I don't believe that you can tell what an individual's
preferences or abilities are by looking at his race.

It sounds like you are deeply religious

I think that 'racist' has always been a SLUR, a SIMPLE-MINDED ad hominem attack in an effort to silence people who recognise that there are groups that have different preferences and differing abilities AND members within the groups are often related.

Being an Individualist is a worthy personal character trait, most efforts seem to function better when you have support from cooperating individuals.



Robert Kiyosaki points out that business is a team sport, yet cooperation in school is regarded as cheating.

If you insist on trying to go against a team by yourself you may have a much more difficult time for getting runs on the board.
Somewhere I came across the metaphor that 'a mediocre team that cooperates can beat a team of 'all-star' players that allows everybody to go out solely for their individual benefit.'

I do not have a clear guide to when an individual has the upper hand(thinking of entrepreneurship where the individual quickly surrounds themselves with a team that complements the strengths that are underdeveloped.)
versus where the team has a better chance(thinking of how criminals are separated from the rest of the population.)

What do you prefer?

Having people be vocal about their beliefs so that you have an opportunity to avoid them if you DO NOT WANT TO COMPREHEND WHERE THEY ARE COMING FROM;

Or, prefer to be paranoid and always trying to second guess what their actual motives are?
(real and imagined)


Personally, I think that it is better to have open discussion.

I am not a racist, but an intransigent individualist.
Therefore, I am deeply against affirmative action,
believing that it is certainly racist itself.

Interesting theory. I will keep that in mind. Chimps actually hunt for meat-food, though, so that could be a point of commonality with our mutual ancestor and is also possible.

Jan

YES.

Anybody that identifies with the ideas put forward by White civilisation will find less headwind and/or obstacles impeding their efforts to improve themselves.

I want to make the point that the culture can EITHER SUPPORT INDIVIDUAL INITIATIVE or can wear down and diffuse such efforts until they have acquiesced to the Bullies.

That is why I point out the examination and selection of traits to imitate by the Japanese, SOUTH Koreans, Chinese and Indians, from the subcontinent, to be stronger competitors after British and American influence.

Not exactly. While I offer sympathy to the European countries suffering from the waves of immigrants, I believe that, yes, it should be THEIR efforts to manage their problems.. "We" should offer moral support but not physical support, because that impinges on their sovereign rights to "own and run their own countries."
I've observed the news over the past years and have been waiting for Euro-countries (and others around there) to wake up to the idea that there's a huge difference between immigration and "assimilation." Countries or cities where there are Police "No-Go" areas are perfect examples.
My view is that immigrants should be let into a country if they're willing to assimilate, too. If they want to bring different legal systems, languages or salute their previous Flag above that of their adopted country, I will not support them.
It looks to me as if several European countries have awakened to that difference, although I think too many people in the US have not.
And I believe that makes a Huge Difference in how 'things will turn out in the future.'

As a Socratic Critical Thinker, I also am disappointed that the 'immigrant problem' isn't thought of in terms of Root Cause... WhyTF are so many people LEAVING so many countries in the first place?
Trying to solve the Immigrant Problem when they land in another country is nowhere near addressing Root Cause.

But Critical Thinking is Dead today, and that's proof.

I have found a bunch of ideas that I have adopted as my current benchmark on the line of inquiry. I am always looking for more data that can disprove my current position.


I am realising that African-American people are ALLOWED to be PROUD of their HERITAGE.
Chinese, Japanese, Koreans are ALLOWED to be PROUD of their HERITAGE. The tribes that existed prior to the arrival of White people in North America are ALLOWED to be PROUD of their HERITAGE.


White people are DENIED the OPTION of BEING PROUD of their HERITAGE and the ALMOST UNILATERAL CONSTRUCTION of ADVANCED CIVILISATION and TECHNOLOGY.

The source I use in the above comment was:


The Kindle Edition of: David Duke's 'My Awakening', Chapter 10: Race History.

Do a search for 'Haiti'.

I found a brief description of the history of the island we know as Haiti. [source needed]

It describes the French(White) colony thriving. When the ideas of the French Revolution arrived on the island and the Black people MASSACRED MOST OF THE WHITE POPULATION, a few managed to escape by fleeing.

In the approximately 150 years since the MASSACRE, the United States has sent THREE expeditions to rebuild the infrastructure that the BLACK POPULATION has been UNABLE TO MAINTAIN.


IQ tests have measured the intelligence of various populations. Asians scored the highest, White people weren't far behind, Hispanics scored higher than the African-American who did better than the African.

The AVERAGE White scored 1 standard deviation above the AVERAGE African-American, which is 15 IQ points of difference. The AVERAGE African scored 2 standard deviations below.

As you may be AWARE, the AVERAGE of a group can suggest correlations but further observation is necessary. A COMPARISON of Bell-Curves can reveal more details on how the population compares apples with apples. There can be White people who have intelligence lower than the Black average(a tiny minority), just as there are some Black people who have an intelligence higher than the White average(again, a tiny minority, but they exist).


It is noted that the more White Grandparents a person with African-American ancestry is, the closer they perform to the White average.


THIS IS NOT TO SUGGEST INFERIORITY. The conditions under which various populations developed required DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS TO SURVIVAL CHALLENGES.

WHAT IT DOES IMPLY is that INTEGRATION has HARMED Black people by allowing their leadership to abandon them, in favour of the higher living conditions typically found in a majority White neighbourhood and the salaries they can earn as the TOKEN Black under Affirmative Action policies.

White people are worried by the arrival of the Blacks benefiting from the Affirmative Action policies due to fears that the undesirable Black Welfare underclass will bring higher rates of crime.

I am not suggesting that you do 'scut work'.

I am making a statement that I feel is easily verifiable. If you want references, ASK ME TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR THEM.

YOU should really read the literature of the National Socialists, that way you can DETERMINE FOR YOURSELF what their ACTUAL IDEAS were and JUDGE THEM BY THEIR OWN WRITING.

I don't know if you are AWARE that the VICTORS OFTEN REWRITE HISTORY to ENHANCE and JUSTIFY themselves to history.


I think that they were more inclined to stop those that were REGARDED AS 'deficient' from breeding, not allowing undesirable attributes to pollute the gene pool.

I think that the undesirables were segregated from the population, not killed.

National Socialism was designed by Hitler to generate PRIDE in the German people, a people that had been DEFEATED and DEMORALISED by the outcome of WW1 - a war that was stoked by the financiers as a means to greater profits.

There is a THIRD group that exists, one that wants to RULE OVER all human beings.

This group is HAPPY to ENFORCE 'racial mixing' as then there is ONLY ONE DISTINCTION.

The RULING ELITE and everyone else that are considered a SLAVE CLASS.


This group that WANTS TO RULE OVER everyone is a DANGER to the FREE WILL of ALL GROUPS, however they want to DEFINE THEMSELVES.

No disagreement with your premise. Thank you. Nevertheless, we all have examples from our own lives of people in dire circumstances but with a positive attitude that led to positive behaviors that led to positive consequences.

What this means is that we have populations that feel more comfortable with the DOMINANT CULTURE of an area, and populations that want to REPLACE IT with a CULTURE that suits their tendencies.

That system of ABC may work today, where we have a civilisation that provides food for large numbers of people at little average expenditure of effort on a per capita basis.

But a population bottleneck where groups find themselves in harsh conditions, strategies for survival would tend to select for those that can master their environment and leaving the least adapted strategies to be left for dead.

The suggestion that Africans were shaped in the conditions that formed close to the Equator allowed for male promiscuity as the children could survive with their mothers being their sole support.

As the body chemistry of those promiscuous males spread through their population, the group gains these tendencies that would be encouraged by the culture.


Now for the White people that found themselves in the harsh winters of Northern Europe, those who could plan for a season of limited availability of food by deferring gratification, developing an emphasis on monogamy to increase the odds of survival for their offspring, a lighter skin to soak up the limited ultraviolet light that signals the transition between seasons. These tendencies that promote survival gain a greater representation in the genetics and the CULTURE THAT REINFORCES these tendencies.