What is your scientific evidence for your "links". Impulsivity? Defined as what? Measured by what? What is the proven scientific link between testorerone levels and what you refer to as "impulsivity"? I assume then that women have significantly less impulsivity then men, since they tend to have significantly lower rates of testerone than men. Your notion that blacks (defined how, again?) "fail at education" is easily refuted by the fact that scores on IQ tests have risen, that graduation rates of blacks have skyrocketed in the last several decades. Indeed, test scores and graduation rates should not increase at all if blacks are genetically predetermined to "fail at education."
Please define "race", then, providing a definition with sufficient specificity that any person could be correctly identified by race.
Phisiognomy, skull features, and cultural traights measured by propensity to do shit in a given circumstance, dontcha know??? All very scientific, of course, based on experiments conducted by caucasian serbs against there enemy, in the war. Which nobody talks about, of course. And Slobodan milosevich, nor Karevicz are war criminals nor mass murderers, just a good guys doing right everywhere. All over the balkans............ And infecting otherwise great countries with their worthless hatred and ethnic mania.
There isn't any precise definition. It refers to relatedness. Members of a "race" are more closely related to each other than to members of other races. They share more common ancestors with each other than they do with members of other races. Two Europeans are more closely related -- share more common ancestors -- than a European and an African. Thus a race can be thought of as an "extended family." Moreover, just as members of one family physically tend to physically resemble each other more than they do members of other families, members of one race tend to physically resemble each other more than they do members of other races. The differences in physical resemblance go much further than simply skin color. There is an unquestionable difference between the typical/average Swede and the typical/average, say, Spaniard, such that one could guess with a high degree of accuracy which race/subrace/family an individual belonged based on nothing more than eyeballing him, and this though both Swedes and Spaniards are often regarded as "white." Where there have been few geopgraphic impediments to population flows, "races" have mixed with one another, such that distinctions between subraces are blurred. Where impassable bodies of water or deserts or mountain ranges have impeded population flows, less mixing has occurred and thus populations in those geographic regions have, over the course of time, remained more distinct. A more accurate definition of race is not possible nor necessary. If it is impossible to speak of racial distinctions, it is also impossible to speak of any other biological distinction, or of any other groups of objects commonly referred to, and the attempt to do so would so hobble our language that communication would be severely compromised.
Not really. But national socialism does strike me as a reasonable political approach to dealing with the inherent inequality among humans. The naturally intelligent rise to the top, while the naturally stupid sink to the bottom. Liberal capitalism makes the bottom feeders feel like shyt because it tells them their failings are their own fault and they deserve their misery, or at least their meager livelihoods. Communism is similarly based on the fallacy that all humans are identical and infinitely malleable. National socialism takes advantage of capitalist incentive while enabling even the little people to take pride in their society and nation. Just because national socialism pisses jews off is no reason not to give it its proper consideration. Feels used and manipulated by what is by now very transparent jewish bullshit. Is, in fact, a minority member himself. But an honest one who wishes to play fair. Is realistic about the prospects of ever civilising them. Many of us are. See www.thephora.net
Oh, so you ARE actually referring to pure tribalism, something i have repeatedly pointed to as the undoing of humankind, the basic faction in most conflict and the very bedrock of sheer stupidity, along with religion .
Intense tribalism has fueled many a war, that is true. But it must be compared to the alternatives. I begin by noting that living amongst people culturally and racially more similar to yourself is far superior to living amongst people culturally and racially distant or more diverse. Were this not so, people would not naturally drift to people they feel they have something in common with, and diversity would not require trumpeting as people would naturally, freely and happily associate with those different from themselves. Racial diversity is not, of itself, an inherent evil. It is quite possible to be fond of people of other races. But the very fact of racial difference means people of different races tend to culturally differentiate themselves, and thus we're again left with cultural diversity. Cultural diversity means diverse views on some of the deepest questions of life. For instance, compare Islamic to Buddist cultures. Forming meaningful bonds with such culturally different people is difficult and unless one party is willing to sacrifice one's own cultural interests it rarely occurs, and thus society is plagued with cultural rifts. When the cultural distances are smaller, it is possible look past them to a greater unifying whole. Indeed, small cultural differences can at times make life more interesting. But there is no guarantee this will always be possible. Besides, when one culture appears weaker, the stronger culture tends to assert itself. Thus the deracinated culture of the west is being usurped by the more dominant cultures of the immigrant groups -- Islam in Europe and "latin" culture (eg speaking Spanish) in America. It is difficult to find a benefit in any of this for the host people. In sum, I find a diverse society to be an inferior social arrangement to a homogeneous society; the handful of benefits that can be attributed to diversity do not outweight diversity's costs or risks.
I cant disagree with that, I dont know how you did it, apart from clever evocation,but its true, as is evidenced by basic tribal conflict in kenya now. Who needs elections, when they would be better off , assuming a democratic basis, of a sort of proportianately weighted tribal council; far more democratic, much fairer for all concerned, and better suited to the tribal climate of the region. A two party system is the shits, and is bound to cause problems, one way or another, where a tame electorate is not guaranteed.