White Man: Why Are You Giving Away Your Country?

[KSaiyu]

That's very reassuring. When was it that you became a moderator?

Well you see I was banned for saying something similar so it was a friendly warning that it can be moderated. I think you're safe though

...I haven't been reading this thread for a while but whew, just what the frakking hell did I read for past couple o' pages???

Hopefully you've seen what happens when we reject the PC narrative, investigate facts and draw our own conclusions.

Truth is even the great emancipator championed colonisation, but welcome to a parallel world where historical analysis contradicting the PC agenda is dismissed as mere "opinion".

Despite these various efforts, emigration and colonization had always met with strong opposition from the black community. The Negro Convention movement, black America's most important arena for political expression and protest during the nineteenth century, was a direct response to the formation of the American Colonization Society and Liberian colonization. In 1818, three thousand free African Americans answered a call from James Forten and the Bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Richard Allen, to convene in Philadelphia. The assembly denounced the ACS's colonization scheme as an "outrage having no other object in view than the slaveholding interests of the country."

http://www.inmotionaame.org/migrations/topic.cfm?migration=4&topic=7&tab=image

 

[TenEightyOne]

Hopefully you've seen what happens when ... investigate facts.

I can't wait. When do you start?

 

[Scaff]

Well you see I was banned for saying something similar so it was a friendly warning that it can be moderated. I think you're safe though

No you were not given a temporary ban for saying something similar at all, however if you wish to mean down the line of making utterly inaccurate claims on this nature you will find that you membership ends swiftly.

You have an issue with moderation then take it up directly via PM with an Admin or the site owner, raise it in public as a dig at implied bias again and you are gone.

Hopefully you've seen what happens when we reject the PC narrative, investigate facts and draw our own conclusions.

Truth is even the great emancipator championed colonisation, but welcome to a parallel world where historical analysis contradicting the PC agenda is dismissed as mere "opinion".

Despite these various efforts, emigration and colonization had always met with strong opposition from the black community. The Negro Convention movement, black America's most important arena for political expression and protest during the nineteenth century, was a direct response to the formation of the American Colonization Society and Liberian colonization. In 1818, three thousand free African Americans answered a call from James Forten and the Bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Richard Allen, to convene in Philadelphia. The assembly denounced the ACS's colonization scheme as an "outrage having no other object in view than the slaveholding interests of the country."

http://www.inmotionaame.org/migrations/topic.cfm?migration=4&topic=7&tab=image

In 1818 as has already been discussed it was seen as a tool used to try and get rid of "troublesome free blacks", you have already raised this point and its already been addressed.

As such it seems a little odd that the exact same thing is being repeated as if it were new information?

 

[KSaiyu]

It's simply groupthink in action.

I've been told this month:

- A textbook paediatric case of dehydration is an "atypical presentation" (I'm a medical student).
- Rape statistics in Sweden are explained by reporting differences, despite 85% appearing at the appeal stage being ethnic minorities
- Brain size is only loosely related to intelligence, and isn't really associated with race (I just finished a year long literary review on cortical development and intelligence/behavioural disorders).
And now that the main reason blacks didn't go to Africa is....unknown.

The most liked post on this page is from someone who posted a laughable piece with deliberately misrepresented data aimed at playing down knife violence in the greater London area (my school had two stabbings) telling me to investigate facts.

In 1818 as has already been discussed it was seen as a tool used to try and get rid of "troublesome free blacks", you have already raised this point and its already been addressed.

As such it seems a little odd that the exact same thing is being repeated as if it were new information?

Read again:

By the 1890s, Henry McNeal Turner had become the most outspoken African-American advocate of emigration. Turner's "Back to Africa" message was well received by many poor Southern farmers. They often endured great hardships in their efforts to find passage to Liberia. In 1876, Turner came under heavy criticism when he became vice president of the ACS. He traveled to Africa four times during the 1890s.

Despite these various efforts, emigration and colonization had always met with strong opposition from the black community. The Negro Convention movement, black America's most important arena for political expression and protest during the nineteenth century, was a direct response to the formation of the American Colonization Society and Liberian colonization.

1818 has nothing to do with it....it comes later in the paragraph. Good Lord, the Negro Convention movement was set up in 1830!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored_Conventions_Movement

 

[TenEightyOne]

1818 has nothing to do with it...

It has everything to do with it. From your link (as you noted);

In 1818, three thousand free African Americans answered a call from James Forten and the Bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Richard Allen, to convene in Philadelphia. The assembly denounced the ACS's colonization scheme as an "outrage having no other object in view than the slaveholding interests of the country." They expressed the idea that the United States was their home

What's so odd about the fact that some had no wish to be removed from their homeland in the way that their ancestors had been?

 

[Scaff]

It's simply groupthink in action.

So we are back to the ad hominem attacks then.

I've been told this month:

- A textbook paediatric case of dehydration is an "atypical presentation" (I'm a medical student).
- Rape statistics in Sweden are explained by reporting differences, despite 85% appearing at the appeal stage being ethnic minorities
- Brain size is only loosely related to intelligence, and isn't really associated with race (I just finished a year long literary review on cortical development and intelligence/behavioural disorders).
And now that the main reason blacks didn't go to Africa is....unknown.

Having been involved in only one of those conversations that I can recall I can only comment on the last (which is also the only one on topic) and I can only say that your wording....

"And now that the main reason blacks didn't go to Africa is....unknown"

...is not representative if the comments in the subject I have read in this thread, it would be more accurate to state that others (including myself) have stated an opinion that its not a single driver involved, but actually numerous ones. That's quite different to 'unknown'.

The most liked post on this page is from someone who posted a laughable piece with deliberately misrepresented data aimed at playing down knife violence in the greater London area telling me to investigate facts.

Having read the posts in question both interpretations are valid. Knife crime has dropped overall since 2008, however it has also risen for a single year since.

You have stated before if I recall that you have studied statistics, in which case you will know full well that a single rise within a pattern doesn't automatically mean we have an upwards trend and to assume either way (and you are each doing so) is equally misleading.

Read again:

By the 1890s, Henry McNeal Turner had become the most outspoken African-American advocate of emigration. Turner's "Back to Africa" message was well received by many poor Southern farmers. They often endured great hardships in their efforts to find passage to Liberia. In 1876, Turner came under heavy criticism when he became vice president of the ACS. He traveled to Africa four times during the 1890s.

Despite these various efforts, emigration and colonization had always met with strong opposition from the black community. The Negro Convention movement, black America's most important arena for political expression and protest during the nineteenth century, was a direct response to the formation of the American Colonization Society and Liberian colonization.

Thanks, would be nice if you quoted the parts you want people to focus on next time, given that you have just demanded that I read again a section you didn't quote and highlighted a load of dates that were not in your original post.

1818 has nothing to do with it....it comes later in the paragraph. Good Lord, the Negro Convention movement was set up in 1830!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored_Conventions_Movement

Then why did you quote a part that only contained the year 1818 if you didn't want me to address a quote about 1818?

 

[FatBas7ard]

@KSaiyu "It's simplygroupspeakin action." Good thing you fixed it to GroupThink.

Which type?

 

[Tornado]

And now that the main reason blacks didn't go to Africa is....unknown.

Actually, no, you've been told quite a few reasons. That you seem to be looking for some single, all encompassing reason instead when one doesn't exist isn't really anyone's problem but your own.

 

[niky]

It's simply groupthink in action.

I've been told this month:

- A textbook paediatric case of dehydration is an "atypical presentation" (I'm a medical student).
- Rape statistics in Sweden are explained by reporting differences, despite 85% appearing at the appeal stage being ethnic minorities

I've merely stated a differential diagnosis over the phone doesn't mean much if none of the doctors on site noted physical signs of dehydration. Yes, I agree that poor history-taking is inexcusable, but as stated in the hearing report, it fell within normal procedure. Which points to a systemic procedural problem wherein doctors will trust their cursory examinations over verbal reports from the client, much as in this case:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/58...tors-refused-to-listen-stop-Googling-symptoms

- Brain size is only loosely related to intelligence, and isn't really associated with race (I just finished a year long literary review on cortical development and intelligence/behavioural disorders).

Yes. It is a slight correlation. And no, nobody is saying that cranial capacity isn't related to race.

Of course, intra-population IQ varies more greatly than inter-population IQ. And there's the problem of traditional IQ tests being culture-bound, even the abstract reasoning ones... as has been found when re-administering IQ tests to tribesmen after teaching them how to take IQ tests.

Not only illiterate tribesmen can benefit from learning test-taking. Environmental change is good for all IQ test takers, as so

https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html

--When black or mixed-race children are raised in white rather than black homes, their preadolescent test scores rise dramatically. Black adoptees' scores seem to fall in adolescence, but this is what we would expect if, as seems likely, their social and cultural environment comes to resemble that of other black adolescents and becomes less like that of the average white adolescent.

--Even nonverbal IQ scores are sensitive to environmental change. Scores on nonverbal IQ tests have risen dramatically throughout the world since the 1930s. The average white scored higher on the Stanford-Binet in 1978 than 82 percent of whites who took the test in 1932. Such findings reinforce the implications of adoption studies: large environmental changes can have a large impact on test performance.

--Black-white differences in academic achievement have also narrowed throughout the twentieth century. The best trend data come from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which has been testing seventeen-year-olds since 1971 and has repeated many of the same items year after year. Figure 1-2 shows that the black-white reading gap narrowed from 1.25 standard deviations in 1971 to 0.69 standard deviations in 1996. The math gap fell from 1.33 to 0.89 standard deviations. When Min-Hsiung Huang and Robert Hauser analyzed vocabulary scores for adults born between 1909 and 1969, the black-white gap also narrowed by half.

Also from the same book, probably the most damning of all:

Two studies have used blood markers to estimate the percentage of Europeans in a black child's family tree. Neither study found a correlation between the number of "European" blood markers and IQ.

Also, for your entertainment:

blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-heritability-of-intelligence-not-what-you-think/

And now that the main reason blacks didn't go to Africa is....unknown.

Unless you can quote any posts, aside from your own, from the past few pages saying this, I strongly suggest you retract that statement, because it's wearing thin and doesn't contribute anything to the discussion at all.

 

[Liquid]

For white people "surrendering" their countries, we seem to be talking about black people an awful lot. For no particular reason, as far as the last few pages demonstrate.

 

[KSaiyu]

I can't be expected to address every point here can I? This is usually how these threads descend - by getting lost in the minutiae of irrelevant (and sometimes flat out wrong) points we fail to stimulate the debate. Thus, evolution of ideas is broken, leading conveniently to:

@KSaiyu "It's simplygroupspeakin action." Good thing you fixed it to GroupThink.

Which type?

Well spotted. Let's use the wikipedia summary, and add "PC" in a few sentences (Orwell's masterpiece, from which newspeak originated is a warning of state control, and the methods employed to achieve it):

Loyalty to the PC group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "PC group" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "PC group" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making, and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup").

...is not representative if the comments in the subject I have read in this thread, it would be more accurate to state that others (including myself) have stated an opinion that its not a single driver involved, but actually numerous ones. That's quite different to 'unknown'.

I asked what is the main reason. Replies I got said there were a multitude of reasons. That is not the main reason, therefore according to the replies, the main reason is unknown.

Having read the posts in question both interpretations are valid. Knife crime has dropped overall since 2008, however it has also risen for a single year since.

You have stated before if I recall that you have studied statistics, in which case you will know full well that a single rise within a pattern doesn't automatically mean we have an upwards trend and to assume either way (and you are each doing so) is equally misleading.

Statistically valid, but disingenuous. Still convincing you guys isn't so important since the Met aren't interested in statistical twaddle:

“Over the last three years we have listened to feedback from the public about too much ineffective stop and search. We have worked to make it more targeted and have seen a broad reduction in violence, shootings and stabbings,” said Hogan-Howe in a statement issued on Monday.


“But over the last three months there has been a rise in stabbings and that has caused us to review our position on stop and search. We were doing too much; repeatedly stopping people who have done nothing wrong can’t be right. But if we are getting to the stage where people think they can carry knives with impunity, that can’t be good for anyone.”

So we get a sprinkling of PC related guff to keep people happy (knife crime has actually been dropping since well before 3 years as you can see with the use of 2008 statistics, and gun crime reduction, which also was reducing before the paring back is nothing to do with dropping S&S) and hard facts to validate the return of S&S. Well done the Met!

Thanks, would be nice if you quoted the parts you want people to focus on next time, given that you have just demanded that I read again a section you didn't quote and highlighted a load of dates that were not in your original post.
Then why did you quote a part that only contained the year 1818 if you didn't want me to address a quote about 1818?

Huh? I quoted the paragraph, bolded the relevant part and linked the article in the original post.

Actually, no, you've been told quite a few reasons. That you seem to be looking for some single, all encompassing reason instead when one doesn't exist isn't really anyone's problem but your own.

Asked for main reason.

I've merely stated a differential diagnosis over the phone doesn't mean much if none of the doctors on site noted physical signs of dehydration. Yes, I agree that poor history-taking is inexcusable, but as stated in the hearing report, it fell within normal procedure. Which points to a systemic procedural problem wherein doctors will trust their cursory examinations over verbal reports from the client, much as in this case:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/58...tors-refused-to-listen-stop-Googling-symptoms

No, god no.... You are confusing a zebra presentation with a common ED complaint.

This is the epidemiology of liver cancer for teenage girls

This is the epidemiology of dehydration in paediatric patients:

Dehydration, particularly from gastroenteritis, is a common pediatric complaint in the ED. Approximately 30 million children are affected annually, with 1.5 million presenting to outpatient care, 200,000 requiring hospitalizations, and 300 dying in the United States.

As such, it would be like you telling a person with a runny nose, fever and general unwell feeling that you don't know what it could be and to take antibiotics. This patient was given the correct differential diagnosis over the phone. The others are incompetent.

Yes. It is a slight correlation. And no, nobody is saying that cranial capacity isn't related to race.

Of course, intra-population IQ varies more greatly than inter-population IQ. And there's the problem of traditional IQ tests being culture-bound, even the abstract reasoning ones... as has been found when re-administering IQ tests to tribesmen after teaching them how to take IQ tests.

Not only illiterate tribesmen can benefit from learning test-taking. Environmental change is good for all IQ test takers, as so

https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html

Also from the same book, probably the most damning of all:


Also, for your entertainment:

blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-heritability-of-intelligence-not-what-you-think/

I was hoping you'd get the hint when I said I'd done a literary review of a similar topic but hohh no. OK, let's apply some science to this sorry mess (your articles prove there is an environmental component to intelligence, something I already stated was true, but don't disprove the genetic component, as shown in a line in one of the articles:

To be clear: these findings do not mean that differences in intelligence are entirely determined by culture. Numerous researchers have found that the structure of cognitive abilities is strongly influenced by genes (although we haven't the foggiest idea which genes are reliably important).

And now?

- Preterm babies in general have smaller brains. This, in concert with other related factors leads to cognitive and neurodevelopmental deficits in later life compared to term infants:
MLPT birth is associated with smaller brain size, less-developed myelination of the posterior limb of the internal capsule, and more immature gyral folding than those associated with full-term birth. These brain changes may form the basis of some of the long-term neurodevelopmental deficits observed in MLPT children.

- Bigger is better (no not that) in evolutionary terms, with cortical folding (gyral folding in the previous study) another key determinant of cognitive function.
Whereas in small brained species the cortical volume expands by virtue of a combined increase in surface area and cortical thickness, the increase of the cortical volume in species with a brain size of more than 3–4 cm3 is almost entirely due to a disproportionate expansion of the cortical surface area (Hofman, 1989). It is the increase of the cortical surface area beyond that expected for geometrically similar objects of different volumes which creates the need to cortical folding

- Gyrification, the scientific term for cortical folding is linked with intelligence:
The notable differences in gyrification across species (more cognitively able mammals having greater gyrification), as well as the reality that many mental and developmental disorders in humans are known to have phenotypes of cortical smoothing, all point to the argument that gyrification is positively related to cognitive ability.

- Brain size itself is linked to cortical folding:
We analyzed cortical folding in a large cohort of human subjects exhibiting a 1.7-fold variation in brain volume. We show that the same disproportionate increase of cortical surface relative to brain volume observed across species can be also observed across human brains: the largest brains can have up to 20% more surface than a scaled-up small brain.

Now find me the research looking into cortical surface area/folding/gyrification and ethnicity.

Unless you can quote any posts, aside from your own, from the past few pages saying this, I strongly suggest you retract that statement, because it's wearing thin and doesn't contribute anything to the discussion at all.

See above.

Let's be frank. We know the reasons we don't investigate this and it is because of the fear of eugenics. But I'd argue that this blackout and covering up of the truth is equally harmful. I think liberals would generally have no problem telling me British Pakistanis as a group are as intellectually capable genetically as any other British demographic. And equally wouldn't bat an eyelid in condemning "southern white trash" as inbred.

---------------------------

And finally to steer this back to the topic, maybe liberals could be so kind as to explain why they still believe there is no danger in unchecked multiculturalism. Here are the latest findings from the Global Peace Index, showing the safest countries in the world. Let's compare top 10 and bottom 10

Top 10:

1. Iceland - White Icelandic Christian majority, controlled immigration
2. Denmark - White Danish Christian majority, controlled immigration
3. Austria - White Austrian Christian majority, controlled immigration
4. New Zealand - White European New Zealander Christian majority, controlled immigration
5. Switzerland - White Swiss Christian majority, controlled immigration
6. Finland - White Finnish Christian majority, controlled immigration
7. Canada - White European Canadian Christian majority, controlled immigration
8. Japan - White Christi....wait no. Japanese Shinto/Buddhist majority, controlled immigration
9. Australia - White European Australian Christian majority, controlled immigration
10. Czech Republic White Czech non religious majority, controlled immigration

Bottom ten:

10. North Korea - Korean majority, worships some god called Kim Jong-Un. Immigration? Well it's probably one of the most controlled so they could be well on their way to the top 10!
9. Pakistan - Asian Pakistani, Islamic majority. Can't be bothered to look up immigration policy
8. Democratic Republic of Congo - Black African Christian majority. Let's just give up on the immigration policies for the bottom ten shall we....
7. Sudan - Black African Islamic majority
6. Somalia - Black African Islamic majority
5. Central African Republic - Black African Christian majority, but ruled by a Muslim after a controversial grab of power and suffering a civil war along religious (Christian/Islamic) lines.
4. South Sudan - Black African Christian majority, a state created following decades of civil war with the northern Islamic dominated Sudan now in the midst of a power struggle civil war.
3. Afghanistan - Arab Islamic majority.
2. Iraq - Arab Islamic majority.
1. Syria - Arab Islamic majority. Immigration policy? I hear Turkey do great deals. If not, your local British mosque may be able to help you. Be advised, it's usually one way - in more ways than one.


I would like reminding please, what are the benefits of unchecked migration, where is the evidence massive multiculturalism benefits the host nation, and what is so wrong with a Christian majority country?

May I suggest this is a big part of why Labour lost so convincingly last month, and why socialism finds itself on the rocks?

 

[JKgo]

@KSaiyu ...I gotta ask you something here. After reading some, if not all, of your posts and replies, I'm a little confused to whether you're playing a Devil's Advocate for the sake of argument, or you genuinely believe in the things you write.

Can you clear that up for me, so I can see and "read" the subcontext of your... reasonings? Thanks.

 

[Pit Crew]

Totally Inflammatory...Enough Said.

 

[Scaff]

I asked what is the main reason. Replies I got said there were a multitude of reasons. That is not the main reason, therefore according to the replies, the main reason is unknown.

Your 'begging the question' once again.

You assume that its agreed and established fact that a single main reason exists, why make that assumption and why think that you can force that assumption on others as if it were fact?

Statistically valid, but disingenuous. Still convincing you guys isn't so important since the Met aren't interested in statistical twaddle:

“Over the last three years we have listened to feedback from the public about too much ineffective stop and search. We have worked to make it more targeted and have seen a broad reduction in violence, shootings and stabbings,” said Hogan-Howe in a statement issued on Monday.


“But over the last three months there has been a rise in stabbings and that has caused us to review our position on stop and search. We were doing too much; repeatedly stopping people who have done nothing wrong can’t be right. But if we are getting to the stage where people think they can carry knives with impunity, that can’t be good for anyone.”

So we get a sprinkling of PC related guff to keep people happy (knife crime has actually been dropping since well before 3 years as you can see with the use of 2008 statistics, and gun crime reduction, which also was reducing before the paring back is nothing to do with dropping S&S) and hard facts to validate the return of S&S. Well done the Met!

And now we are onto a strawman.

At what point did I express support for either way of using the statistics or on the relationship to S&S?

I didn't, don't post as if I did. In inferring so you misrepresent my post.

Huh? I quoted the paragraph, bolded the relevant part and linked the article in the original post.

I replied to and quoted this post, it contains one date, 1818.

I have no idea what post you are refering to, but I can re-read the post I quoted as many times as you like it still will not contain any other date.

As such your reply was well wide of the mark, and misrepresents both my post and the one of yours I quoted.

I asked what is the main reason. Replies I got said there were a multitude of reasons. That is not the main reason, therefore according to the replies, the main reason is unknown.

Your 'begging the question' once again.

You assume that its agreed and established fact that a single main reason exists, why make that assumption and why think that you can force that assumption on others as if it were fact?

Statistically valid, but disingenuous. Still convincing you guys isn't so important since the Met aren't interested in statistical twaddle:

“Over the last three years we have listened to feedback from the public about too much ineffective stop and search. We have worked to make it more targeted and have seen a broad reduction in violence, shootings and stabbings,” said Hogan-Howe in a statement issued on Monday.


“But over the last three months there has been a rise in stabbings and that has caused us to review our position on stop and search. We were doing too much; repeatedly stopping people who have done nothing wrong can’t be right. But if we are getting to the stage where people think they can carry knives with impunity, that can’t be good for anyone.”

So we get a sprinkling of PC related guff to keep people happy (knife crime has actually been dropping since well before 3 years as you can see with the use of 2008 statistics, and gun crime reduction, which also was reducing before the paring back is nothing to do with dropping S&S) and hard facts to validate the return of S&S. Well done the Met!

And now we are onto a strawman.

At what point did I express support for either way of using the statistics or on the relationship to S&S?

I didn't, don't post as if I did.

---------------------------

And finally to steer this back to the topic, maybe liberals could be so kind as to explain why they still believe there is no danger in unchecked multiculturalism. Here are the latest findings from the Global Peace Index, showing the safest countries in the world. Let's compare top 10 and bottom 10

Top 10:

1. Iceland - White Icelandic Christian majority, controlled immigration
2. Denmark - White Danish Christian majority, controlled immigration
3. Austria - White Austrian Christian majority, controlled immigration
4. New Zealand - White European New Zealander Christian majority, controlled immigration
5. Switzerland - White Swiss Christian majority, controlled immigration
6. Finland - White Finnish Christian majority, controlled immigration
7. Canada - White European Canadian Christian majority, controlled immigration
8. Japan - White Christi....wait no. Japanese Shinto/Buddhist majority, controlled immigration
9. Australia - White European Australian Christian majority, controlled immigration
10. Czech Republic White Czech non religious majority, controlled immigration

Bottom ten:

10. North Korea - Korean majority, worships some god called Kim Jong-Un. Immigration? Well it's probably one of the most controlled so they could be well on their way to the top 10!
9. Pakistan - Asian Pakistani, Islamic majority. Can't be bothered to look up immigration policy
8. Democratic Republic of Congo - Black African Christian majority. Let's just give up on the immigration policies for the bottom ten shall we....
7. Sudan - Black African Islamic majority
6. Somalia - Black African Islamic majority
5. Central African Republic - Black African Christian majority, but ruled by a Muslim after a controversial grab of power and suffering a civil war along religious (Christian/Islamic) lines.
4. South Sudan - Black African Christian majority, a state created following decades of civil war with the northern Islamic dominated Sudan now in the midst of a power struggle civil war.
3. Afghanistan - Arab Islamic majority.
2. Iraq - Arab Islamic majority.
1. Syria - Arab Islamic majority. Immigration policy? I hear Turkey do great deals. If not, your local British mosque may be able to help you. Be advised, it's usually one way - in more ways than one.


I would like reminding please, what are the benefits of unchecked migration, where is the evidence massive multiculturalism benefits the host nation, and what is so wrong with a Christian majority country?

May I suggest this is a big part of why Labour lost so convincingly last month, and why socialism finds itself on the rocks?

So Christian White = Good and must be protected from anything else, but mainly from the Black and Arab Muslims. Got you.

Hold on maybe other factors could be involved? Oh no that would just be liberal PC bollocks now wouldn't it.

Oh and to feed your liberal fearing, PC phobic, Orwellian dreams; carry on misrepresenting others posts and you will be removed from GT Planet and this time it will not be temporary. If you have an issue with this comment take it up via PM with an Admin or the site owner.

 

[KSaiyu]

Sure, honest reactions and questions deserve an honest reply.

The things I post will come across as White Nationalist rantings, but it's because we've been conditioned to interpret them as such. What I've posted there are all facts without embellishment (I provided references since I'm used to scientific literature). You'll notice I haven't stated "this is what we should do, a Fatherland for the whites with no immigrants at all". People who have read my posts at all will realise this logic would be suicidal for me, for I am mixed race Brtish. The only immediate "white" I have in me is my grandmother (Irish), whom I never met.

Rather, I'm for having an honest discussion in the state we're in now, the rationale behind it and how we proceed from here.

Instead I'm predicting that the responses to the last part will boil down to "Racist, Racist, he's calling for the modern day of Lebensraum, let's all carry on with what we've got" without addressing anything in the post.

EDIT:

So Christian White = Good and must be protected from anything else, but mainly from the Black and Arab Muslims. Got you

Instead I'm predicting that the responses to the last part will boil down to "Racist, Racist, he's calling for the modern day of Lebensraum, let's all carry on with what we've got" without addressing anything in the post.

Let's stop the nonsense of a rainbow nation and look at what we have in 2015:

But wait....there's more!!!

The author of the article is Ben Douglas....

 

[Dotini]

I would like reminding please, what are the benefits of unchecked migration, where is the evidence massive multiculturalism benefits the host nation, and what is so wrong with a Christian majority country?

May I suggest this is a big part of why Labour lost so convincingly last month, and why socialism finds itself on the rocks?

Let me guess! Liberalism = guilt, guilt over sins real and imagined. In a ritual act of self-abasement, contrition and atonement over centuries of invading other people's countries around the world, today's liberals have experienced epiphany and taken it upon themselves to embrace multiculturalism as the only possible response to millions of refugees to wars and devastation they have created around the world.

Years ago, my Uncle Bud told me, "The first thing a liberal does when he comes into the room is ask, "Where do I go to surrender?"

 

[Scaff]

Now was that a full quote of my words?

Lets see you quoted:

"So Christian White = Good and must be protected from anything else, but mainly from the Black and Arab Muslims. Got you."

I said:

"So Christian White = Good and must be protected from anything else, but mainly from the Black and Arab Muslims. Got you.

Hold on maybe other factors could be involved? Oh no that would just be liberal PC bollocks now wouldn't it."

See the bit in bold, the part of the entire two sentences you removed? That's the context you were complaining you wouldn't get.

That would now be the third time you have either quote mined me or misrepresented what I've said in less that 24 hours!

I'm past wondering why.

 

[KSaiyu]

Now was that a full quote of my words?

Lets see you quoted:

"So Christian White = Good and must be protected from anything else, but mainly from the Black and Arab Muslims. Got you."

I said:

"So Christian White = Good and must be protected from anything else, but mainly from the Black and Arab Muslims. Got you.

Hold on maybe other factors could be involved? Oh no that would just be liberal PC bollocks now wouldn't it."

See the bit in bold, the part of the entire two sentences you removed? That's the context you were complaining you wouldn't get.

That would now be the third time you have either quote mined me or misrepresented what I've said in less that 24 hours!

I'm past wondering why.

What.

That last part was not in there when I quoted your post....

I'm not even going to ask what other factors you imagine there are because it doesn't matter at this stage. People are getting tired of political correctness and it's my fear the people who will make most political capital out of the ensuing fear will be men like this idiot,

a man who is still the leader of a party that polled 3 million votes despite being unelected himself, and is quietly suppressing opinion against his continued stranglehold of the party. Liberals instead of telling us how wrong we all are would do well to offer us an alternative because I'll tell you something for free it's not nice living in multi-ethnic ghettos and people are going to start panicking in a hurry when we eventually go to war with a group claiming to be a global caliphate for 1.7 billion Muslims and react accordingingly. That future is not good for me, not good for you and not good for Britain.

Or you know, liberals can carry on protesting an election result that we should have moved on from by now

 

[Furinkazen]

What.

That last part was not in there when I quoted your post....

I'm not even going to ask what other factors you imagine there are because it doesn't matter at this stage. People are getting tired of political correctness and it's my fear the people who will make most political capital out of the ensuing fear will be men like this idiot,

a man who is still the leader of a party that polled 3 million votes despite being unelected himself, and is quietly suppressing opinion against his continued stranglehold of the party. Liberals instead of telling us how wrong we all are would do well to offer us an alternative because I'll tell you something for free it's not nice living in multi-ethnic ghettos and people are going to start panicking in a hurry when we eventually go to war with a group claiming to be a global caliphate for 1.7 billion Muslims and react accordingingly. That future is not good for me, not good for you and not good for Britain.

The difference is, we ain't fighting 1.7 billion muslims.

 

[Scaff]

What.

That last part was not in there when I quoted your post....

According to the time stamps it was, oh and the England U21's went off script for a while as well:

But then again I don't take potentially posed photos at face value, either.

I'm not even going to ask what other factors you imagine there are because it doesn't matter at this stage.

Kind of undermines your pretense to want to have a discussion about it.

I have to be honest it sounds far more like you want an echo chamber.


Now if you could just address the issues I raised here over your 'begging the question' and misrepresentation of others views it would be appreciated, rather than attempting to distract from it by inferring I called you a racist.

 

[niky]

I was hoping you'd get the hint when I said I'd done a literary review of a similar topic but hohh no. OK, let's apply some science to this sorry mess (your articles prove there is an environmental component to intelligence, something I already stated was true, but don't disprove the genetic component, as shown in a line in one of the articles:

To be clear: these findings do not mean that differences in intelligence are entirely determined by culture. Numerous researchers have found that the structure of cognitive abilities is strongly influenced by genes (although we haven't the foggiest idea which genes are reliably important).

Hint: according to the cited studies, apparently not the genes that are traditional markers of ethnicity.

- Preterm babies in general have smaller brains. This, in concert with other related factors leads to cognitive and neurodevelopmental deficits in later life compared to term infants:
MLPT birth is associated with smaller brain size, less-developed myelination of the posterior limb of the internal capsule, and more immature gyral folding than those associated with full-term birth. These brain changes may form the basis of some of the long-term neurodevelopmental deficits observed in MLPT children.

Abnormalities due to pre-term delivery do not correlate to full-term babies of similar size. Incomplete brain development in pre-term babies is marked by smaller brain size, not caused by it.

- Brain size itself is linked to cortical folding:
We analyzed cortical folding in a large cohort of human subjects exhibiting a 1.7-fold variation in brain volume. We show that the same disproportionate increase of cortical surface relative to brain volume observed across species can be also observed across human brains: the largest brains can have up to 20% more surface than a scaled-up small brain.

And yet a pure brain size advantage doesn't denote greater intelligence for men over women.

Now find me the research looking into cortical surface area/folding/gyrification and ethnicity.

Why should I do your homework for you? I found you studies in which cultural impacts, home life and environment were controlled for in measuring intelligence.

I have no trouble accepting the fact that some people are born smarter than others. I have trouble accepting literature that doesn't take into account the vast discrepancy in preparation between people of different cultures and regions... when the discrepancy in national IQ scores between countries with very similar ethnic make-ups varies so widely, and appears to correlate to economic conditions.

Let's be frank. We know the reasons we don't investigate this and it is because of the fear of eugenics. But I'd argue that this blackout and covering up of the truth is equally harmful. I think liberals would generally have no problem telling me British Pakistanis as a group are as intellectually capable genetically as any other British demographic. And equally wouldn't bat an eyelid in condemning "southern white trash" as inbred.

"Southern White Trash" suffers the same problem as African-Americans. They're poor. Which is a social thing, rather than a genetic thing.

7. Canada - White European Canadian Christian majority, controlled immigration

Higher percentage of immigrants than the United States (currently at 20+%). And almost as many guns per capita. I have a lot of old friends and acquaintances who've moved to socialist Canada. Nice weather. Decent healthcare.

Lot of socialists up there, actually.

Bottom ten:

Not a single one of them prime immigration destinations, or very accepting of ethnic minorities.

I would like reminding please, what are the benefits of unchecked migration,

Nobody knows, because, for developed countries, no such animal exists.

where is the evidence massive multiculturalism benefits the host nation,

Murica. Maybe.

and what is so wrong with a Christian majority country?

Who said there was anything wrong with a Christian majority, provided that they're non-racist? Nobody here has called for the abolition of the Christian majority/minority.

 

[KSaiyu]

Abnormalities due to pre-term delivery do not correlate to full-term babies of similar size. Incomplete brain development in pre-term babies is marked by smaller brain size, not caused by it.

Alright this is worryingly bad science. Since you are speaking as an expert allow me to use acronyms you should be familiar with.

Whilst it's true preterm abnormalities such as PVL or GMH/IVH aren't encountered in full term cohorts that doesn't necesserily imply we can't use findings from studies on brain morphometry on preterm infants to further research the effects of reduced volume, gyrification and CSA in full term cohorts. You'll also be aware that such findings are rare in modern cohorts, and are largely replaced with findings of DEHSI instead. Indeed, the authors only found 10 of the 199 preterm infants present with a signal intensity on MRI, of which 1 had a periventricular cyst. The cohort compared to the term infants therefore was pretty well controlled and as you'd imagine the weights reflected the normal differences found between term (3644g) and preterm (2161g).

Your point, however, that abnormalities due to pre-term delivery don't correlate to full-term babies is interesting. I'm unaware of how you would compare brain size to a control of full-term babies of similar size without including a group different from the control. By definition you would have to compare the full-term cohort against something to have an experiment: If you wanted similar weight then you would have to compare premature babies with SGA full term babies.
If however you want to compare one group of full-term babies against another you would need a readily identifiable variable since we can't know if they will have neuropsychiatric diseases linked to brain development at this stage (e.g. schizophrenia) - i.e. you would need to compare them on the basis of ethnicity, gender, characteristics of the mother.

I suspect you meant we can't use the findings of small brain volume in preterm babies being linked to intelligence (I agree to an extent) in which case you would have to prospectively screen full term infants, measure their brain size/GI at birth and then admnister IQ tests once suitable.

As for your second point, define "incomplete brain development" (do you mean disorders of brain development, eg lissencephaly?) and tell me the relevance in saying it is marked by a smaller brain size. From my understanding it is akin to saying incomplete growth development is marked by short stature.

The difference is, we ain't fighting 1.7 billion muslims.

No we're not, but that's not the point. A caliphate means all muslims are obliged to fight for it. How do you know which will take up arms? The more territory it gains (and it has just had a group in the Russia pledge allegiance to it) the more legitimate it's claim to be a caliphate is.

Imagine a future where Muslims are discriminated against even worse than they are today in the West, and a new Caliph emerges that is less extreme than ISIS and declares that ISIS served their purpose and the time is now to build and expand the Caliphate.

 

[Furinkazen]

Alright this is worryingly bad science. Since you are speaking as an expert allow me to use acronyms you should be familiar with.

Whilst it's true preterm abnormalities such as PVL or GMH/IVH aren't encountered in full term cohorts that doesn't necesserily imply we can't use findings from studies on brain morphometry on preterm infants to further research the effects of reduced gyrification and CSA in full term cohorts. You'll also be aware that such findings are rare in modern cohorts, and are largely replaced with findings of DEHSI instead. Indeed, the authors only found 10 of the 199 preterm infants present with a signal intensity on MRI, of which 1 had a periventricular cyst. The cohort compared to the term infants therefore was pretty well controlled and as you'd imagine the weights reflected the normal differences found between term (3644g) and preterm (2161g).

Your point, however, that abnormalities due to pre-term delivery don't correlate to full-term babies is interesting. I'm unaware of how you would compare brain size to a control of full-term babies of similar size without including a group different from the control. By definition you would have to compare the full-term cohort against something to have an experiment: If you wanted similar weight then you would have to compare premature babies with SGA full term babies.
If however you want to compare one group of full-term babies against another you would need a readily identifiable variable since we can't know if they will have neuropsychiatric diseases linked to brain development at this stage (e.g. schizophrenia) - i.e. you would need to compare them on the basis of ethnicity, gender, characteristics of the mother.

I suspect you meant we can't use the findings of small brain volume in preterm babies being linked to intelligence (I agree to an extent) in which case you would have to prospectively screen full term infants, measure their brain size/GI at birth and then admnister IQ tests once suitable.

As for your second point, define "incomplete brain development" (do you mean disorders of brain development, eg lissencephaly?) and tell me the relevance in saying it is marked by a smaller brain size. From my understanding it is akin to saying incomplete growth development is marked by short stature.


No we're not, but that's not the point. A caliphate means all muslims are entitled to fight for it. How do you know which will take up arms? The more territory it gains (and it has just had a group in the Russia pledge allegiance to it) the more legitimate it's claim to be a caliphate is.

Imagine a future where Muslims are discriminated against even worse than they are today in the West, and a new Caliph emerges that is less extreme than ISIS and declares that ISIS served their purpose and the time is now to build and expand the Caliphate.

-Says we're not fighting all Muslims.
-Then says a caliphate would mean we are all fighting Muslims.

Logical!!!!!

And you got this assumption that everyone will automatically fight for a Caliphate? Oh dear.

 

[KSaiyu]

Read again. 👍
The solution is to fight ISIS, not 1.7 billion Muslims. Destroy their territory and you destroy their legitimacy. As it stands, you won't see Muslims marching against ISIS.

 

[Furinkazen]

Read again. 👍
The solution is to fight ISIS, not 1.7 billion Muslims. Destroy their territory and you destroy their legitimacy. As it stands, you won't see Muslims marching against ISIS.

Kurdish fighting back against them, that slip your mind?

ISIS are the Latest group of nutters who sadly got weapons and know what to do with them. History repeats itself, a group will help destroy ISIS or it'll destroy itself, and a new threat shall emerge.

 

[niky]

Alright this is worryingly bad science. Since you are speaking as an expert allow me to use acronyms you should be familiar with.

Whilst it's true preterm abnormalities such as PVL or GMH/IVH aren't encountered in full term cohorts that doesn't necesserily imply we can't use findings from studies on brain morphometry on preterm infants to further research the effects of reduced volume, gyrification and CSA in full term cohorts. You'll also be aware that such findings are rare in modern cohorts, and are largely replaced with findings of DEHSI instead. Indeed, the authors only found 10 of the 199 preterm infants present with a signal intensity on MRI, of which 1 had a periventricular cyst. The cohort compared to the term infants therefore was pretty well controlled and as you'd imagine the weights reflected the normal differences found between term (3644g) and preterm (2161g).

Your point, however, that abnormalities due to pre-term delivery don't correlate to full-term babies is interesting. I'm unaware of how you would compare brain size to a control of full-term babies of similar size without including a group different from the control. By definition you would have to compare the full-term cohort against something to have an experiment: If you wanted similar weight then you would have to compare premature babies with SGA full term babies.
If however you want to compare one group of full-term babies against another you would need a readily identifiable variable since we can't know if they will have neuropsychiatric diseases linked to brain development at this stage (e.g. schizophrenia) - i.e. you would need to compare them on the basis of ethnicity, gender, characteristics of the mother.

I suspect you meant we can't use the findings of small brain volume in preterm babies being linked to intelligence (I agree to an extent) in which case you would have to prospectively screen full term infants, measure their brain size/GI at birth and then admnister IQ tests once suitable.

As for your second point, define "incomplete brain development" (do you mean disorders of brain development, eg lissencephaly?) and tell me the relevance in saying it is marked by a smaller brain size. From my understanding it is akin to saying incomplete growth development is marked by short stature.

You're citing low brain volume in preterm babies, who've undergone the stress of being born pre-term and who have not had the same benefits in terms of pre-natal growth and nutrition, to support a link between brain volume in fully-developed adults (whom we assume to have been delivered full term as babies) and intelligence.

That's "worryingly bad science".

-

In the end, yes, brain volume and genetics do seem to matter in terms of intelligence. But the spread of IQ caused by cultural and environmental factors matter even more... otherwise IQs would not have risen over the past few decades (and risen to the point where IQs in less developed countries rival the IQs of developed countries from a few decades ago...)

Oh, and education and mastery of different subjects or skills increases brain volume and leads to structural changes in the brain. Not everything is set in stone.

 

[KSaiyu]

You're citing low brain volume in preterm babies, who've undergone the stress of being born pre-term and who have not had the same benefits in terms of pre-natal growth and nutrition, to support a link between brain volume in fully-developed adults (whom we assume to have been delivered full term as babies) and intelligence.

Nope. Read again.

I'll help you:

I suspect you meant we can't use the findings of small brain volume in preterm babies being linked to intelligence (I agree to an extent)

In the end, yes, brain volume and genetics do seem to matter in terms of intelligence.

So....you agree then?

 

[Dotini]

I say brain volume doesn't matter a whit.

Both Neanderthal and Heidelbergensis had bigger brains, and they're all dead.

 

[KSaiyu]

Good observation. That's why we compare how "folded" brains are (gyrification index, or GI in my post above), among other things.

 

[Pseudopod]

Hopefully you've seen what happens when we reject the PC narrative, investigate facts and draw our own conclusions.

I've seen what happens when someone from NW london doesn't understand his own sources.