...(or run , or dance , or make sweet love...etc etc)
Congrats to Khotso Mokoena for finally breaking South Africa's medal curse at the olympics. I can't help but notice how racists are so quick to make the incorrect correlation between black people and violence (instead of between violence and poverty) but fall strangely silent when it's clear that black people are physically superior in sport. Hmmmmmmmmm.
38 comments:
Nope. The only differences between the races is the amount of melanin in the skin. This affects muscle growth. Simple as that. I'd say "good try" but it wasn't a good try at all.
Ah man, that uhuru-uni-brow-guru has posted some sick pics on their blog. Someone's brains shot out. It is totally sick. I can't look at it. It is too fucked up.
Main differences between humans are culture and beliefs, not skin colour.
Well, this country is very violent but no need to place pics like that.
It's more than the main difference. A human being is am empty canvas ...his entire ethical make up and value system is painted onto him by the socio-economical circles he is born into. If you want to change people you need to change the influences that affect them. Blaming genetics is not only wrong , it's counter productive.
Anyway , it's only an extremely tiny proportion of black people who are involved in any disfunctional behaviour. The very idea two people are related to the same act due to having the same skin color is ridiculous. By that logic all white people are the same as hitler and stalin. Eat that , biyaches.
And by the way....if the white people who visit my site are to go by , you guys are a lot like Hitler...
That's rich coming from a gender Nazi like you. In your case it takes one to know one.
Hmmm, not sure if my comment was posted due to this image thingy majiggy, so here we go again...
Rooster, its apparent that you and i do not see eye to eye on a number of issues. Difference of opinion is something that occurs, and i'll state right now that i'm not interested in a screaming match between who is right and who is wrong. What i am interested in, is finding out what makes you think that the only biological difference between the races is skin colour?
You see, when it comes to sensitive issues such as race, it seems to me that we humans have a tendency to cling to beliefs more for ideological reasons than for logical ones. To suggest that the races are unequal would create all sorts of practical problems to the way in which the world currently works. So rather than declare it as such, it is thus more convenient to believe a lie. Of course, human emotion being the amazing motivator that it is, dictates that instead of acknowledging the truth and risking the embarrassment of believing in a lie, we’ll continue to come up with all sorts of excuses to defend the lie so that we may carry on with our protected world perspective. It is a noble cause to defend the rights of all by stating that everyone is equal. But to argue that belief without acknowledging the truth is just plain moronic. My argument falls flat if the races are in fact equal, and I’ll be the first to concede that I’m not an expert in any particular field. But given the empirical evidence of technological achievements to date, the general advancement of civilisations, IQ statistics, crime statistics, athletics results, the existence of different medical treatments, and I’m sure a number of other results worth mentioning, I would have to say that the general body of evidence suggests otherwise. I believe that we might not be significantly advanced from a technological perspective to quantify exactly how different we are, but there is no doubt in my mind that a biological difference exists and it is not merely on the surface as you seem to suggest
UB
Anonymos . In the 19th century shortly after charles Darwin's theories became popular scientific fact , it still being the early stages of modernism , there was a theory going around that differences in human beings could be attributed to race (genetics , although they didn't quite understand genetics yet). Since then we've had 200 years to test this hypthesis , and in doing so we've soundly disproven it. The genetic make up of human beings is so similar and random that there are white south africans closer related to black south africans than north africans genetically. We also can easily observe how children regardless of race achieve or behave according to the socio economic background they are socialised in. A black child brought up in a lush cape town suburb is far more likely to achieve academically than a white child brought up in a squatter. This is a simple fact...race has got sweet fuck all to do with any of it. It's not a matter of opinion...it's a matter of scientific fact.
the different achievement and different speeds at which they have advanced are due to environmental factors...north africa and china had advanced civilisations while white people were still in caves...sub saharan africa developed slower because of being seperated by the rest of the world by the sahara etc...no one is better than anyone else , we're just victims of different circumstances that brought about our relative achievements.
Trust me buddy...read up a bit of sociology/anthropology/socio-biology etc...you're feel very silly for how misguided you've been all allong.
I'm not going to argue the effect of the environment on people, because quite clearly that plays a factor in determining who we are, and ultimately you judge a person by their actions not their race. What I am saying is that if genetics determine the amount of melanin contained in ones' skin, and quite clearly there are consistent differences between the races when it comes to melanin content, then whats to say that melanin content is the only consistent difference? What makes melanin content so special? To believe that its the only factor seems a little far-fetched, I think its far more likely that there are other consistent differences that occur between the races, but shhh, nobody wants to hear that...
UB
Funny how people will jump to defend women (who actually physiologically have smaller brains) as intellectual equals to men , blaming their "socialisation" for their shortcomings. However the same idiots will then argue that there are inherent differences between the "races" that determine potential. Ridiculous. There are far more significant differences between the genders than there are between the "races". Race is very much an imagenary concept. Intelligent people talk about "ethnicity" where we seperate people by their culture and language and not their skin color. Grow up you intellectual midgets.
Rooster clucked:
Race is very much an imagenary concept. Intelligent people talk about "ethnicity" where we seperate people by their culture and language and not their skin color. Grow up you intellectual midgets.
++++++++++++++++++++
Case in point:
Kill Whitey.
I hate white people.
And by the way....if the white people who visit my site are to go by , you guys are a lot like Hitler...
I wonder who came up with those racial classifications?
Potential is not something that can be measured at this stage, and possibly never will be. In fact, i'm inclined to believe that time travel might be easier to figure out :-) But if certain genes determine certain traits, and if certain traits have an effect on a person's ability to perform certain functions, then there's no debate as to whether certain genes have an influence on potential because quite clearly the link is there just waiting to be discovered. At this stage there is no general consensus one way or the other, so perhaps we cannot quantify that difference, but to believe it doesn't exist seems to be a move away from the truth. Once again, melanin cannot be the only consistent difference between the 'races'. Its the most obvious one, and easily identifiable, but it cannot be the only one. Your arguement appears to be that we are all just shades of grey, which might hold some water theoretically, although i'm personally inclined to believe that glass is half empty. But then moving from the theoretical into real world observations, why is it that the white 'race' has blown all the others out of the water when it comes to civilisational progress? If its not genes, but rather culture as you suggest, then following that logic its not far fetched to believe that 'white' culture is better for the advancement of the human race. Without it, the human race may in fact regress, and isn't that a scary thought
UB
If there is no genetic difference between the races, if race truly is an illusion, explain forensic and ancestral DNA analysis.
Today we can reliably indicate in which specific area the majority of an individual's ancestors came from by DNA analysis.
The more you deny this and other evidence, the more you confirm the reality of differing levels of intelligence.
What does forensic and ancestral DNA analysis have to do with concept of race? Do a Google search and read the American Anthropological Association's 1998 statement on race. I have also posted it on SAS on the "Darwinist" thread - the one that discusses your idea that people are naturally tribal.
I never said there are no genetic differences , I said no differences that are significant enough to alter behaviour on a grand scale. Look this has been a scientific question for 200 years (nature versus nurture) and the result has been out for about 20.....nurture won......catch up.
Rooster, you are a narrow-minded ill-informed loser. Whether or not females have smaller brains compared to males, I have more synaptic connections compared to you and the postgraduate science degrees to prove it. This makes me intellectually more superior to you. It's ironic how you always find my comments funny and even changed the blog's background on my suggestion, even though I'm female...
Men and women are 99.99 percent identical genetically but no one suggests that men and women are identical.
What are you talking about? Whites have always dominated the high jump!
I think you will find that men and women differ greatly biologically as far as the effect that our endocrine systems (big factors in our emotional lives) are concerned. On the other hand the endocrine system is identitical between every known "race". Compare apples with apples.
Actually black cubans have always dominated the high jump. If whites have dominated it's only due to the effects of training and technique present in more affluent countries. It just reinforces my view about differences beeeing due to culture. God , do I really need to be teaching you people 100 year old social science ?
also women have smaller brains than men , whilst men of different races have brains of the same size. Size does matter folks..... women need to accept that as far as brain size and white boys need to accept it as far as winkies go......accomodate , assimulate and adapt.
The words "tertiary education" don't mean shit. I can also have 50 or more diplomas in secretarial/electrician/plumber/computer courses after my secondary education and call it "tertiarty education". Do you have any degrees? Postgraduate degrees? Men may have larger brain, may be stronger, etc. But not all men are better than all women. The same goes for the races and people. Some are better than others, regardless of race/gender. Don't generalize. What SAS wrote about IQ's sure is shit. Who knows where those researchers got their subjects from. I'm not reading any of those references, frankly it doesn't interest me and from experience I can tell you that Science, on average, is flawed. I bet those experiments can't be reproduced. You are just as full of shit as SAS. Just grabbing any shit you can get your hands on and putting it in your blog. You need to read up more on the topic.
In short , yes. I have a degree. If you want to debate to what extent men are better than women , please do it on my other blog. If it saw some traffic I'd be more inspired to take it seriously and vamp it up.
You've missed the whole anology. Calling someone a dumbass when you've failed to understand their point and context.....not the best way to not make a fool out of yourself. That advice is free.
I'm certainly not racist , and I'm not sexist. I't perfectly obvious that men are better than women. That's just an observation based on fact, not a political belief interested in disenfranchising anyone (like for example..feminism).
Rooster,
With all due respect , your admiration of me is not an issue of importance and I want you to be aware that the way you phased the sentence can easily be taken as patronizing. However, I do not think that that was your intention or your motive, so as far as I’m concerned its all good. In fact, by me trying to make you aware of how I feel, I may have fallen into the same trap myself and that is neither my motive nor my intention Moving on – no doubt I disagree with what you’ve said and if you’ll indulge me, I will attempt an explanation of what I mean.
‘Race’ may not be the issue here, perhaps grouping of people is more what we’re debating here and whenever I refer to race in this comment, that will be what I’m talking about. Due to the ability of humans to interbreed, we may in fact be of one race (and I’ll let the scientists continue their work and debate as necessary). What is clear though, is that humans can be grouped according to similar traits they may have. I’m not sure how deep the rabbit hole goes, but no doubt skin colour is one factor, and possibly it might get as far as genetic DNA to help define, but not necessarily limit you to, being a part of a specific ‘race’. I contend that there are differences on that basis, that a person can be broadly categorised into belonging to a specific ‘race’. Due to interbreeding, there may be circumstances where humans belong to several of the groups. However, certain groups of people have remained relatively homogenous such that specific genes must show up consistently in their ‘race’. These genes may show up in other ‘races’ (and certainly are able to be transferred of sorts), but perhaps not as consistently or perhaps in smaller concentrations (if that’s possible - layman knowledge). Genes that determine colour (skin, eyes, hair etc…), texture (specifically hair), structure (skeletal, muscular etc...). I’m also of the opinion that this may extend into intelligence and even emotional response. I contend that the environment does have its part to play, but I feel that with respect to emotion specifically, a person feels the way they do (a physiological response to an external stimuli) that in some way is based on culture (I would say primarily) but no doubt there are genes that must be able to control the intensity of that feeling, i.e. the physiological response in the body (perhaps why some people remain cool, calm and collected, whereas others pee in there pants at the sign of danger). I think there is a link between the environment and genes – I think that the one shapes the other and vice versa. I believe this allows broad groupings to be possible after x-many years of evolution. I also contend that the social or cultural environment which we live in has a profound effect in shaping who we are as individuals (with reference to black Britons behaving British). Behaviour is essentially learnt, but I think its a layer in addition to a physiological layer. I believe there are underlying differences in our physiological make-up that make us more prone to reacting in a certain manner (which may or may not agree with our culture). Culture may cause us to feel something (ie may cause us to feel offense), there is a physiological effect in the body (as determined by genetics), and culture and personal choice may then determine the reaction from the individual. Until science gives an extremely conclusive answer (based on truth and not political agenda), I cannot change my belief that certain groups of humans display different characteristics and the easiest method of identification is based on skin colour – it’s a stereotype, for sure, but it does seem to be accurate as a general rule if one takes a look at the world. I still make it a point of judging a person by their actions and not their ‘race’, as that is my ultimate guide, but I will never accept that we are all the same. I believe that certain ‘races’ are further along the evolutionary ladder than certain others when it comes to specific genes. To what extent the difference is significant depends on what we’re talking about. I believe that you are of the opinion that we are all equal – an opinion and not a fact (fact is something I’ll let the scientists continue to debate) and I believe you’ve made an assumption as to whether a difference is significant (again an opinion and not a fact). I can understand why you have this opinion and I believe that your heart is in the right place – again, not trying to sound patronising, just my genuine opinion Intelligence seems to be one of great importance in this world (as there does seem to be a link between it and general achievement when looking at the ‘races’ and what they have achieved) so I’ll leave you with these little items associated with Richard Lynn and some of the work he’s done (as plugged off your favourite site, WSAS ). I’m not one for quotes and leaving references etc (its too politicised a topic that it may in fact just be what I call ‘library-bullshit’) but I do think its interesting and would like to know what you think (my ramblings as well as the quotes)…
“The position of environmentalists that over the course of some 100,000 years peoples separated by geographical barriers in different parts of the world evolved into ten different races with pronounced genetic differences in morphology, blood groups and the incidence of genetic diseases, and yet have identical genotypes for intelligence, is so improbable that those who advance it must either be totally ignorant of the basic principles of evolutionary biology or else have a political agenda to deny the importance of race. Or both “
“His conclusions are that the East Asians (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) have the highest mean IQ at 105. These are followed by the Europeans (IQ 100). Some way below these are the Inuit (Eskimos) (IQ 91), South East Asians (IQ 87), Native American Indians (IQ 87), Pacific Islanders (IQ 85), South Asians and North Africans (IQ 84). Well below these come the sub-Saharan Africans (IQ 67) followed by the Australian Aborigines (IQ 62). The least intelligent races are the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert together with the Pygmies of the Congo rain forests (IQ 54)”
UB
PS: hehehe, just read the last few comments now - heated topic with some good points, but too much emotion flying around :-)
Err, btw, everytime you see '?' and its not a question, its supposed to be a smiley face - composed the comment in outlook and just copied across but lost in translation I guess. Reading my comment now it really loses its effect :-)
UB
Ub...while i disagree , once again at least you offered an argument rather than spitting the dummy and spewing hate without any context... I do agree that we leave it to science to affirmate our positions. i believe science has affirmated out positions. Any correlation between race and intelligence has no scientific basis....that hypthesis has been tested and failed consistantly. I'm afriad while you've invested a lot of ime in your post it's misinformed and undercooked and with all due respect I'm not going to go into why you are wrong on a friday with the weekend looming. But seeing as you've formulated your response in an intelligent and thoughtfull manner i'll do you the respect of answering your top threre arguments as to why you beloieve genetics (in relation to race) are such a strong determiner of behaviour that they overide culture.
so please tell me your top three reasons you correlate intelligence with race , and on what scientific basis...
'sup rooster - busy day yesterday, but I’m back:
‘Any correlation between race and intelligence has no scientific basis....that hypthesis has been tested and failed consistantly’
Firstly, says who? No doubt you can quote me many references to the material, but I’m pretty sure I can quote as many references that suggest something otherwise. Basically, my point is that anything that you have to offer on your blog is an opinion – it is your opinion, based on the opinion of several others, and can never be taken as the ultimate truth. Similarly, what I offer here is only my opinion, and I will not claim it to be the ultimate truth. Do you acknowledge this?
Secondly, I believe the hypothesis to be invalid and that facts in this argument are merely semantic in nature. I believe the logic of the debate to be of more importance at this stage in human knowledge. Why do I believe this? Because I believe the scientists themselves cannot come to a definite conclusion about this topic, despite your opinion. You claim that “that hypthesis has been tested and failed consistantly”. Quite frankly, there is a long list of scientists who would argue otherwise and have shown it in their own research. Scientific opinion remaining constant, there are 2 possible scenarios to consider: 1. some scientists would offer an argument that it has ‘been tested and failed consistently’ (and correct me if I’m wrong, but this is apparently what you claim), 2. other scientists would offer the argument that is has ‘been tested and has not failed consistently’. Regardless of what you or I may claim, either 1 or 2, it may only be claimed as valid if we go with the assumption that our scientists have all the answers to this topic in the first place. The tests rely on (and are limited by) this assumption, and thus the argument isn’t about the conclusion to the hypothesis, its about whether or not the hypothesis is valid in the first place. Do you acknowledge that the validity of the hypothesis relies on the assumption that our scientists are far along in their knowledge and research to actually be able to offer an answer at all?
Thirdly, this therefore centers the debate around whether or not science currently has all the answers. We appear to be on opposite sides of the fence here. Your claim seems to be that they have enough knowledge to give the hypothesis a sense of validity, and thus, you have placed all your eggs in this one basket. This also suggests that you have placed an incredible amount of trust (and I’m being kind here) in what you have read, and therefore in what you believe to be true. I believe that the underlying assumption (and therefore you) are wrong. I cannot rely completely on the scientific findings to make up my mind. I claim that given the massive debate with expert opinions coming through from either side (ie, just the fact that the scientist cannot themselves agree) means I need to go beyond pure science if I am to form a belief. I have to go with my gut and my gut suggests that there is an awful lot of evidence to back the statement that ‘we are all equal, just some more equal than others’. My gut suggests that one of the factors responsible for the difference between people is genetics. My gut suggests that genes are responsible for all physiological aspects of humans (the matter that makes up our 3D existence on earth, as well as how the body operates (physiological responses) so therefore intangible aspects such as intelligence, emotion etc…). My gut suggests that humans have evolved according to the environment they have been subjected to. My gut suggests this evolution has shaped our genes, giving them a distinctive flavour. My gut suggests that these flavours allow for a broad-based grouping of humans, similar to what we define as ‘race’. Therefore, there is a correlation between ‘race’ and genes (ie intelligence). I believe that if there is no scientific basis for the correlation between race and intelligence, its far more likely that this is due to a link that we are unaware of (and therefore cannot presently measure) and not due to a link that doesn’t exist, period. To deny this means I can safely assume your agenda is political in nature, and not necessarily truth
UB
Hi Ub and welcome back.
There is no doubt that genetics plays a part in INDIVIDUAL potential. The genes determine your physical size , the effeciency with which your sensory system loads data into your brain , the size and inherent potential of your brain , the size and effectiveness of your organs , the endocrine system and how it's emotional effects function and filters through and distorts information. I could go on and on. The problem with your hypothesis is that you suppose different races differ genetically in a manner that affects their potential. Wrong.
Let's use the metaphor of a painting. Your genetics determine your canvas ....it's size , how much can be painted on it , the quality of the fabric etc....the next factor that will determine the quality of the painting will be the immediete geographical environment....is there access to much paint ? Is the environment hostile ? What kind of challenges will the painting have to adapt to in order to survive etc ...finally the painting in dropped into a room full of artists and ends up pretty much being the result of whoever it encounters. A painting dropped into a room of picasso's ends up a piccaso , a painting dropped into a room of monet , well...you get the idea...
The slight difference in quality of the canvas , while a factor , is hardly ever going to be significant enough to overide or undermine the quality of the artist it encounters significantly enough for it to be an important part in the process. And even if it was , bad canvases are spread amongst all "races" as well as good ones....there is not a race of bad canvases....i mean sure....the chinese aren't going to make a high jump team etc ....but beyond these phenotypical differences our intellectual and social potentials transends genetics and is the stuff of "culture" .
But does it play significant enough of a role to
I see you deliberately avoided my questions there, now why is that? :-)
Yes, I think I see what you’ve been saying. Your philosophy is that the individual does not automatically inherit the properties of the different race groups, because essentially there is only one group, the human race. Look, I think this is a fair assessment and I think you would find a lot of supporters even in ‘right-wing’ circles that would agree that the potential of the individual is not limited by the group. Where you and I differ in philosophy, and possibly where friction exists between you and the supposed ‘right-wing’, is how race matters are applied in the world we live in. Studies on the race differences take the race groups to be the sum of its parts, ie the individuals that make this up. It’s a view of looking at the empirical evidence that is available to us and I assure you most people see it this way - they identify with their ‘race’ based on appearances. Taking this view, its very clear that differences exist, and the differences are clearly significant enough.
I then see potential and evolution in a similar light. Certain ‘races’ have evolved differently – we may all be part of the human race, but certain groups have evolved differently giving them different characteristics (and thus, strengths and weaknesses). When it comes to sport, the black African has an edge. When it comes to civilisational progress, the Caucasian has an edge. Asians seem to be under-achievers at this stage of the game but given their recent take at the Olympics and their re-colonisation of Africa, its probably just a matter of time before they pull ahead. Btw, if the culture of a group is made up of the individuals in it, and individuals are a product of their genetics, then does it not follow that culture is in some way affected by genetics?
The fundamental problem to be had with you by myself and the supposed 'right-wing' is not over the science, its that you are essentially batting for the wrong team. You might argue that there is no team (as per your science), but f*ckit rooster, take a look at the world around you and realise that there is such a thing as different teams. You are living in a bubble of your own imagination because even if you are right, 99.99% of people think along ‘racial’ lines. If you truly believe that we are all one, why do you spend your time fighting Caucasians and defending all others? You seem like a sharp lad and I would rather have you on my side than against me, but make no mistake, you are an enemy of civilisation and western culture. You are doing your part to break it down. That’s obviously your right to pick and choose what you do with your life, but what on earth do you think is then going to replace this system that you fight? And (I’m assuming you are white here) do you think that anyone from the new order will give a damn that you helped in the fight? Hell no, son – they will look at you and laugh, you useful fool. If you truly want to make a difference on this earth, then try fighting for Caucasians where their rights have been violated by oppressive regimes that work on the basis of race. Even if you are not white, at least you will not have compromised your apparent beliefs, and you will be doing your part to preserve a culture and civilisation that advances the human race far more than the others. Learn to love the skin you're in :-) (assuming you're white of course, otherwise just love western culture and fight to preserve that)
UB
I don't think I've avoided the question. All the evidence suggests that if you take an individual and put him into an environment (culture) they will grow up to achieve and behave proportionatelly to those in the environment around them. Race is not a significant part of this equation. A black schooled in a private school with a supporting home environment is likely to perform much better than a white child whose grown up in an unsupportive environment/poor school.
regarding the "new world order" ....now I do believe in the militiary industrial complex and big banking etc and their big influence and manipulation of the media , war mongering etc. However as a psychologist I simply see it as the sociopaths natural tendency to rise to the top of society , unhinged to the regular laws and empathy that keeps regular people from abusing others. I simply don't but into this right white anti zionist bilderburg group version of it all. I know there is some thought in the right wing that there is a conspiracy to disempower white people in favor of the more obedient chinese for example...I see no evidence for this other than in the neurotic minds of mad men.
You most certainly did, and you continue to avoid the issue now. I have asked several questions over several posts which you have failed to acknowledge. Perhaps you missed them (play dumb if you need too), no matter, I am now only particularly interested in your answer to two of them, so please at least offer an answer this time. Once again (and without 'new world order' paranoia references so that maybe its a little more palatable for you as you seem to lose interest very quickly)...
The fundamental problem to be had with you by myself is not over the science, its that you are essentially batting for the wrong team. You might argue that there is no team (as per your science), but f*ckit rooster, take a look at the world around you and realise that there is such a thing as different teams. You are living in a bubble of your own imagination because even if you are right, 99.99% of people think along ‘racial’ lines. If you truly believe that we are all one, WHY DO YOU SPEND YOUR TIME FIGHTING CAUCASIANS WHILE DEFENDING ALL OTHERS? You seem like a sharp lad and I would rather have you on my side than against me, but make no mistake, you are an enemy of civilisation and western culture. You are doing your part to break it down. That’s obviously your right to pick and choose what you do with your life, but WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THEN GOING TO BE THE REPLACEMENT? If you truly want to make a difference on this earth, then try fighting for Caucasians where their rights have been violated by oppressive regimes that work on the basis of race. Even if you are not white, at least you will not have compromised your apparent beliefs, and you will be doing your part to preserve a culture and civilisation that advances the human race far more than the others.
Btw, one other thing that your simple analysis fails to take into consideration regarding the black and white kid in different environments scenario. As per real world observations, the average black is not as intelligent as the average white, no matter what environment they are in. Blame whatever cause you want too, it does not take anything away from this fact
UB
PS: I have no knowledge of illuminati, bilderburger, zionist, or any other such conspiracy theory. I simply look around me at what is happening and make my own assumptions, whether they are in line with some existing theory is purely coincidental...
I do bat for a team : humanity. I don't align myself and define myself based on something so silly and random as skin color. As a libetarian I put full value in the individual and his personal responsibility , but in order to sucessfully understand that as an individual you need to understand the context with in which you exist.
Kak man :-)
You've picked humanity as your squad, but from that you've picked a team, and its not caucasians (not even a quota player :-)). Look, in all seriousness now, I think that in order for us (myself and other readers) to fully understand where you are coming from, its important that we get a feel for the motivation behind your beliefs, and I think the next couple of questions really address that. So one more time now (I don't think I can simplify this any further...), I would really appreciate it if you could answer the following:
I am interested to know why you spend your time fighting caucasians? And secondly, how do you justify this as furthering humanity?
UB
Post a Comment