Question to Zig Forumstards

You keep misunderstanding, it's a shame, really.

groups of people are more than the sum of your personal individual anecdotes with them

this isn't about having a 115 Autism Level Ghanian elite as a neighbor it's about being flooded by millions of 70 Autism Level Apefricans as far as the eye can see

now kys baboon enabler

So when you gas all nigers will you proceed to gas all dumb whites? and after will bow down to your asian overlords?

Attached: 1507818456748.jpg (1000x800, 97.58K)

I guess feminists was right all along then huh. All men are savages and whites are hyper aggresive and will see any opportuniy to jump on a group smaller than them to exploit them.

Why haven't you bowed down to the Jews yet?

Amerimutts belong in the zoo.

I agree. For example, all of Zig Forums are incel losers.

...

serious answer:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

Zig Forums BTFO

Attached: da370f8a5f190519562ebef1a15640bd6cd77a61a19323f2072c38d18014d6ca.jpg (523x452, 149.94K)

This is pure idealism.
The problem here is that "race-ethnicity" is arbitrary. The whole concept is nebulous. Over the years the number of ethnicities I've seen labeled "white" have included: Arabs, Turks, Caucasic peoples, Iranians, Central Asians, East Africans, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and other East Asians, South-East Asians, Indians, Indigenous Siberians, Himalayan peoples, Mestizos and Native Americans.
The groups that have been labeled as non-white have included: All the previously aforementioned, Russians, Poles, Slavs in general, South Italians, Portuguese, Spaniards, Greeks, Bulgarians, South Slavs and Balkan peoples in general, Southern Europeans as a whole, Finns, Afrikaners and European South Africans, Hungarians, Modern Scandinavians, Contemporary Germans, Irish, French, Contemporary Dutch and Belgians, and Anglo(-American)s.
"White" and "Non-White" aren't clear cut categories or social relations. They're whatever you want them to be. Vague and at the mercy of individual appetites.

And as shown before, my "neighbor" can be a jew or a full-blooded African, and my "enemy" can be blond haired German.
And that's why we should embrace essentialism?
I won't disagree here. And yet, it's at odds with extreme racial essentialist views. Which consider people as mere avatars of static archetypes, separated from one-another, and lacking in any individual agency.

Attached: 373999ea0c654e6bbfe4a212f19007ff742faaa713eae2cf575d6f2c3912c1d2.jpg (520x370, 101.24K)

On a personal and individual matter it's your call. At the national and social level it matters.

Statistically, this may be prudent were we talking about a singular, static distribution that could be plotted in normal bounds; however, even those most conservative postulations cannot efface the remarkable transience with which the development of the common intellect has proceeded, doubly so now that we are seeing rapid development of productive capacities worldwide. Statistically, this throws a great wrench in the otherwise simply plotted relation between ethnic or racial boundaries and their intelligence - compounded further by the innumerable scientific objections to an exact and precise coordinate for what is versus isnt intelligence. So, besides an impermanence which would vitiate the use of these tests for GI in the matters of policy, were they to represent a scientific methodology (they don't), they would still have to contend with the idea of myriad confounding variables

why would anyone bother answering that question, since it is asked in bad faith? it's a gotcha question

I dunno OP but I think that, when people have the intellectual capacity to talk about averages, they are talking about groups as a whole and not individuals. Everyone with the brain to realize the importance of the fact that something is an average and not a general characteristic also realize individuals differ from the mean.

I doubt pol has a brain though.

I'm not very interested in the second part of your post since thinking in terms of 'black' and 'white' is largely an Americanism. It makes basic sense that Europeans are more closely related to one another genetically than to Arabic people or black people (I mean, for fucks sake, we look more similar) but yeah 'white' is a bullshit social construct that only makes sense to white Americans who are already a sort of muttified European that can only think of himself as 'white' instead of 'Italian' 'German' etc because they don't have genetic specifity apart from being white anymore.

Ethnonationalists use statistics to establish a false pretense of having a rational, scientific worldview. In reality, most of their views are rooted in esoteric idealism; they essentially believe that race is a sort of magical human trait, one that defies reason and compels obsession. They are the sort of people who literally cannot understand that others do not always think and feel the way they do, the idea that it is possible to genuinely not harbor animosity toward nonwhites is laughable to them.

The final redpill is that it doesn't matter. Everything is predetermined.

Attached: homophobia.png (878x898, 913.71K)

Sounds more to me like some people are just oversensitive babies.

Yeah. It's just a clickbait article. Some people might react that way, but to say that all men react that way is completly made up. It's honestly mental.

Ecological fallacy. One cannot draw inferences about individuals from the characteristics of the populations to which they belong.

I think there's some truth in it with men who have a high disgust response in general, and for whom gay men kissing is unusual. Since it's "unusual" the brain triggers a disgust response as a way of avoiding (what the brain fears as) novel diseases. So it's a "natural" reaction but there's a lot of "gross" behavior that people get accustomed to when they're exposed to it.

blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/equal-right-to-kiss-why-you-may-be-disgusted-by-gay-behavior-without-knowing-it/

Attached: PLA.JPG (185x199, 9.62K)

I don't think this is ture. You can always find some sort of study that supports a right-wing belief. There is a reason why the scientific community doesn't hold these views anymore.

Because of Regression to the Mean, that is, smart parents from groups that are less smart than average do not pass down their intelligence as easily. This is why rich blacks generally score lower on i.q. tests, have lower GPA and SAT scores than even poor whites.

I don't think anyone on pol really does that or asks you to do that.

When Pol talks about blacks its in terms of group behavior and observable group traits. These are important observations that we can base meaningful judgements on with good degrees of accuracy. Obviously individuals can and often do buck group trends. Statistical information about groups is most useful over a large sample and where information and time are scarce.

This is the way all knowledge and judgements work. We have general observable trends and we predict based off of that. I guess it would help if someone specified exactly what judgements were talking about here. I think most of the political judgements pol makes isnt off group dynamics is based off the fact that they dont place their ego inside the concept of the individual but extend it outward to their race and community. When pol thinks of "myself" they dont just invision themsleves in the void they think about their family, community, ethnicity, race, cultural grouo and all the other constituate group identities which make up a fully developed person.

was addressed above - regression to mean, in this distribution, is a statistically insufficient means due to myriad confounding variables and questionable methodology. Within this context, it serves as a convenient aux. axiom in light of the failure of 'race realist' attempts to create a predictive or valuable structure in determining common intellect or output - without their burgeoning ideological superstructure to justify it, of course.

Which means what, exactly? Even if you are correct in that there aren't precise metrics for the nebulous concept of intellect, the results are visible to anyone: Rich blacks have worse performance than poor whites, and even the twin studies (which were made by scientists trying to -disprove- race) came out with visible differences between blacks and whites, so the Nature vs. Nurture argument seems to favor race realists, and this is something the other side has yet to meaningfully address. Yes, we don't have brain scans objectively measuring someone's intelligence, yes, I.Q has it's faults, but we just need to measure the results in people's lives to show these self-evident differences that cannot be entirely attributable to structural racism (which is also an issue and why poor blacks vastly underperform when measured against other people.)

Thus, the burden of proof is on race denialists: If race denialists are correct, why haven't they found a method to raise smart black children and disprove the concept of race, or at very least unlink race with intelligence?

This matters because of the trends of immigration and the population surging in Africa. How can you raise a country out of poverty when it's people cannot even be integrated in the modern economy? How can you uphold democracy when there is a subclass of people that are inherently less capable and with different thought processes?

Because the implications are that the postulations and conclusions of the race realists, even if they acknowledge the faults or shortcomings of certain particularities, are fundamentally unscientific - which places critical light on its positive assertions, not because they are iconoclastic or disrupt some popular conception of race, but rather because they represent a wholly ideological compulsion. Even in accepting the general lemma of Autism Level disparity, further subdivision of ethnic groups creates problems, in that certain groups in this "homogenous and mentally static group" create outliers of such significant statistical value that it, alone, would raise concerns as to the efficacy of the use of Autism Level. This is a tripartite failure of this process - flawed methodology, flawed analysis/distribution of data and its metadata, and the massive ideological suture that must exist to combat the basic and egregious failures of this scale of measurement. I needn't renege and lecture on essentialisme, but there is a notable failure in effectively establishing a correlation that, in the light of its inability to scientifically stand, does not predominantly rely on a sort of "common sense, self-evidence" sort of philosophical basis.

In light of those conditions, the proof (as it always has) lies on those asserting a positive, not those who reprimand them - not that proving a negative was ever actually the basis for this dispute.

You'll find, perhaps, quite interesting that the African countries have largely been integrated within the modern global trade. A great deal of the lack of resources for development are as a result of the basic relations of comparative trade, or basic economics as we're oft addressed with by reactionaries. And on democracy, I'll leave it to say that there're a number of antinomies to be dealt with without concocting some vacuous interspersion of essential relations between race and being. which is fundamentally a philosophical question nonetheless ;DDDD

Evolutionary pressure has selected for people who care for their kin. Pure Platonic individuals such as yourself, who don't appear to have and feelings of kinship for their family, are a biological aberration.

Attached: Boris Olshansky (1956-) The Birth of a Warrior - 1997.jpg (1400x1596, 343.98K)

You cannot so easily marry evolutionary imperative to some esoteric syncretism. Your philosophy is vile and debilitating, fitting its odious image.

Individualism is evolutionary dead end, a pathological meme which sickens societies. Any tribe which loses the ability to distinguish between kin and competitor is doomed.

Attached: Peder Severin Krøyer (1851–1909) Hunters of Skagen - oil on canvas 1898.jpg (5281x2984, 3.81M)

It doesn't need to address it: nature vs nurture is not real. It's a false dichotomy. In reality, "nature" and "nurture" lack a clear distinction and often influence one another. Environmental influences on biology like disease, nutrition and pollution have tremendous implications for cognitive ability. It has also long since been determined that the intelligence difference between blacks and whites in the US has been shrinking, something that Zig Forums types unsurprisingly ignore.
On the flip side, there is absolutely zero non-statistical evidence of a causal link between race and intelligence. We have the capability to research exact genetic differences between racial groups, but it has yielded nothing, in spite of predictions made by evidence like twin studies. This is likely due to the missing heritability problem, which means that the hereditary aspect of intelligence is very complicated and involves genes found around the globe. Because we can accurately differentiate the genetic ancestry of different groups, if there was an inherent evolutionary difference, we absolutely should have found it now.

And of course, all of this ignores the fact that even if they were right (to any extent that is actually possible), why do we care? Tabula rasa has never been a part of communist ideology.

What planet are you living on?

rpubs.com/Daxide/374949

Attached: Piffer-Lee-2018-continental-pops.png (1092x730 82.06 KB, 257.1K)

There are a thousand statistical tests like this, none of them actually produce meaningful results that identify specific genes, just vague correlations that are not reproduced in different searches. GWAS research into intelligence and race does not produce congruent results.
For that matter, Lynn's data for third world nations is notoriously suspect and has been criticized for decades: iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010b.pdf

Thank you, Mr. Self-Evidence. I'm sure emergent trends and variations in transience simply appear spontaneously

Not to mention that even if you post surveys, they can merely suggest correlation. That's simply a basic objection, not to mention that they're still subject to the other polemics and confounding variables discussed above. not to mention that the author is a disingenuous fraud of a pseudoscientist

You want to hang out with nogs?
Be my guest, but be warned, relaxing around blacks is one of the leading causes of death among blacks themselves.

These are the correlations for 18 known SNPs (functional gene cluster variants) which are associated with intelligence. Denial is now pointless.
This is independent genetic validation of Lynn's studies as well as thousands of years of recorded history.

That's really convenient for you.

Attached: John O'Connor (1830-1889) Ludgate, Evening - Oil on Canvas 1887.jpg (2759x4000, 3.81M)

Kin as in race or just "people who I identify with"?

There shouldn't be a difference, unless you have some sort of severe pathological identity complex in the manner of Rachel Dolezal or Shaun King.

Attached: Eduard Gaertner (1801–1877) Neue Wache, Zeughaus, Kronprinzenpalais und Schloß in Berlin - 1849.jpg (3135x1491, 3.64M)

Why should I identify with an Indonesian politician moreso than a white coworker?
Why must one identify with people of the same ethnic background instead of class?

They shouldn't, but they sure make for useful pawns.

Because only an exceptionally powerful system of social repression keeps your white coworker from denouncing you as an unlawful foreign colonist and kicking you out of his country.
Class is an flimsy social construct, race and kinship are hard biological facts which represent the most meaningful social cleavage points in our world.

Attached: Victor Gabriel Gilbert (1847-1933) Le Panier Des Cerises (The Cherry Basket) - Oil on Panel.jpg (2000x1550, 3.23M)

Again, it's been done before, many times. You can fuck with numbers to get any kind of correlation you want, but as I said previously, it suffers from the missing heritability dilemma. We keep looking for the actual genes that are responsible for the supposed causal link between race and intelligence, and every time it comes up short: pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c03f/f20904c35a370534a9d3710453dd6dc7a2d2.pdf
Statistical evidence alone is worthless, especially when the theoretical basis (adaptive theories of intelligence) doesn't make much sense to begin with.
I'm sure you will believe anything that conforms to your biases.

explorepsychology.com/projection-bias/
All social divisions are technically imaginary, but the material basis of class is not. To ignore them while professing biological determinism is incredibly stupid and paradoxical.

But he's an immigrant from germany.
Class matters more than race. A black slave owner will be better off than a white slave. A brown king will be better off than a black peasant. A white capitalist will be better off than a hispanic prole.

survey cannot imply causation, only suggest. See all above for statistical antinomies and confounding variables.
That's not what an SNP is, they are the singular base for an allele. Then proceeding to jump from this to a direct relation to intelligence is a massive step, indeed.
In a sample size of less than 10 in some cases, unlikely. Fitting any manner of confidence level or predictable disposition to this is beyond ludicrous.

Henceforth, your proclivity towards this servile tribal identity shall be known as this

Is there aught I should hold in common with you, so willfully distended into some phantasm.

Quit with the plays at culture, as well. These paintings are no signifier for us, since we know how much you hate the real, existing culture behind all of this. You only enjoy them when they can be contoured into your ideology

What doesn't make sense about adaptive theories of intelligence? It is quite straight forward, agriculture in cold climates selects for individuals with a strong capacity for forethought and planning. Even Northern Japanese are smarter, taller, paler and less violent than Southern Japanese, there are clear universal evolutionary rules at play here.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000949

Attached: Japan IQ cline.jpg (580x282, 27.16K)

According to the founders of the United States, he is a legitimate American and you are not.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
It is possible for castes within a race to compromise. Racial compromise is impossible, as evolutionary competition between organisms within the same ecological niche is a zero-sum game.

Attached: Frans Hals (?-1666) Meeting of the Officers and Sergeants of the Calivermen Civic Guard - Oil on Canvas 1633.jpg (2303x1382, 1.55M)

Nice spooks. Not American though.
What do you mean by this?

lol suddenly law matters to you more than facts. You cant even stay consistent when trying to justify your racism.

What aren't you getting about statistical correlation with confounding variables?

Why did you post this thread on leftypol ?

De facto containment

Those specific SNPs were already independently correlated with intelligence.
Massive strides are being made in this field, with every new step serving to further confirm the obvious reality that human populations differ in evolutionarily mediated genetic capacity of cognitive function. Is your world-view truly so tied to the fantasy of human neurological uniformity that you will continue to deny reality in the face of overwhelming evidence? This topic is not even particularly relevant to me; it is plainly obvious that my kin in my tiny corner of the world have through some fluke of nature developed the highest capacity for novel intellectual output of any human population, but if this were not the case I would be no less determined to defend my kith and kin from alien incursion.

Attached: John O’Connor (1830-1889)

Social classes can coexist in close proximity indefinitely. Two races living in close proximity, competing to fill the same ecological niches, will eventually come into existential conflict, resulting in the destruction of one or both populations.

Attached: Vasily Ivanovich Surikov (1848-1916) Yermak's Conquest of Siberia - oil on canvas 1895.jpg (2305x1100, 2.12M)

OH MY FUCKING GOD THIS ISN'T XCOM
We're not struggling for survival. Earth isn't a fucking arena where each "tribe" fights each other over a scrap of meat.
This is some fucking humans vs orcs tier shit.
Read mutual aid or some shit.
I've had enough of the internet for today I feel. People can't see beyond their fantastical ideology created out of feels>reals without a shred of nuance.

Attached: eyebleach.jpg.png (600x987, 749.33K)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Attached: 10.jpeg (905x942, 95.27K)

...

Then why always bring it up? Just admit that you are a racist. Just like OP points out the genetic disposition shouldnt matter, you wouldnt treat a healthy irish person as if he had stage-2 diabetes even if he is genetically more disposed to have one. You wouldnt dismiss Neil Degrass Tyson's work on astrophysics just because of his african heritage. So besides an autististic red herring, what does race have to do with politics? Next time just straight out say you're a xenophobe, instead of trying to justify it as "scientific".

Nature begs to differ.

Attached: Viktor Matorin (1970-) and Pavel Popov (1966-) The Battle of Kulikovo.jpg (2149x1500, 2.53M)

Regression to the mean is observable with all human traits, including intelligence. I don't understand what your objection is exactly.

Evolution happens regardless if you pay attention to it or not, you don't need to make it your life defining ideology. One day humankind will go extinct just like every species before us, so its not like your genes will pass on indefinitely no matter what.
Is this really even about passing your genes, or is it more about the act involved with it?

I think that my model; that evolutionarily distinct human populations vary in cognitive capacity, is more salient than your model; that any incapacity of equatorial populations is the result of an all-pervading conspiracy by a particularly successful Northern population.
This sentence is literally gibberish, but I will try to respond. Psychometrics is the only branch of psychology which is replicable, a century of consistent results indicating the same pattern of human cognitive variation which millions of screeching fanatical egalitarians have never been able to empirically falsify.

We are living organisms competing for a very limited set of resources. Extermination of competitor populations will increase opportunities for my offspring to thrive and multiply, as well as perpetuate the aesthetic and intellectual traditions which I hold dear. What is wrong with that?
Yeah, but evolution programmed me to worry about these sort of things, so it can't really be helped.

Attached: Alphonse de Neuville (1835–1885) The Defence of Rorke's Drift - 1882.jpg (5001x2967, 3.43M)

That the axis upon which you suggest intelligence proceeds is incorrect, that your understanding and predictive capacity for intelligence is incorrect.

Because the generally accepted definition of intelligence is that almost no environments do not strongly select for it–it is always vital. This is what makes concepts like g factor meaningful to begin with.

Same issue of missing heritability applies. Intelligence is an extremely polygenic trait with strong evidence of epigenetic influence.

I've said naught about a model

As I understand it, g strongly correlates to a variety of devastatingly important indicators (health, crime, income, morality, etc)
I Q tests more or less measure g.
Pschyometrics aren't exact like height or weight. Autism Level is arguably the most scientific measurement to come out of psychology in the last century.

This isn't true in the first place.
I'll be as edgy as you.
Your asthetics are trash. If you're "intellectual" traditions create the likes of you, I don't see why they should be allowed to exist.
I don't want to die because some idiot thinks that cooperation within the SAME FUCKING SPECIES isn't something to be desired but instead something to be opposed.

We are the same organism you imbecile, we can interbreed.

Prejudiced thinking is cost effective. You dont have the privilege to think for enough time, or you dont have all the information at all times. Racist worldview is correct enough to work most of the time.

Enjoy having a pack of feral minorities and peaceful muslims move in your neighborhood, its not the privileged leftists who have to deal with that shit, which is why working classes and right wing populism are one and the same throughout all developed world.

It's not 'devastating', it makes perfect sense. Correlation is a two way street, so it is not inherently politically incorrect.
The idiocy of hard racial determinism has nothing to do with the validity of g.

It is costly as well. Wide hips are required to birth large heads, slowing running speed. Complex brains take longer to develop, delaying age of maturity. etc.
There is no reason to assume that selective pressures for intelligence are globally uniform. Chimpanzees might also benefit from human intelligence, but that is not how evolution works, Chimpanzees have not been under the same selective pressure for intelligence as humans, just as tropical human populations have not been under the same selection for intelligence as North Eurasian human populations.

Not an argument.

These things are an expression of my biology and can't be helped.
Species is a social construct which is meaningless in our current global racial competition. The alien races are biologically incapable to perpetuating anything like the world which we have created, they only serve as agents of entropy, decaying and corrupting what nature has so carefully and cruelly wrought. Why should 40,000 years of the uniquely brutal evolutionary pressure which has forged us be thrown away because of your cowardice?

Attached: Zdeněk Burian (1905-1981) Magdalenian Reindeer Hunters, Upper Paleolithic.jpg (1474x980, 1.15M)

In capitalism they literally keep apartments empty and burn food to keep an illusion of scarcity.
Co-operation is much better for everyone involved. Think of how many white germans died in a war that was the result of Hitler trying to exterminate non-whites. Or how many southerners died in american civil war because some of them refused to treat africans as equals. Or how hard it is for you to get laid if you spout your racist shit in public. To me it seems that your ideology is not very good at preserving the genes of it's supporters. If you really believe in living by the rules of evolution, then do like the animal kingdom and adapt.

Trust me, don't try. All you're gonna get from that dipshit is prevarication, repetition, and condescension

Selective pressure did exist, which is why Homo sapiens is still alive and the archaic human species are not. For the most part, modern humans have been as biologically smart as they are for tens of thousands of years.
I am not arguing that people are all magically the same, as much as I am extremely skeptical that this example of human differences in particular is meaningful. Denying human difference may be denying evolution, but to deny environmental influence as significant is to deny physics.

Literally who? Even sub-Saharan Africans were able to maintain civilization in places like East Africa during the middle ages. China and East Asia are soaring ahead of the west in the fields of biosciences, robotics, high-speed infrastructure, and artificial intelligence.
Besides, why should I even care about my "race" in the first place? I exist and live as an individual, not as a group. And while groups can diminish. It doesn't necessarily infringe upon my own well being.
The Manchu minority ruled China for centuries. The British did similar in India. Neither were particularly bad off, and in fact enjoyed living standards far above those of the natives.
Even if I were to be last remaining "white" person on the planet, it wouldn't necessarily entail a miserable existence. And ultimately, if the continuation of civilization were to be my concern, I'd focus on persons of ability, which can be found among every "race".

All this talk about race karma, race loyalty, tribal competition, etc. ultimately rings hollow considering that in the end we are competing as individuals. And my "allies" at any one time are not limited to a particular tribe, race, clan, what-have-you, etc.

Except it's wrong most of the time, and divides the working class where there would otherwise be a collective struggle. Racism is hurting the lower classes more than helping it.
And this doesn't follow. It's a a false dichotomy where you're either a racial essentialist unwilling to recognize the unique qualities of individuals, or you have to accept being overrun by "orcs".
And yet it's the working classes that suffer as the result of racism, nationalism, etc. Today, just as they did in the previous century. FYI I'm not even a leftist.

Attached: adb03373af0ccb77621897835a92128eb608d76117270363c46f3f7b35e7f006.png (1078x458, 487.62K)

Why do you keep insisting on the intelligence thing when you already said in the thread that it is irrelevant and you would keep being racist even if your claims were debunked? Anyway heres something we know about Autism Level today:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Besides, there are several Autism Level-tests out there, and while they at least claim to standardize the test result median to 100, there arent official regulations or rules for what can be called an Autism Level test. So Autism Level-score doesnt really mean anything unless you also know which test was used and which year's edition was it.

I don't like the argument of I Q being worthless, it is a very handy metric when used properly. As in, not by people who have already decided that nonwhites are inferior and are trying to justify this view.

IQ is important but all the upper echelons of that system are not really meaningful.

IQ is only meaningful if it's too low, but once it gets to 100 and beyond, things change.
For example, all humans need to keep shitting and pissing and "whites" are the ultimate agriculturists, you can't eat maths or verbal guile unless someone trades you shit for it.

That said, "whites" are also excellent in the alleged "weaker fiels" as well.
Agriculture trumps all though.

these threads are silly don't bother arguing with creationists

I'm pretty sure agriculture isn't racial, but that's beside the point.

Even worse, in capitalism they allow malevolent racial aliens to own property which rightfully belongs to the racial collective.
Cooperation implies a shared goal. We have no shared goals with racial aliens, only arenas of existential competition.
Defeat in ethnic war is always a possibility, but that is no reason not to fight. Surrender only guarantees total extermination.
I have, by rejecting the defeatist and demoralizing disinformation which has been forced on me by foreign occupiers and embracing ethnic solidarity.

Attached: James Jacques Joseph Tissot (1836-1902) The Circle of the Rue Royale - Oil on canvas 1868.jpg (3543x2213, 3.59M)

you might want to do some reading on the subject buddy

Wrong. The construction of artificial human ecologies has greatly increased the speed of evolution in certain populations.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion

Attached: Zdeněk Burian (1905-1981) Pithecanthropus - 1950.jpg (2802x2490, 2.02M)

if true, this would be pretty devastating to social constructionists
some human populations diverged 50,000 to 70,000 years ago
so significant changes in the brain would definitely manifest differently across geographic groups

they do, this is beyond debate

boas and Gould were frauds

It is true that Northeast Asians are biologically capable of emulating some aspects of European science, but they remain a highly divergent population which creates an inhospitable and uncreative alien civilization. It would be better for humanity's survival prospects to exterminate Asia and repopulate it with humans.
unz.com/jthompson/asians-bright-but-not-curious/
Pretending that you are not involved in an existential racial conflict is an expression of abject cowardice. You can only perpetuate your biological distinctiveness through a coherent collective. The individual will be forever doomed to live at the mercy of alien collectives.
Are you suggesting that the alien collectives which have established their rule over your ancestral homeland will grant a racially-estranged radical individualist such as yourself a privileged place in their world? Why would they?
European peoples have a pretty miserable existence under foreign occupation even while remaining a majority of the population. There is no reason to believe that the ascendant alien collectives will show mercy to the former occupants of the land which they have colonized once they become an outright majority.
You are wrong. Only naive atomized Europeans operate as individuals, all other tribes operate as aggressive self-interested collectives. Your quality of life would likely be significantly improved if you operated within a cohesive ethnic collective.

Attached: Paolo Veronese (1528-1588) The Family of Darius before Alexander - Oil on Canvas.jpg (3000x1455, 3.02M)

Spooky
Have you considered going outside? I have no problem sharing goals with "aliens"
Even if this were true, why does it matter? Why does survival of some imaginary group matter? You do realize we're on the eve of having mainstream bioengineering, and soon none of this "race" stuff will matter, right?
Why should I care about racial "lineage", "loyalty" or "karma" when in the near future people will have increasing genetic control over their offspring, to the point where they can influence their appearances and/or intelligence? You're clinging to racial essentialism and petty tribalism, right when technology is about to be sweep both aside forever.
There's no ethnic solidarity. During the first and second world wars German industrialists profited off German blood and labor. Millions died on the front lines while Stinnes, Thysen, Schlacht and other banker-industrialists made their fortunes. Often by slaughtering and enslaving other white people.
The SA - which helped bring the NSDAP to power - was betrayed, as were working class fascists in other European countries at the time (Italian syndicalists, Iron Guard, Falange, etc.).
Whenever racial and ethnic loyalty is brought up, it's used to make the poor sacrifice themselves for the rich.

Attached: d8a22d85f33e9cf805cf3fefc5ac7f577187f4a855467f98fd721d753f573e4a.png (529x427, 127.21K)

It seems to be important to everyone else.
Better nutrition and test-taking skill has increased the scores. What is salient is the fact that the gaps between populations have been resistant to any change.

Attached: Nikolay Bogdanov-Belsky (1868–1945) Mental Arithmetic in the Public School of Rachinskiy.jpg (1139x1600, 279.49K)