b8602456   
   XPost: uk.philosophy.humanism, alt.society.conservatism, alt.society.liberalism   
   From: mlwi@swipnet.se   
      
   >"Lance"  skrev i meddelandet news:2a0dd7ec   
   988f-4dc5-9d48-d35bdbae3600@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...   
   >On Jul 17, 4:34 pm, "M Winther"  wrote:   
   >> "Dave Smith"  skrev i   
   >> meddelandetnews:68310ddf-a705-43e0-b6bf-f1dc23da1367@d8g2000y   
   f.googlegroups.com...   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> >On 17 July, 04:51, "M Winther"  wrote:   
   >> >> "LifeBinge"  skrev i meddelandetnews:   
   c94da07-f601-4aea-a700-ced3b2f6ff51@e20g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...   
   >>   
   >> >> >> If the genetic characteristics of society changes, society will also   
   >> >> >> change. This is so obvious, but you prefer to turn a blind eye to it,   
   >> >> >> because you want to sleep well at night. You think only about yourself   
   >> >> >> and don't care for future generations.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> Mats- Hide quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> >> >> - Show quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> >> > If the genetic characteristics of the society change, it has nothing   
   >> >> > to do with the genetics has nothing to do with beliefs, If the   
   >> >> > cultural characterics of society change, the society changes.. just   
   >> >> > because Obama made president, doesnt mean they's all blacks down there   
   >> >> > now or wannabe's... society may change based on his beleif/culture,   
   >> >> > not on his genetics..   
   >>   
   >> >> > The more "devoloped" the society, the more poluted it becomes, these   
   >> >> > "lesser" cultures have something western/europeon culture has lost   
   >> >> > long ago, natual sustainability without parasitic/destructiv behavior   
   >> >> > towards our home/earth, they live free.. we live by obedience,   
   >> >> > Developed societies may be technologicaly advanced, but are also   
   >> >> > spiritually lost.   
   >>   
   >> >> > Genetics has nothing to do with deciding the society's structure, its   
   >> >> > the belief system, thier conditioning which is not derrived from   
   >> >> > genetics but social development/experience.. You guys are obsessed   
   >> >> > with the material/physical and forget about the other side of   
   >> >> > things..   
   >>   
   >> >> > I agree that each race/people/culture should have their own land with   
   >> >> > their own laws, but no people should have to restrict themselves to   
   >> >> > locals based on race, culture on the other hand, keep it there, share   
   >> >> > but do not impose, embrace. Western culture is bent on imposing and   
   >> >> > is poluted beyond comprehension.. Which is the "Lesser culture"   
   >> >> > Western or that of pure naturality.   
   >>   
   >> >> I think that race is more on the inside than on the outside. People   
   >> >> who think in terms of "racial purity" are only fixated on outside   
   >> >> characteristics, and accomplishments. But, of course, genetics always   
   >> >> plays a role. Blacks in the U.S. have, on average, 30% White   
   >> >> admixture, I believe. Their IQ averages 85. Sub-Saharan Blacks average   
   >> >> 71-75, which is significantly lower.   
   >>   
   >> >> So, if a white person marries a black person, he/she should know that   
   >> >> the children are likely to be less intelligent than if he/she marries   
   >> >> a white person. It is only fair that they should know this. It doesn't   
   >> >> matter if the Black person is intelligent. Due to the law of   
   >> >> regression the children will tend towards average IQ. Why should we   
   >> >> withhold such information? In all other circumstances it would be   
   >> >> regarded a scandal if authorities withheld the information that   
   >> >> children will become less intelligent. It also has a bearing on the   
   >> >> future economical success of the nations. Average IQ is coupled to BNP   
   >> >> per capita (Lynn & Vanhanen). In fact, our civilization is dependent   
   >> >> on intelligent people who will come up with new solution to the energy   
   >> >> problem, environmental problems, etc. If we put our valuable gentic   
   >> >> advantages to waste, it might prove devastating.   
   >>   
   >> >> In my article "An Intrusion of Matriarchal Consciousness" I argue   
   >> >> that..."Broadly speaking, there is in the "white" culture a strife   
   >> >> toward higher accomplishment, an advancement of consciousness, a   
   >> >> movement of emancipation. But among certain ethnic groups one can   
   >> >> detect a general movement toward the other end, namely to belong in an   
   >> >> unconscious community, to swim with the tide. The psychic gradients, I   
   >> >> would argue, go in different directions."http:>home7.swipn   
   t.se/~w-73784/matriarchal.htm   
   >>   
   >> >> Mats- Hide quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> >> - Show quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> >I'm puzzled by your reference to a 'law of regression'. I vaguely   
   >> >know about regression to the mean, but understand it to be an effect   
   >> >which would apply regardless of race.   
   >>   
   >> >How do you account for the Flynn effect?   
   >>   
   >> >http:>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect   
   >>   
   >> >Dave Smith   
   >>   
   >> The regression to the mean is relevant to all races. American Blacks   
   >> regress to their average, 85, whereas Whites regress to their average,   
   >> 100 (cf. Rushton).   
   >>   
   >> The Flynn effect implies that IQ has increased somewhat over the   
   >> generations from the 1950s onwards. But this development peaks at a   
   >> certain figure. It has peaked in UK and in Denmark. I suppose that all   
   >> nations have a certain top IQ potential that can be reached with   
   >> better nutrition and schooling, etc. Epigenetics could play a role.   
   >> Anyway, IQ peaks at a certain figure. The IQ differential between the   
   >> races remains largely the same, I guess. But these questions must be   
   >> answered by an expert.   
   >>   
   >> Mats   
   >   
   >I think the claims about race differences in IQ have to be treated   
   >with enormous scepticism.   
   >   
   >For example Lynn claims that Kalahari bushmen have an average IQ of   
   >54. Now an IQ of 54 is the IQ of a mentally retarded person. Such a   
   >person has difficulty living on his or her own, struggles to learn to   
   >tie shoelaces, struggles with everyday tasks. To survive such people   
   >need help from others. But if we take 54 as the "average IQ" of   
   >Kalahari Bushmen then half of them have an IQ below 54, and many of   
   >them must be profoundly retarded - so much so that they could only   
   >survive in institutions. Yet there are no institutions in Botswana   
   >full of retarded Bushmen unable to take care of themselves. Indeed   
   >there is no indication that the Bushmen are struggling to perform   
   >everyday tasks. Perhaps Lynn would argue that the environment in which   
   >the Bushmen live is so simple that even extremely retarded persons can   
   >get by. But that is not so. I challenge you to see if you could   
   >survive in the desert environment in which Kalahari Bushmen survive.   
   >To acquire the competence of  a bushman in desert survival skills (all   
   >without the aid of modern technology) takes years of training for   
   >Europeans. The hunting and tracking skills of Bushmen are legendary.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)