Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old January 17th, 2014 #1
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default #1 Biological reasons for 'racism' thread

Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism

Carsten K. W. De Dreu1,
Lindred L. Greer,
Gerben A. Van Kleef,
Shaul Shalvi, and
Michel J. J. Handgraaf

Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, 1018 WB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Edited by Douglas S. Massey, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved December 21, 2010 (received for review October 12, 2010)

Abstract

Human ethnocentrism—the tendency to view one's group as centrally important and superior to other groups—creates intergroup bias that fuels prejudice, xenophobia, and intergroup violence. Grounded in the idea that ethnocentrism also facilitates within-group trust, cooperation, and coordination, we conjecture that ethnocentrism may be modulated by brain oxytocin, a peptide shown to promote cooperation among in-group members. In double-blind, placebo-controlled designs, males self-administered oxytocin or placebo and privately performed computer-guided tasks to gauge different manifestations of ethnocentric in-group favoritism as well as out-group derogation. Experiments 1 and 2 used the Implicit Association Test to assess in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. Experiment 3 used the infrahumanization task to assess the extent to which humans ascribe secondary, uniquely human emotions to their in-group and to an out-group. Experiments 4 and 5 confronted participants with the option to save the life of a larger collective by sacrificing one individual, nominated as in-group or as out-group. Results show that oxytocin creates intergroup bias because oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group derogation. These findings call into question the view of oxytocin as an indiscriminate “love drug” or “cuddle chemical” and suggest that oxytocin has a role in the emergence of intergroup conflict and violence.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...16108.abstract
 
Old January 17th, 2014 #2
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default

Depth of the Kindness Hormone Appears to Know Some Bounds

Oxytocin has been described as the hormone of love. This tiny chemical, released from the hypothalamus region of the brain, gives rat mothers the urge to nurse their pups, keeps male prairie voles monogamous and, even more remarkable, makes people trust each other more.

Yes, you knew there had to be a catch. As oxytocin comes into sharper focus, its social radius of action turns out to have definite limits. The love and trust it promotes are not toward the world in general, just toward a person’s in-group. Oxytocin turns out to be the hormone of the clan, not of universal brotherhood. Psychologists trying to specify its role have now concluded it is the agent of ethnocentrism.

A principal author of the new take on oxytocin is Carsten K. W. De Dreu, a psychologist at the University of Amsterdam. Reading the growing literature on the warm and cuddly effects of oxytocin, he decided on evolutionary principles that no one who placed unbounded trust in others could survive. Thus there must be limits on oxytocin’s ability to induce trust, he assumed, and he set out to define them.

In a report published last year in Science, based on experiments in which subjects distributed money, he and colleagues showed that doses of oxytocin made people more likely to favor the in-group at the expense of an out-group. With a new set of experiments in Tuesday’s issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, he has extended his study to ethnic attitudes, using Muslims and Germans as the out-groups for his subjects, Dutch college students.

These nationalities were chosen because of a 2005 poll that showed that 51 percent of Dutch citizens held unfavorable opinions about Muslims, and other surveys that Germans, although seen by the Dutch as less threatening, were nevertheless regarded as “aggressive, arrogant and cold.”

Well-socialized Dutch students might be unlikely to say anything derogatory about other groups. So one set of Dr. De Dreu’s experiments tapped into the unconscious mind by asking subjects simply to press a key when shown a pair of words. One word had either positive or negative connotations. The other was either a common Dutch first name like Peter, or an out-group name, like Markus or Helmut for the Germans, and Ahmad or Youssef for the Muslims.

What is measured is the length of time a subject takes to press a key. If both words have the same emotional value, the subject will press the key more quickly than if the emotional overtones conflict and the mind takes longer to reach a decision. Subjects who had sniffed a dose of oxytocin 40 minutes earlier were significantly more likely to favor the in-group, Dr. De Dreu reported.

In another set of experiments the Dutch students were given standard moral dilemmas in which a choice must be made about whether to help a person onto an overloaded lifeboat, thereby drowning the five already there, or saving five people in the path of a train by throwing a bystander onto the tracks.

In Dr. De Dreu’s experiments, the five people who might be saved were nameless, but the sacrificial victim had either a Dutch or a Muslim name. Subjects who had taken oxytocin were far more likely to sacrifice the Muhammads than the Maartens.

Despite the limitation on oxytocin’s social reach, its effect seems to be achieved more through inducing feelings of loyalty to the in-group than by fomenting hatred of the out-group. The Dutch researchers found some evidence that it enhances negative feelings, but this was not conclusive. “Oxytocin creates intergroup bias primarily because it motivates in-group favoritism and because it motivates out-group derogation,” they write.

Dr. De Dreu plans to investigate whether oxytocin mediates other social behaviors that evolutionary psychologists think evolved in early human groups. Besides loyalty to one’s own group, there would also have been survival advantages in rewarding cooperation and punishing deviants. Oxytocin, if it underlies these behaviors too, would perhaps have helped ancient populations set norms of behavior.

Early religions were also involved in establishing group cohesion and penalizing offenders. Could oxytocin be involved in the social aspects of the religious experience? Dr. De Dreu sees oxytocin’s effects as being very general, and no more likely to be associated with the religious experience than with soccer hooliganism. “When people get together with others who share their values, that drives up the level of oxytocin,” he said.

For military commanders, nothing is more important than the group cohesion of their soldiers, for which oxytocin might now seem the ideal prescription. But this assumption is a bridge too far, Dr. De Dreu said, given that his findings are based only on lab experiments.

What does it mean that a chemical basis for ethnocentrism is embedded in the human brain? “In the ancestral environment it was very important for people to detect in others whether they had a long-term commitment to the group,” Dr. De Dreu said. “Ethnocentrism is a very basic part of humans, and it’s not something we can change by education. That doesn’t mean that the negative aspects of it should be taken for granted.”

Bruno B. Averbeck, an expert on the brain’s emotional processes at the National Institute of Mental Health, said that the effects of oxytocin described in Dr. De Dreu’s report were interesting but not necessarily dominant. The brain weighs emotional attitudes like those prompted by oxytocin against information available to the conscious mind. If there is no cognitive information in a situation in which a decision has to be made, like whether to trust a stranger about whom nothing is known, the brain will go with the emotional advice from its oxytocin system, but otherwise rational data will be weighed against the influence from oxytocin and may well override it, Dr. Averbeck said.

Dr. Averbeck said he was amazed that a substance like oxytocin can affect such a high-level human behavior. “It’s really surprising to me that this neurotransmitter can so specifically affect these social behaviors,” he said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/sc...mone.html?_r=0
 
Old January 17th, 2014 #3
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default

Racism is 'hardwired' into the human brain http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=143180
 
Old January 17th, 2014 #4
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin

Quote:
Oxytocin (Oxt) /ˌɒksɨˈtoʊsɪn/ is a mammalian neurohypophysial hormone, (secreted by the posterior pituitary gland), that acts primarily as a neuromodulator in the brain.

Oxytocin plays an important role in the neuroanatomy of intimacy, specifically in sexual reproduction, in particular during and after childbirth. It is released in large amounts after distension of the cervix and uterus during labor, facilitating birth, maternal bonding, and, after stimulation of the nipples, lactation. Both childbirth and milk ejection result from positive feedback mechanisms.[1]

Recent studies have begun to investigate oxytocin's role in various behaviors, including orgasm, social recognition, pair bonding, anxiety, and maternal behaviors.[2] For this reason, it is sometimes referred to as the "bonding hormone". There is some evidence that oxytocin promotes ethnocentric behavior, incorporating the trust and empathy of in-groups with their suspicion and rejection of outsiders.[3] Furthermore, genetic differences in the oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) have been associated with maladaptive social traits such as aggressive behaviour.[4]
Quote:
Increasing trust and reducing fear: In a risky investment game, experimental subjects given nasally administered oxytocin displayed "the highest level of trust" twice as often as the control group. Subjects who were told they were interacting with a computer showed no such reaction, leading to the conclusion that oxytocin was not merely affecting risk aversion.[38] Nasally administered oxytocin has also been reported to reduce fear, possibly by inhibiting the amygdala (which is thought to be responsible for fear responses).[39] Indeed, studies in rodents have shown oxytocin can efficiently inhibit fear responses by activating an inhibitory circuit within the amygdala. Some researchers have argued oxytocin has a general enhancing effect on all social emotions, since intranasal administration of oxytocin also increases envy and Schadenfreude.[40]

Trust is increased by oxytocin.[41][42][43] Disclosure of emotional events is a sign of trust in humans. When recanting a negative event, humans that receive intranasal oxytocin share more emotional details and stories with more emotional significance.[42] Humans also find faces more trustworthy after receiving intranasal oxytocin. In a study, participants that received intranasal oxytocin viewed photographs of human faces with neutral expressions and found them to be more trustworthy than those who did not receive oxytocin.[41] This may be because oxytocin reduces the fear of social betrayal in humans.[44] Even after experiencing social alienation by being excluded from a conversation, humans that received oxytocin scored higher in trust on the Revised NEO Personality Inventory.[43]

While Oxytocin increases trust,[41][42][43] it does so only to a certain degree. In a study, participants played a variation of the trust game and acted as an “investor,” deciding how much money to allocate to a “trustee.” [45] The trustee was described as trustworthy, untrustworthy, or neutral. Participants that received intranasal oxytocin gave more money to the trustworthy and neutral trustees. Participants that received oxytocin did not give more money to the untrustworthy trustee, implying that oxytocin only increases trust when there is no reason to be distrustful.[43] When there is a reason to be distrustful, such as experiencing betrayal, differing reactions are associated with oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) differences. Those with the CT haplotype experience a stronger reaction, in the form of anger, to betrayal.[46]

Oxytocin affects social distance between adult males and females, and may be responsible at least in part for romantic attraction and subsequent monogamous pair bonding. An oxytocin nasal spray caused men in a monogamous relationship, but not single men, to increase the distance between themselves and an attractive woman during a first encounter by 10 to 15 centimeters. The researchers suggested that oxytocin may help promote fidelity within monogamous relationships.[47]

Affecting generosity by increasing empathy during perspective taking: In a neuroeconomics experiment, intranasal oxytocin increased generosity in the Ultimatum Game by 80%, but had no effect in the Dictator Game that measures altruism. Perspective-taking is not required in the Dictator Game, but the researchers in this experiment explicitly induced perspective-taking in the Ultimatum Game by not identifying to participants into which role they would be placed.[48] Serious methodological questions have arisen, however, with regard to the role of oxytocin in trust and generosity.[49]

Empathy in healthy males has been shown to be increased after intranasal oxytocin[50][51] This is most likely due to the effect of oxytocin in enhancing eye gaze.[52] There is some discussion about which aspect of empathy oxytocin might alter – for example, cognitive vs. emotional empathy.[53]
 
Old January 17th, 2014 #5
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default

Anti-'racism' is an unnatural ideology that needs to be indoctrinated into people. Leftists often say "No one is born racist" - no it's the opposite. We're meant to work for our in-group and avoid and distrust the out-group. Jews are the ones who try to pathologize and criminalize Whites for normal behavior that they see as good for their own people and bad for our people. Jews promote the opposite of what our biological defense mechanism is telling us, to destroy us.
 
Old January 18th, 2014 #6
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Good thread. Would be good to get as much stuff as possible on kids under school age exhibiting natural reactions to off-coloreds. Beat the antis over the head with how kids too young to talk much are somehow "conditioned" into their responses. It's like real life reductio ad absurdum. We could get these lefties claiming kids in the womb are socially conditioned to racism by shit they hear in their mom's belly.
 
Old March 31st, 2014 #7
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Why? I’ve avoided talking about race with my kids mainly because I’ve thought that racial bias is learned by direct instruction and imitation—

that's what the anti-white judeo-left teaches, and of course it's the exact opposite of the truth. niggers are the source of racism. people who aren't around niggers aren't racist - but when they need niggers (in army, prison, big city) that changes quickly

and that if I don’t talk about race or act in explicitly racist ways, my kids won’t pick up prejudices. My sources told me that this notion is pretty common; research suggests that nonwhite parents talk about racial identity much more frequently with their kids than white parents do, but that even minority parents often avoid talking about racial differences. “There’s this idea that if you do call attention to race at a young age, you’re poisoning kids’ minds,” says Erin Winkler, chair of the department of Africology at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

This theory makes sense. In fact, it’s what social learning theorists believed for a long time, and why so many parents strive to make their children “color-blind.” But over the past 15 years, research has supported a different idea: that children start assigning meaning to race at a very young age. When researchers presented 30-month-olds with pictures of children of various races and asked them to pick who they would want to play with, the toddlers were more likely to pick kids of their race. Likewise, when sociologists Debra Van Ausdale and Joe Feagin (a known anti-white) observed kids in an urban day care center for 11 months, they found that children as young as three excluded other kids from play based on their race and used race to negotiate power in their social networks, as they described in their 2001 book The First R: How Children Learn Race and Racism.


http://www.slate.com/articles/double...bout_race.html

Last edited by Alex Linder; March 31st, 2014 at 03:02 PM.
 
Old March 31st, 2014 #8
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

[here pdf showing that very young children are race-aware]

http://www4.uwm.edu/letsci/africolog...colorblind.pdf

"Numerous studies have shown that children's racial beliefs are not significantly or reliably related to those of their parents (Hirshfeld, 2008; Katz, 2003; Patterson & Bigler, 2006)."

-- cited in "Children are Not Colorblind: How Young Children Learn Race," by Erin. N. Winkler, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (2009)
 
Old April 2nd, 2014 #9
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default

Oxytocin Boosts Dishonesty
The so-called “love hormone” can make people more dishonest when it serves the interests of their group.

By Ed Yong | March 31, 2014



The hormone oxytocin is usually associated with positive traits like trust, cooperation, and empathy, but scientists have now found that it can make people more dishonest when their lies serve the interests of their group.

“This is the best evidence yet that oxytocin is not the ‘moral molecule,’” said Carsten de Dreu from the University of Amsterdam, who co-led the study, which was published today (March 31) in PNAS. “It doesn’t make people more moral or immoral. It shifts people’s focus from themselves to their group or tribe.”

These findings are “consistent with more and more research showing that the effects of oxytocin aren’t straightforward,” said Carolyn DeClerck from the University of Antwerp, who was not involved in the study. “They can be social or antisocial, depending on the situation and on individual differences.”

Decades of animal studies have shown that oxytocin is involved in social behavior, cementing the bond with monogamous voles and between ewes and lambs. Early human experiments linked the hormone to human behaviors like trust and emotional sensitivity, earning it nicknames such as “love hormone” or “cuddle chemical.”

But recent studies have shown that oxytocin has a dark side. Depending on the context, it can hinder trust, reduce cooperation, or trigger negative feelings like envy and schadenfreude. In 2011, de Dreu found that the hormone could make people biased toward others from their own ethnic or cultural group.

His latest study, conducted by Shaul Shalvi from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel, adds to this subtler portrait of the hormone’s role. The duo ran a double-blind study in which 60 volunteers played a simple game, after inhaling either oxytocin or a placebo.

Working in teams of three, the recruits were asked to predict the toss of a virtual €1 coin and, once they saw the outcome, to say whether they had guessed correctly. A correct answer could gain them money, lose them money, or do nothing, and any winnings or losses would be divided evenly between the three anonymous teammates.

Shalvi and de Dreu found that when the volunteers stood to gain money, they cheated. On average, those who sniffed the placebo said that they had guessed correctly 67 percent of the time—more than expected by chance. Those who sniffed oxytocin were even more dishonest; they reported correct guesses 80 percent of the time, and were quicker to lie.

The duo found different results when they repeated their experiments, this time telling volunteers that their decisions would affect their own earnings, but not those of their teammates. This time, oxytocin had no effect on their lying.

These results showed that oxytocin could boost dishonest behavior, but only when it served the group and not the individual. “It can actually make people more immoral in the group situation because they’re deceiving, and stealing money from, the experimenter,” said de Dreu.

Even then, he and Shalvi found that the hormone’s effects varied depending on the situation. It had no apparent influence on the volunteers’ behavior when nothing was at stake, or when they stood to lose money. In the latter case, the oxytocin-sniffers under-reported their correct guesses just as often as did the volunteers that inhaled the placebo. De Dreu suggested that humans show such a strong aversion to loss that oxytocin has very little bearing on behavior in this context.

These results fit with the idea that oxytocin is a general social chemical that can wield opposing influences on human behavior in different contexts. “Some people may say that it’s still the ‘love hormone,’ because they love their in-group, but these people are in a very minimalistic setting and they don’t know the others in their group,” said de Dreu. “Oxytocin is causing a more general shift from self-interest to group-interest. It’s simplistic and wrong to call oxytocin a ‘moral’ molecule.”

S. Shalvi and C.K.W. de Dreu, “Oxytocin promotes group-serving dishonesty,” PNAS, 10.1073/pnas.1400724111, 2014.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articl...ts-Dishonesty/
 
Old April 2nd, 2014 #10
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default

If there were some way to lower white people's production of oxytocin, I would bet jews would invest heavily into it, if they haven't already.
 
Old April 3rd, 2014 #11
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

whites are actually least ethnocentric, ie 'racist' - (KM cites baby research saying same thing in his books)

http://t.co/zZXkDNw40E
 
Old April 17th, 2014 #12
Tintin
∞ 𐌙 λ
 
Tintin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,497
Default

More confirmation of the Theory of Evolution: Babies just 15 months old show racial bias when picking playmates
__________________
Quote:
"I die in the faith of my people. May the German people be aware of its enemies!"
Paul Blobel, SS Officer, 1951, last words prior to being executed
 
Old April 17th, 2014 #13
Lagergeld
Tard Corralled
 
Lagergeld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,618
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
whites are actually least ethnocentric, ie 'racist' - (KM cites baby research saying same thing in his books)

http://t.co/zZXkDNw40E
Unfortunately this is true.
__________________
RIP Brunn
 
Old July 15th, 2014 #14
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default

Study proves racism is natural and normal instinct - http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=196847
 
Old December 20th, 2014 #15
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

The troubling reason why whites in some states may show more hidden racial bias



Across the United States, white Americans show subtle or "implicit" biases against blacks -- biases they mostly don't even realize they have. This has been established through lots of research, but it's not perfectly uniform across the land. Whites in some states show more bias, overall, than in others.

That's the takeaway from the map above, courtesy of Project Implicit, which is based on the scores of 1.5 million voluntary takers of the Implicit Association Test or IAT (which detects subtle or unconscious racial preferences), and which we examined earlier this month. But we didn't know why the map looked this way -- with levels of uncontrolled bias higher in the U.S. Southeast and East Coast (but not so much New England).

Dominic Packer, a psychologist at Lehigh University, has a surprising (and troubling) answer: Unconscious racial bias, he shows in a new analysis, is higher in U.S. states in which there is a higher ratio of black citizens to white citizens -- or in other words, in which there are relatively more black people for every white person.

“These findings are inconsistent with any simple hypothesis that contact between members of different racial groups will lead to reduced bias," wrote Packer in his analysis. However, he added, they are quite consistent with the idea that in states with more black citizens, whites may perceive "greater competition for political, cultural, and economic resources" or "greater risk for cross-race crime."

Packer provided this visualization, first recoloring the IAT scores map above to a new color scheme, and then showing a map using the same colors for the ratio of black to white residents in the state:

In a 2014 presentation, Project Implicit researchers had already suggested that this relationship might exist. Packer simply went further, seeking to uncover correlations between state level differences in IAT scores (for whites) and a number of sociological and demographic factors, which are known to vary by U.S. state. Factors that he considered included levels of income and income inequality, history as a slave-holding state, political ideology, and the ratio of white to black residents in the state.

Interestingly, the research found that how a state voted in 2008 -- for Obama versus McCain -- did not explain anything about the state's average IAT score. There was simply no relationship to politics. However, other factors, like levels of income inequality and whether the state was once a slave-holding state, did correlate with implicit bias scores.

Since many of the factors listed above actually correlate with each other, raising questions as to which factor might be truly primary, Packer then took another step. That was to perform a statistical analysis -- called a regression -- that would seek to even more precisely define which variable is linked to the pattern of implicit racial bias.

The result was striking: The ratio of white to black residents in a given state explained over 50 percent of the variability in various states' white participants’ Implicit Association Test scores. "That’s pretty big, for anything social scienc-y," said Packer of the result.

Or to state the result in a different way: “States where Whites outnumber Blacks substantially in the population have lower average IAT scores,” wrote Packer. “In contrast, states where Blacks make up proportionally more of the population have higher average IAT scores.”

So do these relatively small differences in average implicit bias scores, across U.S. states, actually matter? Packer thinks that they do, suggesting that they may predict actual behaviors. To show as much, he turned to a much-discussed 2012 state-by-state map of racist tweets, and analyzed that map in light of the distribution of implicit bias by whites.

Here, fascinatingly, Packer found that states with higher implicit bias scores had more racist tweets. Furthermore, he found an interaction between whether or not a state voted for Romney (versus Obama) and whether it produced a lot of racist tweets -- meaning that in pro-Romney states, a high state IAT score predicted lots of racist tweets, whereas in states that went for Obama, it didn't really predict anything:

Because Packer’s analysis was not peer reviewed or submitted to and published in a journal, we sought comments from other researchers on it. Generally they offered praise, but also noted a number of caveats.

David Amodio, a neuroscientist at New York University who studies prejudice, said that Packer's analyses "appear to be done well." But he also cautioned that correlation is still not causation -- so we still don’t necessarily know the fundamental reason for the quite strong correlation that Packer’s analysis revealed.

“There could be a million reasons for the observed correlation between IAT scores and the ratio of Blacks and Whites in a state,” said Amodio.

The University of Washington's Anthony Greenwald, who created the Implicit Association test in 1995, had another point of note. While observing that Packer’s analysis "went interestingly beyond what we already knew," he warned that the result might look different if the analysis was at the level of U.S. counties, rather than U.S. states. An analysis at the level of counties, he suggested, might reveal a rural-urban divide in whites’ implicit racial bias levels that a coarser state level analysis can’t tease out.

In particular, Greenwald singled out Washington, D.C., from Packer’s analysis -- an entirely urban “state” where blacks make up just under 50 percent of the population, but where white people's IAT scores were relatively low, in comparison with those in other states. "The finding that Washington, D.C., is a huge outlier is by itself an indicator that population ratio provides no simple explanation,” said Greenwald. “And it seems plausible that cities with relatively high Black:White ratios may have lower mean IAT scores for Whites than do surrounding rural areas with lower Black:White ratios.”

Packer agrees that doing the analysis at the level of counties, rather than states, would lead to interesting new insights -- but he doesn't think it would invalidate his overall conclusion. But such a county-level analysis, he said, is "really important" as well.

So there is still more research to do in order to further home in and refine explanations for the striking pattern shown in the map at the start of this article. Let’s hope that happens forthwith: Knowing our biases, and why they exist, is the first step toward correcting them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ias/?tid=sm_fb
 
Old March 28th, 2015 #16
EricPowers
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 704
Default

It's long been proven by Science that Race and Racism do have a biological basis, however such Scientific findings have been suppressed by the Jewish Media and Education System.

America's schools exist more for the purpose of indoctrination of young people into the cult of MLK than their education.
 
Old April 13th, 2017 #18
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Also traces of past events and survival instincts to overcome are transferred / carried over, imo. It is as natural as a dawning day which is why the anti-Whites have labeled it a "hate crime".
 
Reply

Tags
#1

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:12 PM.
Page generated in 0.14203 seconds.