodged the request for your status as an honorary Paki.

You already match the defined criteria.

I suspect "Hermoine" has never been to India.  More than likely never stepped outside of Oz.


Quote:

The national Census of India does not recognize racial or ethnic groups within India,[66] but recognizes many of the tribal groups as Scheduled Castes and Tribes (see list of Scheduled Tribes in India). Nevertheless, some anthropologists classify Indians as belonging to one of four major ethno-racial groups, which significantly overlap because of racial admixture between populations: Caucasoids, Australoids, Mongoloids and Negritos. The Caucasoids are found in the north, central and south-western regions of India and generally speak Indo-Aryan languages; Australoids are found in the south and generally speak Dravidian languages; Mongoloids are largely confined to the Northeastern region of the country and for the most part, speak Tibeto-Burman languages; and Negritos are found on the Andaman Islands located on the southeastern side of the country. These speak a language known simply as Great Andamanese, a linguistic isolate not related to any known language. And finally, Austroasiatic languages are spoken by only tribals or Adivasis, who can be of either Australoid or Mongoloid racial stock.[67] According to a 2009 study published by Reich et al., the modern Indian population is composed of two genetically divergent and heterogeneous populations which mixed in ancient times (about 1,200-3,500 BC), known as Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ASI). ASI corresponds to the Dravidian-speaking population of southern India, whereas ANI corresponds to the Indo-Aryan-speaking population of northern India.[68][69]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India]

So, it appears there are quite distinct racial groups in Indian sub-continent.  Amazing what a bit of research can reveal.   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

THE AFFIRMATIVE-ACTION HOAX

BY STEVEN FARRON

What is called affirmative action is one of the greatest of contemporary hoaxes. First passed off as compensation for discrimination, then as a means to achieve diversity, it is nothing less than official, government-mandated discrimination against whites.

Professor Steven Farron of Witwatersrand University in South Africa, has written the definitive account of this pernicious policy, which whites have chosen to impose on themselves. Drawing on extensive academic experience and exhaustive research, he has written a uniquely undeceived and devastating analysis that will leave neither partisan nor critic unmoved.

http://www.radixjournal.com/store/the-affirmative-action-hoax

---

|dev|null wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 3:02pm:

I suspect "Hermoine" has never been to India.  More than likely never stepped outside of Oz. Quote: The national Census of India does not recognize racial or ethnic groups within India,[66] but recognizes many of the tribal groups as Scheduled Castes and Tribes (see list of Scheduled Tribes in India). Nevertheless, some anthropologists classify Indians as belonging to one of four major ethno-racial groups, which significantly overlap because of racial admixture between populations: Caucasoids, Australoids, Mongoloids and Negritos. The Caucasoids are found in the north, central and south-western regions of India and generally speak Indo-Aryan languages; Australoids are found in the south and generally speak Dravidian languages; Mongoloids are largely confined to the Northeastern region of the country and for the most part, speak Tibeto-Burman languages; and Negritos are found on the Andaman Islands located on the southeastern side of the country. These speak a language known simply as Great Andamanese, a linguistic isolate not related to any known language. And finally, Austroasiatic languages are spoken by only tribals or Adivasis, who can be of either Australoid or Mongoloid racial stock.[67] According to a 2009 study published by Reich et al., the modern Indian population is composed of two genetically divergent and heterogeneous populations which mixed in ancient times (about 1,200-3,500 BC), known as Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ASI). ASI corresponds to the Dravidian-speaking population of southern India, whereas ANI corresponds to the Indo-Aryan-speaking population of northern India.[68][69] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India] So, it appears there are quite distinct racial groups in Indian sub-continent.  Amazing what a bit of research can reveal.   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

I know. It's amazing what an degree in Central Asian Studies from the prestigious University of Balogney can do.

I admire people like Hermoine for learning things and lifting themselves out of poverty. I do feel it betters the human race as a whole.

vikaryan wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 3:42pm:

THE AFFIRMATIVE-ACTION HOAX BY STEVEN FARRON What is called affirmative action is one of the greatest of contemporary hoaxes. First passed off as compensation for discrimination, then as a means to achieve diversity, it is nothing less than official, government-mandated discrimination against whites. Professor Steven Farron of Witwatersrand University in South Africa, has written the definitive account of this pernicious policy, which whites have chosen to impose on themselves. Drawing on extensive academic experience and exhaustive research, he has written a uniquely undeceived and devastating analysis that will leave neither partisan nor critic unmoved.

Yep, a white South African academic, the perfect person to write about discrimination!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D  ;D

|dev|null wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 3:57pm:

vikaryan wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 3:42pm: THE AFFIRMATIVE-ACTION HOAX BY STEVEN FARRON What is called affirmative action is one of the greatest of contemporary hoaxes. First passed off as compensation for discrimination, then as a means to achieve diversity, it is nothing less than official, government-mandated discrimination against whites. Professor Steven Farron of Witwatersrand University in South Africa, has written the definitive account of this pernicious policy, which whites have chosen to impose on themselves. Drawing on extensive academic experience and exhaustive research, he has written a uniquely undeceived and devastating analysis that will leave neither partisan nor critic unmoved. Yep, a white South African academic, the perfect person to write about discrimination!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D  ;D

So is it his race, his nationality or his occupation that makes you dismissive of him?

We could just call it bigotry.

None of the three.  It's his circumstance.  "reap as you sow."

|dev|null wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 4:15pm:

None of the three.  It's his circumstance.  "reap as you sow."

Hey!?! What happened to the lil' swivel-eyed guys??

Or did you put on your serious foil hat this time??

We should be told.

::) ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 9^th, 2014 at 8:51pm:

Adamant wrote on Jul 9th, 2014 at 7:02pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 12:30am: Saudi Arabia contains several different Arabic sub-cultures and differing religious groups. Link please to prove this is tolerant of other peoples belief systems! Brian Ross wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 12:30am: Iran, contains several different cultural and religious groups, including, *GASP*, Jews, Christians and even Zoroastrians. Link please to prove these people are tolerated by the majority! Brian Ross wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 12:30am: Japan,contains several different "racial", cultural and religious communities. They are the most racist country on the planet, second only to Saudi Arabia. Fact! Care to get off the piss Brian so that the sane might have a chance of an answer that is not formed by an ignorant person like the Brian Ross of American TV who has been called by other reporters in that country "Sorr Brain". Care to do that so all that is Australian is not blighted by your racist bigoted hatred rants. As usual, your attack shows that you lack the ability to understand my point.  There is a difference between Multiculturalism and multicultural.  The nations that were listed are examples of the latter, not of the former.   Multiculturalism is the political recognition of the existence of a multicultural society, Adamant.   ::) ::)

The two words mean the same, so what point do you wish to make you racist bigot? ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

The two words do not mean the same, Adamant.  Keep trying.  The secret is in banging the rocks together.  You'll work it out eventually...   ::)

hermoine wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 1:33pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Still not betting, dear? I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians.

"Race" as a concept is a social construct, Hermoine.  Culture and Ethnicity is far more important.  India has hundreds of different cultures and numerous different ethnicities.   It's obvious you've never been there, have you?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 8:01pm:

hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Still not betting, dear? I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. "Race" as a concept is a social construct, Hermoine.  Culture and Ethnicity is far more important.  India has hundreds of different cultures and numerous different ethnicities.   It's obvious you've never been there, have you?   ::)

Why would I go to India????? That's like taking a trip to a public toilet block. Sorry but I don't like the smell of sewer. Race does exist by the way. Negroids, caucasions and mongaloids. Look it up.

hermoine wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 8:04pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 8:01pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Still not betting, dear? I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. "Race" as a concept is a social construct, Hermoine.  Culture and Ethnicity is far more important.  India has hundreds of different cultures and numerous different ethnicities.   It's obvious you've never been there, have you?   ::) Why would I go to India????? That's like taking a trip to a public toilet block. Sorry but I don't like the smell of sewer. Race does exist by the way. Negroids, caucasions and mongaloids. Look it up.

So we’ve gone from "they’re all the same race" to "race doesn’t exist".

Within 8 hours.

You see? The potential for human evolution is astounding.

“Mohammed Raghead”

— Placeholder name for a surveillance target, used in an NSA memo on how to properly format internal memos.

http://lonestarcelt.tumblr.com/post/91340609211/mohammed-raghead

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/07/09/under-surveillance/

Racism and government stupidity are the real threat to America's national security

That's the key lesson in Glenn Greenwald's big scoop

The number of people who would commit terrorist acts is tiny, and mass surveillance of innocents not only typically fails to catch anyone, it confirms the arguments of extremists and deepens the alienation that gives them cover.

The political pressure to look "tough" and the self-justifying economic logic of the gigantic security apparatus will always trump long-term considerations. But it's still worth pushing against what seems like the brute-force, instant gratification answer over weak, soft-headed liberal concerns. It might just be the manly men who are the real threat to long-term security.

http://theweek.com/article/index/264469/racism-and-government-stupidity-are-the-real-threat-to-americas-national-security

---

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 8:01pm:

hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Still not betting, dear? I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. "Race" as a concept is a social construct, Hermoine.

Listen to Dr Brain and pluck out your lying eyes, Hermie.

http://www.the-chiefexecutive.com/contractor_images/lilly/3-south-african-woman.jpg

http://www.thelovelyplanet.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/By-bentborn_Denmark.jpg

If you see any difference, it is entirely socially constructed.

Oh, yes.

Ask Dr Brain.

Age is a social construct, old boy. The experts are saying 80 is the new 12.

There’s hope for you yet, old chap.

Karnal wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 11:12pm:

Age is a social construct, old boy. The experts are saying 80 is the new 12. There’s hope for you yet, old chap.

You, PB, are a social construct.  The idea of 'social construct' is a social construct. The idea of 'idea' is just an idea, or rather an 'idea.
Your kind of idiocy has no limit - or rather, 'limit experience'


Go on - you know you will.

hermoine wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 8:04pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 8:01pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Still not betting, dear? I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. "Race" as a concept is a social construct, Hermoine.  Culture and Ethnicity is far more important.  India has hundreds of different cultures and numerous different ethnicities.   It's obvious you've never been there, have you?   ::) Why would I go to India????? That's like taking a trip to a public toilet block. Sorry but I don't like the smell of sewer.

I am so sorry that you desire to be wilfully ignorant "Hermoine".  India is an amazing place to visit, even if only for a short time.  So much diversity, all united.


Quote:

Race does exist by the way. Negroids, caucasions and mongaloids. Look it up.

No, "race" in the way which you and other racists use the term is a social construct and has no scientific basis.  "Race" is merely superficial physical evolutionary adaptation to varying environmental conditions.  There is only one "race", the Human Race.  We are all genetically related, with more genetic difference within each of the so-called "races" than between them.    ::)

Soren wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 10:05pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 8:01pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Still not betting, dear? I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. "Race" as a concept is a social construct, Hermoine.  Listen to Dr Brain and pluck out your lying eyes, Hermie. http://www.the-chiefexecutive.com/contractor_images/lilly/3-south-african-woman.jpg http://www.thelovelyplanet.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/By-bentborn_Denmark.jpg If you see any difference, it is entirely socially constructed. Oh, yes. Ask Dr Brain.

The colour of peoples' skin, the shape of their eyes, the colour of their eyes, etc. are merely superficial evolutionary adaptations to differing environment conditions.  Genetically we are all the same, with some minor variations caused by differing combinations of the same genes.  If those superficial evolutionary adaptations actually meant that each of the supposed "races" was different, truly genetically different, as the racists claim, then they could not interbreed, which they can.   ::)

Soren wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 11:26pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 11:12pm: Age is a social construct, old boy. The experts are saying 80 is the new 12. There’s hope for you yet, old chap. You, PB, are a social construct.  The idea of 'social construct' is a social construct. The idea of 'idea' is just an idea, or rather an 'idea.

Very social constructivist, old chap. Marvellous stuff.

Correlation not causation, innit.

Demography is destiny, eh?

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 11:54pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 10:05pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 8:01pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Still not betting, dear? I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. "Race" as a concept is a social construct, Hermoine.  Listen to Dr Brain and pluck out your lying eyes, Hermie. http://www.the-chiefexecutive.com/contractor_images/lilly/3-south-african-woman.jpg http://www.thelovelyplanet.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/By-bentborn_Denmark.jpg If you see any difference, it is entirely socially constructed. Oh, yes. Ask Dr Brain. The colour of peoples' skin, the shape of their eyes, the colour of their eyes, etc. are merely superficial evolutionary adaptations to differing environment conditions.  Genetically we are all the same, with some minor variations caused by differing combinations of the same genes.  If those superficial evolutionary adaptations actually meant that each of the supposed "races" was different, truly genetically different, as the racists claim, then they could not interbreed, which they can.   ::)

Why are you always carrying on about racism if you don't believe in this concept???

Actually, he was a quarter Jewish. His father's father was Jewish. 

:o :-? :o :-? :o :-?

---

Wikipedia........Ancestry

Hitler's father, Alois Hitler, Sr. (1837–1903), was the illegitimate child of Maria Anna Schicklgruber.[2] Because the baptismal register did not show the name of his father, Alois initially bore his mother's surname, Schicklgruber. In 1842, Johann Georg Hiedler married Alois's mother, Maria Anna. After she died in 1847 and Johann Georg Hiedler in 1856, Alois was brought up in the family of Hiedler's brother, Johann Nepomuk Hiedler.[3] In 1876, Alois was legitimated and the baptismal register changed by a priest to register Johann Georg Hiedler as Alois's father (recorded as Georg Hitler).[4][5] Alois then assumed the surname Hitler,[5] also spelled as Hiedler, Hüttler, or Huettler. The Hitler surname is probably based on "one who lives in a hut" (Standard German Hütte for hut) or on "shepherd" (Standard German hüten for to guard); alternatively, it might be derived from the Slavic words Hidlar or Hidlarcek (small cottager or small holder).[6]

Nazi official Hans Frank suggested that Alois's mother had been employed as a housekeeper for a Jewish family in Graz and that the family's 19-year-old son, Leopold Frankenberger, had fathered Alois.[7] Because no Frankenberger was registered in Graz during that period, and no record of Leopold Frankenberger's existence has been produced,[8] historians dismiss the claim that Alois's father was Jewish.[9][10]

hermoine wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 9:56am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 11:54pm: Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 10:05pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 8:01pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Still not betting, dear? I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. "Race" as a concept is a social construct, Hermoine.  Listen to Dr Brain and pluck out your lying eyes, Hermie. http://www.the-chiefexecutive.com/contractor_images/lilly/3-south-african-woman.jpg http://www.thelovelyplanet.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/By-bentborn_Denmark.jpg If you see any difference, it is entirely socially constructed. Oh, yes. Ask Dr Brain. The colour of peoples' skin, the shape of their eyes, the colour of their eyes, etc. are merely superficial evolutionary adaptations to differing environment conditions.  Genetically we are all the same, with some minor variations caused by differing combinations of the same genes.  If those superficial evolutionary adaptations actually meant that each of the supposed "races" was different, truly genetically different, as the racists claim, then they could not interbreed, which they can.   ::) Why are you always carrying on about racism if you don't believe in this concept???

Why are you always carrying on about your race when you don't?

Karnal wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 10:12am:

hermoine wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 9:56am: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 11:54pm: Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 10:05pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 8:01pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Still not betting, dear? I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. "Race" as a concept is a social construct, Hermoine.  Listen to Dr Brain and pluck out your lying eyes, Hermie. http://www.the-chiefexecutive.com/contractor_images/lilly/3-south-african-woman.jpg http://www.thelovelyplanet.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/By-bentborn_Denmark.jpg If you see any difference, it is entirely socially constructed. Oh, yes. Ask Dr Brain. The colour of peoples' skin, the shape of their eyes, the colour of their eyes, etc. are merely superficial evolutionary adaptations to differing environment conditions.  Genetically we are all the same, with some minor variations caused by differing combinations of the same genes.  If those superficial evolutionary adaptations actually meant that each of the supposed "races" was different, truly genetically different, as the racists claim, then they could not interbreed, which they can.   ::) Why are you always carrying on about racism if you don't believe in this concept??? Why are you always carrying on about your race when you don't?

I don't mind other races in their own countries. So Karnal, if racism doesn't exist why are you banging  on about it all of the time. So does it or doesn't it??

hermoine wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 8:04pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 8:01pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Still not betting, dear? I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. "Race" as a concept is a social construct, Hermoine.  Culture and Ethnicity is far more important.  India has hundreds of different cultures and numerous different ethnicities.   It's obvious you've never been there, have you?   ::) Why would I go to India????? That's like taking a trip to a public toilet block.

You're a friend of Alan Jones?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

hermoine wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 10:15am:

Karnal wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 10:12am: hermoine wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 9:56am: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 11:54pm: Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 10:05pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 8:01pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Still not betting, dear? I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. "Race" as a concept is a social construct, Hermoine.  Listen to Dr Brain and pluck out your lying eyes, Hermie. http://www.the-chiefexecutive.com/contractor_images/lilly/3-south-african-woman.jpg http://www.thelovelyplanet.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/By-bentborn_Denmark.jpg If you see any difference, it is entirely socially constructed. Oh, yes. Ask Dr Brain. The colour of peoples' skin, the shape of their eyes, the colour of their eyes, etc. are merely superficial evolutionary adaptations to differing environment conditions.  Genetically we are all the same, with some minor variations caused by differing combinations of the same genes.  If those superficial evolutionary adaptations actually meant that each of the supposed "races" was different, truly genetically different, as the racists claim, then they could not interbreed, which they can.   ::) Why are you always carrying on about racism if you don't believe in this concept??? Why are you always carrying on about your race when you don't? I don't mind other races in their own countries. So Karnal, if racism doesn't exist why are you banging  on about it all of the time. So does it or doesn't it??

Are you asking me if racism exists?

You don't seem to be able to distinguish between "race" and "racism", dear.

Karnal wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 10:28am:

hermoine wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 10:15am: Karnal wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 10:12am: hermoine wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 9:56am: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 11:54pm: Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 10:05pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 8:01pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Still not betting, dear? I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. "Race" as a concept is a social construct, Hermoine.  Listen to Dr Brain and pluck out your lying eyes, Hermie. http://www.the-chiefexecutive.com/contractor_images/lilly/3-south-african-woman.jpg http://www.thelovelyplanet.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/By-bentborn_Denmark.jpg If you see any difference, it is entirely socially constructed. Oh, yes. Ask Dr Brain. The colour of peoples' skin, the shape of their eyes, the colour of their eyes, etc. are merely superficial evolutionary adaptations to differing environment conditions.  Genetically we are all the same, with some minor variations caused by differing combinations of the same genes.  If those superficial evolutionary adaptations actually meant that each of the supposed "races" was different, truly genetically different, as the racists claim, then they could not interbreed, which they can.   ::) Why are you always carrying on about racism if you don't believe in this concept??? Why are you always carrying on about your race when you don't? I don't mind other races in their own countries. So Karnal, if racism doesn't exist why are you banging  on about it all of the time. So does it or doesn't it?? Are you asking me if racism exists? You don't seem to be able to distinguish between "race" and "racism", dear.

Racism is a word used to describe the judging of a person by their race. If race doesn't exist then the word you use so much is contrary to your beliefs. So in your view racism doesn't exist. ;) ;) ;)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 11:54pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 10:05pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 8:01pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Still not betting, dear? I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. "Race" as a concept is a social construct, Hermoine.  Listen to Dr Brain and pluck out your lying eyes, Hermie. http://www.the-chiefexecutive.com/contractor_images/lilly/3-south-african-woman.jpg http://www.thelovelyplanet.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/By-bentborn_Denmark.jpg If you see any difference, it is entirely socially constructed. Oh, yes. Ask Dr Brain. The colour of peoples' skin, the shape of their eyes, the colour of their eyes, etc. are merely superficial evolutionary adaptations to differing environment conditions.  Genetically we are all the same, with some minor variations caused by differing combinations of the same genes.  If those superficial evolutionary adaptations actually meant that each of the supposed "races" was different, truly genetically different, as the racists claim, then they could not interbreed, which they can.   ::)

Thanks, Dr Brain.
The only troublke with all this is that human interactions and relationships are not
"genetic" or "evolutionary" but interpersonal. And on that level, we take all sorts of things into consideration, including looks, manners, and all sorts of other outward signs of the others' inner personality, character, etc.
We do this because we are keen to know what kind of person he is. And previous interactions and information about the type of person we are dealing with is important.
Stereotypes are important. They have come about due to accumulated experience - and can be changed only by more accumulated experience to the contrary.

Anyone would prefer a well-dressed, well-spoken, well-mannered person to a tattoed, foul-mouthed, dirty one, regardless of what rave either of them is.

Race is not EVERYTHING. But it is evidently not nothing, either.

That’s right, old boy. As we at the Faculty like to day, correlation not causation.

Innit.

Soren wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 11:45am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 11:54pm: Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 10:05pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 8:01pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Still not betting, dear? I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. "Race" as a concept is a social construct, Hermoine.  Listen to Dr Brain and pluck out your lying eyes, Hermie. http://www.the-chiefexecutive.com/contractor_images/lilly/3-south-african-woman.jpg http://www.thelovelyplanet.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/By-bentborn_Denmark.jpg If you see any difference, it is entirely socially constructed. Oh, yes. Ask Dr Brain. The colour of peoples' skin, the shape of their eyes, the colour of their eyes, etc. are merely superficial evolutionary adaptations to differing environment conditions.  Genetically we are all the same, with some minor variations caused by differing combinations of the same genes.  If those superficial evolutionary adaptations actually meant that each of the supposed "races" was different, truly genetically different, as the racists claim, then they could not interbreed, which they can.   ::) Thanks, Dr Brain. The only troublke with all this is that human interactions and relationships are not "genetic" or "evolutionary" but interpersonal. And on that level, we take all sorts of things into consideration, including looks, manners, and all sorts of other outward signs of the others' inner personality, character, etc. We do this because we are keen to know what kind of person he is. And previous interactions and information about the type of person we are dealing with is important. Stereotypes are important. They have come about due to accumulated experience - and can be changed only by more accumulated experience to the contrary. Anyone would prefer a well-dressed, well-spoken, well-mannered person to a tattoed, foul-mouthed, dirty one, regardless of what rave either of them is. Race is not EVERYTHING. But it is evidently not nothing, either.

Are you reinforcing Brian's point that the concept of race is a social construct?   :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

Karnal wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 11:52am:

That’s right, old boy. As we at the Faculty like to day, correlation not causation. Innit.

You got it, PB.  Well done.

Help yourself to the bananas.

|dev|null wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 12:00pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 11:45am: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 11:54pm: Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 10:05pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 8:01pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Still not betting, dear? I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. "Race" as a concept is a social construct, Hermoine.  Listen to Dr Brain and pluck out your lying eyes, Hermie. http://www.the-chiefexecutive.com/contractor_images/lilly/3-south-african-woman.jpg http://www.thelovelyplanet.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/By-bentborn_Denmark.jpg If you see any difference, it is entirely socially constructed. Oh, yes. Ask Dr Brain. The colour of peoples' skin, the shape of their eyes, the colour of their eyes, etc. are merely superficial evolutionary adaptations to differing environment conditions.  Genetically we are all the same, with some minor variations caused by differing combinations of the same genes.  If those superficial evolutionary adaptations actually meant that each of the supposed "races" was different, truly genetically different, as the racists claim, then they could not interbreed, which they can.   ::) Thanks, Dr Brain. The only trouble with all this is that human interactions and relationships are not "genetic" or "evolutionary" but interpersonal. And on that level, we take all sorts of things into consideration, including looks, manners, and all sorts of other outward signs of the others' inner personality, character, etc. We do this because we are keen to know what kind of person he is. And previous interactions and information about the type of person we are dealing with is important. Stereotypes are important. They have come about due to accumulated experience - and can be changed only by more accumulated experience to the contrary. Anyone would prefer a well-dressed, well-spoken, well-mannered person to a tattoed, foul-mouthed, dirty one, regardless of what rave either of them is. Race is not EVERYTHING. But it is evidently not nothing, either. Are you reinforcing Brian's point that the concept of race is a social construct?   :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

No.
I am saying that we judge people on the basis of experience with their traits and characteristics that we perceive. That includes their ethnicity, race, how they present, speak, behave. We have a different set of experiences and perceptions of white-haired, well-spoken grannies and gold-toothed, tattooed black gangstas effin' and blindin' - to give you two obviously different exampled that even you couldn't confuse (try though you will).

Soren wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 3:00pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 12:00pm: Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 11:45am: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 11:54pm: Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 10:05pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 8:01pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Still not betting, dear? I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. "Race" as a concept is a social construct, Hermoine.  Listen to Dr Brain and pluck out your lying eyes, Hermie. http://www.the-chiefexecutive.com/contractor_images/lilly/3-south-african-woman.jpg http://www.thelovelyplanet.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/By-bentborn_Denmark.jpg If you see any difference, it is entirely socially constructed. Oh, yes. Ask Dr Brain. The colour of peoples' skin, the shape of their eyes, the colour of their eyes, etc. are merely superficial evolutionary adaptations to differing environment conditions.  Genetically we are all the same, with some minor variations caused by differing combinations of the same genes.  If those superficial evolutionary adaptations actually meant that each of the supposed "races" was different, truly genetically different, as the racists claim, then they could not interbreed, which they can.   ::) Thanks, Dr Brain. The only trouble with all this is that human interactions and relationships are not "genetic" or "evolutionary" but interpersonal. And on that level, we take all sorts of things into consideration, including looks, manners, and all sorts of other outward signs of the others' inner personality, character, etc. We do this because we are keen to know what kind of person he is. And previous interactions and information about the type of person we are dealing with is important. Stereotypes are important. They have come about due to accumulated experience - and can be changed only by more accumulated experience to the contrary. Anyone would prefer a well-dressed, well-spoken, well-mannered person to a tattoed, foul-mouthed, dirty one, regardless of what rave either of them is. Race is not EVERYTHING. But it is evidently not nothing, either. Are you reinforcing Brian's point that the concept of race is a social construct?   :o :o :o :o :o :o :o No. I am saying that we judge people on the basis of experience with their traits and characteristics that we perceive. That includes their ethnicity, race, how they present, speak, behave. We have a different set of experiences and perceptions of white-haired, well-spoken grannies and gold-toothed, tattooed black gangstas effin' and blindin' - to give you two obviously different exampled that even you couldn't confuse (try though you will).

So, it's all perception rather than actual reality?  That white-haired, well-spoken granny might actually be a child abuser or poisoner and the gold-toothed, tattoed black gangsta could well be kind to animals and works down the local kindergarden helping disabled kids but mere appearance makes you blind to alternative possibilities.  In otherwords, its a social construct!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

How 'bout we all get down to tin-tacks and call a spade a spade, and a shovel a shovel.

How 'bout we drop the word 'race' and talk about breeds instead?

Just like felines, canines, bovines, etc., people are of different 'breeds'. We got black ones, white ones, big ones, little ones, round eyes, slanty eyes, aggressive ones and timid ones.

Is it reasonable to suppose that there might personality traits, quite apart from other differences, between, say,  a labrador and a pit-bull? Or a Staffy and a Dobermann? Or a Toro Brava and a Hereford? A house cat with a leopard?

So it is with people. And 'social constructs'.

'Nature or Nurture' is an old saying and it contains many irrefutable proofs of its validity with regard to individual reactions to environment, social mores, 'breed' of family and friends, socio-economic factors, local infrastructure and religious upbringing.

There are various 'breeds' of Homo Sapiens, that tribe to which we all belong, and we live in a world where some 'breeds' are entering areas where a respectful and harmonious 'community' has already been established by other 'breeds'.

They don't mix. They don't want to mix. They form anti-social enclaves. They want to live off the largesse of the community. And they get vocal and aggrieved when things don't go their way.

Well here's some news, folks. Just like in the animal world, if you don't conform and you haven't toppled the existing power structure, you'll either be eaten or thrown out.

That's just the way it is. All the sooking about about the plight of the poor (insert victim group of the moment) won't change the inevitable. It's not that hard to work out who the bad guys are, the problems lie within the processes in place to deal with them.

It should be noted however, that different 'breeds' are best introduced over time and in small numbers.

We've seen this policy work before, why change it?

Civilisation is but a thin veneer on the limbic system.

A wolf pack is also a 'social construct', but only amongst themselves.

Soren wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 3:00pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 12:00pm: Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 11:45am: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 11:54pm: Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 10:05pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 8:01pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Still not betting, dear? I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. "Race" as a concept is a social construct, Hermoine.  Listen to Dr Brain and pluck out your lying eyes, Hermie. http://www.the-chiefexecutive.com/contractor_images/lilly/3-south-african-woman.jpg http://www.thelovelyplanet.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/By-bentborn_Denmark.jpg If you see any difference, it is entirely socially constructed. Oh, yes. Ask Dr Brain. The colour of peoples' skin, the shape of their eyes, the colour of their eyes, etc. are merely superficial evolutionary adaptations to differing environment conditions.  Genetically we are all the same, with some minor variations caused by differing combinations of the same genes.  If those superficial evolutionary adaptations actually meant that each of the supposed "races" was different, truly genetically different, as the racists claim, then they could not interbreed, which they can.   ::) Thanks, Dr Brain. The only trouble with all this is that human interactions and relationships are not "genetic" or "evolutionary" but interpersonal. And on that level, we take all sorts of things into consideration, including looks, manners, and all sorts of other outward signs of the others' inner personality, character, etc. We do this because we are keen to know what kind of person he is. And previous interactions and information about the type of person we are dealing with is important. Stereotypes are important. They have come about due to accumulated experience - and can be changed only by more accumulated experience to the contrary. Anyone would prefer a well-dressed, well-spoken, well-mannered person to a tattoed, foul-mouthed, dirty one, regardless of what rave either of them is. Race is not EVERYTHING. But it is evidently not nothing, either. Are you reinforcing Brian's point that the concept of race is a social construct?   :o :o :o :o :o :o :o No. I am saying that we judge people on the basis of experience with their traits and characteristics that we perceive. That includes their ethnicity, race, how they present, speak, behave. We have a different set of experiences and perceptions of white-haired, well-spoken grannies and gold-toothed, tattooed black gangstas effin' and blindin' - to give you two obviously different exampled that even you couldn't confuse (try though you will).

And another experience again with ungrateful old Huns who come to our country and tell us how we should manage our affairs.

Isn’t it.

|dev|null wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 3:30pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 3:00pm: |dev|null wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 12:00pm: Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 11:45am: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 11:54pm: Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 10:05pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 8:01pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:33pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 1:32pm: Still not betting, dear? I'll bet my soul that India has very few of any race other than mixed asians. "Race" as a concept is a social construct, Hermoine.  Listen to Dr Brain and pluck out your lying eyes, Hermie. http://www.the-chiefexecutive.com/contractor_images/lilly/3-south-african-woman.jpg http://www.thelovelyplanet.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/By-bentborn_Denmark.jpg If you see any difference, it is entirely socially constructed. Oh, yes. Ask Dr Brain. The colour of peoples' skin, the shape of their eyes, the colour of their eyes, etc. are merely superficial evolutionary adaptations to differing environment conditions.  Genetically we are all the same, with some minor variations caused by differing combinations of the same genes.  If those superficial evolutionary adaptations actually meant that each of the supposed "races" was different, truly genetically different, as the racists claim, then they could not interbreed, which they can.   ::) Thanks, Dr Brain. The only trouble with all this is that human interactions and relationships are not "genetic" or "evolutionary" but interpersonal. And on that level, we take all sorts of things into consideration, including looks, manners, and all sorts of other outward signs of the others' inner personality, character, etc. We do this because we are keen to know what kind of person he is. And previous interactions and information about the type of person we are dealing with is important. Stereotypes are important. They have come about due to accumulated experience - and can be changed only by more accumulated experience to the contrary. Anyone would prefer a well-dressed, well-spoken, well-mannered person to a tattoed, foul-mouthed, dirty one, regardless of what rave either of them is. Race is not EVERYTHING. But it is evidently not nothing, either. Are you reinforcing Brian's point that the concept of race is a social construct?   :o :o :o :o :o :o :o No. I am saying that we judge people on the basis of experience with their traits and characteristics that we perceive. That includes their ethnicity, race, how they present, speak, behave. We have a different set of experiences and perceptions of white-haired, well-spoken grannies and gold-toothed, tattooed black gangstas effin' and blindin' - to give you two obviously different exampled that even you couldn't confuse (try though you will). So, it's all perception rather than actual reality?

Perception OF actual reality. We read each other all the time and form a judgement of others based on our perception of them.
This is why have a shower and dress up properly when you go for a job or on a date. How you are perceived matters.
Everyone knows this, everyone does this. Even you.
There is nothing you can do about your racial characteristics - except choose to go with or go against the recognised stereotype of your type.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 4:56pm:

How 'bout we all get down to tin-tacks and call a spade a spade, and a shovel a shovel. How 'bout we drop the word 'race' and talk about breeds instead?

Why bother, Lionel?  We have an entire science which we should be using.  Its called Genetics.  Racists instead believe in Eugenics.  Your belief in "breeds" is closer to Eugenics than Genetics.  ::)

I am unsure why people are frightened by either Genetics or feel the need to push their socialised beliefs concerning the artificial construct referred to as "race" on others.   Ultimately racism is about a fear of the "other", the person whom is different.  Racism in Western Europe in the form we know it, today only started in the 18th century as a means to justify European Imperialism.  From it, the discipline of Anthropology was created (the discipline's "dirty secret". ).   It has of course developed beyond that but that is it's central core - justifying the domination of others on the basis of physical and social differences.

The reality is that Genetics shows there is only one 'race", the Human one.  We are all descended from primarily African humanity and the entire view that the colour of one's skin or the shape of one's eyes or their colour and the colour of one's hair, determines your membership of a supposedly superior or inferior group of humanity is totally false.

Such beliefs are the result of social construction around myths, fears and ignorant misunderstandings of the reality of humanity.  That some here keep attempting to perpetuate such views suggests they aren't interested in reality.

Are you, Lionel?   ::)

Soren wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 11:45am:

Thanks, Dr Brain.

Whom?   ::)


Quote:

The only troublke with all this is that human interactions and relationships are not "genetic" or "evolutionary" but interpersonal. And on that level, we take all sorts of things into consideration, including looks, manners, and all sorts of other outward signs of the others' inner personality, character, etc. We do this because we are keen to know what kind of person he is. And previous interactions and information about the type of person we are dealing with is important. Stereotypes are important. They have come about due to accumulated experience - and can be changed only by more accumulated experience to the contrary.

They can be challenged but for those that prefer their stereotypes, Soren they invariably revert to them than accept that what they learnt - as a social construct - from their parents may well be wrong.  This has been demonstrated time after time in our history.  What is required a great event, usually a revolution, a war, natural disaster to shake people out of their fear of the "other".

Everything you've described, Soren is indeed a "social construct", something which was created by people and which has no scientific backing.  There is no way the colour of a person's skin or the shape or colour of their eyes or hair and so on, determines their intelligence or their abilities.   Yet it is those superficialities that people like you and your ilk will continually harp upon.   ::)

You may as well resort to Phrenology.  It is about as accurate.   ::)

Soren wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 6:19pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 3:30pm: So, it's all perception rather than actual reality?  Perception OF actual reality. We read each other all the time and form a judgement of others based on our perception of them. This is why have a shower and dress up properly when you go for a job or on a date. How you are perceived matters. Everyone knows this, everyone does this. Even you. There is nothing you can do about your racial characteristics - except choose to go with or go against the recognised stereotype of your type.

Everything you've described is a social construct, Soren.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 6:27pm:

The reality is that Genetics shows there is only one 'race", the Human one.  We are all descended from primarily African humanity and the entire view that the colour of one's skin or the shape of one's eyes or their colour and the colour of one's hair, determines your membership of a supposedly superior or inferior group of humanity is totally false.

Who said anything about absolutes of superiority/inferiority?

Do you also see dog breeds in these terms?  Well seeing as the principles of genetics apply equally to amoeba, dogs and humans alike, you must.  Well it's either that or you're either inconsistent or a hypocrite, and we both know you're beyond reproach in those regards.

So what breed is "superior"out of a great dane and a chihuahua?  I'd say it's meaningless unless you define what they're superior/inferior at, but I'm not the one telling the story.  Genetically, there's not much difference at all.  One might even say there's more variation within breeds than between them, if one were inclined to make vacuous remarks.  And yet....

http://www.petinfoclub.com/Images/Chihuahua%20and%20great%20dane%20shutterstock_2783537-1.jpg

I notice some differences, which I just can't mark down as being a "social construct".  Do you notice anything like that?

... wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 6:56pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 6:27pm: The reality is that Genetics shows there is only one 'race", the Human one.  We are all descended from primarily African humanity and the entire view that the colour of one's skin or the shape of one's eyes or their colour and the colour of one's hair, determines your membership of a supposedly superior or inferior group of humanity is totally false. Who said anything about absolutes of superiority/inferiority?

That is the basis of racism.  Have you been paying attention?


Quote:

I notice some differences, which I can't quite attribute to "social construct".  How about you?

I notice some superficial differences based upon artificial, forced selection for particular attributes.  Essentially speeded up, artificial evolution.

Just as there are only superficial differences between Pygmies and Southern Sudanese or Eskimos and Han or Australian Indigenes and Southern Indians.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 7:01pm:

... wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 6:56pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 6:27pm: The reality is that Genetics shows there is only one 'race", the Human one.  We are all descended from primarily African humanity and the entire view that the colour of one's skin or the shape of one's eyes or their colour and the colour of one's hair, determines your membership of a supposedly superior or inferior group of humanity is totally false. Who said anything about absolutes of superiority/inferiority? That is the basis of racism.  Have you been paying attention?

Perhaps it is, but it's not relevant to the question of whether race itself is more than a mere "social construct".  Please read more carefully in future.


Quote:

I notice some differences, which I can't quite attribute to "social construct".  How about you?

I notice some superficial differences based upon artificial, forced selection for particular attributes.  Essentially speeded up, artificial evolution.

Just as there are only superficial differences between Pygmies and Southern Sudanese or Eskimos and Han or Australian Indigenes and Southern Indians.    ::)[/quote]

Something that strikes me as odd is how "genetics" distinguishes between which traits we (and by we, I mean white people) consider superficial characteristics and those we don't, so that it "knows" which traits it will allow variation in. 

It seems that an entirely different set of genetic laws apply to our internal organs than what apply to the more "superficial" traits like skin and eye colour.  Perhaps our resident geneticist could explain this little quirk of science?

Did I mention Homo Sapiens somewhere?

What is that?

Aren't there breeds within the genus?

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 6:27pm:

Racism in Western Europe in the form we know it, today only started in the 18th century as a means to justify European Imperialism.  From it, the discipline of Anthropology was created (the discipline's "dirty secret". ).   It has of course developed beyond that but that is it's central core - justifying the domination of others on the basis of physical and social differences.

Specious bollocks, Brain, just silly crap.

Or 'social construct' as you would say.

... wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 7:16pm:

Something that strikes me as odd is how "genetics" distinguishes between which traits we (and by we, I mean white people) consider superficial characteristics and those we don't, so that it "knows" which traits it will allow variation in.  It seems that an entirely different set of genetic laws apply to our internal organs than what apply to the more "superficial" traits like skin and eye colour.  Perhaps our resident geneticist could explain this little quirk of science?

I am not a geneticist, Wesley.  However, I'll attempt to answer your question.

A single word, Wesley - evolution.   Our internal organs have evolved to provide what our body requires so they hardly differ nor need to visibly be different, between the various human groups or even individuals.  A human liver will look like a liver and function like a liver no matter where you are or who you are.  Ditto for all other internal organs.  There is minor and subtle variations, which different genetic combinations account for, such as the inability of many some people to metabolise alcohol easily.  This often occurs amongst East Asians but can also occur in other human individuals who aren't Asian, as well.  If a need develops for humans to develop new or different organs, then evolution will produce it or we'll die out as a species, as do all that cannot adapt to their environment (unless of course we change the environment and force it to adapt to our needs).

Externally, we differ because it is with the external world our body interfaces.  We evolve to meet our environmental needs, fastest and this shows in our superficial, external features.  Dark skin for the tropics, because we do not need to metabolise as much sunlight for Vitamin D, light skin for upper-latitudes where we do need it.  Long noses for cold climates, to warm the air we breath, before it enters our lungs, flat noses for warmer climates where it isn't needed.  Epicanthic folds over the eyelids, to help protect them against cold winds, none, where it isn't as necessary.  There are numerous examples.

However, in all cases, we share the same genes, we are of the same species and hence the same 'race".  There is no inferiority, no superiority, we adapt over time to our environments.   I don't doubt in a few thousand years, we'll have no legs, long arms and ten fingers on each hand, with double thumbs.  Can you guess why?  ;)

Soren wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 8:25pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 6:27pm:   Racism in Western Europe in the form we know it, today only started in the 18th century as a means to justify European Imperialism.  From it, the discipline of Anthropology was created (the discipline's "dirty secret". ).   It has of course developed beyond that but that is it's central core - justifying the domination of others on the basis of physical and social differences. Specious bollocks, Brain, just silly crap. Or 'social construct' as you would say.

*SIGH*, you can't say I haven't tried, Soren.  As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.   ::)

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 7:37pm:

Did I mention Homo Sapiens somewhere? What is that? Aren't there breeds within the genus?

::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 8:52pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 8:25pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 6:27pm:   Racism in Western Europe in the form we know it, today only started in the 18th century as a means to justify European Imperialism.  From it, the discipline of Anthropology was created (the discipline's "dirty secret". ).   It has of course developed beyond that but that is it's central core - justifying the domination of others on the basis of physical and social differences. Specious bollocks, Brain, just silly crap. Or 'social construct' as you would say. *SIGH*, you can't say I haven't tried, Soren.  As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.   ::)

You mean you have no idea what to say.

Soren wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 9:20pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 8:52pm: Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 8:25pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 6:27pm:   Racism in Western Europe in the form we know it, today only started in the 18th century as a means to justify European Imperialism.  From it, the discipline of Anthropology was created (the discipline's "dirty secret". ).   It has of course developed beyond that but that is it's central core - justifying the domination of others on the basis of physical and social differences. Specious bollocks, Brain, just silly crap. Or 'social construct' as you would say. *SIGH*, you can't say I haven't tried, Soren.  As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.   ::) You mean you have no idea what to say.

It's pretty hard to respond to your nonsense on a good day, Soren.

In this case, you could hardly expect Brian to even open his mouth.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 9:24pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 9:20pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 8:52pm: Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 8:25pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 6:27pm:   Racism in Western Europe in the form we know it, today only started in the 18th century as a means to justify European Imperialism.  From it, the discipline of Anthropology was created (the discipline's "dirty secret". ).   It has of course developed beyond that but that is it's central core - justifying the domination of others on the basis of physical and social differences. Specious bollocks, Brain, just silly crap. Or 'social construct' as you would say. *SIGH*, you can't say I haven't tried, Soren.  As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.   ::) You mean you have no idea what to say. It's pretty hard to respond to your nonsense on a good day, Soren. In this case, you could hardly expect Brian to even open his mouth.

You have no idea either. Here was an opportunity for both of you to present a coherent point but neither of you can manage it. Neither of you can EVER manage it. It's not within your capabilities to be coherent.

Game over. Thank you linesmen, than you ball boys.

Soren wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 9:24pm: Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 9:20pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 8:52pm: Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 8:25pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 6:27pm:   Racism in Western Europe in the form we know it, today only started in the 18th century as a means to justify European Imperialism.  From it, the discipline of Anthropology was created (the discipline's "dirty secret". ).   It has of course developed beyond that but that is it's central core - justifying the domination of others on the basis of physical and social differences. Specious bollocks, Brain, just silly crap. Or 'social construct' as you would say. *SIGH*, you can't say I haven't tried, Soren.  As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.   ::) You mean you have no idea what to say. It's pretty hard to respond to your nonsense on a good day, Soren. In this case, you could hardly expect Brian to even open his mouth. You have no idea either. Here was an opportunity for both of you to present a coherent point but neither of you can manage it. Neither of you can EVER manage it. It's not within your capabilities to be coherent. Game over. Thank you linesmen, than you ball boys.

Too late, Soren.

Sorry, old boy.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 9:38pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 9:36pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 9:24pm: Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 9:20pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 8:52pm: Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 8:25pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 6:27pm:   Racism in Western Europe in the form we know it, today only started in the 18th century as a means to justify European Imperialism.  From it, the discipline of Anthropology was created (the discipline's "dirty secret". ).   It has of course developed beyond that but that is it's central core - justifying the domination of others on the basis of physical and social differences. Specious bollocks, Brain, just silly crap. Or 'social construct' as you would say. *SIGH*, you can't say I haven't tried, Soren.  As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.   ::) You mean you have no idea what to say. It's pretty hard to respond to your nonsense on a good day, Soren. In this case, you could hardly expect Brian to even open his mouth. You have no idea either. Here was an opportunity for both of you to present a coherent point but neither of you can manage it. Neither of you can EVER manage it. It's not within your capabilities to be coherent. Game over. Thank you linesmen, than you ball boys. Too late, Soren. Sorry, old boy.

WhaddItellya??

It's not within your capabilities to be coherent.

Soren wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 9:46pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 9:38pm: Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 9:36pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 9:24pm: Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 9:20pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 8:52pm: Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 8:25pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 6:27pm:   Racism in Western Europe in the form we know it, today only started in the 18th century as a means to justify European Imperialism.  From it, the discipline of Anthropology was created (the discipline's "dirty secret". ).   It has of course developed beyond that but that is it's central core - justifying the domination of others on the basis of physical and social differences. Specious bollocks, Brain, just silly crap. Or 'social construct' as you would say. *SIGH*, you can't say I haven't tried, Soren.  As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.   ::) You mean you have no idea what to say. It's pretty hard to respond to your nonsense on a good day, Soren. In this case, you could hardly expect Brian to even open his mouth. You have no idea either. Here was an opportunity for both of you to present a coherent point but neither of you can manage it. Neither of you can EVER manage it. It's not within your capabilities to be coherent. Game over. Thank you linesmen, than you ball boys. Too late, Soren. Sorry, old boy. WhaddItellya?? It's not within your capabilities to be coherent.

Yes, you told us, Soren.

You told us   ;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 9:49pm:

Yes, you told us, Soren. You told us   ;)

No - I told YOU.

Soren wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 10:14pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 9:49pm: Yes, you told us, Soren. You told us   ;) No - I told YOU.

Yes, Soren, you sure did.

You sure did    ;)


http://mychildmalaysia.com/file/Hand%20patting%20boy's%20head.jpg

Soren wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 9:20pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 8:52pm: Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 8:25pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 6:27pm:   Racism in Western Europe in the form we know it, today only started in the 18th century as a means to justify European Imperialism.  From it, the discipline of Anthropology was created (the discipline's "dirty secret". ).   It has of course developed beyond that but that is it's central core - justifying the domination of others on the basis of physical and social differences. Specious bollocks, Brain, just silly crap. Or 'social construct' as you would say. *SIGH*, you can't say I haven't tried, Soren.  As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.   ::) You mean you have no idea what to say.

True. I am speechless.  I have explained the matter to the best of my ability and yet you wilfully refuse to accept it because it does not fit your preconceived yet ignorant notions of how it should be.   That indicates to me a failure on your part, in understanding the matter rather than a failure on my part in communication.  ::)

Joan Reilly, Surrey Hills


Quote:

Why we must learn from history Did Tony Abbott ever share the experience of so many Australians, listening to stories of beloved family members involved in the Japanese ''theatre'' of World War II? Some of our women who were forced to become ''comfort women'' for Japanese troops are still alive. But Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is unconvinced that the 200,000 comfort women from China, Korea, and other countries were coerced, and Japan has recently opposed a proposed statue in Sydney to honour these women. Somehow our Prime Minister (aka our Minister for Women) does not ''get'' the problem: Japan has never really faced up to its wartime atrocities. By contrast, it was refreshing to learn from young tour guides in Europe that all students in Germany are required to visit a concentration camp as part of their education, to see the Nazi horrors for themselves, in the hope such crimes will never be repeated. http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-age-letters/repeat-your-speech-to-the-rsl-mr-abbott-20140710-3bq3j.html

Does "visit[ing] a concentration camp as part of their education" include a visit to the Gaza Concentration Camp?

https://www.facebook.com/IsraelWC/photos_stream

---

For those who support Israel. you will change your mind after this video.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=654571754633649&set=vb.333012743456220&type=2&theater

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 8:50pm:

... wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 7:16pm: Something that strikes me as odd is how "genetics" distinguishes between which traits we (and by we, I mean white people) consider superficial characteristics and those we don't, so that it "knows" which traits it will allow variation in.  It seems that an entirely different set of genetic laws apply to our internal organs than what apply to the more "superficial" traits like skin and eye colour.  Perhaps our resident geneticist could explain this little quirk of science? I am not a geneticist, Wesley.  However, I'll attempt to answer your question. A single word, Wesley - evolution.   Our internal organs have evolved to provide what our body requires so they hardly differ nor need to visibly be different, between the various human groups or even individuals.  A human liver will look like a liver and function like a liver no matter where you are or who you are.  Ditto for all other internal organs.  There is minor and subtle variations, which different genetic combinations account for, such as the inability of many some people to metabolise alcohol easily.  This often occurs amongst East Asians but can also occur in other human individuals who aren't Asian, as well.  If a need develops for humans to develop new or different organs, then evolution will produce it or we'll die out as a species, as do all that cannot adapt to their environment (unless of course we change the environment and force it to adapt to our needs).

The one thing you got right there is that you're not a geneticist.  A number of points to raise with that ham-fisted attempt:

1.  Evolution doesn't just get things working and say "now we're done".  It is a constant process of change in response to environmental factors, which differ from region to region and culture to culture.

2.  There are 8 different blood types that all "provide what our body requires" and yet....there's 8 different types.  And that's just the blood - the human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe, so it's just simple mathematics that it has the most potential for variation.  It's like the differnce between cash 3 and the lotto numbers - matching 3 out of 10 by chance isn't so hard, but getting 6 out of 45 is incredibly difficult and projecting further, getting 10 out of 2000 is so unlikely it's effectively impossible. 


Quote:

Externally, we differ because it is with the external world our body interfaces.  We evolve to meet our environmental needs, fastest and this shows in our superficial, external features.  Dark skin for the tropics, because we do not need to metabolise as much sunlight for Vitamin D, light skin for upper-latitudes where we do need it.  Long noses for cold climates, to warm the air we breath, before it enters our lungs, flat noses for warmer climates where it isn't needed.  Epicanthic folds over the eyelids, to help protect them against cold winds, none, where it isn't as necessary.  There are numerous examples.

Fair enough - but when you demonstrate that you do have some inkling of how evolution works, it makes me wonder why you apply it so inconsistently.  What gives, BT?  Happy living a lie?


Quote:

However, in all cases, we share the same genes, we are of the same species and hence the same 'race".  There is no inferiority, no superiority, we adapt over time to our environments.   I don't doubt in a few thousand years, we'll have no legs, long arms and ten fingers on each hand, with double thumbs.  Can you guess why?  ;)

Interesting.  In just a few thousand years you foresee such radical changes as loss of our extremities, and yet when abos got 50 thousand years in isolation, they evolved to be.....exactly the same as everyone else?  Not real consistent, is it BT?

I might also point out that traits are passed down when they provide an edge in survival and reproduction.  It would be remiss of me not to point out that being a fat nerd glued to your computer doesn't provide an edge in either - in fact it harms them quite significantly.  So I'm sorry, but your prophecy just doesn't have a chance.

Women care a lot more about race than men: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/07/why-does-race-matter-for-women/

Gendered Racial Exclusion: http://paa2008.princeton.edu/papers/80046

Racial Preferences in Dating: http://www.columbia.edu/~ss957/articles/Racial%20Preferences%20in%20Dating.pdf

Why does race matter for women? - Discover Magazine Blogs http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/07/why-does-race-matter-for-women/#.U8B8QLFHUTA

Most Women Are Racists…

Consider “Racial Preferences in Dating,” a study of more than 400 graduate and professional students who participated in speed dating sessions at Columbia University organized by Raymond Fisman, Sheena S. Iyengar, Emir Kamenica and Itamar Simonson. The researchers conclude:

“Even in a population of relatively progressive individuals who have self-selected into participation in a multi-cultural Speed Dating event, we observe strong racial preferences.”

There’s also a clear gender divide, as the researchers note:

“Women of all races exhibit strong same race preferences, while men of no race exhibit a statistically significant same race preference.”

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/single-female-seeking-same-race-male/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

http://www.thejourneyofsuperman.com/most-women-are-racists/

:-*

---

... wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 9:20am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 8:50pm: ... wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 7:16pm: Something that strikes me as odd is how "genetics" distinguishes between which traits we (and by we, I mean white people) consider superficial characteristics and those we don't, so that it "knows" which traits it will allow variation in.  It seems that an entirely different set of genetic laws apply to our internal organs than what apply to the more "superficial" traits like skin and eye colour.  Perhaps our resident geneticist could explain this little quirk of science? I am not a geneticist, Wesley.  However, I'll attempt to answer your question. A single word, Wesley - evolution.   Our internal organs have evolved to provide what our body requires so they hardly differ nor need to visibly be different, between the various human groups or even individuals.  A human liver will look like a liver and function like a liver no matter where you are or who you are.  Ditto for all other internal organs.  There is minor and subtle variations, which different genetic combinations account for, such as the inability of many some people to metabolise alcohol easily.  This often occurs amongst East Asians but can also occur in other human individuals who aren't Asian, as well.  If a need develops for humans to develop new or different organs, then evolution will produce it or we'll die out as a species, as do all that cannot adapt to their environment (unless of course we change the environment and force it to adapt to our needs). The one thing you got right there is that you're not a geneticist.  A number of points to raise with that ham-fisted attempt: 1.  Evolution doesn't just get things working and say "now we're done".  It is a constant process of change in response to environmental factors, which differ from region to region and culture to culture.

True but you should note, if you had read the entire post and understood it, that I did not imply that evolution is done.   ::)


Quote:

2.  There are 8 different blood types that all "provide what our body requires" and yet....there's 8 different types.  And that's just the blood - the human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe, so it's just simple mathematics that it has the most potential for variation.  It's like the differnce between cash 3 and the lotto numbers - matching 3 out of 10 by chance isn't so hard, but getting 6 out of 45 is incredibly difficult and projecting further, getting 10 out of 2000 is so unlikely it's effectively impossible.

Brains are indeed interesting.  The reason why the children of geniuses aren't necessarily geniuses in their own right is because of a rule called "reversion to the norm".  Mozart's children did not inherit the genius of their father and faded into obscurity.   There are numerous other examples.  The reality is that for a mutation to change the human body in some significant way, it must confer significant advantage to it's owner.


Quote:

[quote] Externally, we differ because it is with the external world our body interfaces.  We evolve to meet our environmental needs, fastest and this shows in our superficial, external features.  Dark skin for the tropics, because we do not need to metabolise as much sunlight for Vitamin D, light skin for upper-latitudes where we do need it.  Long noses for cold climates, to warm the air we breath, before it enters our lungs, flat noses for warmer climates where it isn't needed.  Epicanthic folds over the eyelids, to help protect them against cold winds, none, where it isn't as necessary.  There are numerous examples.

Fair enough - but when you demonstrate that you do have some inkling of how evolution works, it makes me wonder why you apply it so inconsistently.  What gives, BT?  Happy living a lie?
[/quote]

Who is "BT"?  Are you addressing someone else?   ::)


Quote:

[quote] However, in all cases, we share the same genes, we are of the same species and hence the same 'race".  There is no inferiority, no superiority, we adapt over time to our environments.   I don't doubt in a few thousand years, we'll have no legs, long arms and ten fingers on each hand, with double thumbs.  Can you guess why?  ;)

Interesting.  In just a few thousand years you foresee such radical changes as loss of our extremities, and yet when abos got 50 thousand years in isolation, they evolved to be.....exactly the same as everyone else?  Not real consistent, is it BT?
[/quote]

Whom are you addressing your remarks to?  I am confused.   ::)

It was BTW, rather obviously a joke and based upon how the young of today are utilising their hands primarily to text and their legs are rarely utilised except to walk to the fridge and back.   ;D


Quote:

I might also point out that traits are passed down when they provide an edge in survival and reproduction.  It would be remiss of me not to point out that being a fat nerd glued to your computer doesn't provide an edge in either - in fact it harms them quite significantly.  So I'm sorry, but your prophecy just doesn't have a chance.

I didn't claim it had.  I merely made a joking observation.  It is obviously you are somewhat lacking in humour.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 1:48pm:

The reality is that for a mutation to change the human body in some significant way, it must confer significant advantage to it's owner.

Reads like the script of an X-men movie.  That must be where you got your understanding of genetics. 

The prime force of evolution isn't single, radical mutations, it's the sum of tiny, incremental changes over huge timescales, so it's not about conferring a massive advantage to one person, it's about conferring tiny advantages throughout populations  over generations.    

... wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 2:56pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 1:48pm: The reality is that for a mutation to change the human body in some significant way, it must confer significant advantage to it's owner. Reads like the script of an X-men movie.  That must be where you got your understanding of genetics.  The prime force of evolution isn't single, radical mutations, it's the sum of tiny, incremental changes over huge timescales, so it's not about conferring a massive advantage to one person, it's about conferring tiny advantages throughout populations  over generations.

I think you don't understand the meaning of "radical" in the context of genetics.  You're right about evolutionary theory but practice tends to be a little different. 

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 12:16am:

Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 9:20pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 8:52pm: Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 8:25pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 6:27pm:   Racism in Western Europe in the form we know it, today only started in the 18th century as a means to justify European Imperialism.  From it, the discipline of Anthropology was created (the discipline's "dirty secret". ).   It has of course developed beyond that but that is it's central core - justifying the domination of others on the basis of physical and social differences. Specious bollocks, Brain, just silly crap. Or 'social construct' as you would say. *SIGH*, you can't say I haven't tried, Soren.  As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.   ::) You mean you have no idea what to say. True. I am speechless.  I have explained the matter to the best of my ability and yet you wilfully refuse to accept it because it does not fit your preconceived yet ignorant notions of how it should be.   That indicates to me a failure on your part, in understanding the matter rather than a failure on my part in communication.  ::)

What you are trying to present is that our perception that beheading someone on youtube in the name of Allah, or killing a white jogger for 'fun' by three black teenagers is seen as abhorrent only because of our abhorrence is a social construct and other people could view these events as OK and there is no objective way to differentiate between people who say these are abhorrent acts and the people who say they are OK because it's all just social construct.
And when there is more Muslim violence and more black violence, it is verboten to observe that there is a pattern here. Noticing trends, you would say, is a social construct.
You do not say that your reflex PC blindness to any patterns is then also a social construct. No. Your views are insights into objective truths. You are completely blind to the obvious - your argument's first casualty is your own argument.


So insytead of being able to self-reflect a little, you get pouty when I point out how idiotic your argument for 'perception is social construct' is.

Soren wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 6:34pm:

What you are trying to present is that our perception that beheading someone on youtube in the name of Allah, or killing a white jogger for 'fun' by three black teenagers is seen as abhorrent only because of our abhorrence is a social construct and other people could view these events as OK and there is no objective way to differentiate between people who say these are abhorrent acts and the people who say they are OK because it's all just social construct.

Yet you are now moving away from genetics towards social behaviour, Soren and last time I looked, most people agree social behaviour is a "social construct".

Further, there is an old saying in statistics which you seem unwilling to accept - "correlation does not denote causation".   You may discover a strong correlation between "race" and behaviour BUT there may be another factor which you have not noticed or are wilfully ignoring because it does not suit your preconceptions.  My Statistic teachers were always very careful about describing something as being the cause of something, because of that.


Quote:

And when there is more Muslim violence and more black violence, it is verboten to observe that there is a pattern here. Noticing trends, you would say, is a social construct.

No, there is nothing wrong with noticing trends or patterns.  Attributing their causes to say a broad religion or to the colour of a person's skin is wrong though, because again, correlation does not denote causation.   ::)


Quote:

You do not say that your reflex PC blindness to any patterns is then also a social construct. No. Your views are insights into objective truths. You are completely blind to the obvious - your argument's first casualty is your own argument.

I am not blind to patterns, Soren.  However, I am much more careful than racists and refuse to believe that the colour of a person's skin predetermines them to being violent.   ::)


Quote:

So insytead of being able to self-reflect a little, you get pouty when I point out how idiotic your argument for 'perception is social construct' is.

No, I point out that you are wilfully refusing to recognise the validity of the argument because it does not fit your preconceived notions of what causes something.  You attribute it to "race".  I attribute it to other factors.   ::)

And all those other factors just happen to be a part of the same race as well.
Gee what a coincidence .

You could be onto something here Brian  ;D ;D ;D

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 8:08pm:

.... No, I point out that you are wilfully refusing to recognise the validity of the argument because it does not fit your preconceived notions of what causes something.  You attribute it to "race".  I attribute it to other factors.

Oh, for heaven's sake!

Say I agree with you and say that it's awful that people can't get along with each because they're bigoted and extremist in their attitudes.

Because in your world they shouldn't. Violence is only a 'social construct' that serves no purpose.

What do you propose to do to prevent violence between all the bigoted groups of extremists with opposing attitudes?

I mean RIGHT NOW!

You've all the answers, haven't you?

(without violent means, of course)



The world will be a better place in .....


8-)

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 8:37pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 8:08pm: .... No, I point out that you are wilfully refusing to recognise the validity of the argument because it does not fit your preconceived notions of what causes something.  You attribute it to "race".  I attribute it to other factors.  Oh, for heaven's sake! Say I agree with you and say that it's awful that people can't get along with each because they're bigoted and extremist in their attitudes. Because in your world they shouldn't. Violence is only a 'social construct' that serves no purpose. What do you propose to do to prevent violence between all the bigoted groups of extremists with opposing attitudes? I mean RIGHT NOW! You've all the answers, haven't you? (without violent means, of course) The world will be a better place in ..... 8-)

I offer no quick fixes, Lionel.   I do not believe these issues can be resolved "RIGHT NOW".   Indeed, one of the problems is that some people believe that complex problems can be solved easily.  Are you one, Lionel?

Education is the long term solution, Lionel.  Enlighten people, shine the light of knowledge and understanding should flow.  Let them keep themselves ignorant and the only thing they develop is more ignorance.

Even you'd admit I've been working on the education bit...  ;)

Mattywisk wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 8:25pm:

And all those other factors just happen to be a part of the same race as well. Gee what a coincidence . You could be onto something here Brian  ;D ;D ;D

"correlation does not denote causation", Matty.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 9:33pm:

Mattywisk wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 8:25pm: And all those other factors just happen to be a part of the same race as well. Gee what a coincidence . You could be onto something here Brian  ;D ;D ;D "correlation does not denote causation", Matty.   ::)

;D ;D ;D

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 9:33pm:

Mattywisk wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 8:25pm: And all those other factors just happen to be a part of the same race as well. Gee what a coincidence . You could be onto something here Brian  ;D ;D ;D "correlation does not denote causation", Matty.   ::)

Yes, that’s what they taught the old boy at the prestigious University of Balogney.

The tinted races, you see, are genetically inferior by virtue of their correlation - a statistical aberration relating to their cultural backwardness, subnormal intelligence, sexual inversion, criminal deviance, psycho-pathology, etc, etc, etc. There’s a formula somewhere - the old boy should know it.

They didn’t write the Bible, invent the steam engine, or come up with one Shakespeare, Wordsworth or Coleridge in 1400 years. All they did was sit around eating figs and sodomizing each other while we did all the work.

And now that we’ve made something of ourselves, they want to invade us, bring us down to their level and spoil our fun.

They’re just a bunch of dirty rotters, the lot of them. Statistically speaking. It’s their fault, of course. They only have themselves to blame.

The old boy’s studied all this. Ask him for a list of references - he should be able to point you in the right direction.

It's pretty sad that you invest the time to write all these posts Kamel and all you can do is try and be a smart ass and you never contribute anything.

Yes, Matty, but do you mean sad in a causative sense, or something entirely different?

Try to be specific.

Oh, Karnal contributes a great deal, I believe, Matty.   He is amusing and his witty commentary places the comments of bigots and racists in context, way out there in the outfield where only the loons play.   ;D

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 8:08pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 6:34pm: What you are trying to present is that our perception that beheading someone on youtube in the name of Allah, or killing a white jogger for 'fun' by three black teenagers is seen as abhorrent only because of our abhorrence is a social construct and other people could view these events as OK and there is no objective way to differentiate between people who say these are abhorrent acts and the people who say they are OK because it's all just social construct. Yet you are now moving away from genetics towards social behaviour, Soren and last time I looked, most people agree social behaviour is a "social construct". Further, there is an old saying in statistics which you seem unwilling to accept - "correlation does not denote causation".   You may discover a strong correlation between "race" and behaviour BUT there may be another factor which you have not noticed or are wilfully ignoring because it does not suit your preconceptions.  My Statistic teachers were always very careful about describing something as being the cause of something, because of that. Quote: And when there is more Muslim violence and more black violence, it is verboten to observe that there is a pattern here. Noticing trends, you would say, is a social construct. No, there is nothing wrong with noticing trends or patterns.  Attributing their causes to say a broad religion or to the colour of a person's skin is wrong though, because again, correlation does not denote causation.   ::) [quote] You do not say that your reflex PC blindness to any patterns is then also a social construct. No. Your views are insights into objective truths. You are completely blind to the obvious - your argument's first casualty is your own argument.

I am not blind to patterns, Soren.  However, I am much more careful than racists and refuse to believe that the colour of a person's skin predetermines them to being violent.   ::)


Quote:

So insytead of being able to self-reflect a little, you get pouty when I point out how idiotic your argument for 'perception is social construct' is.

No, I point out that you are wilfully refusing to recognise the validity of the argument because it does not fit your preconceived notions of what causes something.  You attribute it to "race".  I attribute it to other factors.   ::)
[/quote]


What makes Muslims commit blood curdling savagery in the name of Islam, or what makes blacks disproportionately more criminal than others?

Their cultures.

Does their tintedness lead to their inferior cultures? WHo cares. They have inferior cultures. Any white who adapts the Bludgahadeen culture or the gangsta culture automatically degrade themselves.

Equally, Arabs or blacks can adapt Western civilisation and be greatly improved individuals because of that.


Western civilisation is created by whites but it is a universal culture, open to all, benefiting all who embrace it.

Most tinted people know this and but some resent it and so stick with the inferior culture of their race -and that is the real racism, sticking with the blood and the soil.

Post-colonial Africa is a living example of this, if you needed an example.
.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 9:38pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 9:36pm: You have no idea either. Here was an opportunity for both of you to present a coherent point but neither of you can manage it. Neither of you can EVER manage it. It's not within your capabilities to be coherent. Game over. Thank you linesmen, than you ball boys. Too late, Soren. Sorry, old boy.

I know. It's always too late for you to be coherent.

Soren wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 7:16pm:

What makes Muslims commit blood curdling savagery in the name of Islam, or what makes blacks disproportionately more criminal than others? Their cultures.

Funny and there I was talking about "race", not "culture", Soren.

Moving the goalposts again? 

When black people are discussed by racists, it is invariably all about the issue of "race".

Which black culture are you talking about?  Black African?  West, East, sub-Saharan or Southern African cultures (to be fairly broad).  What about West Indian?  Which bit of the West Indies, the culture of Jamaica is substantially different to the culture say, of my ancestral homeland, St.Kitts.  Then we have South American black culture and North American black culture - which one are we discussing?  Then you have Southern Indian black culture.   Are they all identical, Soren?

No, you're not racist, are you?   ::)


Quote:

Does their tintedness lead to their inferior cultures? WHo cares.

Racists do.  Ask a racist what they consider the cause of the violence of Black people and they'll tell you it's because of their "race" - the colour of their skin essentially.  You claim not to care but in reality you're talking quite a racist talk there, Soren.


Quote:

They have inferior cultures.

According to whom?  How do you measure "culture", Soren to determine whether one is inferior or another superior?  Is it how pale the skin of the practitioners is?   ::)


Quote:

Any white who adapts the Bludgahadeen culture or the gangsta culture automatically degrade themselves.

Do they?  According to whom?  You?  You're hardly objective on the issue, now are you, Soren?   ::)


Quote:

Equally, Arabs or blacks can adapt Western civilisation and be greatly improved individuals because of that.

Will they be accepted though, by the likes of you?  I really wonder...   ::)


Quote:

Western civilisation is created by whites but it is a universal culture, open to all, benefiting all who embrace it.

Is it?  If you the comments of say, Herbie for long enough, it doesn't matter what culture a person practices as compared to what the colour of that person's skin is...   ::)


Quote:

Most tinted people know this and but some resent it and so stick with the inferior culture of their race -and that is the real racism, sticking with the blood and the soil. Post-colonial Africa is a living example of this, if you needed an example.

Again, how do you measure culture, Soren?  Is there an internationally recognised standard so we can determine how inferior or superior a given culture is?   ::) ::)