Roosevelt: Theodore, Franklin, or Eleanor?

Post Reply New Topic

I looked at your post history too, and saw this...



No wonder Europe means little more to you than "market economies".

Okay, I'll ask for viper: What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Oh noes! You left out the best part...

From the full post: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=300222&p=5968774#p5968774


Looks like Rollo is just as mad as his WWII friends... Poor Rollo...

Quit projecting.

Eleanor. She was freakin' hot!

Ahh, you think *science* is your ally? But you merely cherry-picked the science. I was trained in it, moulded by it...


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 06611.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 14618.html

Or more concisely:
- There are more deleterious alleles in European populations due to lack of biological variation within this population.
- Lack of biological variation within human populations leads to lower height and lower IQ.

The cited studies are also - unlike the one you referred to - based on measurement of actual genetic variation, and not just survey responses.

The biological advantage of heterozygosity (heterosis/hybrid vigor) is well established by scientific evidence, which really shatters your white supremacist world-view.

Racial purity has done nothing but bring about inbred populations practising stagnant cultures. And the rejection in practice of such purity is the secret of America's success - - muttdom.

Am I supposed to be impressed?

1. I was making a point about the angst felt by many mixed-race people who feel unable to identify with either of their parents' races and who grow up in a society that they know has been built by people racially different from them. Survey responses were quite adequate for the point I was making. How a person's genetic makeup directly influences their phenotypic characteristics is a separate issue, but since you've brought it up, I'll carry on...

2. You seem to have made the typically false assumption that people like me must be primarily interested in IQ and other phenotypic characteristics. That's not the case. I am interested in seeing the races preserved, and then seeing humanity improved within that framework, not in seeing the races of mankind blended out for the sake of making human beings 1cm taller or whatever. However, in my ideal world there would also be some Half-Caste-Stans where mixed race people can bask in their superiority as much as they like.

3. Even if intelligence were my primary concern, I could point out that European intelligence is responsible for virtually all of the modern technology you see around you, as you well know. We've gotten along just fine with our homozygosity and deleterious alleles, thank you. And those Dutch and Serbs are pretty tall.

4. Your concise summary is just vague fluff. What does it even mean? Are we supposed to conclude that the average European is shorter than the average non-European (including those 2 billion or so Orientals)? Are we expected to believe that a Dutch man has a better chance of having a tall child with a Pygmy than with a Dutch woman? Are we expected to believe that if race A who have an average IQ 100 engages in panmixia with race B who have an average IQ of 70, the resulting population will have an average IQ over 100? Somehow I think there's enough variation within whole ethnic groups (European or otherwise) to prevent any major widespread problems, as long as Middle-Eastern- and South-Asian-style cousin marriage is largely avoided.


The concept of hybrid vigour does not shatter my worldview in the slightest, but you wouldn't realise that since you've made a typically wrong-headed assumption about what my worldview is.

However, it's interesting to see a mulatto-supremacist indulging in the sort of rhetoric that people like me are usually expected to indulge in (even though I don't).

Last edited by Rollo on 12 Dec 2015, 7:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, what did those inbred Europeans ever achieve, apart from building Western civilization of course.



No, sport, America achieved her position of world domination when she was 90% White and practising de facto racial segregation, and after the other White nations had exhausted themselves in a worldwide war. Being a massive country full of natural resources and with a huge population also helped. Your beloved muttdom is why America will soon be overtaken as a superpower by China.

Like everything you type, your post is just fashionable nonsense.

To answer the original question: my favourite Roosevelt is obviously Theodore by default.

I agree completely... Why, in combination, billions of people probably owe their lives to Fritz Haber (co-inventor of synthetic fertilizer), Karl Landsteiner & Richard Lewisohn (inventors of blood transfusions), Ernst Boris Chain (co-inventor of penicillin)...

... but wait... these guys are Jews... and Jews, despite making up approx. 0.2 percent of the world's population, are recipients of approx. 20 percent of all Nobel prizes (and 28, 26 and 19 percent respectively in the hard sciences of medicine, physics and chemistry).
.. and based on your post history you really, really, really, really, really don't seem to like the Jews much... Especially not the Askhenazi Jews, who are very prominent in scientific fields...

So if you were genuinely concerned with advocating the champions of modern technology, you'd start advocating Jewish - not white - supremacy... I'm not holding my breath...


If you don't like the summary... read the *actual* abstract which I included in my post...


Hmm... As I recall, it was *you* who brought up my ancestry in a thread about Roosevelts to make some sort of point about race... not I.

All I am asking for is some consistency in your supremacist views.

If you are going for biology, then you ought to be cheering for the mutts...
If you are going for technology/science, you ought to be cheering for the Jews...

Yet your enthusiasm for both groups seems to be rather muted...

Teddy had a few good points,but this comment shows he's just another white racist.

"I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth". (Stannard, Op.Cit.)

Glad to see you are back Viper.

I have no doubt that you could find un pc things coming out of TR's mouth, or pen, if you look hard enough for them. Same with every other White male public figure prior to WWII.

But are you sure TR said that particular thing?

The reason I ask is that TR came of age after the era of the Indian wars, and after the Frontier had ended. So why would TR have ever even had the occasion to address the subject of killing Indians? Doesnt quite make sense.

Are you sure you're not thinking of an earlier person (maybe Andrew Jackson, or Tippecanoe Harrison)?

American Indians were among the eagerest guys to join his Rough Riders brigade of volunteers. So in contrast to"Indian fighters" of earlier America (like Benjamin "Tippecanoe" Harrison) TR's experience was fighting alongside Indians rather than against them.

And when TR was president he was the first to racially integrate the staff lunch room of the White House (Blacks and Whites ate together for the first time). When Woodrow Wilson took office Wilson promptly reversed it back to being segregated (kinda like when Reagen tore out the solar cells on the White House roof that Carter had installed).

/\There are enough sources to make me believe he did.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/g ... 117859516/
http://www.historytoday.com/tim-stanley ... -laid-bare

While I don't really have a favourite Roosevelt per se, I'm highly envious of how FDR got to dress as a child...

^I would love to have looked like this as a little boy regardless of what others' might have thought.
FWIW, he passed the shoe style on to his own boys...

I couldnt imagine a context for him saying it because I dont associate him with the frontier era, but I guess for some reason he did say it.