Video Of White Supremacist Learning He Is 14 Percent Black May Be The Best Thing Ever

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=5298736b=facebook

 

eh he's prolly secretly happy. if you think all the haters hate because they believe they're fortunate you haven't really been watching the race thing

 

Dude needs to read more about the evolution of man as we know it now.

He was pretty calm about it though, must've been his disbelief.

 

Some folks just don't want to admit the simple truth below...

[YOUTUBE]hTxcpq8TtcQ[/YOUTUBE]

 

And yet people still find a way to refute the science that Ret. Professor Dawkins speaks or rather enlightens about. People don't have the intelligence to even follow what he's saying, or further investigate, but they know they hate xyz people. Haters are so frustrating at times.

 

:smt038:smt038:smt038

NOST haters/racists are jealous.

 

I think it's a mix of; Jealousy, ignorance, boredom, and lack of individuality. Not just jealousy. you've got those haters out there that hate, that can't even tell you why they do, "I just do."

 

I have a few problems with dawkin's thesis.

For one, he calls humans "apes." apes are way more like monkeys in the way they live, get around, etc. than humans are like apes. They're about as versatile in their behaviors and capacities as monkeys. So if apes aren't monkeys why classify humans as apes? Humans are far more different from apes than apes are from monkeys, lemurs, squirrels, etc.

Maybe he's going by genetics, but as he noted the genetic difference is so miniscule between primates that it's not just the genes that makes the difference. We share significant percentages of our genes with species as distant from us as plant life. I think I remember reading somewhere that we share like 30% of our genes with turnips.

So to classify humans as apes just because we share 98% of our genes with chimps is not the way to go in my opinion. Humans are something entirely different. I doubt if chimps have any concept of god for example, or if they watch the stars, or wonder about their origins, or create art, or are capable of deliberately forgoing reproduction.

The other thing is I'm ancient enough to remember when dawkins was part of the social darwinist crowd. ...So much so that the new york times called him the "bad boy" of evolutionary biology, back when to be a "selfish gene" darwinist was cool, and they were openly talking shit about the differences between the races being genetic and subjugation being just a natural part of darwinian selection. So now you're seeing the kinder, gentler dawkins, but I remember the old one.

Three he's an atheist, so it's no wonder he would think all your make up presides in your genes. I'm not with that. I'd say it ain't in the genes, it's the spirit. The commies tried to cancel the lord out of things, the nazis tried -- now it's the "darwinists". In spite of the dawkins' new packaging, I'm sure if he had his way we'd be right back along the road to evil that they were gleefully trying to take society down in the 90s, and in the 40s.

what does it mean that we're all african anyway? I hear it said a lot, but why is it an important point? Are we also all asian? all middle eastern? all european?

 

Why is him being an atheist an issue? How can we measure “spirit”? Besides, if a person wants to believe in whatever (God, Jehovah, Allah, Brahma, Quetzalcoatl, Vishnu, Fenrir, etc.) that should be their business but I find it disconcerting that said believers want to have so much religious freedoms have issue when people want to be free from religions.

I’m not a commie, nazi, republican or democrat so I don’t want to cancel anything, I just want religious people to leave me alone and not force their beliefs on me and others who have no interest in the hocus-pocus trickery that religion often offers.

What “road to evil” are you speaking of?

We are all African in origin in that we all come from common mother, mitochoridrial eve. No we are not all asian, middle eastern or european since all of these sub-groups came from Africa

 

All the foolish social/anthropological divids we construct, when in actuallity we are all generally the same. There is so much effort put into showing our differences, our cultures, etc. when all the meanwhile we are just so similar in the end.

 

didn't say being an atheist is an issue. I said I have a problem with his thesis because - as an atheist - he thinks it's all in the material. It ain't.

Just because you can't measure something doesn't mean it ain't real. You can't measure lots of shit, and won't ever be able to. But you're born with a body in harmony, into a system in harmony, and you're conscious, so the default should be humble enough to sense that there's a higher order and higher consciousness.

you're like a cell in someone's body declaring there's no one sitting there reading wwbm.com

but I don't care what anybody else thinks anyway. Got nothing against atheists. They're about as sure of their philosophy as "christians" i guess. Not all that interested in human beans so sure of this or that or the other. It's more about the question than the answer

But the "road to evil" is a philosophy based on darwinism. Darwinism: the argument of scoundrels who somehow find themselves on top. No different than nazism

dawkins was a proponent back in the day, as I'm sure he'd be again if the political climate swung back that far to the right

And furthermore, we are all africans? Okay, we're all earthlings. Why is it a mantra these days? what does that have to do with the price of peas ?

Just wondering. Should I feel good when someone like dawkins says we're all africans?

 

This.

 

I dont think its about feeling good or bad, for me its about the science and the DNA research. The science is ever evolving as is our understanding of genetics, for example the fact that two Korean men can have more differences in their genetic make-up than a Korean and lets say a Russian person, is fascinating. The 'we are all Africans' statement is backed up by science and fossils, it shows the absolute ridiculousness of the social construct of 'race'. We agree that many/a majority of people place A LOT of value on those social constructs for many reasons (greed, fear, pride, money, power, ect.), but the bottom line is that we are all remarkably the same and come from the same place so the science proves that those social constructs are based on nothing that is real.

 

Statistical noise. The f*ck is that?!

 

Doesn’t issue=problem? I could be splitting hairs but…ok, “problem” it is; my bad. You state your problem with him is he “thinks” it’s all in the material and you state “it ain’t” in the material. Is that what you think or is that a fact? If it’s what you think why is your thought about it anymore valid than his? If it is a fact, what empirical data indicates this fact?

And just because you can measure something doesn’t mean it’s fake. Besides the onus of proof is on the believer. I don’t have to measure or disprove a giant 3-headed monster with orange polka-dots on his skin and a purple tongue exists in Lake Michigan. The person who states such a thing exists has the burden of proof to indicate this thing exists.

True, but why make hocus-pocus stuff up that just doesn’t make sense to attempt to explain things we don’t know yet? Why not say “fuck if I know” and keep it moving? Serpents talking? A flood to kill everything for 40 days and 40 nights because some shit you created didn’t turn out exactly the way you wanted it to? Shit, whose fault was that? Tempting people with forbidden fruit? If you didn’t want people to eat the fruit…why put it there? What’s that all about? I never understood that spooky stuff when they taught it to me as a child.

Is everyone born with a body in harmony? What about children born with? Rickets? Clef palets? Harlequin-type ichthyosis? Noonan syndrome? Angelman syndrome?

Take any position you like but I think that is a rather limiting disposition to gravitate to. How does such a position allow for true growth and comprehension beyond that which one currently understands?

I have nothing against believers, per se. If they leave me alone, stop trying to convert me, stop the wars they started, stop the child molestations, stop the guilt they lay onto their congregation to get money from those least able to give money, prosecute the church people who deserve it, sell off the material things they have and convert that into currency people all over the world can use, apologize for the slaughter and extermination of cultures around the world, etc…, then we could be aight. I’m sure that I don’t have all of the answer. I’m sure that no one else does either. I’m sure I’m cool with that. I’m sure I don’t like to be forced into or shamed into believing something when my brain tells me something isn’t right about these stories being told to me.

What is this “road to evil” and how is it based on Darwinism? Nazism is Germany National Socialism which used social Darwinism to distort the metaphor Herbert Spencer used after reading Charles Darwin's “On the Origin of Species.” It is not and was not intended to be a scientific description. Tying Darwinism to Nazism is like tying Christianity to Nazism since Hitler was a Christian according to a speech delivered in Munich on April 12, 1922 where he stated “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.”

I imagine this is the “mantra” these days because we have been systematically told that all that came out of Africa from a human standpoint was slaves. I think Dawkins is stating that without African developing the arts, mathematics, aviation, democracy, etc we wouldn’t exist as we do today. Also, I think he is trying to say that we all are of the same birth place and birth mother and that we should recognize our shared humanity and stop the shit the very minor things that make us different. Most people (except maybe the Dogon) never took issue with us all being from Earth. Most people did, however take issue with us Earthlings starting life in Africa.

And for the record, I do believe in God, just not the religious hocus-pocus stuff.

 

Well said, my brother!

 

You're way missing the point I made, so I'm not going to debate you point by point. But dawkins is basically changing his stripes, atheism is as arrogant a stance as believing in the hocus pocus, and my point about what's up with "we're all africans" was not to question it, but to tease out an answer to the question what does it means where the rubber meets the road, and whose ears it's intended for when everyone says it

It can even be interpreted as patronizing, or if you're really paranoid, as an idea that could evolve into an african land grab.

Personally, I'm unimpressed when mr "selfish gene" dawkins talks shit about we're all africans. Wonder what his colleagues and buddies think of the new kinder, gentler stance...

btw, theres some evidence that sorta counters the theory that we're all africans, based on dna evidence that says humans mixed with "prehuman" populations once they left africa. Interesting documentary touches on it here: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/first-out-africa/

 

What point is that? I didn’t ask for or want a debate; I just asked some questions. It may be beneficial not to monitor his stripes and focus on what he is stating.

How is atheism arrogant? I’m not an atheist but the ones I have known have the basic philosophy of they don’t know and they don’t think anyone else knows for sure. How is that arrogant? What have atheists stated that is arrogant? How patronizing? How paranoid? Please delineate.

In reference to the Andamanese people which the documentary focuses on according to Spencer Wells in The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey"... the population of south-east Asia prior to 6000 years ago was composed largely of groups of hunter-gatherers very similar to modern Negritos ... So, both the Y-chromosome and the mtDNA paint a clear picture of a coastal leap from Africa to south-east Asia, and onward to Australia ... DNA has given us a glimpse of the voyage, which almost certainly followed a coastal route va India ..."

Anvita Abbi states in Endangered Languages of the Andaman Islands, Lincom Europa, "... to Myanmar by a land bridge during the ice ages, and it is possible that the ancestors of the Andamanese reached the islands without crossing the sea ..

They either got there by boat or land bridge. No mystery here, in my opinion.

 

In my experience, the atheists I'm acquainted with believe that they are superior, more advanced in their thinking. Christians (in their mind) believe in a mythical (comical, really) creature and the Bible is a book of fairy tales. Faith, for them, is a crutch. Atheists pride themselves in relying on facts, so walking by faith is not only ridiculous, it's laughable and weak. I'd never met an atheist until I joined this forum. I was surprised at the vehemence with which they attack the beliefs of those who choose to follow Christ.