What makes the Germans so successful?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

If you want to take this further, this link -albeit from 1998- justifies Proposition 13 as a tax break that encouraged economic growth:
http://www.cato.org/publications/com...en-now-forever

This link, on the other hand, argues that illegal immigrants have been part of the economic success of Texas, and claims legalizing their status would benefit the USA:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/have-...-to-its-knees/

I don't see how problems in a state as complex as California can be reduced to illegal immigration; it is likely that state government and the costs of its polcies in education, and particularly prisons, are part of the problem. This third link on Folsom Prison makes chilling reading when you calculate the cost of the Three Strikes And You're Out policy. You have to task yourself if shoplifting really is worth a life sentence.
http://www.npr.org/2009/08/13/111843...s-prison-blues

---

Cheers for the articles Stavros they make for some interesting reading, I have seen a lot of similar stuff out their about Immigrants adding value to societies and helping them to grow, I mean you only have to look at colonialism and the slave trade which was basically, the ruthless forced form of immagration and as was the case with the slave trade people being kidnapped and dragged to said foreign country, then made to work massively long hours for pittance or in real terms for enough food and water to keep them working, but at the end of all that misery and suffering hey presto you get all the tough shitty labourious jobs done and a gleaming new country that works to boot.

The only differences between the slaves of yesterday and the slaves sorry I mean Immigrants of today is that one lot were dragged over here kicking and screaming and paid in food and water while the other lot (through lack of options partly due to American geo political interference) come for meagre wages (i.e they are wage slaves) due the hopelessness of their situation and in return are almost as royally exploited as the previous slaves before them, they also have the added burden of the cleverdicks at the top laying media brainwash blame on them, so said cleverdicks in effect create a win win in that they get the labour and the votes when it comes to polling time as they blame their fuck ups (whilst lining theirs and their friends greedy pockets) on the easy targets and promising that they will clean the "Immigrant problem" up and they continue to perpetuate the Bs and the voters continue to be ignorant and never learn.

Education in society and effectual rehabilitation in prisons is key to solving a lot of problems as shown in that "Folsom prison" before and after link but at the end of the day prison and crime is its own industry, solve most of that then what happens to the Police, Judges, Wardens, Prison guards, attorneys, lawyers, solicitors, barrister, clerks, admin teams, human resources people, business and finance peoples and all other people associated within the crime industry. Solve crime and then you put all of these people out of a job where do they go??? Also having crime creates certain fear factors in society and it can then be used to bring in all sorts of draconian measures which are used to enslave us all to varying degrees depending upon whereabouts on the ladder of society we are.

Its all fixed and its all dileberate, it affects the 95% majority in negative ways but for those that run it, it works to their benefit and is perfectly designed for them, the real power and a fair and just society could be in the hands of the majority but divided as we stand we will never come to realise it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

And has anybody here mentioned US economic aid in the postwar years which poured into germany to help rebuild it's economy? Millions of US dollars between 1948 and the end of 1951.

---

Not sure about Germany but as was the case with the UK the money that flowed to us from America was not aid it was a begged loan and the debt repayment on that loan was so massive that the Uk only finished paying it off around a few years ago, so I have never understood this love America thing as they shafted the Uk when it was at its weakest.

Don't get me wrong it is not American Joe public I am griping about it is the ruthless greedy establishment at the top that I cannot stand.

I figure any loans America was handing out around that time probably had massive loan repayment profits attached to them, plus trading perks and do us favours perks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

And the UK, and Italy, and Greece...but in addition to the high volume of US capital that was crucial to economic growth in Europe after 1945, European capital was instrumental in the economic growth of the USA before and after 1945...why the subsequent experience of economic life should be so different must be due to non-economic factors, such as politics. Which is why it was absurd of onmyknees to use one aspect of the economy in California to explain the whole.

---

Their are lots of factors to explain the differences in economic life one of which is that outstanding loans (incoming collateral) has dried up whilst and with the emergence of China their is less of a reliance on America as the central hub which it once was.

Add to this American expenditure going through the roof on wars although not a problem if you sit at the top as you own most of the oil, gas, and weapons companies and all your friends have shares in said companies so you all stand to make a killing literally whilst your citizens are burdened with debt.

Put into the mix the massive credit debt built up with China and the fact that in reality China now needs to be kept afloat or else this whole bubble will burst then you will see some of the factors influencing todays economic landscape.

Also add the flaw that those at the very top hoard accumalated wealth and do not let it flow back into the economies, plus the fact that world markets are not really tangible and can be manipulated via media brainwash as a lot of it is based around human psychology so when these tools are used in conjunction things can look be made to look better or worse than they really are.

These are some of the reasons why the world looks the way it does but the reality is how bad or good is it really when it can be so easily distorted think smoke and mirrors.

Capitalism is not sustainable in order for something to keep growing, then that must mean in order for that growth somewhere down the chain eventually losses are going to occur and growth is eventually going to stop and will turn into loss, shrinkage and eventual collapse is it actually happening or really as bad as being portrayed who knows.

Joe you are right about the complexities of the loan that Gordon Brown paid off in 2006, but the UK didn't really have much choice in 1947, and if you were to factor in the investment capital that flowed from the UK to the US you could say that apart from the lawyers both sides got a good deal -a better deal than the debt Haiti had to pay to France for over 100 years for example. I am not sure about your other comments, for example US firms own less than 5% of the world's oil and gas, 90% of which is owned by state owned oil companies in the Middle East and Latin America; the question how long capitalism can last is an intriguing one, I have read that there has been a renewed interest in the works of Karl Marx since 2008, which is odd in a way because so many of the conditions in which capitalism operates have changed beyond anything he could imagine. Capitalism has an ability to innovate its way out of crises, although I think modern technology relies less on manual labour and that is where the real challenges are, globally.

ANCHOR BABIES
County’s Monthly Welfare Tab for Illegal Aliens $52 Million

http://www.themoralliberal.com/2010/...ns-52-million/

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

If you want to take this further, this link -albeit from 1998- justifies Proposition 13 as a tax break that encouraged economic growth:
http://www.cato.org/publications/com...en-now-forever

This link, on the other hand, argues that illegal immigrants have been part of the economic success of Texas, and claims legalizing their status would benefit the USA:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/have-...-to-its-knees/

I don't see how problems in a state as complex as California can be reduced to illegal immigration; it is likely that state government and the costs of its polcies in education, and particularly prisons, are part of the problem. This third link on Folsom Prison makes chilling reading when you calculate the cost of the Three Strikes And You're Out policy. You have to task yourself if shoplifting really is worth a life sentence.
http://www.npr.org/2009/08/13/111843...s-prison-blues

---

$22 billion annually to provide illegal immigrants with welfare perks that include food assistance programs such as free school lunches in public schools, food stamps and a nutritional program (known as WIC) for low-income women and their children


County’s Monthly Welfare Tab for Illegal Aliens $52 Million/month

As the mainstream media focuses on a study that reveals a sharp decline in the nation’s illegal immigrant population, monthly welfare payments to children of undocumented aliens increased to $52 million in one U.S. county alone.

The hoopla surrounding last week’s news that the annual flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. dropped by two-thirds in the past decade overlooked an important matter; the cost of educating, incarcerating and medically treating illegal aliens hasn’t decreased along with it, but rather skyrocketed to the tune of tens of billions of dollars annually.

Those figures don’t even include the extra millions that local municipalities dish out on welfare payments to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, commonly known as anchor babies. In Los Angeles County alone that figure increased by nearly $4 million in the last year, sticking taxpayers with a whopping $52 million tab to provide illegal immigrants’ offspring with food stamps and other welfare benefits for just one month.


About a quarter of the county’s welfare and food stamp issuances go to parents who reside in the United States illegally and collect benefits for their anchor babies, according to the figures from L.A. County’s Department of Social Services. Nationwide, Americans pay around $22 billion annually to provide illegal immigrants with welfare perks that include food assistance programs such as free school lunches in public schools, food stamps and a nutritional program (known as WIC) for low-income women and their children
http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...stion-1062069/
http://www.theamericanresistance.com...or_babies.html

8 out of the 12 baby's born in the USA or born to illegal

laws now or focusing on having no automatic citizen ship for kids born to parents of illegals

http://www.theamericanresistance.com...or_babies.html



http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...stion-1062069/


Children born to non-US citizens could be barred from American birth certificates

One of the politicians behind Arizona's controversial immigration law has called for children born to non-US citizens to be barred from getting American birth certificates.

Arizona has been praised and criticized for cracking down on illegal immigration, prompting other states to consider similar bills and energizing immigration groups.

The state passed a bill that allows law enforcement to ask for proof of citizenship from a person they believe could be illegally in the country.

So it seems the state will continue in the forefront of the debate as the same man who sponsored the first legislation is now pushing to expand it. Republican state Senator Russell Pearce will introduce a bill later this year to target so-called "anchor babies," which he says are used by illegal immigrants to stay in the country.

Under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, any child born in the country has an automatic right to citizenship regardless of their parents' legal status.

"I want to bring a little common sense and integrity back," he told the Daily Telegraph. "It's illegal to enter the United States and yet we are going to create the greatest inducement to breaking our law, and entering illegally, and that's making your baby a citizen."
+24 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...tificates.html

ANCHOR BABIES

http://www.americanpatrol.com/09-FEA...OPULATION4.jpg

http://www.americanpatrol.com/09-FEA...OPULATION4.jpg

Hispanics "accounted for more than one-half of all US population growth."

America's going non-white! It's been long reported that the U.S. is projected to be minority-majority by 2042. Now researchers from Cornell and the University of New Hampshire say, "for America's children and youth, that future is here already": In the Census year that ended in July of 2008, 48 percent of the children born in the U.S.A. were from minority-group parents.
The growth is mainly among Hispanic parents. Between 2000 and 2008, says the report by Professors Kenneth Johnson and Daniel Lichter, Hispanics "accounted for more than one-half of all US population growth."

Also, while the nation's African-American population is still "concentrated disproportionately in the largest and oldest US central cities," Hispanics are spreading to the hinterlands; the report says the Hispanic population "is dispersing rapidly -- though selectively -- from traditional gateway cities in the Southwest," not only to surrounding suburbs, but also "rapidly in many rural parts of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, North Carolina, and Georgia."

Professors Johnson and Lichter suggest the growth is due to an influx of fertile Hispanic women. They're having an average of 2.99 babies apiece, while white women are having 1.87.

Please show this report to an old bigot near you. Then play 'em some Black Flag!




http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runnin...nic_kids_4.php




http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Joe you are right about the complexities of the loan that Gordon Brown paid off in 2006, but the UK didn't really have much choice in 1947, and if you were to factor in the investment capital that flowed from the UK to the US you could say that apart from the lawyers both sides got a good deal -a better deal than the debt Haiti had to pay to France for over 100 years for example. I am not sure about your other comments, for example US firms own less than 5% of the world's oil and gas, 90% of which is owned by state owned oil companies in the Middle East and Latin America; the question how long capitalism can last is an intriguing one, I have read that there has been a renewed interest in the works of Karl Marx since 2008, which is odd in a way because so many of the conditions in which capitalism operates have changed beyond anything he could imagine. Capitalism has an ability to innovate its way out of crises, although I think modern technology relies less on manual labour and that is where the real challenges are, globally.

---

Yes very true the Uk had no choice in asking for the loan but it was the way the yanks went about things that gets me, initially they refused to help saying it was in effect beyond their means to do so, then Britain had to go back for a second time with begging bowl in hand pleading then I think it was Henry kissinger saw an opportunity to exploit Britain and convinced Yanks to do the deal in return that Britain agreed to some very unfavourable terms one of which was the convertibility of Sterling which ended up being considerable devalued,

America loves to enslave countries through debt so yes on paper US firms may own low percentage stakes in a lot of the Middle Eastern countries but they are very clever about who really owns that oil, take Iraq for instance as soon as that war ensued what was the first thing they did, that's right they secured the oil refineries and pipelines, next when Saddam was ousted they said they had to take control of the production and sale of the oil but that all the proceeds would go back to Iraq, ok you may think fair enough until you realise that America was solely in charge of who that oil was sold to and how much it sold the oil for, meaning America sold oil to America at a knock down price and elitists profited massively.

Another example of who really owns anything is look at the current situation with Iran now I think they are the 9th largest supplier of oil yet America has managed to put sanctions on that country and stop a lot of its supplies being sold. Luckily for Iran China and India are happy to be their new big customers so how much of an effect that tactic will have is negligible but if Iran hadn't been in the shadow of the ascending dragon then things would have been very different and they would of ended up being another Iraq.

There are countless other examples of American indirectly owning oil but it is a long winded story, so guess what I am saying is America may not own the majority shares on paper in these oil companies, but in reality they do own a lot of this oil as they control the sales or not of it.

Finally you raise an interesting point about Capitalism being able to innovate its way out of a crises and technology taking over but as you say what about the manual labour force as they get displaced where do they go, as populations get bigger but less of a workforce is needed this gulf is only going to get bigger add to that, that through modern medicine mortality rates are being lowered, plus their are only finite resources on this planet but Capitalism insists on year on year growth which is illogical then you can see how this will have dire consequences for us as a species unless radical changes start to happen and these may not be so good for the exisiting populas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeninety

Not sure about Germany but as was the case with the UK the money that flowed to us from America was not aid it was a begged loan and the debt repayment on that loan was so massive that the Uk only finished paying it off around a few years ago, so I have never understood this love America thing as they shafted the Uk when it was at its weakest.

Don't get me wrong it is not American Joe public I am griping about it is the ruthless greedy establishment at the top that I cannot stand.

I figure any loans America was handing out around that time probably had massive loan repayment profits attached to them, plus trading perks and do us favours perks.

---

That tends to be how lending takes place. The lender makes money and the person accepting the loans borrows because they need the money and are willing to repay the interest. While someone on a revolving short-term loan may claim usury and have a legitimate case, sovereign debt tends to be very different as you have sophisticated borrowers. If Britain borrowed and the terms weren't very attractive it must have been because they could not get better terms elsewhere???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeninety

Why not just simplify it German style rather than going into some long winded factualness that ultimately leads to nowhere.

Germans are ruthlessly efficient, they have a very strong work ethos ingrained into their society, they are well educated, take pride in what they do, they do not suffer fools gladly, and when they work their is no I in team, they are a well oiled united machine each member of that society does its role well (on the whole) for the greater good of the society.

Add to the list that they think things through a lot more than your average European (as in they're are not impulsive) and by virtue are quite logical and methodical in their thinking and approach to life, plus their is a decent level of trust in their society and generally the members believe and trust the system, partly due to the system methodology evidently working well, which is probably partly down to lack of corruption against members within the society and as all productive members (not just high society members) are valued and rewarded it is clear why they will outlast us.

Put all of the above together and ingrain it into every member of German society then it becomes obvious why German society is thriving, they have taken the best bits of Capitalism, Communism and Socialism and efficiently & effectively turned it into their very own brand of Germanism.

---

This sounds almost like an ethnic analysis of the German character. Don't get me wrong. I think it's nothing but a compliment to say that a nation of people is "logical...methodical....ruthlessly efficient.....has a strong work ethic....lacks corruption...". It also seems like a compliment, though a bizarre one, to call their economic success "Germanism".

I just think that economic miracles do not have as much to do with the national or ethnic character of a people as with sound policies, good decision-making, and good circumstances. When other nations of people are successful I frequently see them demonized for their success. For instance, China is portrayed in the United States as intellectual property thieves and Japan for a while was portrayed in the 1980's as voyeuristic and using all sorts of subversive tactics to strengthen their economy at the expense of America. Yet both the Chinese and the Japanese are superbly well-educated.

I think a lot of the focus on Germany's success and the relative poverty of other parts of Europe is often misplaced. I am sure that something can be learned from Germany's economic success and it may relate to education or certain national policies, but I doubt it is that the Teutons have the capacity to think things through more than others.

Where was Germanism in the 1920's when Germans were going to the supermarket with wheelbarrels full of money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

That tends to be how lending takes place. The lender makes money and the person accepting the loans borrows because they need the money and are willing to repay the interest. While someone on a revolving short-term loan may claim usury and have a legitimate case, sovereign debt tends to be very different as you have sophisticated borrowers. If Britain borrowed and the terms weren't very attractive it must have been because they could not get better terms elsewhere???

---

Totally agree but at the time British politicians expected that in view of the United Kingdom's contribution to the war, especially in light of the lives lost before the United States entered the fight, they wrongly assumed America would offer favorable terms.

Its one thing to loan Joe blogs in the street at whatever rate, but to a country that is meant to be your ally and has made a major sacrafice of sorts and is now desperately in need, it is unethical and morally incorrect to then try and exploit that need in such a ruthless manner the way America did, that is why America is wrong on so many levels as it lacks the qualities of upstanding morals, sound ethical practices, and compassion

I mean if your friend asked you for a loan and you knew he was desperate would you exploit that fact in such a vicious manner???


I will reply to your other post later on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeninety

America loves to enslave countries through debt so yes on paper US firms may own low percentage stakes in a lot of the Middle Eastern countries but they are very clever about who really owns that oil, take Iraq for instance as soon as that war ensued what was the first thing they did, that's right they secured the oil refineries and pipelines, next when Saddam was ousted they said they had to take control of the production and sale of the oil but that all the proceeds would go back to Iraq, ok you may think fair enough until you realise that America was solely in charge of who that oil was sold to and how much it sold the oil for, meaning America sold oil to America at a knock down price and elitists profited massively.

Another example of who really owns anything is look at the current situation with Iran now I think they are the 9th largest supplier of oil yet America has managed to put sanctions on that country and stop a lot of its supplies being sold. Luckily for Iran China and India are happy to be their new big customers so how much of an effect that tactic will have is negligible but if Iran hadn't been in the shadow of the ascending dragon then things would have been very different and they would of ended up being another Iraq.

There are countless other examples of American indirectly owning oil but it is a long winded story, so guess what I am saying is America may not own the majority shares on paper in these oil companies, but in reality they do own a lot of this oil as they control the sales or not of it.

---

On the oil, I don't see the point you are making. There are no state-owned oil companies in the US, the largest companies, Exxon, Chevron and Conoco-Phillips are privately owned; BP is now basically an Anglo-American company, just as Royal Dutch Shell is Anglo-Dutch but all these companies have assets across the world in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, the North Sea, and so on. The US led the coalition that overthrew the regime in Iraq, it made sense at the time to take control of the refining and producing outlets, if only to stop theft and sabotage, but the US now has no control over the industry. Exxon has been awarded contracts in the north of Iraq by the Kurds but the government in Baghdad is opposed to it -autonomy for the Kurds may not go as far as oil contracts but it remains to be seen how this plays out. Iran has the third largest gas resources in the world and has been a key supplier to Japan since the days of the Shah who negotiated a deal whereby Iranians had preferential treatment as immigrants in Japan; the sanctions being imposed are a re-run of the sanction imposed on Iran in 1951 when the oil industry was nationalised. At that time oil was their only major earner and the country was brought to its knees by the time of the coup in 1953, but I doubt that the sanctions will be as effective as they were in the 1950s. Finally, the US has been reducing its dependence on Middle Eastern oil which is somewhere around 25-30% of its imports, if that, as I haven't checked the latest figures. It may even be less than 20%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

On the oil, I don't see the point you are making. There are no state-owned oil companies in the US, the largest companies, Exxon, Chevron and Conoco-Phillips are privately owned; BP is now basically an Anglo-American company, just as Royal Dutch Shell is Anglo-Dutch but all these companies have assets across the world in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, the North Sea, and so on. The US led the coalition that overthrew the regime in Iraq, it made sense at the time to take control of the refining and producing outlets, if only to stop theft and sabotage, but the US now has no control over the industry. Exxon has been awarded contracts in the north of Iraq by the Kurds but the government in Baghdad is opposed to it -autonomy for the Kurds may not go as far as oil contracts but it remains to be seen how this plays out. Iran has the third largest gas resources in the world and has been a key supplier to Japan since the days of the Shah who negotiated a deal whereby Iranians had preferential treatment as immigrants in Japan; the sanctions being imposed are a re-run of the sanction imposed on Iran in 1951 when the oil industry was nationalised. At that time oil was their only major earner and the country was brought to its knees by the time of the coup in 1953, but I doubt that the sanctions will be as effective as they were in the 1950s. Finally, the US has been reducing its dependence on Middle Eastern oil which is somewhere around 25-30% of its imports, if that, as I haven't checked the latest figures. It may even be less than 20%.

---

My point about who owns the oil is that you said American-American companies own around 5%, my point is America is always invading other countries of interest for its own gains and usually ends up installing or backing corrupt puppets that will do its bidding and by proxy they then get indirect split ownership of the oil.

Can you not see the dots, preceding the Shah was Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq then come the sanctions, then guess what he is overthrown in an American coup, then is the extensive backing of the pro American Shah, note where America goes to liberate those from supposed tyranny and note where the other tyrants are and where it does not bother to go and spread its supposed democracy, what are the common factors???

If you do the maths and look at the history you get the real picture of what goes on.

I wouldn't rely heavily these import statistics as who really compiles them??? But what I will say is that America has been busy fracking the fuck out of its country, their is the Bush Saudi connect (very in depth but where did senior get the money to start his oil aspirations?) which is kind of funny considering the massive conflict of interest that produced during gulf war1 when Saddam wanted his kuwait Oil fields.

If you are still not getting the picture of who owns most of the oil in reality then I will find you links instead as it is a very long winded story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

This sounds almost like an ethnic analysis of the German character. Don't get me wrong. I think it's nothing but a compliment to say that a nation of people is "logical...methodical....ruthlessly efficient.....has a strong work ethic....lacks corruption...". It also seems like a compliment, though a bizarre one, to call their economic success "Germanism".

I just think that economic miracles do not have as much to do with the national or ethnic character of a people as with sound policies, good decision-making, and good circumstances. When other nations of people are successful I frequently see them demonized for their success. For instance, China is portrayed in the United States as intellectual property thieves and Japan for a while was portrayed in the 1980's as voyeuristic and using all sorts of subversive tactics to strengthen their economy at the expense of America. Yet both the Chinese and the Japanese are superbly well-educated.

I think a lot of the focus on Germany's success and the relative poverty of other parts of Europe is often misplaced. I am sure that something can be learned from Germany's economic success and it may relate to education or certain national policies, but I doubt it is that the Teutons have the capacity to think things through more than others.

Where was Germanism in the 1920's when Germans were going to the supermarket with wheelbarrels full of money?

---

Sometimes somethings are in a nations blood literally the Germans were seen as Barbarians by the once almighty Romans yet the might of Rome fell partly by its own hand but partly by the Barbarians hand when the last Roman Emperor Romulus Augustus, was deposed by Odoacer, a Germanic (barbarian) chieftain.

These weren't really the unthinking savages that the Romans presumed then to be, they were smart and tactical and able to beat the larger better equipped army and guess what one day it took two wars and the might of the rest of the world to beat the Barbarian descendants, then America was straight in their pocketing all of their scientists and thinkers, then through all that adversity and the splitting up of its country its managed to put itself back together and become a powerhouse once again now is that all coincidence or are their certain traits in that societies gene pool that allow its Alphas and compliant Betas to think and follow their way out of adversity????

I do not think that surmising certain advantageous character traits can be bred into societies is far fetched when you consider that is exactly what goes on in selective animal breeding programmes be it dogs or sheep.

Education plays a big part in things but so can an innate ability.

And yes on all counts I was complimenting the modern day German.

My point about who owns the oil is that you said American-American companies own around 5%, my point is America is always invading other countries of interest for its own gains and usually ends up installing or backing corrupt puppets that will do its bidding and by proxy they then get indirect split ownership of the oil yes it might not be "state" owned but you can bet your bottom dollar that American fingers are in those pies.

Can you not see the dots, preceding the Shah was Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq then come the sanctions, then guess what he is overthrown in an American coup, then is the extensive backing of the pro American Shah, note where America goes to liberate those from supposed tyranny and note where the other tyrants are and where it does not bother to go and spread its supposed democracy, what are the common factors???

If you do the maths and look at the history you get the real picture of what goes on.

I wouldn't rely heavily these import statistics as who really compiles them??? But what I will say is that America has been busy fracking the fuck out of its country, their is the Bush Saudi connect (very in depth but where did senior get the money to start his oil aspirations?) which is kind of funny considering the massive conflict of interest that produced during gulf war1 when Saddam wanted his kuwait Oil fields.

If you are still not getting the picture of who owns most of the oil in reality then I will find you links instead as it is a very long winded story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

On the oil, I don't see the point you are making. There are no state-owned oil companies in the US, the largest companies, Exxon, Chevron and Conoco-Phillips are privately owned; BP is now basically an Anglo-American company, just as Royal Dutch Shell is Anglo-Dutch but all these companies have assets across the world in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, the North Sea, and so on. The US led the coalition that overthrew the regime in Iraq, it made sense at the time to take control of the refining and producing outlets, if only to stop theft and sabotage, but the US now has no control over the industry. Exxon has been awarded contracts in the north of Iraq by the Kurds but the government in Baghdad is opposed to it -autonomy for the Kurds may not go as far as oil contracts but it remains to be seen how this plays out. Iran has the third largest gas resources in the world and has been a key supplier to Japan since the days of the Shah who negotiated a deal whereby Iranians had preferential treatment as immigrants in Japan; the sanctions being imposed are a re-run of the sanction imposed on Iran in 1951 when the oil industry was nationalised. At that time oil was their only major earner and the country was brought to its knees by the time of the coup in 1953, but I doubt that the sanctions will be as effective as they were in the 1950s. Finally, the US has been reducing its dependence on Middle Eastern oil which is somewhere around 25-30% of its imports, if that, as I haven't checked the latest figures. It may even be less than 20%.

---

Yes, but why let facts get in the way of ideology?!

Something in the blood - now that is a bizarre notion - unless its a metaphor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

Something in the blood - now that is a bizarre notion - unless its a metaphor?

---

In the blood statement was being metaphoric for in the genetics, as a nation they seem to have some great thinkers and leaders, also generally the majority of the population seem to have no problem in following the hierarchical command structure the two work in unison, all of these would be deemed necessary survival factors in what makes a successful pack of say wolfs or lions, behaviour in animals can be influenced by genetic predisposition, docile behaviour for instance in our domesticated animals has been bred into them.

So what I am saying is generally hierarchical structures stay in tact and form the foundations of a lot of societies E.g rich tend men (generally a class of good thinkers) marry/partner in general either pretty women, equally smart women or women from established stock, whereas at the bottom end of society working class people generally tend to marry/partner other working class people.

So by doing this and being given certain education opportunities in accordance to your class then certain types of people are going to come about, but there are always exceptions to the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeninety

My point about who owns the oil is that you said American-American companies own around 5%, my point is America is always invading other countries of interest for its own gains and usually ends up installing or backing corrupt puppets that will do its bidding and by proxy they then get indirect split ownership of the oil yes it might not be "state" owned but you can bet your bottom dollar that American fingers are in those pies.

Can you not see the dots, preceding the Shah was Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq then come the sanctions, then guess what he is overthrown in an American coup, then is the extensive backing of the pro American Shah, note where America goes to liberate those from supposed tyranny and note where the other tyrants are and where it does not bother to go and spread its supposed democracy, what are the common factors???

If you do the maths and look at the history you get the real picture of what goes on.

I wouldn't rely heavily these import statistics as who really compiles them??? But what I will say is that America has been busy fracking the fuck out of its country, their is the Bush Saudi connect (very in depth but where did senior get the money to start his oil aspirations?) which is kind of funny considering the massive conflict of interest that produced during gulf war1 when Saddam wanted his kuwait Oil fields.

If you are still not getting the picture of who owns most of the oil in reality then I will find you links instead as it is a very long winded story.

---

I think you are so concerned to see the pale hand of the US intervening at will to get a slice of the action that you have missed some more important facts.

1) The first is that it was the British who lost the most in 1951, Anglo-Iranian as it was then (subsequently BP) relied on Iran for 75% of its product (crude oil, natural gas, refined products), and also lost control of the world's largest refinery at Abadan (which was kept in perfect working order throughout its three years of idleness). The firm was also a key supplier to the British armed forces on land, sea and in the air.

2) The British government lost the key source of its foreign exchange and it was they (Attlee was Prime Minister at the time) and the company who organised the global boycott that meant the new National Iranian Oil Company had no customers (these days sanctions are a gift for busters who make millions, inside and outside the sanctioned country). The British view was that the nationalisation was a threat to the integrity of the British Empire.

3) the Americans were obsessed with Communism and believed the Iranian political party the Tudeh [communist-equivalent] was behind the anti-British unrest, only partly true. They feared a revival of Soviet/Russian interference in Iran which stretched back through the Soviet occupation of the provinces of Azerbaijan in the Second World War, the short-lived Soviet Republic of Gilan (a small province on the Caspian Sea in northern Iran) in 1920-21 to Russian Imperial game-playing with the British in the 19th century.

4) the decision to fund an overthrow of the Musadeq government was taken by Churchill and Eisenhower (Operation Ajax), selecting General Zahedi as the man around whom the operations would take place. Kermit Roosevelt was the CIA's organiser in Iran (helped by Norman Schwarzkopf, father of Stormin' Norman). They passed millions of $$ to agents provocateurs -many of them ex-cons, fascists, or wrestlers- to break up Nationalist demonstrators, sabotage shops and businesses friendly to Musadeq and his supporters, and contrived to create the sense of chaos against which Zahedi moved -failing on the first attempt (prompting the Shah to rush off in a plane to Switzerland fearing the worst)- before succeeding at a second attempt (prompting the Shah -who had to be pressured by Zahedi to become figurehead of the new government to fly back).

5) Yes it is true that the new agreement in 1954 allowed Anglo-Iranian back in, but with a smaller percentage of the oil with American firms part of the new Iranian Oil Participants consortium -but there had already been criticism of Anglo-Iranian's handling of the Iranians given that Standard and the Saudis had negotiated a 50-50 split on the oil revenues which Anglo-Iranian had refused to contemplate.

So you could say that the consequence of the coup for the industry was greater competition, and for Iran an increasingly modernising but autocratic Shah. The deeper question is why Musadeq lost so much support, why there was no fight back against the Shah -a key reason is that even by 1953 economic development in Iran had been slow, and the non-petroleum sector, located in the south-south west of the country had not developed beyond agriculture and textiles. Musadeq failed to reach an agreement with Anglo-Iranian, but was so obsessed with politics that he neglected the economy and undermined his own base of support.

The coup was carried out by Iranians, with American and British help. Would it have happened without that help? At some point probably yes, primarily because Musadeq was not well and the government was weak. The Shah's father had seized power in a military coup in 1921, and was forced out of office in 1941 when he refused to expel Germans from the country (he was viewed as being pro-German in spite of Iran declaring neutrality in the War) -the British and the USSR in effect reached an agreement that Britain would control most the country (and the petroleum fields and Abadan) with the USSR in the northern provinces of Azerbaijan while using the railway to send supplies to the USSR (which were used to repel the Germans at Stalingrad). Reza Pahlavi was sent into exile to Johannesburg where there is a small Museum in the house where he once lived. So you could argue that the Iranians had been living under one Shah or another for centuries other than the period from 1941 to the coup of 1953. Autocratic government in Iran has been the norm, democracy the exception.

I love this site...I've learned more about the Middle East from guys like Stavros than anywhere else...now if only Trish would come back from the 4th. dimension and fulfill my science needs...:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeninety

Sometimes somethings are in a nations blood literally the Germans were seen as Barbarians by the once almighty Romans yet the might of Rome fell partly by its own hand but partly by the Barbarians hand when the last Roman Emperor Romulus Augustus, was deposed by Odoacer, a Germanic (barbarian) chieftain.

These weren't really the unthinking savages that the Romans presumed then to be, they were smart and tactical and able to beat the larger better equipped army and guess what one day it took two wars and the might of the rest of the world to beat the Barbarian descendants, then America was straight in their pocketing all of their scientists and thinkers, then through all that adversity and the splitting up of its country its managed to put itself back together and become a powerhouse once again now is that all coincidence or are their certain traits in that societies gene pool that allow its Alphas and compliant Betas to think and follow their way out of adversity????

I do not think that surmising certain advantageous character traits can be bred into societies is far fetched when you consider that is exactly what goes on in selective animal breeding programmes be it dogs or sheep.

Education plays a big part in things but so can an innate ability.

And yes on all counts I was complimenting the modern day German.

---

This is what I was concerned about. I think that a discussion about the economic situation of a country becomes less cerebral when it turns into a recitation of that country's stereotypes. Besides being somewhat offensive, it is methodologically unsound. Even if you could demonstrate that Germans possessed these characteristics, it would be difficult to show that these traits are responsible for their economic success and not some tangible decision, or fiscal policy.

Germans certainly are not barbarians, and I have nothing but respect for the accomplishments of modern day Germany. However I am a bit turned off by the suggestion they are a superior breed. If they deserve credit for what they've done then perhaps it's because they've made choices to do it and not because it's imbued in their genes or blood.

Joeninety,
I see that in my previous post I sort of take a two pronged approach. On the one hand, I say that I think it's slightly offensive to imply some groups are more gifted than others and on the other I say it's unprovable. Let me settle and say, if it were provable or potentially insightful, it would not bother me what implications the ideas had.

I read an interesting book about the various tribes that make up the German people quite a while back. It analyzed the ethnic and tribal extraction of the Germans and though I remember few details, the takeaway is that you don't have anything like ethnic or racial purity.

I also read a work by an American scientist named Samuel George Morton a while back. He was famous for measuring the skulls of different ethnic groups and trying to deduce from these calculations the relative intelligence of each group. In a previous work, he laid out, in anecdotal form, the various traits of each group. I would rather not give examples but his use of evidence was appalling for a man dubbed a scientist. It was this work supporting the idea that different nations possessed different traits that convinced me it was unlikely to be true.

Anyhow, since I don't think the Germans make up a genetically cognizable group, and I don't think one can infer traits of tribes of people from anecdotes or single historical events, let me suggest other reasons that have been stated in this thread as an alternative explanation for their economic success.

Germany has learned important lessons from WWI and WWII and moved away from nationalism and towards a more cooperative social structure. Workers are paid better wages and feel a greater sense of investment in the society they are a part of thus increasing productivity. Germans have invested in science education and particularly engineering, which is a driver of technological innovation and as a result have many industries where their products are renowned for their quality. Germans have engaged in a more responsible fiscal policy than many other European countries. Germans have been able to channel a lot of the energy other countries waste on petty attempts to be global police and instead focused on their domestic issues. Some degree of good fortune and circumstance coalesced with any combination of these policies. For instance, if you analyze the investments of even the most successful businessmen you can see that sometimes the most perilous pratfalls are avoided by chance. This would not be a singular explanation of German economic success, but avoiding unmarked hazards is crucial.

Besides, since one of the main benefits of this thread is to evaluate the reasons the Germans have had economic success I figured it would be great if the answers were instructive and not so depressing for us non-Germans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fastingforlife

The belief that the government, your neighbor and your employer are not out to screw you. In Greece, Greeks do not trust any of the aforementioned.

In the USA, we are witnessing a dramatic breakdown in social trust which is likely to have omnious consequences.

---

Social trust is the result of racial homogeneity. USA had a high social trust rate in the decades past... but then something changed 1965 onwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hngs

Social trust is the result of racial homogeneity. USA had a high social trust rate in the decades past... but then something changed 1965 onwards.

---

I don't believe the concept of race has any real meaning; as an explanation of human behaviour it is worthless. Assuming for a moment that it did have meaning, and that all Rwandans are the same 'race' -how do you explain the complete lack of social trust 'racial homogeneity' ought to have created, when in 1994 one half of the population tried to kill the other half? And if you assume 'white people' in the USA are from the same race, how do you explain the Civil War? Even in the case of Germany as the posts in this thread have explained, the source of success is not specifically German: the capital that nurtured the German economy in the 1950s originated in the USA, but what percentage of that capital was created from the labour of Chinese-African-Irish Americans, or Any-American, if we must tag social groups in such a way? Capitalism doesn't recognise the concept of race, it knows no national boundaries, if you want to understand German success, thinking about what capitalism is and how it works would be a better start than this mystifying race thing.

I think we may have the causation backwards here. Times of economic success and equity will tend to engender social trust. Times of economic collapse or economic inequity will tend to engender distrust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hngs

Social trust is the result of racial homogeneity. USA had a high social trust rate in the decades past... but then something changed 1965 onwards.

---

LMAO you choose seemingly at random the year after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. It's a shame that preventing establishments from systematically excluding black people had to have such harsh economic consequences. Perhaps if we just repeal this overreaching piece of legislation we can go back to those good ole days when we worked together as a homogenous unit. How can we trust one another when we're forced to dine together and use the same public restrooms? It's not that we object to this in principle, it's just the idea of the government forcing us to do it that I find odious;).

I think the present lack of jews in Germany also partly explains their success. Fewer immigrants, fewer jews, solid Aryan traits, no hispanics or blacks= a strong economy for all time. Who doesn't want to hop on board this economic juggernaut. As long as the Germans are at the helm, working together as a perfectly honed Teutonic unit, how can they fail? And if they do fail? Well, we'll blame the immigrants who are still in the country just as we selectively ignore their contributions.

And yes, I'm sure the sarcasm is unattractive, but the little light this thread has shed is not on economic matters but people's tendency to falsely attribute success and failure to immutable traits. It couldn't possibly be any top down decision, circumstance, or policy that accounts for a strong economy but rather lack of minority representation and good genetics. And the Japanese are good at electronics because they have tiny hands and us caucasians are too damn clumsy.

Okay, sarcastic rant aside. Can someone at least explain to me how we can reliably trace the economic success in Germany to their gene pool? And what evidence is there that people cease to trust those who come from a different gene pool? Also, is it just racial homogeneity that breeds success or only the racial homogeneity of certain ethnic groups? I've worked with Hispanics and African-Americans for the last five years and I don't have a problem trusting them. I understand the argument that even if race doesn't matter, people's perceptions of race might. But that would presume that the average person is a racist, and not just the average person on this site but in the workforce. My work experience has not been that people can't work together or live harmoniously unless they come from the same background. Has anyone experienced the apartheid utopia we keep hearing about? Is there some sort of synergy that occurs as a result of working with people who look like you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I don't believe the concept of race has any real meaning; as an explanation of human behaviour it is worthless.

---

Well, thankfully scientifically measurable things aren't up to your highly valuable opinion. They're kind of... there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Assuming for a moment that it did have meaning, and that all Rwandans are the same 'race' -how do you explain the complete lack of social trust 'racial homogeneity' ought to have created, when in 1994 one half of the population tried to kill the other half?

---

The Hutu and Tutsi do diverge genetically. They have some affinity, but are essentially different tribes. Their squabble was a tribal conflict, a type exceedingly usual in Africa and hundreds of years ago in Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

And if you assume 'white people' in the USA are from the same race, how do you explain the Civil War?

---

Well firstly, "White" isn't a proper racial classification. Southern Italians have very little in common with Swedes. Portuguese have very little in common with Bavarians. "White" is an entirely American invention and changes over time. In the beginning it included only people of British/German extraction. Then the Irish and Italians were added. Next it's going to include Mexicans, who are not European at all. The Civil War was about the North wanting a massive federal government while the Southern states wanted to stay more regional instead of being subjected to faceless pencil pushers in D.C. The Northerners later justified their war of aggression with ending slavery, which was entirely a non-issue back then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Even in the case of Germany as the posts in this thread have explained, the source of success is not specifically German: the capital that nurtured the German economy in the 1950s originated in the USA

---

So wait, the Germans are supposed to thank Americans who firebombed 20,000 people in Dresden and decimated their economy just to terrorize the population so that a bunch of bloodthirsty communists could enslave half of Europe with the nodding approval of perfidious Albion? You're nuts. What brought Germany up to par again was Germans. Not American "capital," a ridiculous concept to begin with. America was an ass-backwards farmer nation at that point. Americans stole all the German patents and all of the top scientists too who then enabled America to go to the Moon. Subsequently as they retired in the 70's and 80's, NASA went belly up and does nothing useful today. I mean these laughable Mars operations are the same stuff that von Braun was doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Capitalism doesn't recognise the concept of race, it knows no national boundaries, if you want to understand German success, thinking about what capitalism is and how it works would be a better start than this mystifying race thing.

---

Capitalism doesn't work for the average person. It's terrible. It's more terrible that seemingly for most people Marxist Communism is the only other option, which is of course untrue.

Broncofan, All the studies I've read of African-American communities and their well-being say that according to every social metric we have, they were doing better during segregation. They were happier, had healthier families and there was much less crime in their community. Now, this fact may anger you and does a lot of people, but it doesn't change that it's a fact. People prefer their own kind.

People from different backgrounds aren't meant to be together. One can deny this all they want but it's not going to change. You can't change evolution by wishing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hngs

Well, thankfully scientifically measurable things aren't up to your highly valuable opinion. They're kind of... there.



The Hutu and Tutsi do diverge genetically. They have some affinity, but are essentially different tribes. Their squabble was a tribal conflict, a type exceedingly usual in Africa and hundreds of years ago in Europe.



Well firstly, "White" isn't a proper racial classification. Southern Italians have very little in common with Swedes. Portuguese have very little in common with Bavarians. "White" is an entirely American invention and changes over time. In the beginning it included only people of British/German extraction. Then the Irish and Italians were added. Next it's going to include Mexicans, who are not European at all. The Civil War was about the North wanting a massive federal government while the Southern states wanted to stay more regional instead of being subjected to faceless pencil pushers in D.C. The Northerners later justified their war of aggression with ending slavery, which was entirely a non-issue back then.



So wait, the Germans are supposed to thank Americans who firebombed 20,000 people in Dresden and decimated their economy just to terrorize the population so that a bunch of bloodthirsty communists could enslave half of Europe with the nodding approval of perfidious Albion? You're nuts. What brought Germany up to par again was Germans. Not American "capital," a ridiculous concept to begin with. America was an ass-backwards farmer nation at that point. Americans stole all the German patents and all of the top scientists too who then enabled America to go to the Moon. Subsequently as they retired in the 70's and 80's, NASA went belly up and does nothing useful today. I mean these laughable Mars operations are the same stuff that von Braun was doing.



Capitalism doesn't work for the average person. It's terrible. It's more terrible that seemingly for most people Marxist Communism is the only other option, which is of course untrue.

Broncofan, All the studies I've read of African-American communities and their well-being say that according to every social metric we have, they were doing better during segregation. They were happier, had healthier families and there was much less crime in their community. Now, this fact may anger you and does a lot of people, but it doesn't change that it's a fact. People prefer their own kind.

People from different backgrounds aren't meant to be together. One can deny this all they want but it's not going to change. You can't change evolution by wishing.

---

1) "Well, thankfully scientifically measurable things aren't up to your highly valuable opinion. They're kind of... there."
I assume these measurable things are, shall we say, Aryans on the one hand, Jews on the other? It is not a matter of my opinion, but a suggestion that you read more about the concept of race before assuming it is a scientific fact. Try Ivan Hannaford: Race, the History of a Concept in the West (1996).
As we are in Olympic fortnight, recall Jesse Owens demolishing the concept of race in Berlin in 1936 -it was supposed to be scientifically impossible for a Black man to perform better than an Aryan. Then of course, the 'scientists' decided their 'science' explains why Black men run faster than white men, why white men are better at swimming than Black men, and of course the Psychologist/Psychiatrists using their 'science' to prove Jews and White people are more intelligent than Black people.
I think Science has much better things to to with its time and money; and it has proven it so, just today with Curiosity landing on Mars.

2) "The Hutu and Tutsi do diverge genetically. They have some affinity, but are essentially different tribes. Their squabble was a tribal conflict, a type exceedingly usual in Africa and hundreds of years ago in Europe"
What rubbish is this? Genetic difference is globally less diverse than you might think: try Luigi Cavalli-Sforza Genes, Peoples and Languages (2001); and note that it was Imperial rule that invented the difference between Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda.

3) "The Civil War was about the North wanting a massive federal government while the Southern states wanted to stay more regional instead of being subjected to faceless pencil pushers in D.C. The Northerners later justified their war of aggression with ending slavery, which was entirely a non-issue back then".
This old chestnut again? If you accept that mid-19th century America was in transition, with a growing industrial economy in the north, a growing homestead/farming/mining economy in the west, the slave economy of the South becomes the obstacle to progress: not slaves as such. The late Gore Vidal argued that Lincoln was an Imperial President who put the preservation of the Union ahead of the Constitution -and argues the South would have given up slavery eventually anyway because it was economically unproductive compared to modern industry. But I will let the experts in American History argue over that one.

4) "So wait, the Germans are supposed to thank Americans who firebombed 20,000 people in Dresden and decimated their economy just to terrorize the population so that a bunch of bloodthirsty communists could enslave half of Europe with the nodding approval of perfidious Albion? You're nuts. What brought Germany up to par again was Germans. Not American "capital," a ridiculous concept to begin with. America was an ass-backwards farmer nation at that point".

The RAF firebombed German cities; and yes, it was 'ass-backwards' America that poured money into the same country it had helped to destroy -oddly enough in the same way that it helped to re-develop Japan. Perfidious Albion ruled a third of West Germany and to this day continues to station troops in the North, and the Federal structure of post-war Germany which has been credited with being one ingredient of its success was promoted by Britain, France and the USA, ah the villains of history! Most Germans preferred it to Ulbricht's options.

And if you really do think the USA was an 'ass-backwards farmer nation at that point', ie in 1945, you probably eat more nuts than I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

It is not a matter of my opinion, but a suggestion that you read more about the concept of race before assuming it is a scientific fact. Try Ivan Hannaford: Race, the History of a Concept in the West (1996).

---

Race isn't a "concept," which implies that it's up to the subject. It's visible to everyone. Everyone can see a black man. Everyone can see a European man. I don't need to read a book telling me that my eyes lie. I trust my own eyes more than some Marxist agitator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

As we are in Olympic fortnight, recall Jesse Owens demolishing the concept of race in Berlin in 1936 -it was supposed to be scientifically impossible for a Black man to perform better than an Aryan.

---

I've never heard anybody claim this before or after 1936. I've read a lot about this particular subject. The reason I've never heard of it is because you just made it up as a red herring. It's easy to argue against yourself...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I think Science has much better things to to with its time and money; and it has proven it so, just today with Curiosity landing on Mars.

---

What's better about it? You do understand that it's the type of fiddling that von Braun was doing in the 60's and that the act of space exploration has not gone forward at all since that time? Nazis, for being so retrogressive, still managed to develop all of the structural technology required to go to the Moon. In 12 years. During wartime. Crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

What rubbish is this? Genetic difference is globally less diverse than you might think: try Luigi Cavalli-Sforza Genes, Peoples and Languages (2001); and note that it was Imperial rule that invented the difference between Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda.

---

Imperial rule doesn't invent genetic differences. For your information, the raw number of genetic differences is irrelevant. Different races have different concentrations of certain genes. There was a study released about this just recently. I'm trying to dig it up but I can't recall where I read it. And in any case, racial differences are so obvious as to make anybody who questions the existence of race a complete clown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

This old chestnut again? If you accept that mid-19th century America was in transition, with a growing industrial economy in the north, a growing homestead/farming/mining economy in the west, the slave economy of the South becomes the obstacle to progress: not slaves as such. The late Gore Vidal argued that Lincoln was an Imperial President who put the preservation of the Union ahead of the Constitution -and argues the South would have given up slavery eventually anyway because it was economically unproductive compared to modern industry. But I will let the experts in American History argue over that one.

---

The U.S. went from a free country of sovereign states in a confederacy to a consolidated, Washington-directed dictatorship. The centralized teamed up with magnates to set up "internal improvements" that further entrenched their power. So the country came to be run by financial elite combined with whichever politicians they were backing. Then certain others showed up, and soon they dominated the financial elite, and through that the party system. The original idea of America was long lost at that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

The RAF firebombed German cities;

---

Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

and yes, it was 'ass-backwards' America that poured money into the same country it had helped to destroy -oddly enough in the same way that it helped to re-develop Japan.

---

Yeah, thanks America for bombing everything to rubble. Couldn't have made it without you! :cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Perfidious Albion ruled a third of West Germany and to this day continues to station troops in the North, and the Federal structure of post-war Germany which has been credited with being one ingredient of its success was promoted by Britain, France and the USA, ah the villains of history! Most Germans preferred it to Ulbricht's options.

---

Yes, because Germans had free choice in the matter. Germany is an occupied government and the whole BRD is basically illegitimate because it's forced on Germans with threat of force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

And if you really do think the USA was an 'ass-backwards farmer nation at that point', ie in 1945, you probably eat more nuts than I do.

---

America is still the most backwards nation in the so-called "West," only rivalled by "Great" Britain. You'd know this if you ever went to Germany, Sweden or say, Northern Italy.

Yes, yes, my grandparents tell me they were so so much happier when they had their own public bathrooms, their own broken down schools and their own area of town to keep to. It was nice back then when whites were forced to sit in the front of the bus. When mobs kept you from the voting booth it was such a relief not to have decide which of two indistinguishable white guys should get your vote. Grandma says you didn't have to worry about losing your man to no white girl because he'd risk getting himself lynched real good.

Yeah, good times. So how were those happiness measurements made again?

i have no sweet clue but looking at my family tree the german in me is where i get my body shape, ass and figure.

and my low tolerance to alchol. or maybe thats the irish and scotish..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hngs

Race isn't a "concept," which implies that it's up to the subject. It's visible to everyone. Everyone can see a black man. Everyone can see a European man. I don't need to read a book telling me that my eyes lie. I trust my own eyes more than some Marxist agitator.

I've never heard anybody claim this before or after 1936. I've read a lot about this particular subject. The reason I've never heard of it is because you just made it up as a red herring. It's easy to argue against yourself...

What's better about it? You do understand that it's the type of fiddling that von Braun was doing in the 60's and that the act of space exploration has not gone forward at all since that time? Nazis, for being so retrogressive, still managed to develop all of the structural technology required to go to the Moon. In 12 years. During wartime. Crazy.

Imperial rule doesn't invent genetic differences. For your information, the raw number of genetic differences is irrelevant. Different races have different concentrations of certain genes. There was a study released about this just recently. I'm trying to dig it up but I can't recall where I read it. And in any case, racial differences are so obvious as to make anybody who questions the existence of race a complete clown.

The U.S. went from a free country of sovereign states in a confederacy to a consolidated, Washington-directed dictatorship. The centralized teamed up with magnates to set up "internal improvements" that further entrenched their power. So the country came to be run by financial elite combined with whichever politicians they were backing. Then certain others showed up, and soon they dominated the financial elite, and through that the party system. The original idea of America was long lost at that point.

Americans.

Yeah, thanks America for bombing everything to rubble. Couldn't have made it without you! :cheers:
Yes, because Germans had free choice in the matter. Germany is an occupied government and the whole BRD is basically illegitimate because it's forced on Germans with threat of force.

America is still the most backwards nation in the so-called "West," only rivalled by "Great" Britain. You'd know this if you ever went to Germany, Sweden or say, Northern Italy.

---

1) "Race isn't a "concept," which implies that it's up to the subject. It's visible to everyone. Everyone can see a black man. Everyone can see a European man. I don't need to read a book telling me that my eyes lie."
-Race has been imported into the consciousness of people precisely because of the claims made by some people that is is an objective 'scientific fact' -so its not 'up to the subject', but something that celebrates or condemns its subjects. And if you saw me would you automatically assume I am of the 'European Race'? How? My mother was born on one continent, my father on another -what race am I? I don't care, because it is irrelevant.

2) Re Jesse Owens: "I've never heard anybody claim this before or after 1936. I've read a lot about this particular subject."
Remind then what it is that Jesse Owens is remembered for, in addition to the gold medals he so richly deserved.

3) re: Space exploration: "You do understand that it's the type of fiddling that von Braun was doing in the 60's and that the act of space exploration has not gone forward at all since that time".
Hello? Mars calling earth...man, how did you do that? And what kept you?

4) "racial differences are so obvious as to make anybody who questions the existence of race a complete clown".
See point 1; plus the obvious quote: So, I amuse you? I make you laugh?

5) World War II -obviously I meant that the RAF also bombed German cities, notably Dresden. You can read about it here:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...of_dresden.htm

6) "America is still the most backwards nation in the so-called "West," only rivalled by "Great" Britain. You'd know this if you ever went to Germany, Sweden or say, Northern Italy"
I have been to Germany, and Italy (North, South, East and West) but sadly not Sweden. Clearly, its the going forwards that is the problem.

To start with, you really need to learn to use the quote function. You've been posting here since 2008 with almost three thousand posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

-Race has been imported into the consciousness of people precisely because of the claims made by some people that is is an objective 'scientific fact' -so its not 'up to the subject', but something that celebrates or condemns its subjects.

---

No it doesn't. It just is. If saying someone is black condemns or celebrates them in your eyes, that's on you. Saying something is an ant doesn't celebrate it. You're being ridiculous. Do you even think about what you write?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

And if you saw me would you automatically assume I am of the 'European Race'? How?

---

Is your ancestry completely European? Then you're of European descent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

My mother was born on one continent, my father on another -what race am I? I don't care, because it is irrelevant.

---

You can't be serious. Race isn't about continents. If a White guy is born in China, is he Chinese? Absolutely ludicrous. You're getting to the smirking level of crazy here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Remind then what it is that Jesse Owens is remembered for, in addition to the gold medals he so richly deserved.

---

Jesse Owens is generally remembered for the bolsterous lie told in his name that Adolf Hitler refused to shake his hand, a lie which Mr. Owens himself repudiated many times. In fact, the retrogressive evil Nazis allowed Mr. Owens to stay in the first ever Olympic village among other Olympian athletes. Back in the good old U.S.A. however, he had to sit in the back of the bus. :D The myth of American tolerance is a real howler. Get this - the jew-gassing Nazis had a more integrated society than the heroes of America who "saved" the Germans from... uh, themselves I guess? Thanks again, yankee. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Hello? Mars calling earth...man, how did you do that? And what kept you?

---

Rocketry, the basic device to leave this planet, is hardly at all evolved from the first space flight. What we have now is better cameras. I mean, we can now take black and white photos of Mars for the meager cost of $2,5 billion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

See point 1; plus the obvious quote: So, I amuse you? I make you laugh?

---

Very much. I thought the type of reality-denying, delusional liberal nut you represent was a media myth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

5) World War II -obviously I meant that the RAF also bombed German cities, notably Dresden. You can read about it here:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...of_dresden.htm

---

Thanks mom. We weren't talking about the RAF though. You keep jumping across topics, which is frustrating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hngs

If saying someone is black condemns or celebrates them in your eyes, that's on you. Saying something is an ant doesn't celebrate it. You're being ridiculous. Do you even think about what you write?

Is your ancestry completely European? Then you're of European descent.

Jesse Owens is generally remembered for the bolsterous lie told in his name that Adolf Hitler refused to shake his hand, a lie which Mr. Owens himself repudiated many times.

---

Your fundamental point is that 'Race' is obvious, my points are
a) it isn't obvious, and I am a good example why because my parents were from different parts of the world; it is pointless trying to define me as a European because one part is, the other part is not; the need to classify is part of the problem. What matters -to me- is how I relate to other people and they to me, and that should not be based on mine or their appearance, the texture of hair, the shape of the eyes, and all the other 'signs' that mark people out as in your definition, one race or another, but who to me are, well, human beings.

B) Race as you very well know has been used as a scientific concept to classify human beings, and it didn't take long for other so-called 'scientists' to use the same data to 'prove' that some 'races' are superior/inferior to others; I don't agree with it I merely draw attention to the uses to which this nonsensical idea has been put.

I am mystified by your peculiar account of the Berlin Olympics; if you are not aware of the damage that Jesse Owens did to the concept of the 'Master Race' either you don't read much, or just disagree with what you do read.

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinions and to express them freely here, it's not my fault if your attempt to use reason and history to prove that something called 'Race' exists falls flat every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ditadior

and my low tolerance to alchol. or maybe thats the irish and scotish..

---

I seriously doubt that! :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hngs

Is your ancestry completely European? Then you're of European descent.

---

Well... That depends on how far back you go & who you're talking to. It gets even more convoluted when legal meanings are tossed in the mix. This is where everything becomes conceptual. We've been through this conversation before. How many generations does it take for someone of Turkish ancestry (maybe even the European part of Turkey) to be considered German, or even European?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hngs

You can't be serious. Race isn't about continents. If a White guy is born in China, is he Chinese? Absolutely ludicrous. You're getting to the smirking level of crazy here.

---

Apples & oranges. Race isn't about continents, but it's not about ethnicity,pigmentation, or linguistics either. People are blended all over the Afro-Eurasian land mass. Racial attributes developed from regional climatic conditions over a long period of time more than anything else. But people move around. More now than they used to I imagine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

Apples & oranges. Race isn't about continents, but it's not about ethnicity,pigmentation, or linguistics either. People are blended all over the Afro-Eurasian land mass. Racial attributes developed from regional climatic conditions over a long period of time more than anything else. But people move around. More now than they used to I imagine.

---

Why don't eskimoes have fair pigmentation, blonde hair or blue eyes? I mean, I could see them not having all of these... but at least a somewhat lighter complexion? No? What's up with that? Hint: it's because these kind of racial characteristics have nothing to do with climate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hngs

Why don't eskimoes have fair pigmentation, blonde hair or blue eyes? I mean, I could see them not having all of these... but at least a somewhat lighter complexion? No? What's up with that? Hint: it's because these kind of racial characteristics have nothing to do with climate.

---

Some things I've read say that caucasians are more closely related to neandertal. No tellin' what color they were. But then again; caucasians are all over the globe & come in every shade. The Ainu of Hokaido, the Aboriginees of Australia, & most people of the sub-continent & central Asia are caucasian. Meanwhile, all the various people of the polar region, from Lapps to Inuits, have similar physical attributes & are considered mongoloid. Same as American Indians, Chinese, Pacific Islanders, etc... Perhaps the recessive gene that causes a lack of melanin comes from thousands of years of self-imposed isolation.

National Geographic's massive Genographic Project

Think of the Whitest person you know: someone with blond hair, blue eyes and almost translucent skin, not a drop of Black ancestry in them. Now think of the darkest person you know: someone richly endowed with traditional African features, not even a drop of White ancestry in their past. Well, guess what? Scientists now trace the origins of both of these people-and of all human beings who have ever walked the face of the earth-to Black Africa, to the region around what is now Ethiopia. As Spencer Wells, the director of National Geographic's massive Genographic Project, puts it: "Our species evolved in Africa, and a subset of Africans left that continent around 50,000 years ago to populate the rest of the world. Our earliest ancestors probably looked very much like modern Africans."
This would have been news to "Bull" Connor and Orval Faubus and countless other racists from our past. It is also news to most of our White

"I was able to trace the family trees of several prominent African Americans deep into slavery, following the paper trail. And then when the paper trail ended, we tested their DNA in an attempt to discover the origins of their mother's line or their father's line on the African continent."
Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
Alphonse Fletcher University Professor, Harvard University Director,

everyone regardless if you are white ,Spanish ,Mexican or Asian

can traced there origins back to two Ethiopians ,a man and a women.

these two Ethiopians are everyones ancestors


http://www.africandna.com/tests.aspx
http://www.africandna.com/tests.aspx

http://www.africandna.com/


http://www.africandna.com/history.aspx
http://www.africandna.com/history.aspx


Henry Louis “Skip” Gates, Jr., (born September 16, 1950) is an American literary critic, educator, scholar, writer, editor, and public intellectual.

POST # 2
----------------------------------

Spencer Wells (born April 6, 1969 in Georgia, United States) is a geneticist and anthropologist, an Explorer-in-Residence at the National Geographic Society, and Frank H.T. Rhodes Class of '56 Professor at Cornell University. He leads The Genographic Project

He wrote the book The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey (2002),[2] which explains how genetic data has been used to trace human migrations over the past 50,000 years, when modern humans first migrated outside of Africa. According to Wells, one group took a southern route and populated southern India and southeast Asia, then Australia. The other group, accounting for 90% of the world's non-African population (some 5 billion people as of late 2006), took a northern route, eventually peopling most of Eurasia (largely displacing the aboriginals in southern India, Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia in the process), North Africa and the Americas. Wells also wrote and presented the PBS/National Geographic documentary of the same name. By analyzing DNA from people in all regions of the world, Wells has concluded that all humans alive today are descended from a single man who lived in Africa around 60,000 - 90,000 years ago, a man also known as Y-chromosomal Adam.

Since 2005, Wells has headed The Genographic Project, undertaken by the National Geographic Society, IBM, and the Waitt Family Foundation,[4] which aims to creating a picture of how our ancestors populated the planet by analyzing DNA samples from around the world.[5] He presents the knowledge gained from the project around the world, including at the 2007 TED conference, where he spoke specifically about human diversity.[6]





Spencer Wells - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey (Part 1 of 13) - YouTube


POST# 3

-----------------------------

The Eyes of Nye- Race (Part 1 of 3)


In this episode of Bill Nye's "The Eyes of Nye", Bill talks about how the notion of race in our species, Homo sapiens sapiens, is completely wrong and outdated. He and his colleagues in the scientific community show us how we are all of the same race, and that the notion of different races/sub-species in humans today is 100% scientifically incorrect.

The Eyes of Nye - Race (Part 1 of 3) - YouTube

POST #4
-----------------------

“Black People Don’t Have Blue Eyes…Do They

http://mixedamericanlife.files.wordp..._blue_eyes.jpg



http://mixedamericanlife.wordpress.c...they%E2%80%9D/

POST #5
-----------------------------
White skin appeared just 20,000 to 50,000 years ago, as dark-skinned humans migrated to colder climes and lost much of their melanin pigment.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/feb/20-things-skin


see there is no biological basis for the idea of a white or black or asian


Race is an old concept that should probably be discarded. It was

created by people who had a very limited knowledge of their world. If you

look at any genetic map (mitochondrial or Y chromosome DNA), you can

see there is no biological basis for the idea of a white or black or asian

race.

Here's a map

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hngs

Why don't eskimoes have fair pigmentation, blonde hair or blue eyes? I mean, I could see them not having all of these... but at least a somewhat lighter complexion? No? What's up with that? Hint: it's because these kind of racial characteristics have nothing to do with climate.

---