brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight johnknight at
Fri Aug 16 01:41:37 EST 2002

"OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at> wrote in message
news:ce660175.0208151916.680f3805 at
> "John Knut" <johnknight at> wrote in message news:<c6a69.26146

> > > However, if you have
> > > other agendas in mind, we'd like to hear them.  For instance, would
> > > you plan to do with all of the individuals you deem as so inferior if
> > > they are unable to find employment anywhere?  How would we educate
> > > them if you deem them as being uneducable?
> >
> > If the US economy had continued to grow since affirmative action was
> > implemented at the same rate that it had grown before affirmative
> > U.S. GDP would now be $36 trillion, rather than only $9 trillion. It was
> > admission of IDIOTS into key positions, forced upon both industry and
> > government managers through affirmative action, that caused this sudden
> > reversal of our fortunes.
> Nice handwaving with the statistics, but you're not answering my
> question.  I implied, "other agendas" BESIDES dealing with Affirmative
> Action, and the infamous one you have posted here prior.

Use your head.  If our economy were on track with its pre-affirmative-action
growth rate, it would now be four times its current size, and these inferior
employees would be living in households which earn four times as much as
they do now rather than interfering with productive workers in the work

It was these EXTRA 17 million unwanted women workers who employees were
forced to hire through affirmative action who caused the problem.  Putting
them to work didn't increase family incomes--it caused family purchasing
power to drop to a third of what it was in 1968 (while most countries'
family incomes continued to increase, leaving Japan with family incomes two
or three times higher than ours).

> > The problem with letting government have even the slightest iota of
> > over our free enterprise system is that it puts the quixotic woman voter
> > charge of making decisions that she has utterly no ability to
> > just as you and parsetree have aptly demonstrated.
> You seemingly have no ability to comprehend an entire paragraph, John
> (nor apparently a request not to change the subject line).  We already
> know about your proposal to repeal the Nineteenth Amendment.  However,
> I'd like to know what you have in mind in regards to the certain
> ethnic groups you continually malign.  Do you have a WORKABLE solution
> in regards to this?

Yes.  Do exactly what our Founding Forefathers suggested and send them all
back to Africa and Mexico.  Simple (particularly since Mexico currently
sends all its undesirables to the US, rather than spending more money on

That in fact is the ONLY "WORKABLE solution".

> > The extra 17 million women in the labor force are the major, but not
> > problem.  This $27 trillion loss of productivity divided evenly over
> > extra 17 million women is a NEGATIVE productivity of more than $1.5
> > each.  Needless to say, it takes a lot of productive men workers to make
> > for each $1.5 million loss.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > You LIE by saying "As one who has always been naturally interested
> > > > productive discourse", precede that with  the intentionally most
> > > > counterproductive discourse imaginable [read:  "hate-filled
> > > > ranting, ranting, ranting about all the problems"],
> > >
> > > On the contrary.  I was merely summing up your hundreds of posts for
> > > the sake of space and brevity.  [Please explain how using racist and
> > > anti-semitic slurs can be anything but "hate-filled".  Why do you use
> > > those words?  What's your point?]
> >
> > This is called "projection", which is something you feminazis never seem
> > be able to grasp.  But for the benefit of others, you feminazis "hate"
> > people who use normal English words, so you presume that anyone who
> > use words you don't like must "hate" you.
> 1. I never identified myself as a feminist, nor have I suggested
> censoring or suppressing you.  Therefore, it is you who are once again
> are using hate-filled language by implying that I am somehow
> affiliated with Nazis.  [...or are you?]

You haven't "identified" yourself as a feminist?  Do you know any other type
of person besides a feminazi or a jew who LIES by saying "As one who has
always been naturally interested in productive discourse", preceded by the
intentionally most counterproductive discourse imaginable [read:
"hate-filled diatribes, ranting, ranting, ranting about all the problems"]?

Nazis were jews.  Do you *really* think I'm a jew?

If you "think" the word "feminazi" is "hate-filled language", then CERTAINLY
you agree that accusing someone of being a "Nazi" is too?

> 2.  Here is an example of what you consider a "normal English word",
> courtesy Webster's Online Dictionary:
> Main Entry: nig·ger
> Pronunciation: 'ni-g&r
> Function: noun
> Etymology: alteration of earlier neger, from Middle French negre, from
> Spanish or Portuguese negro, from negro black, from Latin niger
> Date: 1700
> 1 : usually offensive : see usage paragraph below : a black person
> 2 : usually offensive : see usage paragraph below : a member of any
> dark-skinned race
> John, do you have any comprehension of the phrase, "USUALLY OFFENSIVE"
> ...?  If you are deliberately using a word taken as OFFENSIVE, it
> usually implies that you have no good will towards whomever you are
> directing your words.

Who do you think uses this word most often?  Niggers!  This word can appear
20 times in a single paragraph in nigger communities.  Nobody uses the word
anywhere NEAR as often as they do.  So if this "phrase" is "USUALLY
OFFENSIVE", then you must believe that niggers are ALWAYS being "OFFENSIVE"
(20 times per paragraph)?

Do you believe niggers are ALWAYS being "OFFENSIVE", feminazi?  Do you think
they're ALWAYS trying to "OFFEND" each other?  I don't think so.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to state "OCCASIONALLY OFFENSIVE"?  Or in your
little feminazi mind, do niggers just not count?  Is that it?  You don't
really care what niggers say, because it's only what you honkeys say that
counts.  In your vernacular, is it really "USUALLY OFFENSIVE" to say nigger?

Do you really think STUPID "wiberals" whose HYPOCRISY stinks to High Heaven
deserve even a modicum of "good will"?  No.  You're a billion times worse
than niggers, so if you really want "OFFENSIVE", then you can easily be
reclassified from feminazi to "wiberal".

> > The Holy Bible
> > warns us to "abhor those who rise up against you [God]?  I have nothing
> > hatred for them; I count them my enemies", and American jews and
> > and sodomites and other "wiberals" and muds have collectively warned us
> > they do "hate" God and have risen up against Him.
> The Holy Bible also says, "judge not lest ye be judged".  (FWIW this
> is the third (fourth?) time I've posed this question: how can you call
> yourself a practicing Christian while you're frothing and spewing all
> of this obvious hate?)

You're a moron.  You don't know how to even quote a single passage in the
Holy Bible.  And now you want someone to explain Christianity to you?  Your
ability to comprehend Christianity obviously passed a long time ago, along
with your ability to psychoanalyze normal people.

Yes, you're a disagreeable person.  All "wiberals" are.  Yes, you're the
worst kind of feminazi, because you spout feminazi "principles" and then
proclaim "I never identified myself as a feminist", which means you're
either a LIAR, or a feminazi in denial (though I repeat myself).  Yes, just
about nothing you ever posted ever made any sense.  But, NO, that doesn't
mean anybody "hates" you. In fact, I personally don't even know people who
talk like this, so it's really difficult to grasp where you get this bs
from.  Did your mommy tell you to talk like this?  Did you learn it in
church?  Public "school"?  TV?  Feminazi guerilla training?

Or is it just a feminazi debate tactic?

> > One of the reasons you're so despicable is your complete inability to
> > most words that are posted to this forum, like "affirmative action" and
> > "average" and "probability" and "nigger", so it's your own words (words
> > you've created) that indict you.
> Lying about me does nothing to bolster your argument or credibility,
> John.  Please produce specific URLS for the posts showing my
> "inability" to understand "affirmative action", "probabilities" and
> "averages".

Why don't you demonstrate that you do?  Why don't you start by telling us
why you "think" that affirmative action was "misguided"?  That'll probably
answer the rest of your questions, even though it's your prior posts which
already gave you away.

> >
> > And what exactly would anyone do with that extra time?  Trying to
> > something like the "economy" or "GDP" to the 3 1/2 billion brain cell
> > limited klan is usually like talking to a pet rock, which never requires
> > much extra time.
> You still aren't answering my question, John -- just buying more time.
>  What workable solutions do you have in mind?  Shipping all black
> people to Madagascar?  Please explain how this can possibly be
> "workable".

That's already been done, but let's try it again.  Niggers kill 12 White men
every day in this country, which is a RATE higher than the entire murder
rate in many civilized countries.  95% of all crimes, including violent
crimes and homicide, are committed by niggers and Mexicans, so shipping them
out will save 19,000 American lives each year (that's 6 World Trade Centers'
worth, each year), cut violent crime, property crime, rapes, etc., by 95%

Niggers cost $850 billion per year in social transfer payments, which means
that White men must work 42 days each year JUST to earn the money which is
paid JUST for taxes to fund JUST the welfare which is paid JUST to niggers.
In other countries, this money goes into personal savings, but we spend so
much for niggers that we are the only industrialized nation in the world
with a negative personal savings rate.  So shipping the niggers out will
instantly raise personal savings rates out of the red (and could increase
them to as high as 10% of GDP, which is only a third of the Japanese rate,
but it's a vast improvement from where we are)

Eliminating nigger music [read: pornography], the nigger "culture", kwanza,
miscegenation with niggers, their mere presence which currently destroys
entire communities, are incalculable benefits, worth trillions of dollars.

While wittle "wiberals" walk around with their little chests all puffed up
about how "we freed the slaves" (even though they don't even know what a
"slave" is), what they never seem to grasp is that the million nigger men in
American prisons today constitute TWICE as many niggers as there were ever
under slavery, and it's doubtful if even one of those million niggers views
it as an improvement.  Before the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 20% of niggers grew
up in single-mother households, 20% of them were imprisoned before age 33,
but today, it's 78% in each category, which is partly why nigger household
incomes are now a third of what they were BEFORE 1964.

That's the short list.

> Note to John: stop buying time and tell us how you plan to implement
> SOLUTIONS.  *That's* what my question is about.  Give us a
> step-by-step implementation plan, for instance.

See and make a recommendation on how to
improve on it.

John Knight

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list