![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
10th November 12:02
External User
Posts: 1
|
The Jews say it is fine to consider a country an enemy. People can
think Iraq is their enemy and no one says that is outrageous. They may argue whether Iraq is really an enemy or not, but they don't just dismiss the idea of enemies out of hand. Then the Jews say that it is not OK to be against a group that is not a country, such as the Jews. Jews say only countries can be enemies and we should never fight our real enemies, who are the Jews themselves. A Jew said the French were "cheese eating surrender monkeys". Why can't the French howl "anti-French" like the Jews howl "anti-Semite"? Because the French don't control the media, Jews do. This is what President Nixon said: http://www.hnn.us/comments/15664.html "There may be some truth in that if the Arabs have some complaints about my policy towards Israel, they have to realize that the Jews in the U.S. control the entire information and propaganda machine, the large newspapers, the motion pictures, radio and television, and the big companies. And there is a force that we have to take into consideration." The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second world are the Arabs and China. It is just as racialists would predict. It is because the White race is on average much more intelligent than the Black race. The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the people in India. All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more intelligent than Blacks. White people invented just about everything important. Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on the tests. They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke. Here is an example: "One of the most powerful direct studies of race and environment was conducted by psychologists Sandra Scarr, Richard Weinberg and I. D. Waldman. All three were quite well-known for their environmental opinions. The study analyzed White, Black, and Mixed-race adopted children in more than 100 White families in Minnesota. The study was an egalitarian's dream, because the children's adoptive parents had prestigious levels of income and education and were anti-racist enough to adopt a Black child into their own family. Scarr is a strong defender of racial equality and maintained that environment played an almost exclusive role in IQ differences between the races. Scarr supports the importance of heredity in causing individual differences within a race, but she has argued that between-race differences are mostly environmental. The children in the study included Whites, Blacks, and Mulattos as well as the biological children of the White adoptive couples. At the age of 7, the children were tested for IQ, and all of the groups including the Blacks and Mulattos, scored above average in IQ. Scarr and Weinberg published a paper claiming to have proven the almost exclusive power of environment over race in IQ, even though they had to admit that the White children, whether adopted or not, scored well above the Black and Mulatto children and that the Mulatto children scored above the Blacks. (88) A decade later, when the children reached the age of 17, a follow-up study was conducted that that again included IQ measurements. As they matured, Black children had dropped back to an average of 89 in IQ, which is the average IQ for Blacks in the region of the United States where the study was done. The White adopted children scored an average of 106 in IQ, 17 points higher than the Black children, which is consistant with traditional studies of Black and White IQ differences. In line with genetic theory the half-White, half-Black Mulatto adopted children scored almost exactly between the adopted Whites and Blacks. (89) RESULTS OF MINNESOTA TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION STUDY IQ Parental IQ 115.35 Biological Children 109.4 White Adopted children 105.6 Mulatto parents adopted children 98.5 Black parents adopted children 89.4 Scarr and Wienberg reluctantly published their data from the follow up survey, but they waited close to four years to do so, almost as if they were embarrassed by what they had found. Through a tortured reasoning process, they still argued that environment played a dominant role in IQ. But in their follow-up survey, unlike their first paper, they also admitted that genes had an important impact as well. Both Richard Lynn and Michael Levin effectively showed in their re-analysis of Scarr's own data, that genes clearly comprise the dominant role in intelligence levels of those adopted children. (90) (91)" (88) Scarr, S, & Weinberg R. A. (1976). IQ Test Perfomance of Black Children Adopted By White Families. American Psychologist. Vol. 31. p.26-739 (89) Weinberg, R. A. , Scarr, S., & Waldman, I. D. (1992). The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. A Follow-Up of IQ Test Performance at Adolescence, Intelligence. Vol 16. p.17-135 (90) Lynn, R. (1994). Reinterpretations Of The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. Intelligence. Vol. 19. p.1-27 (91) Levin, M. (1994). Comment on The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. Intelligence Vol. 19. p.3-20 www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com |
|