If races are not real, then you have to be logically consistent - Page 39 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15316815
@ingliz the more Five Man talks the less he knows.

All money made is money that a white person made. Lol.

All labor that builds a nation's economy is the labor of white people only.

All land and what is edible and agriculturally available was what white Europeans knew before living in the Americas. Lol.

All inventions, science, education, art etc can only be done by White Europeans. This is the shit he thinks.

Not much analysis for sure.

White people were not afraid of Black people because? Lol.

They do not accept racially mixed societies that have been around forever. Including Mesopotamia, Egypt and Northern African civvies. Rome is pure in whiteness. Lol. No.

91% of humanity is not necessary to have an economy that works in modern times. because if you aint white--you aint right. Lol.

Racism and racists are seriously flawed ingliz. :lol:
#15316819
Tainari88 wrote:@ingliz the more Five Man talks the less he knows.

All money made is money that a white person made. Lol.

All labor that builds a nation's economy is the labor of white people only.

All land and what is edible and agriculturally available was what white Europeans knew before living in the Americas. Lol.

All inventions, science, education, art etc can only be done by White Europeans. This is the shit he thinks.

Not much analysis for sure.

White people were not afraid of Black people because? Lol.

They do not accept racially mixed societies that have been around forever. Including Mesopotamia, Egypt and Northern African civvies. Rome is pure in whiteness. Lol. No.

91% of humanity is not necessary to have an economy that works in modern times. because if you aint white--you aint right. Lol.

Racism and racists are seriously flawed ingliz. :lol:

Lol all you ever do is just assert that I said things I never said. Literally every single one of your posts is like that. You are such a ridiculous liar. Don't you think other people will notice how much you lie?
#15316820
ingliz wrote:@FiveofSwords

What makes you think the average 18th-century European was educated?


:lol:

Tell me when I said the average 18th century European was well educated. Once again, you fail at reading comprehension. You literally operate at a child's level of reading comprehension...then you like to pretend as though you have actually read any books, lol. You haven't even read a bad romance novel in your life. Nothing.
#15316825
FiveofSwords wrote:
Tell me when I said the average 18th century European was well educated. Once again, you fail at reading comprehension. You literally operate at a child's level of reading comprehension...then you like to pretend as though you have actually read any books, lol. You haven't even read a bad romance novel in your life. Nothing.



Mass education got rolling in the late 1800s. With the exception of Sweden, where mass education started in the 1600s.

Commoners that did get education mostly got what we would elementary schooling. It was all they needed.

There was also a religious divide:

"Protestants and Catholics had different views on the uses and importance of literacy. Reading scriptures was central to the reformed faith: even if, for Lutherans, instruction focused on catechisms and psalters rather than on canonical Bibles, religious books were probably read more frequently among Protestants and the very status of reading was special, especially for Calvinists.13 Protestants tended to own more books on a wider variety of religious topics than their Catholic neighbours and to use them differently, accepting the overwhelming authority of what they knew or thought was in a religious book and treating it as a symbol rather than just a resource."

What usually happened was literacy grew enabled by market economics:

"By the mid-eighteenth century London and Paris had literacy levels of over 90%, which would not be achieved nationally until the late nineteenth century. In Eastern and Southern Europe nearly the only literate people were town dwellers and rural landowners."

https://brewminate.com/the-growth-of-literacy-in-western-europe-from-1500-to-1800/
#15316826
late wrote:Mass education got rolling in the late 1800s. With the exception of Sweden, where mass education started in the 1600s.

Commoners that did get education mostly got what we would elementary schooling. It was all they needed.

There was also a religious divide:

"Protestants and Catholics had different views on the uses and importance of literacy. Reading scriptures was central to the reformed faith: even if, for Lutherans, instruction focused on catechisms and psalters rather than on canonical Bibles, religious books were probably read more frequently among Protestants and the very status of reading was special, especially for Calvinists.13 Protestants tended to own more books on a wider variety of religious topics than their Catholic neighbours and to use them differently, accepting the overwhelming authority of what they knew or thought was in a religious book and treating it as a symbol rather than just a resource."

What usually happened was literacy grew enabled by market economics:

"By the mid-eighteenth century London and Paris had literacy levels of over 90%, which would not be achieved nationally until the late nineteenth century. In Eastern and Southern Europe nearly the only literate people were town dwellers and rural landowners."

https://brewminate.com/the-growth-of-literacy-in-western-europe-from-1500-to-1800/

Were you trying to say something relevant?
#15316832
FiveofSwords wrote:there were a lot of Irish slaves in the US

There were no Irish slaves in the Americas.

The 10.000 Irish transported to Barbados or Virginia by Cromwell in the 1650s were sentenced to 10 years as indentured servants.

You could argue being Catholic they were treated no better than slaves at this time but even then you would be stretching - It depended on who bought the contract.

a) Being transported to Barbados when they were clearing for sugar in the 1650s was, for many, a death sentence.

b) In comparison, Virginia was a cushy number for most.

also

How is this relevant? Cromwell sent the Irish to Virginia as involuntary indentured servants in the 1650s. The emancipation of slaves took place in the 1780s/early 1800s in the Northern states.


:)


p.s. Approximately 10,000 were sent involuntarily.

40,000 or thereabouts came as voluntary indentured servants.

And around 40,000 were un-indentured immigrants, free to do as they pleased.

See T. Bartlett. 'Ireland in the British Empire, 1690–1801.' p.256 in The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume II: The Eighteenth Century
Last edited by ingliz on 30 May 2024 10:02, edited 6 times in total.
#15316840
@Fasces

London is about 280 miles from Dublin. That’s around 2.3 million years in evolutionary terms.

Image

The simian negroid Irish. Harper’s Weekly.


:lol:


* Harper's Weekly, A Journal of Civilization was an American political magazine based in New York City. Published by Harper & Brothers from 1857 until 1916.
#15316842
ingliz wrote:@Fasces

London is about 280 miles from Dublin. That’s around 2.3 million years in evolutionary terms.

Image

The simian negroid Irish. Harper’s Weekly.


:lol:


* Harper's Weekly, A Journal of Civilization was an American political magazine based in New York City. Published by Harper & Brothers from 1857 until 1916.


But, but Ingliz, according to Five man all white people are white and get along because something deep inside of the DNA says we are brothers and our generic White Race is going to bring unity when there is rife, it is going to bring purity when there is pollution, it is going to bring prosperity when there is poverty and despair....because deep in our DNA there is a SUPERMAN of WHITENESS. That is going to overcome the human defects of greed, sloth, vice, falsehood, lying, cheating, and stealing....the rich man who is white if he is English will make the English poor man who is fucked economically not notice he is fucked economically, and just focus on doing his work for the Glory of the Union Jack. The rich Tory White Englishman will also be true to his fellow Englishmen and so on....and live in harmony and not seek to exploit or look for ways of fucking over lands filled with nonwhite people. Everyone stays in the Colour Codes that correspond to them. And white men with horniness on a boat in the Royal Navy are not going to be thinking of having sex with women who are not European because they are PURITY PEOPLE AND PURITANS in the PENISES.

This is the crock of shit he is writing. :lol:
#15316846
FiveofSwords wrote:The white slave owners did not fear black people.

Of course they did. They protected themselves with layers of security protection, first and foremost, the "house slaves." Most of our upper classes are house slaves, the 1% also fearing the 99%.

Christianity is actually anti racist.

Christian countries (with Jewish banksters) "invented scientific racism" in the 18th Century. It was during the following centuries that it became a mark of "education and sophistication" to be a racist. The KKK were often from the upper classes of Christians.

The common leftist meme that 'you have to be taught to be racist' is simply wrong and in fact it is the opposite of the truth. You have to be indoctrinated into anti racism.

You are confusing "immigration" with "racism."

Yes, the mass media has indoctrinated its audience with multi-culturalism and pro-immigration memes. But "race" is not the same thing. Racism is NOT naturally occurring because it is socially-constructed. It must be manufactured, just like pro-immigratoin policies need to have their consent manufactured. But please, don't mix up these two things.

One can be anti-immigration and completely non-racist, and one can be a pro-immigration racist. For the latter, imagine a minority that wants to "destroy the white race" with immigration. This would be a racist, pro-immigration stance.

***

ingliz wrote:There were no Irish slaves in the Americas.

This is not entirely true. The famine-refugees were treated almost exactly like kidnapped African slaves, right up until their "placement" as canal-diggers in North America in the mid 1800s. Sixteen hours of work per day, 6 days per week, and the right to work from the age of 8 years old. This is pretty close to plantation slavery, and their lifespans were as short as African slaves as well.

And then in the late 19th ... right up to mid-20th... the British Empire had the "British Home Children" program, which sent many orphans (lots of them were Irish origin) to the empire to slave away for masters in private homes. 10% of Canada's anglophones are from this program.
#15316875
QatzelOk wrote:Of course they did. They protected themselves with layers of security protection, first and foremost, the "house slaves." Most of our upper classes are house slaves, the 1% also fearing the 99%.


Christian countries (with Jewish banksters) "invented scientific racism" in the 18th Century. It was during the following centuries that it became a mark of "education and sophistication" to be a racist. The KKK were often from the upper classes of Christians.


You are confusing "immigration" with "racism."

Yes, the mass media has indoctrinated its audience with multi-culturalism and pro-immigration memes. But "race" is not the same thing. Racism is NOT naturally occurring because it is socially-constructed. It must be manufactured, just like pro-immigratoin policies need to have their consent manufactured. But please, don't mix up these two things.

One can be anti-immigration and completely non-racist, and one can be a pro-immigration racist. For the latter, imagine a minority that wants to "destroy the white race" with immigration. This would be a racist, pro-immigration stance.

***


This is not entirely true. The famine-refugees were treated almost exactly like kidnapped African slaves, right up until their "placement" as canal-diggers in North America in the mid 1800s. Sixteen hours of work per day, 6 days per week, and the right to work from the age of 8 years old. This is pretty close to plantation slavery, and their lifespans were as short as African slaves as well.

And then in the late 19th ... right up to mid-20th... the British Empire had the "British Home Children" program, which sent many orphans (lots of them were Irish origin) to the empire to slave away for masters in private homes. 10% of Canada's anglophones are from this program.


I haveno idea what you think 'scientific racism' is, but it is simply true that human beings adapt to a certain way of life over time and it alters their genetics. Any biologist worth their salt will confirm that this is a fact, and humans are not exempt from the forces of natural selection and evolution.

As a result, people just have a natural inclination for distinct behaviors, talents, and even aesthetics. And this is carried in their blood so it is very difficult, perhaps impossible, to 'wducate' them out of it.

This is not merely a scientific fact...it is also quite apparent to anyone who lives in a diverse society today, which almost white people do, which we can thank immigration policies for. If you don't notice that white people simply act differently to black people, you are either a fool or you are lying to yourself. And that difference comes from the blood, not from training. A black person adopted by white parents who attends white majority schools is still going to act like a black person...although they will show signs of some psychological distress from many years of repressing their true nature in order to 'fit in'. Stuff like that is simply part of the personal experience of every white person who has their eyes open and is brave enough to admit it to themselves.

Such a person will, in fact, because they live in a society that is an evolutionary mismatch for them, feel like something is wrong with society and seek to change it to be more 'black'. Everyone has noticed that phenomenon, also. And of course they would. Any life form would. This is just biology.

By the same process, if people have continued to survive for thousands of years after losing their homeland and dwelling within a larger different foreign nation, they necessarily must have developed contempt for that nation, or else they would have simply assimilated into it and become absorbed. Their particular genotype would be like a drop in the bucket and would be quickly washed away..and they would go extinct like the samnites in the roman empire did. If instead they continued to exist then they had to develop in their blood something that maintained their genetic purity over a long time...and it becomes natural for them.

You cannot have a deep understanding of human nature if you ignore this aspect. The most baseline aspect which humans share with all life forms on earth. And this scientific fact refutes the political philosophy of liberalism, because liberalism is incoherent once we admit that humans are not a blank slate but do actually have an intrinsic nature they are born with. You cannot simply turn black people into white people and after 200 years of trying you can see the attempt has failed. You also cannot simply turn jews into gentiles by telling them about jesus...you could only meaningfully attempt such a conversion by altering their blood (interestingly similar to the metaphor of the sacrament) and altering the way they reproduce.
#15316882
ingliz wrote:@FiveofSwords

You are just confirming you are a congenital idiot (all that inbreeding) with your 'it's in the blood' bollocks.

Culture is learned.


:lol:

You can of course just assert that and deny the science of evolution, but that is all you are doing. Making assertions. And you really ought to just own it and jump on board with the Christian creationists and deny that evolution exists at all. Because if you even just ad it that evolution does exist, you will be logically forced to accept that life forms do adapt to their environment and way of life over time. These racial differences are just inevitable over time. And we can observe them.
#15316883
FiveofSwords wrote:there were at least 2 Irish people in the US senate when it was decided in 1789 that citizenship would only be open to 'free white men of good character'

If we use your parameters to decide what 'race' they were.

Not Irish

Pierce Butler was born into the Anglo-Irish Protestant Ascendancy.

Not Irish

William Paterson was an Ulster Scot Protestant.


:lol:
#15316936
ingliz wrote:...Culture is learned...

I realize that you were just spitting out phrases at Fos, but this is way too essentialized.

It reads like you are trapped in Modernity and its facile scientific "explanations."

While it is true that Fos's narrative is also facile, and debunked a few centuries ago, he is opening an important debate into the nature of racism, and where its current manfestations are located.

I think one thing that is clear is that it is the 1% that manufactures racism and it always has been the 1%.

Ex. When the Crusades were happenning, the super-rich Catholic Church mafia and monarchy mafias... created hatred (in the name of the creator of the universe) against non-Christians and, they spread their propaganda every Sunday telling emotional lies to encourage the killing and stealing of foreign nations. This pillaging helped to enrich the Catholic Church and the Monarchs who had invented the "racist" (from a religious chauvinism point of view) slurs and profited from the resultant slaying of innocent "others."

(Also Ingliz, notice that culture is sometimes *learned*, and sometimes it is *force-fed*. As in the above example
Culture is many things, and not just "learned")

***

FiveofSwords wrote:I haveno idea what you think 'scientific racism' is...


And yet I placed a link in the sentence that leads to what I mean. Here it is again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
#15316941
QatzelOk wrote:I realize that you were just spitting out phrases at Fos, but this is way too essentialized.

It reads like you are trapped in Modernity and its facile scientific "explanations."

While it is true that Fos's narrative is also facile, and debunked a few centuries ago, he is opening an important debate into the nature of racism, and where its current manfestations are located.

I think one thing that is clear is that it is the 1% that manufactures racism and it always has been the 1%.

Ex. When the Crusades were happenning, the super-rich Catholic Church mafia and monarchy mafias... created hatred (in the name of the creator of the universe) against non-Christians and, they spread their propaganda every Sunday telling emotional lies to encourage the killing and stealing of foreign nations. This pillaging helped to enrich the Catholic Church and the Monarchs who had invented the "racist" (from a religious chauvinism point of view) slurs and profited from the resultant slaying of innocent "others."

(Also Ingliz, notice that culture is sometimes *learned*, and sometimes it is *force-fed*. As in the above example
Culture is many things, and not just "learned")

***



And yet I placed a link in the sentence that leads to what I mean. Here it is again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

This article is just retarded and false. Of course you can classify humans into distinct groups. Whether you want to call some superior or inferior, however, is irrelevant and not based on science but rather your subjective preferences and values. But if you really cannot classify humans at all, then you must logically accept the consequences I mentioned in my original post. You cannot say the crusad3s were inciting hatred against anyone because there are no categories to incite hatred against, lol.
#15316942
ingliz wrote:If we use your parameters to decide what 'race' they were.

Not Irish

Pierce Butler was born into the Anglo-Irish Protestant Ascendancy.

Not Irish

William Paterson was an Ulster Scot Protestant.


:lol:

You are talking about religion when that was irrelevant to how I classified race. Reading comprehension fail yet again.
Last edited by FiveofSwords on 31 May 2024 03:54, edited 1 time in total.
#15316945
FiveofSwords wrote:You are talking aboutbreligion when that was irrelevant to how I classified race. Reading comprehension fail yet again.

Religion mattered more than race to the British (and the Americans) at that time. The Scots and the Irish essentially belong to the same ‘race’, yet compare and contrast how they were treated by the English from the 16th century onwards….
  • 1
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 63
Trump shot (grazed) at rally

The guy who donated to the PAC is a different guy[…]

Or maybe people who engage in genocidal rhetoric, […]

Quite a bit of nonsense we see in this thread is […]

America finally beats Medicare

Biden has always lived in the world of pretend: […]