Interesting debate about white supremacy 21 Saturday Dec 2019 Posted by pumpkinperson in Uncategorized ≈ 17 Comments TagsAndrew Schulz, Tariq Nasheed, white supremacy Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading... Related
Tariq Nasheed is a black supremacist who is hell bent on undermining and guilting whites into submission in the hopes that this will somehow elevate his own race. There are far more intelligent and knowledgeable blacks that competently touch upon issues of racism towards AA currently and in the past. This guy is paranoid a racist and basically a joke. Only in today’s world can a black supremacist accuse another race of being inherently and systemically supremacist and racist(despite increasing evidence to the contrary), behave in a racist manner towards them and get away with it with zero social consequences.
Well, Africa was and might still be the crown jewel of the planet, with such an abundance of resources and what not. If the whites had interacted “fairly” and traded under the circumstances and laws we have now, Africa would be a very rich place. This would mean that the African population would thrive and build itself and it’s common knowledge that eugenic breeding happens under certain circumstances, so there’s even a possibility that beside enriching itself in wealth, they could enrich themselves in intelligence too, the Africans I mean.
But that would’ve came at a cost to the white colonialists who probably wouldn’t have been as wealthy as they are today and conversely have a detrimental effect on the eugenic population explosion that happened in Europe and the Americas. So if fair trade was practiced by the colonialists, we probably would’ve seen a very different world with true equality in all types of measures that were unfortunately taken away from the African populations around the world.
Black supremacy isn’t real but neither is white supremacy. Let’s not argue for one or the other because it keeps people ill-informed and stupid and ignorant.
“Black supremacy isn’t real but neither is white supremacy. Let’s not argue for one or the other because it keeps people ill-informed and stupid and ignorant.”
What? Of course there are white supremacists and black supremacists and all kinds of supremacists. You live under a rock or something? If supremacists exist then supremacy exists too. It then simply becomes a matter of magnitude and in that regard Tariq Nasheed is off his rocker. It does not exist among whites nearly as much as he thinks it does(nor any other group in the 21st century except between warring nations or nations with historic animosity of course) while I’m always suspicious of people claiming that a particular racial group is inherently and systemically supremacist, especially if done by someone that belongs to a subset of another racial group with an axe to grind. He tries very hard to make his positions come off as impartial and merely a pursuit of justice but he is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is and he gives the game away all too often with the things he says.
In any case this discussion about supremacy and racism is a very very long one and I would need to write a book to touch upon the nuance of it all. Suffice it to say that those words mean different things to different people while the way they are unfortunately often used today tend to level the playing field and set it deep underground. They have basically weaponized these words and are using them for political gain against their opposition or those that stand in their way. Step one, declare all racists or borderline racists as equally vile. Step two conflate race realism and in group advocacy with racism. Step three stigmatize your opponents or those that aren’t thoroughly on your side with a highly charged word like racism. Problem is that this stuff only works with ill informed halfwits. You simply cannot conflate in group preference with supremacy. If I look after the well being of my own family first and foremost before I take care of anyone else does that make me a pumpkinhead supremacist? What if I also decide that for sentimental reasons and because it is in my best interest to also look out for my extended family and close friends, is that wrong too? Well what if my neighbor had the same mindset, what if a good majority of people living in my country decided that not only is my line of thinking a good idea but also in my mostly homogeneous nation(not that foreigners are not welcome just that this is how it is) it’s to our best interest if we pool our resources together to safeguard our borders well being way of life and culture. By some people’s metric(mostly on the far left) this is in lock step with supremacist thinking. Of course that is absolute nonsense. If most people thought like I did and worked hard on this game plan we would all be better off because of it and our nation would likely prosper(provided we acted morally on the world stake). Does that prosperity make us supremacists by default? Because by Tariq’s logic it would. Any gains any nation has would by default be ill gotten, which is absolutely preposterous. Now I’m by no means saying that we should only look out for our own family friends or racial group, absolutely not. In fact we should make time and use our resources for the whole world if possible. However logic and I would argue properly balanced and weighted ethics dictate that your first priority is with your family and loved ones. This will naturally extrapolate by and large to your nation and then race. That’s just how it is and maybe that is how it aught to be.
Also as with most things racists and supremacists exist on a spectrum of sorts(from benign to sinister). In addition to that not all racists are supremacists and not all supremacists are racists. Like I said there is a LOT of nuance and I would need to write a book to flesh it all out.
Let me leave you with this one final point, I am in no way shape or form an apologist for racism or supremacy. I will say that in as much as the way those terms have been used historically(except for some recent growing trends) I wholeheartedly reject anything to do with actual racism or supremacy.
“If the whites had interacted “fairly” and traded under the circumstances and laws we have now, Africa would be a very rich place.”
Well that is debatable, Africa is still very rich in resources while there is no reason that even with mediocre resources it would not be able to match say, Mexico. Still 1/6th in GDP per capita relative to the US but not the 1/30th Africa is compared to the US. Not saying that colonialism didn’t hurt Africans but the fact that even 60+ years after colonialism they have not even come close to matching the world average is somewhat telling.
“This would mean that the African population would thrive and build itself and it’s common knowledge that eugenic breeding happens under certain circumstances, so there’s even a possibility that beside enriching itself in wealth, they could enrich themselves in intelligence too, the Africans I mean.”
Doesn’t quite work that way, even the most aggressive eugenics program(assuming no genetic engineering is used) would require more than 30 generations to produce a satisfactory improvement and that is before we consider the ethical issues. No the best chance they have is through a well regimented schooling system and a thorough cultural and political overhaul. Get them to start thinking differently and maybe that can produce something significant in the short term. Of course all the while the rest of the world will move on, its not like everyone is going to slam on the breaks just so that Africa can catch up. Which means that they might have to be playing catch up for a very long time. There really is no easy solution and I think our best bet is to at least minimize suffering and hopefully eradicate it. Genetic engineering might actually end up being the great equalizer in the end but we are decades away from figuring it all out let alone working out the ethical issues that arise from it.
Currently the average African IQ is around 70, with improvements in nutrition education and culture, hopefully economics too it might be possible to get that up to 80 but I really don’t think it can get much higher than that. Would love to be proven wrong but to edge it higher than that the rest of the world would basically have to establish a policy of zero progress(possibly even regression) for about a century or two. Meaning absolutely no technological advancement, no scientific advancement, no changes to our schooling, and no nutritional improvements. We would have to do this long enough for Africans to catch up to us in terms of their overall infrastructure economy and social organization and then allow them to progress beyond that while we did absolutely nothing. At some point it might be possible that their eventual technological and social edge would make up for what they lack for in genetics and this might actually level the playing field in terms of IQ. However I don’t think you will find any American(black or white) or anyone else in the world for that matter that would be willing to undergo this sort of thing.
“But that would’ve came at a cost to the white colonialists who probably wouldn’t have been as wealthy as they are today and conversely have a detrimental effect on the eugenic population explosion that happened in Europe and the Americas.”
Where do you get the idea that there was a eugenics population explosion? Up until about 160 years ago most people didn’t know about evolution let alone realize that aggressive selective breeding can actually significantly alter the genetic make up of a population over time. Now I am not saying that all people didn’t know, in fact it is believed that the theory of evolution or some semblance of it actually goes back to ancient Greek times with the pre-Socratics. So my suspicion is that on some level these ideas might even go back a lot further than that perhaps even as far back as the emergence of modern humans. Not all but a select few that either instinctively or through inference realized how the world works. In any case not much has changed in the way that people chose their mating partners through the ages, and if anything eugenics was practiced in a much harsher and more aggressive way in the distant past than today or even 500 years ago. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that we are experiencing dysgenics today but we might be coming dangerously close to it. This might sound like a harsh thing to say and I wish it wasn’t so but if there was one thing wars left behind in addition to death and destruct it was “the fittest”. In fact so into eugenics were the ancients that they would often practice infanticide in order to get rid of the weaklings. A war like culture probably developed in part so as to get rid of the weak and leave only the strong. I mean it is incredibly harsh way to run a society and of course we can afford not to engage in this sort of thing today because of technology and medicine while our ethics strongly oppose it. But this idea that some sort of random natural(or should I say cultural as opposed to systematic or engineered) eugenics occurred at at any point in the past is highly unlikely. That is, except for your typical social norm of women choosing higher ranked men to marry(which actually goes back many thousands of years). So I might be inclined to believe that it is actually possible that we are to some extent experiencing marginal dysgenics but this is masked and more than made up for by better living standards, nutrition, education and culture. All those things make it look like we are smarter than those in the past but we may in fact be getting genetically dumber.
In any case I once again feel the need to clarify my position. Despite freely expressing my thoughts here(or more like well informed speculations) I am strongly opposed to any kind of eugenics program other than well informed, responsible, and moral people making free choices regarding their mating partners and offspring. I am quite libertarian in this regard, I think we are smart enough to leave any sort of ideas of eugenics in the past and with zero blood shed move society forward. Possibly genetic engineering might come to our rescue in the future but that is another huge topic that society is far from smart enough or informed enough to decide upon yet.
“So if fair trade was practiced by the colonialists, we probably would’ve seen a very different world with true equality in all types of measures that were unfortunately taken away from the African populations around the world.”
What is wrong with you man, equality is a myth. The only equality that is remotely possible and remotely moral is equality under the law or equal rights. The only way to bring about the type of equality you are talking about is via immoral practices and theft. Stifling some and uplifting others, taking from the strong and rich and giving to the poor and weak. Even then you still won’t have true equality which is when you might have to engage in truly draconian measures where you start putting everyone in identical boxes running the productive into the ground enacting performance quotas(ie making it illegal to outperform others) and if any kind of disparity is found between racial groups resorting to highly immoral practices in order to bring about parity. All this has been tried before and it failed miserably for the sole reason that it is IMMORAL and highly inefficient. Lets just face reality and understand that equality of this sort is impossible(unless if you want to become a robot). Nowhere in nature is there this type of equality, what makes you think that somehow “god” decided to imbue humans with the potential for it.
What ever happened to old fashioned ideas like helping people in need, now we not only need to help then but make sure that they have as much as we do otherwise we are inherently evil for not bringing about “true” equality…? Disparities exist, they always have and they likely always will. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that(the wrong of it is in peoples heads and discontent), as long as it is done fairly and honorably and as long as they don’t result in suffering. The best we can do is ensure the game is played fairly but make no mistake this is the only game in town, if we try to change it we risk losing everything.
Having said all this, I am not saying that what the colonialists did was right or that it didn’t have some adverse effects but this idea that were it not for this Africans would be as smart as Asians or as accomplished and rich as Europeans, I’m sorry but I find that very hard to believe. However I am actually in favor of at least attempting to examine the possibility of reparations. Whether they are warranted or if it is even possible to fairly go about it is another story but I think serious examination is the least that could be done. Perhaps AI might help us work all this out in the future. In any case, I think at this point the old saying of “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” is quite apt. The perfect example to make my point are the Jews or specifically the Ashekenazis. They faced more than a millennia of hardship, racism, subjugation, marginalization, even came close to extinction yet they stand today as the smartest and most successful sub-racial group on the planet. Why you ask, well because they have a solid and well thought out culture, their society is set up in a “pro-genic” way(ie smart women choose smart men to marry and smart men choose smart women to marry) and because they were likely smart to begin with and all that hardship basically made then stronger. Now i am not saying that it isn’t possible to severely stifle a population through extreme subjugation and hardship, sure it is possible and can take many decades to overcome, however is this what happened to Africans, probably not and AA are proof of it. Smarter and richer than Africans, despite living in a country run by Whites while having gone through 3 centuries of slavery and subjugation. Will we see Africa rise, hopefully one day, will we see them rise to European or American standards, probably not in our lifetimes and 60 years of post colonialism should have shown us that it’s probably a good idea by now to stop blaming the white man for their current predicament.
King meLo said:
You are one of the most ignorant people I’ve ever met.
Are you referring to me, and if so why?
Wakanda enthusiast, obviously.
You do realize that was completely fictional, right?
The Philosopher said:
This is all over the news here. But the funniest thing was in the end they arrested someone for abusing an east asian not a black!!
name redacted by pp, dec 23, 2019 said:
[redacted by pp, dec 23, 2019]
normal people don’t even mind name calling, because it’s meaningless. if the fan had yelled, “you’re only on the team because you’re asian”…that might’ve upset him. but a multi-millionaire professional athlete should be made of stronger stuff. i guarantee kim yong song whatever is way more privileged in british society than the spectator. it’s satanism.
The philosopher said:
[redacted by pp, dec 24, 2019]the nyt editor takes his dog for a walk and remembers how much he hates Syrians (for no particular reason) and makes up a leading story that Assad is killing babies. Then the president, hilary Clinton, the Senate, all the intelligence agencies and all the other newspapers follow the nyt lead. [redacted by pp, dec 24, 2019]
LMAO at your absurd straw man
the nyt editor takes his dog for a walk and remembers how much he hates Syrians (for no particular reason)
NYT editors are as tribal as anyone else.
and makes up a leading story that Assad is killing babies.
More like contacts her sources in the deep state looking for dirt on Assad.
Then the president, hilary Clinton, the Senate, all the intelligence agencies and all the other newspapers follow the nyt lead.
if it was government agencies that sourced the NY Times story and considering the president and senate have their campaigns largely funded by anti-Assad billionaires like Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson who likely called them about the story, this is hardly a stretch.
Name redacted by pp, Dec 24, 2019 said:
yet another neurodegenerative disease caused by a repeat expansion. this time a hexanucleotide expansion. it causes about 4% of cases of ALS and is also a delayed phenotype, meaning no symptoms until middle age.
Name redacted by pp, dec 24, 2019 said:
is ALZ actually more common among dumb people? or is it that the same histopathology simply doesn’t cause disease (as soon) in smart people and in people with large brains?
as i’ve mentioned, i heard one doctor claim that smart people declined much more rapidly after they show symptoms.
Good question. Those who shows symptoms of AZ have smaller brains and lower education which indicates lower IQ in youth, but it could be that smart people with AZ have so much cognitive reserve, they never show symptoms. The famous nun study found that idea density at age 20 predicted AZ at autopsy some 60 years later, however idea density was unrelated to education or grades, so may have been more about executive functioning than IQ per se.
since i have learned that mere writing is something most people can't do worth shit. said:
the most interesting thing about that study is that that’s the way i wrote when i was in high school and was given bad grades for it.
so if you wanna not have AZD, write like derrida when you’re 14.
I’ve seen Andrew Schulz’s standup. Pretty funny. His comedy partner is Charlemagne the God, a hip-hop DJ who used to work for daytime talk show host Wendy Williams, and Schulz got his start working in black comedy clubs, so it’s not like he’s a racist at all…