Yet with the burgeoning field of neuroscience evincing these sensitive truths, the media still consciously distorts the findings in conjunction with their leftist paradigm. Take this recent study corroborating the notion that "they all look the same".
The study, written by a European team led by Luca Vizioli of the University of Glasgow and published in a recent issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, begins by noting that humans are remarkably skilled at facial recognition: we can differentiate family members and friends from strangers in far less than a second.It's interesting that Asians view whites as phenotypically uniform as well. I have long thought that Asian facial homogeneity reflected the apparent behavioral conformity of Asian countries and peoples. While this hypothesis remains unconfirmed, the fancy study seems to confirm anecdotal evidence. And big surprise, back in 1914, this modern heterodox was considered rather mundane:
The study found that, as expected, both Asian and white observers revealed what is called the "other-race effect": they took longer to recognize members of other races.
The authors controlled for differences in how the faces in the photos looked. It didn't matter whether someone was pretty or ugly, whether they were making a nice face or a rude one: it still took longer to recognize them if they were a member of another race.
And yet as long ago as 1914, an academic publication called the Journal of Criminal Law and Police Science published an article saying it takes us longer to tell apart members of races other than our own. "To the uninitiated American," the authors wrote, "all Asiatics look alike, while to the Asiatics, all White men look alike."One would presume an outfit like Time, ostensibly in the business of presenting news, would approach this story judiciously. Further, the findings are clearly morally neutral as the results say absolutely nothing about bias or bigotry. Yet, from reading the article, you wouldn't think that. The author ends by calming down the more sensitive leftist readers:
These impulses are almost certainly evolutionary: we react against a member of another tribe that may be trying to annihilate us. One silver lining: understanding these impulses may help us to overcome them.He begins though with a transparent interpretation of the study's results:
You've heard the racial epithet: All you people look the same. It's detestable, but a new study shows that the racist observation happens to be true.He also deems this facial recognition disparity "racism":
The idea that racism is built into our DNA is both unsavory and disappointing.To understand the author's unfair characterization, you must understand the liberal notion of original sin. As I've discussed before, the left has constructed a parallel religious edifice complete with saints, churches, self-flagellating rituals (recycling), and all sorts of faith-based ideologies (Gaiaism, New Age, egalitarianism). But liberals also believe in "original sin", the notion that we all inherit a corrupt soul and that we can only absolve ourselves through faith and its attendant demands. Thus, as a proxy for salvation through Christ, liberals demand adherence to the leftist racial doctrine that necessitates complete racial integration and views whites as a pernicious collective in both modern and historic times.
Of course though, they only apply this idea to whites. Because liberals consider whites as inherently corrupt beings, even benign predilections become fodder for censure. The author believes facial recognition is racist, even though he also accepts that it's natural, because he considers any deviation from the liberal racial paradigm as evil. Leftists then argue that one can exonerate himself of "original sin" through deeds like forced desegregation, support of unlimited immigration, support of affirmative action, and advancement of the basic hate-whitey ideals. Only then, when a white person has fully accepted his inherent depravity and rejected his presumed white privilege through deeds can he be considered a moral individual.
[To Anonymous troll who comments on every race post citing "Lies My Teacher Told Me", Tim Wise, and Howard Zinn, or regurgitating liberal tripe like "the drug war is racist because it targets black males", "white women only want to have sex with black men", "everyone wants immigration except you small-penis losers": I will delete every single one of your comments without even reading them. Don't waste your time.]
28 comments:
---These impulses are almost certainly evolutionary: we react against a member of another tribe that may be trying to annihilate us. One silver lining: understanding these impulses may help us to overcome them.
What better example of a self-annihilator can one be presented? We must overcome the impulse that has us react to the "other" that is trying to annihilate us.
Liberalism > radical liberalism > radical autonomy > final liberation > self-annihilation.
This protocol is rampant in one fashion or another throughout all of society. There is a collective of self-annihilators in which the atheist and homosexual represent the most primitive manifestation of the radical liberal, i.e., the radical autonomist.
We have simply reached a point in time where the mass of individuals are thoroughly enthrawed by anti-Supremacy. We have a majority of individuals who are foolish enough to believe that their anti-Supremacy is really a belief in "equality" and a rejection of "white supremacy." They are wrong on all counts. To see racism (whitewashed code word for white supremacy) everywhere is to merely be an "objective" observer of reality. But where is the objectivity to be found in the acts of liberalism? And therein lies the self-refutation found in all expressions of radical autonomy, the assertion of objective "fact" that one "knows" to be subjectively false. The anti-Supremacist bemoans "white supremacy" while simultaneously asserting without reservation that white Supremacy doesn't really exist. Or for the more savy autonomist, white Supremacy is real or nonexistent depending on the circumstance.
So is white Supremacy real or just the delusions of a mad pale-skinned population that nonetheless has the "other" in a perpetual strangehold due to this wholly imagined "white surpremacy?"
it's tabula rasa, not rosa
Before anyone else tries to engage him, I have to say this: Thorwanker is off into his alternative-universe post-modernism again. Just nod and back away slowly.
"Prior to the tabula rosa (sic) revolution of the 20th century, almost everyone understood the implications of race, gender, intelligence, and eugenic breeding. Funny that so many now require fancy studies when years of historical precedence and vast anecdotal research should suffice."
This is the result of the last two generations (maybe three) being deliberately educated so as to be historically ignorant. The only historical or anecdotal evidence most people actually do know about are the exceptions to the rule(e.g. Marie Curie, Martin Luther King). But then they're also too ignorant of basic math and logic to realize that an exception doesn't disprove a rule.
Yes, St. Louis, and the new leadership of women, who always insist that everyone play nicely together, and the spineless men who let them take over and wouldn't tell them to pay attention to their own children and family. It is our own parents who have betrayed us. Those who want to save the world will lose their own backyard.
I agree with Rusty. Patriarchy is a synonym for civilization.
I tell my sons that if women ran the world, we would all be huddled naked next to a creek digging for worms to eat while we watch our children starve.
Did the original study only examine White and Asian response? Was there no difference between the two?
I would imagine Blacks respond to others as much if not more than Whites or Asians. Of all the racial groups, Blacks seem to demonstrate the strongest racial consciousness while Whites seem to have the weakest.
Even among tribes in Africa, the ongoing violence, slavery and genocide even today show survival depends upon an acute sense of otherness and group identity.
Last time I checked blacks, hispanics, or "NAMS" or whatever derogatory disrespectful term you guys make up never conquered, enslaved, raped, or murdered anyone.
Maybe desroying the white race for the benefit of humanity is a good thing.
Noel Ignatiev has a great publication that explains the abovve.
To the anon at 1:42...real troll, or false flag provocateur, your post gave me a huge laugh, so thanks.
If the last time you checked revealed that blacks or Hispanics never conquered, enslaved, raped, or murdered anyone, I'd say...check again.
Anonymous at 1:42 pm said:
"Last time I checked blacks, hispanics, or 'NAMS' or whatever derogatory disrespectful term you guys make up never conquered, enslaved, raped, or murdered anyone."
This is evidence of my earlier point that many people don't know much about history. The last time I checked, almost every race/tribe/nation throughout almost all of history conquered, enslaved, raped, and murdered people, and if they didn't it was usually because they were too weak and were having those things done to them; they probably would have done it if they could have. As I remember it, some African tribes were complicit in the slave trade. They would conquer the neighboring tribes and then sell the prisoners they took to the Europeans.
But of course this can't be true, since, as we've all been taught, all Africans are imbued with a humble, loving, and generous demeanor, and are uniquely good and in tune with Mother Earth. Any seemingly criminal, violent, or otherwise anti-social behavior they exhibit is somehow the fault of whites.
Sigh... troll comes out, dancing monkeys jump out to feed it.
Last time I checked blacks, hispanics, or "NAMS" or whatever derogatory disrespectful term you guys make up never conquered, enslaved, raped, or murdered anyone.
LOL.
What about the African chiefs that conquered neighboring villages and then sold their enemies into slavery?
White/Arab/Jewish slave traders never even needed to step foot onto the African continent - they just pulled up to the slave trading ports and waited for willing Africans to bring other enslaved Africans from the interior.
Even the liberal idiot Henry Louis Gates knows this, he recently suggested that slavery reparations should be paid to African Americans by other Africans who were most responsible for making slaves available.
Let's not forget the savagery and mass rape that still goes on in Africa every single day:
Start with this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQSjyYRTDVM&feature=player_embedded
Camlost,
Liberia is one seriously screwed up country. Back in 2008, I actually sat in on Charles Taylor's trial at the Hague for an afternoon and listened to testimony from prosecution witnesses. The stuff they talked about was absolutely horrific. Of course, they were hidden from view because they didn't want any of Taylor's cronies finding out who they were and retaliating against them or their families.
It was also pretty screwed up that the court (which is mostly funded by US tax dollars indirectly through the UN) was paying for Taylor's attorney since he was claiming he was indigent. Of course, he has millions hidden away in secret accounts, but no one could prove where it was. Even worse, after he was assigned a free attorney, he claimed his counsel was ineffective and petitioned to get another one. The court approved. Last I knew he was represented by one of the most famous and high-priced criminal defense barristers in England (at our expense, naturally).
Anyway, now we're getting off topic. Sorry, One.
For example, Auschwitz was open from around Jan 1941 to Jan 1945, when the Red Army over-ran it and liberated it. Historians estimate between 800K and 1.1 million were murdered there, with the latest industrial killing equipment. Meanwhile from April 1994, through the end of July 1994, a scant three months, about 800K to 1 million Tutsis and "moderate" Hutus were murdered by the Hutu population. Unlike Auschwitz, the killing was done by the mass of Hutus, up close and personal, mostly with rocks and machetes. Including infants, the elderly, and women.
Black Africans thus retain the per-capita genocide championship and widest spread brutality in recorded human history. Greater even than Hulagu Khan piling up 1 million skulls outside Baghdad. Greater even than the Aztecs sacrificing nearly 40,000 over a three week period in the late 1400's. Because it was ordinary, men and women in Rwanda who did that, not soldiers in a siege or war, or brutal shamans.
And let me add, you cannot call the bullet back.
Barack Obama makes much of his grandfather's and fathers ideology and beliefs that in Africa, there was no place for Whites or Indians. Obama in a passage where he and his sister have lunch at a Nairobi restaurant run by Indian emigres, cites his father's desire to nationalize every business and property held by non-Black Africans and turn it over to Black Africans. He is outraged that he and his sister are the only Blacks there and they get less perceived service than visiting White tourists.
Well, that bullet cannot be called back. IF Whites have no business colonizing Africa, or Asia, or Latin America, then surely Blacks or Central Asians or Latin Americans have no business in the US or Europe.
Black racial consciousness and Latino/Hispanic/Mexican racial consciousness is a bullet that cannot be called back.
And it creates in reaction WHITE RACIAL CONSCIOUSNESS. It is inevitable. If Blacks and Mexicans ask "Is it Good for Blacks?" or "Is it Good for Mexicans?" then Whites INEVITABLY ask "Is it Good For Whites?"
Since there are limited government spoils resources, in crisis the pie gets smaller, and whoever is the smallest alliance grouping gets destroyed.
Therefore it is in the interest of Blacks to extract the maximum amount of racial spoils concessions by ensuring Whites do not drop below say, 70% of the population. At the current 65%, concessions are too expensive, racial self identity and self interest (you are screwed if you are the minority as a White) beats tired old debased Calvinism of racial original sin. Whites threatened with minority status are far more likely to cast off elites playing Calvinist original sin (which requires MONEY to play) and instead ask THEY go to the front of the line. Instead of the back.
The reeson Africa is so screwed up is because of colonialism.
Whites get everyhtiong they desrve if People of COlor decide to seek justice.
"The reeson Africa is so screwed up is because of colonialism.
"Whites get everyhtiong they desrve if People of COlor decide to seek justice."
Yeah, that is it. Kill all the white folks so people of color can get back to their huts and cannibalism without white folks trying to teach them white-man crap like how to read and do math.
Apparently the Anonymous troll can't read. Unfortunately, I haven't checked in on this thread much today so I couldn't delete the comments before people responded.
Please do not respond this guy. I don't really see the point and I'd rather just delete his comments instead of anyone actually considering them seriously.
Imagine trying to understand the "impulses" that had one "react" to the tribe trying to annihilate him?
What "understanding" could possibly be discerned other than the understanding that it is all right to embrace self-annihilation and it is evil to reject it?
And this is where the atheist "conservative" comes up wholly lacking. Whether he is conscious of it or not, he is a self-annihilator. So now that it is self-evident that radical Liberal Orthodoxy IS the annihilation of "white" Supremacy; in fact, it is the annihilation of whites in general, the atheist "conservative" who is forced to seek refuge amongst "white supremacy" MUST NOT BRING his anti-Supremacy with him. But he does and so he brings nothing of force to the table as it pertains to the eradication of the white Western Man.
As long as this "new right" has as its subconscious aim to remain anti-Supremacy and hence anti-white Supremacy, then it is clear that the majority of this "new right" are merely white male liberals seeking refuge amongst "white supremacy" against the liberated tribalism of the "other."
You need a wordpress blog.
There is a "comment moderation" feature on those blogs that you can assign certain IP's to. That way you can review anything an annoying commenter posts before allowing it into your comments section.
One determined troll can derail a blog.
silly girl said:
"I tell my sons that if women ran the world, we would all be huddled naked next to a creek digging for worms to eat while we watch our children starve."
Do you really? Sounds weird. But, we're inching closer and closer to that very thing, so maybe you are right.
Blacks have the NAACP and the Urban league.
Hispanics have La Raza, and the "Hispanic Chamber of Commerce".
The Gays have the GLBT groups who are many in number.
The Asians have Asian-American-Civil-Rights and advocacy groups like this one, http://www.asianamerican.net/organizations.html
The Muslims have CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, and several other groups that are organized to advance their interests.
Jews have AIPAC, B'nai B'rith, ADL, etc.
But ordinary whites have what? Fringe groups whose names have been tarnished beyond repair. European-American whites will be needing to form some sort of "booster-club" for themselves at some point, where one can be a member and not suffer professional consequences. It should simply be an organization that attempts to help other whites achieve life-success and not be involved with denigrating other groups. Something like this will be forming in the future, and the left will be fighting its birth and existence every step of the way.
Another interesting aspect of the 1914 quote from Journal of Criminal Law and Police Science is the automatic assumption that American = White while Asiatics are foreign... The writers evidently didn't realize that America is a "proposition nation" not tied to any particular race.
The study doesn't really prove that racism is imbedded in our DNA. The sample is so small and there are no control groups. To truly determine that hypothesis, they'd need a group from each race that grew up amongst the other race. I'd bet that a white person who grew up in Asia would recognize different Asians just as quickly.
It would also be interesting if you did the same test with a group of bald, German guys or blonde, Swedish women. You'd probably take longer to recognize their faces too. Distinguishing characteristics would be harder to find since major characteristics are the same and your mind is used to relying on certain number of major differences in a group of people, or you're used to picking out the details of a group of similar-looking people.
But, it is funny to watch the author of the article try to backpedal and dance when their hopes and assumptions on human behaviour are dashed and they're forced to face what they knew deep down anyways.
Liberals hate white people:
As if we needed science to prove this. Over at TheEdge.org, Sam Harris says (you'll have to scroll down):
In a recent study of moral reasoning, subjects were asked to judge whether it was morally correct to sacrifice the life of one person to save one hundred, while being given subtle clues as to the races of the people involved. Conservatives proved less biased by race than liberals and, therefore, more even-handed. It turns out that liberals were very eager to sacrifice a white person to save one hundred non-whites, but not the other way around, all the while maintaining that considerations of race had not entered into their thinking. Observations of this sort are useful in revealing the biasing effect of ideology—even the ideology of fairness.
If you'd like to read the original study by David Pizarro you can find it here: http://journal.sjdm.org/9616/jdm9616.html
Walenty,
Then this means atheists hate white people as they are undoubtedly radical liberals. And there is, without doubt, evidence for this. But we also see white male atheists seeking refuge amongst "white supremacy" and bringing their anti-white Supremacy with them while proclaiming to represent a "new right."
The jury is still out about whether white male atheists can join forces with God-fearing Western Men when the former BRINGS NO FORCE at all to the table and the latter IS SEEKING Supremacy. If the atheist is fundamentally anti-Supremacy then he is relegated to inferiority on his own account. He then appears to be like an intellectually and spiritually detached individual who battles against the illusionary Western Man's theocracy while his fellow "principled" liberal agents are fully in command, revealed for their anti-white Supremacy, but still given deference even as it seeks the white male liberal's sacrificing self-annihilation.
Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and "assimilating" with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
nice blog... have a view of my blog when free.. http://www.lonelyreload.blogspot.com .. do leave me some comment / guide if can.. if interested can follow my blog...
Post a Comment