ADT            I am a racist                                                    Update 5 November 2006

To start with, a definition.  I believe a racist is someone who believes that there are differences between the races, and that those differences affect the abilities of those races.  The PC-loons (PCLs) don't like this.  They want the world to be different from what they find before their eyes, and try to convince everyone else that it is like they would like it to be.  In the pursuit of this chimera, they try to heap opprobrium on those who believe differently.  But despite this, I have to say  I am a racist  I am neither ashamed or proud of this situation; I just believe that it is the truth.  The dogma that "all races are equal" is a self-evident nonsense.  Now, don't get me wrong, I don't believe that Hitler got it right either.  He only looked at part of the evidence.  I try to form a theory using all the evidence that I have at my disposal.

I try to be a realist too, and am willing to listen to arguments of all persuasions.  It is my belief that pure intelligence is extraordinarily difficult to measure, and other methods have to be deployed to draw up a list of the IQ of different races.  Some people may argue that I am looking for a sort-of fight,  No, I am just interested in the diversity of mankind  And below, I give some reasons for coming to the conclusion that I have.  My conclusion is:
1    The top race for simple IQ are the Oriental People
2    The second lot is the lot that I belong to.  That is the Caucasoid peoples
3    And the bottom group are the  Negroid peoples

A certain Professor Eysink (please forgive the spelling if I am wrong) in the 1960s drew up a list of the IQ of all the racial groups.  The PCLs screamed blue murder accusing him of all sorts of heinous acts.  Using his conclusions, I started to think about the whole subject.  He simply used IQ tests that had been drawn up for white Americans.  The PCLs probably had a point that black boys would not have had the education that would allow them to compete fairly.

Besides taking Eysink's data. I have looked at the history of black Africa and the  early days of China.  China had the first real civilisation on earth,  Black Africa has never had one.  And why did the white races colonise the blacks and not the other way round?  The development of writing also shows where the brains are.  None of these questions has a categorical answer, but on the basis of probability, the Chinese are likely to be much brighter than the black African, as are the white European peoples too.

But simple IQ is certainly not the whole story.  Just look at the Semites; they are essentially one race that is divided into two religious groups: the Arabs and the Jews.  From this I say that they will be equal in their IQ.  However. they provide a wonderful example of how one race can be divided so noticeably.  Part of my experience of life is that I spent almost a year in Syria working with their army.  The Arabs are a charming people -- and I sincerely mean that, but they are so incompetent in all matters engineering, that it is perfectly obvious why the Israelis won the 7-day war against the massed ranks of the Arab nation.  But I also believe that high intelligence can be a negative factor.  Take Iraq for example.  Every single Arab there seems to have his own idea of what to do, and it took someone like Saddam to pull the whole country together

Don't get diverted by things like suicide bombers, our lot were just as absurd not too many years back.  People got burned at the stake simply to save their eternal soul.  And because it appeared that the sun went round the earth, it gave the early church the opportunity to say we were at the hub of the universe.  Galileo wasn't a fool, he didn't want his soul saving just to prove something he knew to be false.  I can't imagine the threats changed his mind. he just kept his head down and let posterity show the absurdity of his tormentors.

The example of the Jews and the Arabs shows that pure IQ is far from the answer to success.  To be successful, you need a lot of other attributes; hard work being one.  If any reader wants to see my evidence for this last set of statements, just have a look at page ADL of this blog

I make my deductions on who is at the top, and who is at the bottom, as follows:
A great deal of pure blind luck must have taken place during and after man came down from the trees in Africa,  But from Africa he emigrated north and east.  Emigration to the New World came much later.  China shows evidence of being the first true civilisation.  They were ahead of the Egyptians and the Greeks. and, of course, much further ahead of the Inca and other New World peoples.  (There is an alternative theory that man developed from the monkey in a number of different places and times, but I will use the generally accepted theory that man originated in Africa)

Why did these original Africans become brighter than those they left behind?  Darwin has the answer.  The original African environment was benign in food supply and climate.  In the more severe climes, if you weren't bright enough to learn how to survive, your genes simply were not passed on.  A very early Scandinavian knew a lot more about how to live in a cold climate than a very early African.  The latter probably didn't even know what ice or snow was.  Had he suddenly have met these, he probably would have frozen to death.  And his family line would have stopped right there.

Now the African in modern European society manifests the characteristics I have just outlined.  But for reasons I do not know, the black man in the white society seems to be superior in sporting matters.  At many levels the black man seems to be superior to the white man in sport,  This really upset Hitler when he stated that a black athlete in the 1931 Games would be beaten by an Aryan German.  What, I believe, can be deduced from the evidence, and it is that the differences between black and white races are small, and can only be demonstrated using statistical methods.  There are certainly some black people who have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that they are excellent in what they do.  Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell are just two examples of folk of that fit that thought.   Nelson Mandela is also probably brighter than a lot of whites

So from the practical aspect of life there seems to be little to choose between a black man and a white man.  You have to make a choice using other criteria, as you would do if you had to choose between two white men, or a white man and a yellow man.

As for me, I am content to be somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.  And another interesting question: why are left-handed people generally brighter than right-handed ones?  My younger brother was left-handed and he was certainly brighter than me.  He made grammar school, I failed the 11+ miserably.

But when measuring the IQ of racial groups, other factors have to be considered.  The Semite peoples are from the same original stock, but just look at the difference in achievements of the Jews and the Arabs.  I am convinced that it is the religion of the two groups that separates them.  Again, look at my Memories of Syria on page ADL to see what I mean.