Parting Shot
((The following is an uncomfortable fact to face, but it MUST be done, we MUST understand so solutions can be put in place to avoid the ultimate holocaust.))
Before I leave the Gulch, I must tell you the important issue that the world, its leaders and people need to resolve; the MOST important problem, in fact, facing the world today. And that is, the technology that can annihilate the entire planet, exists simultaneously with a race of people that have yet to develop (or evolve) the extended sense of foresight that anatomically modern humans long ago, evolved with the help of Neanderthal (and Denisovan) DNA, and which is wanting in the races of those derived from Sub-Saharan Africans.
First, as I’ve been saying for a while now, black Americans, and black Britons for that matter, cannot be placed in positions of power and authority, and the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, and perhaps other regions, MUST have caretaker forms of government until and unless they can show they are capable of self-restraint and self-governance.
The following two comments are reposted from RT:
1. My understanding of the traits and character of those who descend from black Sub-Saharan Africans, both Old World and New World, changed dramatically following certain attempts by Obamma, who because I refused to do his bidding or to work with him---I had assessed his character and found it wanting---told repeated lies about me to others, blacks and whites. Which wouldn't bother me particularly, but the blacks believed him. They believed his lies about me, and they believed that I had lied. And that wouldn't have bothered me either, EXCEPT they still thought I should drop everything else in my entire life and do things SOLELY for the black race, and that they had the right to force me to do so.
I understood then that the world was dealing with a race of people still wearing the clothes---attitudes, motivations, thinking abilities, of children, and sometimes very young children. And I found proof, external proof, of that in the writings of Jean Piaget, and in the history---the true, real, and factual history---of blacks in America.
2. (This was a reply to a poster asking me if I was racist): Before I tell you, let me be EXCRUCIATINGLY clear. (Excruciating for you and others of your ilk). When an entire race of people treat me the way this race of people have in the past 15 years, starting with the selection of Obamma, and I become angry, even furious, at that treatment, and THEN they have the stupidity and immaturity to call me racist, thinking I will be shamed and feel guilty, I am disposed to inform the world of the inability of this race of people to share in the development of the future of the world, to the same extent as other peoples can.
Is that clear enough for you?
The people that remained in Africa, that developed from Bantu and Nilo-Saharan genes, have a very strong ability for pattern recognition, which was the better survival technique for the environment, instead of the extended sense of foresight that enabled the development of the slower acting analytical reasoning that those with the small amount of Neanderthal or Denisovan genes were able to generate. I know this is true, for at least one reason: I took the online Ghanaian IQ test, which was based solely on pattern recognition, and recognition of changes in patterns. It was quite difficult at the end. I think this is why so many American blacks do well as American football running backs!! We need to develop and exploit this talent. This is not to say other peoples can’t make great running backs, but African Americans seem to excel.
Before I leave the Gulch, I must tell you the important issue that the world, its leaders and people need to resolve; the MOST important problem, in fact, facing the world today. And that is, the technology that can annihilate the entire planet, exists simultaneously with a race of people that have yet to develop (or evolve) the extended sense of foresight that anatomically modern humans long ago, evolved with the help of Neanderthal (and Denisovan) DNA, and which is wanting in the races of those derived from Sub-Saharan Africans.
First, as I’ve been saying for a while now, black Americans, and black Britons for that matter, cannot be placed in positions of power and authority, and the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, and perhaps other regions, MUST have caretaker forms of government until and unless they can show they are capable of self-restraint and self-governance.
The following two comments are reposted from RT:
1. My understanding of the traits and character of those who descend from black Sub-Saharan Africans, both Old World and New World, changed dramatically following certain attempts by Obamma, who because I refused to do his bidding or to work with him---I had assessed his character and found it wanting---told repeated lies about me to others, blacks and whites. Which wouldn't bother me particularly, but the blacks believed him. They believed his lies about me, and they believed that I had lied. And that wouldn't have bothered me either, EXCEPT they still thought I should drop everything else in my entire life and do things SOLELY for the black race, and that they had the right to force me to do so.
I understood then that the world was dealing with a race of people still wearing the clothes---attitudes, motivations, thinking abilities, of children, and sometimes very young children. And I found proof, external proof, of that in the writings of Jean Piaget, and in the history---the true, real, and factual history---of blacks in America.
2. (This was a reply to a poster asking me if I was racist): Before I tell you, let me be EXCRUCIATINGLY clear. (Excruciating for you and others of your ilk). When an entire race of people treat me the way this race of people have in the past 15 years, starting with the selection of Obamma, and I become angry, even furious, at that treatment, and THEN they have the stupidity and immaturity to call me racist, thinking I will be shamed and feel guilty, I am disposed to inform the world of the inability of this race of people to share in the development of the future of the world, to the same extent as other peoples can.
Is that clear enough for you?
The people that remained in Africa, that developed from Bantu and Nilo-Saharan genes, have a very strong ability for pattern recognition, which was the better survival technique for the environment, instead of the extended sense of foresight that enabled the development of the slower acting analytical reasoning that those with the small amount of Neanderthal or Denisovan genes were able to generate. I know this is true, for at least one reason: I took the online Ghanaian IQ test, which was based solely on pattern recognition, and recognition of changes in patterns. It was quite difficult at the end. I think this is why so many American blacks do well as American football running backs!! We need to develop and exploit this talent. This is not to say other peoples can’t make great running backs, but African Americans seem to excel.
I believe the problem is not with racial characteristics. The problem is with the idea of government. There shouldn't be any. There is your problem. Government is slavery. If you put less intelligent people in positions of authority, they have less capacity to trick you into thinking you are free (while they are enslaving you). You use your superior intellect to see through their lies. However, when you put more intelligent people in positions of authority, they have more success, so, you don't even notice you are their slave.
Simply put, and this is where the Left, in particular the Leftist Jews, turn the concept of evolution inside out, simply put, evolution is a term we use to describe a physiological or biological response to an environmental stimulus. How that happens, that is, we know mutations must be random, but the selection of a particular mutation, is not random. The selection of a dominant trait or attribute IS the response to the environment.
The rest of your comment made very little sense.
You think that black people are not capable of handling power, right?
My argument is that NOBODY is capable of handling "power", nor should they have any. The only reason why you don't see self-restraint/etc in black people is because they are not intelligent enough to trick you into it. Others are. You are just tricked.
My topic concerned the inadvisability of those who descend from black Sub-Saharan Africans, both New World and Old World, in positions of power or authority, because of less ability for self-restraint and self-control and government, itself. I used findings from several disciplines, including psychology and evolutionary science, and also my own experiences. I stated that this holds for those countries in Sub-Sahara Africa and possibly other regions of the world as well.
I did NOT state anything about any other people or culture, insofar as self-restraint and self-control are concerned.
Your 'argument', as many arguments of black Americans do, attempted to include a 'universe', a generalization to all peoples. In the same way, I have black folk tell me something like, "But white folks do this too". That is not relevant.
In fact, when a child is caught doing something wrong, and he says, "Well, Billy (or so-and-so) does it", a wise mother would chastise him for believing that it absolves him of any wrong doing.
This is a very frustrating trait of these people.
"a race of people that have yet to develop (or evolve) the extended sense of foresight that anatomically modern humans long ago, evolved"
As I understand it, you are implying that "anatomically modern humans" do have the "self-restraint and self-control" that is required for someone in positions of power. I mean, it is pretty clear to me from what you are saying.
My argument is that nobody has. It is the "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" argument. It is not even my own invention. Also, the second part of my argument is that you just think "anatomically modern humans" have the required level of "self-restraint and self-control" because they have convinced you (manipulatively) that they do when in reality they probably don't. The way they may do this may be, for example, by them creating a pretext and using it as an excuse for why they didn't restrain themselves that one time. This requires intelligence. My thesis would be that, assuming black people have on average lower level of intelligence (which I believe is true), they wouldn't be capable of creating a convincing enough pretext for it to work on groups more intelligent then themselves. So, my argument is that you are not seeing that "anatomically modern humans" also abuse power because they do it in a way that leaves you asking for more. I'm not saying that because "anatomically modern humans" do it, it is ok for black people to do it. I am saying NOBODY should be allowed to do it.
I will admit to something shameless, I tried to pivot the discussion from your topic to my target topic, which is abolition of government.
The rest of your comment I assume is gibberish.
It is true, I don't know exactly what you mean by 'anatomically modern human being'. Based on your post however, it seems to be one that possesses 'extended sense of foresight'. Still, it doesn't matter for the purpose of how I was using the term.
That's not how I use the term. Evolution (via natural selection) is when certain genetic information mutations, recombinations and whatever else we may not know about still, happen to cause the individuals possessing them to reproduce (them) more successfully than others in the population, probably due to some environmental factors (which usually differ in different geographical areas). It has nothing to do with any 'response' to 'stimulus'. I guess there are epigenetic changes which may do what you say but that is not evolution via natural selection.
"The selection of a dominant trait or attribute IS the response to the environment."
Yes, but not on an individual level. This is happening on a long time scale and the effect is on the entire gene pool.
And by the way, my original topic: "Parting Shot" was not meant to evoke argument. It was posted to instruct the world, its leaders, and its peoples, of consequences in the future caused by actions in the present.
I can understand your need to counter my statements, even though those arguments, so-called, are childish and immature. For two reasons: Your desire that blacks obtain power and dominance (over other peoples) is paramount, and two, Piaget has already stated and observed what I have observed.
"Your desire that blacks obtain power and dominance"
That's actually the opposite of what I want. I was trying to say that NOBODY should be obtaining power and dominance over others.
Your reasoning capabilities seem stunted.
In fact, you seem to be using what Piaget observed in young children, and stated in his book from 1923 "The Language and Thought of The Child". I have posted comments and topics on Piaget. At any rate, he calls this type of thinking: interpretational mania, or imaginary reasoning. I suggest you download his book online, and read it.
The journalist responsible for the essay "Project 1619" uses this same type of reasoning.
Let's see, is my reasoning child like...? Shit, if it was, how would I know it, right? This sounds like an argument from ignorance fallacy.
Talk about stunted reasoning...
Well, alright, let me try to understand your argument here. But.. why read a book when you have chatgpt, assuming it is not going to make stuff up on me this time.
'Piaget observed that children, especially in the preoperational stage (roughly ages 2-7), often display this kind of thinking. They may attribute life or intentions to inanimate objects (animism), create fantastical explanations for real-world events, or engage in magical thinking. For example, a child might believe that the sun "goes to bed" at night or that the trees are sad when it rains.'
Okey... I have no idea how this is relevant... There is nothing in my comment that appears to use this type of reasoning. I simply stated well established scientific principles and corrected you on the widely accepted meaning of the world 'evolution'.
/ˌnänkənˈfôrməst/
noun
1.
a person whose behavior or views do not conform to prevailing ideas or practices.
But it is also true that these same people should do their homework instead of assuming they know everything and have been taught truth and facts.
Just in case I have confused people, by experimental science I mean the type of experiments undertaken by Michael Faraday and other western natural philosophers.
I believe they can see not just the pattern before them, but how that pattern is going to change in the very next minute. And they can do this instantaneously. As I said, I took the Ghanaian IQ test a few years back, and it was completely based on pattern recognition, and changes in those patterns.
I wonder if blacks then use this sense of pattern recognition in most of their thinking; if the 'pattern' or what they perceive as a pattern, even as an abstract analogy to a concrete pattern---more study needs to be done on this---seems to be different, they might react in ways that seem foreign to other people.
This reaction to a change in pattern would be the most valuable asset if one were to survive in a jungle environment, and would preclude the development of a slower, analytical type of thinking, where an observer would need to 'analyze' the situation confronting him, taking it apart in order to see the best way to deal with a change.
Unless you read the book I recommended: "The Thought and Language of the Child", by Jean Piaget, published 1923, you are not qualified to assume anything about my comments.
I have also made certain posts regarding Piaget's observations. You have not even bothered to read those. I do not have time to 'converse' with you.
Guilty as charged. I'm going to have to get back to you on this. It might help if you can provide links to those posts, it would save me having to look for them.
I'm sorry that this happened, that a certain people and their idiotic ideology drove them to use another people in this way. It will not happen again.
It is attacking a person's character and appeal to emotion. You are saying I'm childish, my reasoning capabilities are stunted... without showing exactly how that is true. Even if that was the case, it doesn't matter. My stunted reasoning abilities must be preventing me from seeing how this is not a personal attack but a rebuttal of my arguments themselves.
I have some ideas. Well, actually I know the answers. The determination now is becoming centered around the precise names of those responsible for the insanity.
The Jewish intellectuals, of course, following World War II, and their need for Zionism and the quest for a Jewish homeland, used it in almost a similar way that the Jewish Left did, to energize the gullible and naive black folk of America to bring about changes---fundamental transformations---in America, by placing blacks in positions of authority.
The lies and FABRICATIONS, especially those concerning history, that have been promulgated by these people, have shall we say, hardened my heart.
Need I say more.
You are stating that reality and truth are racist. That's abhorrent to me.
And in addition, I am presenting the problem---the world's greatest problem today---in a way that expects humans to use their God-given brains to understand and solve.
Perhaps you didn't understand the reasons, the relationships connecting premise and conclusion. I didn't make it clear.
"However, IMHO, in our country it seems to begin its current manifestation in the roots of the abolitionist movement in the late 18th century although it was a counter point to race based slavery."
But you're right, it is a sensitive subject, and the truth has been concealed from us for about seven or eight decades now. Even Disney's "Song of the South", which I thoroughly enjoyed as a child, was, if not banned outright, 'concealed' from the youth of the country. A certain part of the American populace felt the film showed Negroes in a bad light, showed them as childish. And we can't have childish appearing people in positions of authority.
Mark Twain, the American's American was actually banned in libraries in America. Some of his works, like Huckleberry Finn.
Twain was against slavery. He told an interesting story of a slave who had undergone a baptism, dunked in the water and so forth, and when he came up for air he said something like: "Some day some gemmun's n* gwine drown!" What that tells me, and should tell others, is that the slaves, supposedly driven by slave masters who cared nothing for them, KNEW they were valuable property to their owners. In fact, in the Deep South prior to the Civil War, it was a worse crime to kill a black than to kill a white. There were laws on the books providing for the protection of the slaves from abusive masters. But this was concealed.
As was the informative book about slavery in the South, published in 1854, written by a Christian pastor, abolitionist, from a New England state, Nehemiah Adams "A Southside View of Slavery" who compares the northern abolitionist's view, as represented by Harriet Beecher Stowe in Uncle Tom's Cabin as totally representative of the institution, and states that this would be analogous to comparing every voyage of a mariner to that of Robinson Crusoe.
Intentionally concealing the truth, so as to ...well, at this point, I will just say, the 'motive is ulterior'.
When I was young I read the original "Tom Sawyer" and "Huckleberry Finn" and can see right away the versions allowed now have been heavily sanitized.
Another interesting book you may want to check out is "Black Slave Owners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790 - 1860" by Larry Koger. I guess when the author was in college he asked the question, "Did any free blacks in the south own slaves of their own?" The professor didn't know and suggested he research the topic and the results is the book.
Ghana was the last nation in the world to outlaw slavery, in 1998. For some, though, it is not comprehensible that black people could own other black people as slaves.
A great study done during Reconstruction in the South, by a northern reporter who had at one time been an abolitionist is "The Prostrate State: South Carolina Under Negro Government", by James Shepherd Pike, 1874. Corruption and debt grew exponentially. (Some have said that South Carolina caught the brunt of the North's fury, as the 'rebellion' began in that state. I don't know.)
A more recent book, a study on IQ, that has been concealed, is "The Bell Curve" by Herrnstein and Murray, 1990's sometime. A chapter has been given over to the findings, statistically and conclusively, that the average IQ of American blacks is one standard deviation---fifteen points---below the average for all other Americans.
https://archive.org/details/bell_curv...
See Chapter 13 for the detail that SpiritWoman mentions.
I actually bought the book.
Tell me, freedom. Do you think someone with a college degree is always "smarter" than someone without one? Or even, in fact, more knowledgable?
When I attended college the first 2+ years were a waste of time for me (except for one class in Calculus that covered topics beyond my high school class.) Eventually there were classes that were in my chosen field of study and some of those were very useful after graduation in business. But I learned more valuable information in my day job (which was in my field if study) while attending college at night than in my classes.
To answer your question, no, I don't think someone who completes a college degree is necessarily 'smarter' than someone without a degree. Some people benefit much more from the experience and others do not. For some it can be a waste of time and/or a deterioration of their abilities. For others, the friendships forged there are the most important factor to their later success.
Too many variables affecting the results. Brilliance is shown in many ways.
So, yes, I have had personal experience in the decay of learning and the disorganization in modern scholarship.
But I've been called a mathematical genius, and a polymath by those WITH advanced degrees in both math, science, economics, etc. and I number among my friends some Nobel Prize winners.
Yet there are some around who would decide that I am not as 'smart' as they are. For example, the former 'president' of the U.S., Obamma, felt that no one, absolutely no one, could be as smart as the president!!
I don’t believe you’re wrong, in fact I believe the same. We all have strengths and weaknesses which are traits passed down to us through our DNS from our ancestors. Our ancestors developed in specific conditions and as such, natural selection was made to favor one trait above another. I’m from Scotch-Irish ancestry, I must accept the cards I have. I have traits that make be better or worse in specific areas. I must accept that I might have to work harder in some areas to overcome a weakness.
If I said that, generally, black people are better at basketball then white people, would I be wrong? Are there good white basketball players (Larry Bird) and shitty black basketball players (Gary Coleman), sure. But generally black people are better at sports (besides hocket, they don’t like hockey, I think it has something to do with ice.)
I think the term racist is overused just like nazi as of late. Black people, generally, are the worst racist. I’ve had many encounters with highly racists black people because they have been told its justified. Here is the thing I find odd, generally speaking, I find that all other races are justified in expressing their racism against the white race, but it's not allowed the other way. Why is that? News flash, white people were not the only races involved in slavery. It was a way of life in antiquity among all races.
Personally, I think this overblown race issue is by design, its design to cause strife and contention. It’s part of the Marxist revolution we are in the middle of.
No, I don’t think you’re wrong, I think you should celebrate your heritage just like anyone else of another color. I also think you should draw upon your experience when making initial assumptions about others, if you say you don’t do this, you’re worse than a racist, you’re a liar. I find it completely acceptable to enter new relationships with people, assuming traits from your experiences and making assumptions until proven invalid. This is pattern recognition and humans are very good at it.
Think carefully before using off-color language with me the next time. Should there be a next time.
How's that bakery going?
1. Your use of off-color remarks are offensive to me.
2. Your agreement is not based on logical, formal argument. It is based on what you desire to be true.
And lastly, I am not presenting an argument in which I expect you to try to refute me. I said, above, it is instructional, mainly, for world leaders. It is also instructive for the world's peoples, given they can drink the water having been led to it.
But that is not relevant to my distaste for the use of off-color language and for those who use it.