I was watching video about specific breeds of dogs. In the videos, professional breeders would describe particular breeds in general as being predisposed to specific behavior. Some dogs have a greater propensity towards exhibiting intelligence, others are predisposed towards more violent behavior while others are naturally designed for speed .
The breeders spoke clearly about the subject of breeds. They did not state that there is nothing to worry about with the violence-prone breeds of Canis lupus familiaris (dogs). At no time did they ever mention that all breeds are created equal, and behave equally. They were up-front about the reality of certain breeds. They brought to the attention of the people, some particular breeds of dogs, are in fact, incontrovertibly more of a danger to man than others. They did not seem to try to induce fear about this fact, rather they seemed intent on creating awareness. The professional breeders and veterinarians stereotype to no end regarding the behavior of these dogs.
I believe the Canis lupus familiaris, can be used as a paradigm for learning about and understanding human beings. Some breeds of dogs exhibit certain behaviors that are characteristic to that breed. Some races have a greater propensity towards violence than others.
In this video you will hear Dr. Karen Halligan, CHIEF VETERINARIAN, SPCALA AUTHOR, describe the German Shepard breed, collectively, not individually, as being “extremely intelligent”, and “so protective of what they consider, their pack.”
The Rottweiler on the other hand, is described in this video(click this video) as being the breed that is responsible for causing the second most deaths of human beings, behind the Pit Bull. Some insurance companies will not insure Rottweilers, based on statistics. The statistics are indicative of aggressive behavior. Sure, not all Rottweilers will hurt you, but the chances are increased.
I believe the demands for survival on the prehistoric continent of Africa have molded the African to have a different level of aggression. I believe trying to survive in a world of lions, crocodiles, hyenas and other extremely dangerous animals will force the evolution in that direction. I believe on that continent in particular, at that point in time, it was of greater benefit for the African model of human to behave wild, in order to in order to survive.
I feel there could possibly be a great effort to deceive people about the disproportionately violent statistics concerning the pit bull and other dogs. If people recognize the correlation between aggressive behavior and breed/genetics, they will logically conclude that the same applies to humans.
Of late I have noticed some of the all powerful and magic media seem to be focused on manipulating people to not stereotype pit bulls, regardless of the statistics.
I could even see the manipulation and or obfuscation of lethal dog attack statistics, similar to the transformation of the Department of Justice racial crime statistics web site.
In the not too distant future, some might try to convince us that all breeds of dogs behave identical.
March 10, 2009 at 2:43 am e
I couldn’t disagree more with your theory. In fact, I think whites are far more violent and dangerous than negroes. The reason whites don’t have dangerous wildlife as a daily threat is that we controlled or exterminated entire species of predatory animals.
The difference is not one of violence, but one of cooperative organization. Whites joined other whites in cooperative effort to exterminate wolves for example. Negroes lack the intellect and social organization to accomplish a similar feat with lions. In todays society we see this demonstrated by the negroes’ random violence typically directed against their own community. Whites, on the other hand, cooperatively create weapons of incredible destructive power and then focus them on a common external enemy (ie Iraqis). Whites have violently conquered and subjugated the majority of the world, imposing order and rule of law under threat of organized violence. Negroes kill their neighbor using whatever is at hand as a weapon (too often a gun created by whites).
The question we should be asking now is why whites allow negro misbehavior and random violence against whites. There is no question that whites could stop it decisively and permanently, but we instead allow it to continue and we pretend each act is unique rather than seeing that the negro is an intellectually handicapped predatory beast (much like a wolf) that cannot be trained or tamed to safely coexist in white civilization.
March 10, 2009 at 4:57 am e
Thank you for putting so much thought into your comment, I respect that.
I do agree that blacks lack the same organizational skills. But I believe a different continent will produce different evolutionary results in aggression levels. The continent of Africa is home to far more dangerous predators and wildlife than wolves.
I look at the destruction and chaos that Negroids produce with very basic and even primitive weapons. If blacks are as violent with guns as they are, imagine the danger they would pose with nuclear warheads. I shutter to think of a majority of Negroids possessing weapons of the greatest power. Their inability to refrain from spontaneous aggression would put into perspective, just how restrained the white man has truly been.
A nuclear armed Africa would be a certain doomsday scenario for the planet. Inability to restrain ones’ self is a disastrous factor when coupled with powerful weapons. And although whites are by no means masters of self-control, they are miles ahead of the black. Negroids demonstrate lack of restraint on a daily basis at mind-boggling levels. They cannot restrain themselves from having children they are unable to care for. They cannot restrain themselves enough to keep their STD numbers within comprehensible levels. They cannot restrain themselves from slaughtering other humans on a daily basis.
Possessing the – capability – to inflict massive destruction is far different than the inclination to thoughtlessly use and abuse that ability for something as petty as someone looking at you the wrong way.
With regards to, “Whites have violently conquered and subjugated the majority of the world”, I’ve said before, if Shaka Zulu had possessed nuclear weapons he would have made Genghis Khan look like a piker. All humans were destined to either conquer, attempt conquering or be conquered. It boiled down to who would prevail.
Justice Department numbers indicate that blacks are seven times more likely to commit murder, take that factor and place the war technology of whites in the hands of blacks and I believe the numbers would mirror each other. In a hypothetical situation, where blacks traded roles with whites throughout all of history, in terms of ability to wage war, would they have shown restraint with nuclear weapons, when they cannot control themselves in society? I recall millions being killed in Darfur and Rwanda, all of that death without very sophisticated weapons.
Blacks did not possess the power to cause mass destruction via powerful weaponry: they have not been tested. But based on the way they handle guns, blunt objects, their fists and sharp objects, I do not think the results would be pretty.
Africa has had its share of tribal conquerors, although their minds were restricted to their relatively immediate surroundings. Their technology did not match their desire; this left the range of their ambitions limited.
The white man has tried to incorporate diplomacy to mitigate the potential for conflict i.e. treaties, agreements etc. The implementation of such measures is indicative of a conscious awareness of the potential destructive nature that whites and all humans possess i.e. most white leaders realize the power they possess and realize what the consequences of abusing that would be – in terms of war. They are consciously trying to restrain themselves. Their efforts at restraint are so great that they will create page after page of documentation for these treaties, pouring consideration into them. A great deal of thought is dedicated to the matter.
Like the gun, the baseball bat was invented by whites. That does not make whites accountable for all murders committed by bats.
I believe whites possess less of a destructive nature while possessing far greater a capability for destruction.
As I understand your rational, the very race you describe as being “intellectually handicapped predatory beast (much like a wolf) that cannot be trained or tamed to safely coexist in white civilization.” would be less violent than whites if they possessed super-weapons. I disagree.
It was a matter of who possessed the power, and how would they handle it. If you feel the Negroid would have handled weapons of mass destruction better than whites, I believe that to be certainly wrong.
Bob G. Says:
March 13, 2009 at 8:38 am e
I would say that every ONE of us is capable of the most violent of behavior…(given the proper reason)
The determining factor that MUST be understood is the white man’s capacity to OVERRIDE that desire to exhibit his/her primal instincts on a more regular basis.
Perhaps it’s centuries of progress and knowledge to refer to that has allowed this to develop, as opposed to centuries of tribal ignorance.
It’s as simple as saying: “Today, I will not kill”.
A greater number of blacks (than whites) have difficulty with the concept, and therefore give IN to their nature more readily.
You both bring up some very valid points, but it does come down to the individual…
EVERY PERSON must be responsible for THEIR OWN actions, and also has to be held accountable for them.
The vast majority of us have NO problem with that.
DOJ statistics remain true:
Blacks cause MORE crime to every other race (even their own), and although it’s only less than a third OF that race causing all that crime, it is something to consider.