Different races have different morphology/somatype. Therefore, we can reason that different races would fare better or worse at a certain lift depending on their limb length, such as leg length, arm length, torso length and so on. How do somatypic differences lead to differences in strength between the races on the Big Four lifts? The four lifts I will cover are bench press, deadlift, squat and overhead press.
Squat
East Asians
East Asians have higher levels of body fat (for instance the Chinese, Wang et al, 2011) and have lower BMIs, yet higher levels of body fat (Wang et al, 1994). This, along with their somatype are part of the reason why they excel in some strength sports. Since East Asians have a smaller stature, averaging about 5 feet 8 inches, with shorter arms and legs. Thinking about how the ancestors of the East Asians evolved, this makes sense: they would have needed to be shorter and have shorter limbs as it is easier to warm a body with a smaller surface area. Therefore, while squatting they have a shorter path to travel with the bar on their back. East Asians would strongly excel at the squat, and if you watch these types of competitions, you’d see them strongly overrepresented—especially the Chinese.
African-Americans
African-Americans are descended from West African slaves, and so they have longer, thinner limbs with lower amounts of body fat on average (especially if they have more African ancestry), which is a classic sign of a mesomorphic phenotype. They do also skew ecto, which is useful in the running competitions they dominate (in the case of West Africans and descendants and certain tribes of Kenyans and Ethiopians). Either way, due to their long limbs and a short torso, they have to travel further with the weight therefore here they suffer and wouldn’t be as strong as people who have a long torso with shorter limbs.
European Americans
Like East Asians, Europeans have similar morphology—skewing ectomorphic, the somatype that dominates strength competitions. Having a long torso with shorter limbs and more type I than type II fibers, they would then be able to lift more, especially since these competitors keep a high body fat percentage. Again, like with East Asians, there is a biomechanical advantage here and due to their higher levels of body fat and endomorphic somatype along with shorter limbs, they would be able to move more weight on the squat, especially more than African-Americans. Biomechanics is key when it comes to evaluating different groups’ morphology when attempting to see who would be stronger on average.
Deadlift
East Asians
The deadlift is pretty straightforward: bending down and deadlifting the weight off of the ground. Key anatomic differences between the races dictate who would be better here. East Asians, with shorter limbs and a longer torso the bar has to travel a further path, compared to someone with longer limbs and shorter torso. Though, someone with short limbs and a short torso would also have a biomechanical advantage in pulling, it is nothing like if one has long arms and a short torso.
African-Americans
Here is where they would shine. Their anatomy is perfect for this lift. Since they have longer limbs and a shorter torso, the bar has a shorter path to travel to reach the endpoint of the lift. At the set-up of the lift, they already have a biomechanical advantage and they can generate more power in the lift due to their leverage advantage. The deadlift favors people with a long torso, short femurs, and long arms, and so it would favor African-Americans. (Their long arms off-sets their short torsos, though the bar would still have to travel further, they still would have the ability to move more weight.)
European Americans
European Americans would have the same biomechanical problems as East Asians, but not as much since they have a taller stature. It is well-known in the world of weightlifting that having shorter, ‘T-rex arms’ impedes strength on the lift, since speaking from an anatomic viewpoint, they are just not built for it. No style of deadlift (the sumo or conventional) suits people with short arms, and so they are already at a biomechanical disadvantage. Relative to African-Americans, European Americans have ‘T-rex arms’ and therefore they would suffer at pulling exercises—deadlift included.
Overhead press
East Asians
The overhead press is where people with shorter arms would excel. Thus, East Asians would be extremely strong pushers. Say the bar starts at the top of their chest, the path of the bar to the lockout would be shorter than if someone had longer arms. The size of the trapezius muscles also comes into play here, and people with larger trapezius muscles have a stronger press. The East Asians short stature and therefore shorter limbs is perfect for this lift and why they would excel.
African-Americans
African-Americans would suffer at the overhead press for one reason: their long limbs, mainly their arms. The bar has a further path to travel and thus strength would be impeded. Indeed, people not built for pressing have long arms, long torsos, and long legs. Performing the full range of motion, African-Americans would have less strength than East Asians and European Americans.
European Americans
Again, due to similar morphology as East Asians, they, too, would excel at this lift. Since the lift is completed when the arms lock out, those with shorter arms would be able to move more weight and so what hurts them on the deadlift helps on pressing movements like the overhead press.
Bench press
East Asians
Lastly, the bench press. East Asians would excel here as well since they have shorter arms and the bar would have a shorter path to travel. Notice anything with bar movement? That’s a key to see which group would be stronger on average: looking at the average morphology of the races and then thinking about how the lift is performed, you can estimate who would be good at which lift and why. The bench press would favor someone with a shorter stature and arms, and they’d be able to lift more weight. (I personally have long arms compared to my body and my bench press suffers compared to my deadlift.) However, Caruso et al (2012) found that body mass is a more important predictor of who would excel at the bench press. East Asians have a higher body fat percentage, and therefore would be stronger on average in the lift.
African Americans
Here, too, African-Americans will suffer. Like with the overhead press, the bar has a further path to travel. They also have less body fat on average and that would also have the bar travel more, having the individual put more exertion into the lift compared to someone who had shorter arms. The longer your arms are in a pushing exercise, the further the bar has to travel until lockout. Thus you can see that people with longer arms would suffer in the strength department compared to people with shorter arms, but this is reversed for pulling exercises like the deadlift described above. (There is also a specific longitudinal study on black-white differences in bench press which I will cover in the ‘Objections‘ section.)
European Americans
Again, like with East Asians due to similar somatype, European Americans, too, would excel at this lift. They are able to generate more pound-for-pound power in the lift. The bar also has a shorter path to travel and since the people who compete in these competitions also have higher levels of body fat, then the bar has less of a distance to travel, thus increasing the amount of force the muscle can generate. Limb size/body mass/somatype predict how races/individuals would do on specific lifts.
Objections
One of the main objections that some may have is that one longitudinal study on black and white police officers found that blacks were stronger than whites at the end of the study (Boyce et al, 2014). However, I heavily criticized this paper at the beginning of the year and for good reason: heights of the officers weren’t reported (which is not the fault of the researchers but of an ongoing lawsuit at that department since people complained that they were discriminating against people based on height). The paper is highly flawed, but looking at it on face value someone who does not have the requisite knowledge they would accept the paper’s conclusions at face value. One of the main reasons for my criticism of the paper is that the bench press was tested on a Smith machine, not a barbell bench press. Bench pressing on the Smith machine decreases stability in the biceps brachii (Saterbakken et al, 2011) but there is similar muscle recovery between different bench presses in trained men (Smith, barbell, and dumbbell) (Ferreira et al, 2016). This does not affect my overall critique of Boyce et al (2014) however, since you can move more weight than you would normally be able to, along with the machine being on one plane of motion so everyone has to attempt to get into the same position to do the lift and we know how that is ridiculous due to individual differences in morphology.
Some may point to hand-grip tests, which I have written about in the past, and state that ‘blacks are stronger’ based on hand-grip tests. Just by looking at the raw numbers you’d say that blacks had a stronger grip. However, to get an idea of the strength differences pound-for-pound there is a simple formula: weight lifted/bodyweight=how strong one is pound-for-pound on a certain exercise. So using the values from Araujo et al (2010), for blacks we have a grip strength of 89.826 with an average weight of 193 pounds. Therefore pound-for-pound strength comes out to .456. On the other hand, for Europeans, they had an average grip strength of 88.528 pounds with an average weight of 196 pounds, so their pound-for-pound grip strength is about .452, which, just like African-Americans is almost half of their body weight. One must also keep in mind that these hand-grip studies are done on older populations. I have yet to come across any studies on younger populations that use the big four lifts described in this article and seeing who is stronger, so inferences are all that we have.
Further, Thorpe et al (2016) also show how there is an association between household income and grip-strength—people who live in homes with higher incomes have a stronger grip, with blacks having a stronger grip than whites. Thorpe et al (2016) showed that black women had a stronger grip strength than white women, whereas for black men they only had a stronger grip than white men at the highest SES percentile. This could imply nutrient deficiencies driving down their ability for increases grip strength, which is a viable hypothesis. Although Thorpe et al (2016) showed that black men had a stronger grip strength, these results conflict with Haas, Krueger, and Rohlfson (2012) though the disparities can be explained by the age of both cohorts.
Nevertheless, grip strength—as well as overall strength—is related to a higher life expectancy (Ruiz et al, 2008; Volkalis, Haille, and Meisinger, 2015). If blacks were stronger—and this is being debated with studies like hand-grip—then we should expect to see black men living longer than white men, however, we see the opposite. Black men die earlier than white men, and it just so happens that the diseases that are correlated with strength and mortality are diseases that blacks are more likely to get over whites. One should think about this if they’re entertaining the idea that blacks have an inherent strength advantage over whites.
Others may argue that since chimpanzees have a higher proportion of type II fibers and that’s one reason why they are stronger than us by 1.35 times (O’Neill et al, 2017) and have the ability to rip our faces off. Of course, other factors are at play here other than the chimps’ fast twitch fiber content. Of course, one must also think of the chimpanzee’s way smaller stature when discussing their overall strength. It’s not just their type II fibers, but how much smaller they are which gives them the ability to generate more force pound-for-pound in comparison to humans. So this is a bad example to attempt to show that blacks are stronger than whites based solely on the composition of the muscle fibers.
Finally, back in July, I argued that Neanderthals would be stronger than Homo sapiens due to their morphology and a wide waist. This, of course, has implications for strength differences between the races. People with a wider waist would have the ability to generate more power. Blacks have a higher center of gravity due to longer limbs whereas whites and Asians have lower centers of gravity due to a longer torso. Along with climatic conditions, the Neanderthal diet also contributed to their wide waist and thorax, which would then help with strength. Therefore, this has implications for racial differences in strength. We can replace Europeans with Neanderthals and Homo sapiens with Africans and the relationship would still hold. This is yet more proof that blacks are not stronger than whites. This article also contributes to the argument I laid out in my article on how racial differences in muscle fiber typing predict differences in elite sporting competition. Morphology/somatype is the final piece of the puzzle; without the correct morphology, it’d be really hard for someone to become an elite athlete in a certain field if they do not have the correct morphology.
Conclusion
Looking at the big four lifts, the advantage goes to European Americans and East Asians. This is due to their average somatype and morphology. The only lift that Africans would excel at is the deadlift and this is due to their morphology—mainly their long arms. People with longer arms excel at pulling exercises whereas people with shorter arms excel at pushing exercises. Hand-grip strength studies show blacks having a higher grip strength than whites, however in one study if you see who is stronger pound-for-pound, the differences are insignificant. The longitudinal bench press study is highly flawed due to numerous confounds and is therefore unacceptable to assess strength and race. The fact that chimpanzees have a higher proportion of type II fibers compared to humans is also irrelevant. Chimpanzees have a smaller stature and they can, therefore, generate way more power pound-for-pound. Attempting to replace Africans with chimpanzees in this scenario doesn’t make sense because Africans have longer limbs than Europeans and would, therefore, generate less force pound-for-pound. Overall strength is related to mortality; stronger people live longer and have fewer maladies than weaker people. This too lends credence to my argument that whites are stronger
Pumpkin Person 
Many people will struggle to accept your research because of the racialist stereotype that blacks are more primitive (which folks associate with muscular), while whites and Asians are nerds. But muscularity is not the same as strenght, which is why blacks dominate body building despite being rare among top power lifters.
And even when they are, they are of a stockier subtype and are very different from bodybuilding type.
Mike Henry has the general physique of Black lifters.
Don’t know what mike henry looks like. Are you saying blacks or whites are stockier?
Whites are, waist wise and chest wise, but black in bodybuilding are different from typical blacks.
They are of a stockier subtype that deviate from the black mean, closer to more caucasoid types, thus adding proof to RR’s point.
At least in America young white men do not have bigger chests than blacks (at older ages they do):
The average male chest size varies based on a man’s age and race. For example, the SizeUSA study found that regardless of race, men between the ages of 18 and 25 have an average chest size of 41 inches. In the 36-to-45 age range, black men averaged 43 inches, white men averaged 44 inches, and men who listed their race as “other” averaged 42 inches.
Phil, exactly.
PP Mark Henry is one of the strongest men ever, WWE wrestler, former powerlifter and has world record lifts. His somatype is a classic endomorph.
PP blacks have narrower chests, per Rushton and Entine.
“The average male chest size varies based on a man’s age and race. For example, the SizeUSA study found that regardless of race, men between the ages of 18 and 25 have an average chest size of 41 inches. In the 36-to-45 age range, black men averaged 43 inches, white men averaged 44 inches, and men who listed their race as “other” averaged 42 inches.”
Smaller lung capcity in blacks in general also supports my point, this observation likely corresponds to Melo’s “extended development” of peramorphic populations.
The Latter age range is closer to studies that report a wider upper torso in whites if I recall correctly.
I would clarify that i don;t mean they are necessarily “dark”, but rather have ancestry from a geographical area, say Southern Nigeria or the Congo, that stockier types are more common.
* “dark”- should say “whiter”.
speaking of genes vs environment.
coincidence?
my first dogs were born before i was.
6 dogs.
3 lived to 13 almost 14.
3 others died at age 10, 8, and 7.
the first 3 i had from a few weeks after birth.
the second 3 were adopted at age 7, 2, and 5, respectively.
coincidence?
here’s the cut peepee always needs.
share.
share.
share.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Izfg7YU9VgE%3Fstart%3D190
and yet londinium has become the financial capital of the world.
the industrial revolution started in england.
is blighty the starter again? for a new revolution?
or is the perfect screw so yesterday! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Maudslay
is blighty just pathetic?
mean reversion for nations?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDpYBT0XyvA
Finally. After many months where I have objected to RR’s racist stereotypes, pumpkin finally admits RR has a race problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSQqv2UuvC0
yes.
The Godfather is at the top of the list of best movies ever.
top 10.
i’d say Goodfellas is in the top 50.
The Godfather is at the top of the list of best movies ever.
The Sopranos is on my list of 10 best TV shows ever.
at least.
men like the godfather and women like game of thrones i would say.
it’s not in my top 10.
it’s in the top ten of the general public.
at least according to wikipedia.
another in my top 10 is Brideshead Revisited even though it was a made for tv movie. it’s 12h long so it follows the book exactly. it’s better than the book.
Gene Simmons: Chris, tonight [removes sunglasses] you’re half tiger, half gorilla, and half horse penis. Own it. [stares and smiles creepily into the camera].
saw ebert’s 10 best ever movies and again he included Gates of Heaven. my taste was more aligned with siskel’s, but i agree with ebert about Gates of Heaven. certainly the best theatrical documentary. The World at War narrated by olivier and The Civil War were great too.
(I entered this on that other HBD blog as well)
Allow me to do the heavy lifting and rend the Gordian knot for you (puns intended).
White people might not be the quickest, or have the most endurance, but they are the strongest.
Behold the preponderance of paleness that defines the brawniest bruisers to grace the globe: http://theworldsstrongestman.com/history/
In all seriousness, check all the strongmen competitions. Hell, just do an image search https://duckduckgo.com/?q=strongman+competition&atb=v79-2__&iax=images&ia=images
Powerlifting champions? Not much better https://duckduckgo.com/?q=powerlifting+champion&atb=v79-2__&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images
Exactly. People can think what they want about the nerd stereotype, that doesn’t invalidate the arguments I made that body type influences who would be better based on biomechanics and the lift in question.
you should have added the penis lift.
south asians are the best at this.
essas tem-pestades costumam cobrir todos que…
When will the vicious hate and bigotry end? There are no differences at all. Why can’t you accept that RACE RACIST?!!!
not sur i get it, do blacks have higher grip strength than whites or no ?
Insignificant difference when each group’s grip strength is measured against their total weight.
you mean blacks have higher grip strength because they are heavier ?
No weight is taken into account and so it’s only raw power that is seen. There is an insignificant difference when taken into account.
small differences can have big effect at the extremes, right ?
but why anytime i see a white an asian or a black in the street i would say the black would beat the shit out of the white or asian in a fight.
the average black seems stronger than the average white.
but it’s probably only the average white westerner who look weak and feminized. may be it’s different with eastern europeans, russians or rednecks.
“but why anytime i see a white an asian or a black in the street i would say the black would beat the shit out of the white or asian in a fight.
the average black seems stronger than the average white.
but it’s probably only the average white westerner who look weak and feminized. may be it’s different with eastern europeans, russians or rednecks.”
Perception versus actuality.
In other words, your experience doesn;t necessarily deal with average representatives of each race.
For instance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rm4SazjKsQ&feature=player_embedded
“In other words, your experience doesn;t necessarily deal with average representatives of each race.”
of course, but your video do not represente the average too.
fighting skills might also be different as lifting skills, may be blacks are better at punching and being violent and less good at lifting.
i don’t know may be i’m fooling myself but it seems like you pick a random black person and a random ne asian person to have a fight the black have better chances to win.
especially black women who i think are much stronger (in fighting) than women from other races. they are also much more violent in first order which might explain it.
“of course, but your video do not represente the average too.”
Never said it did, I just used it as an instance of the contrary to your observations.
“fighting skills might also be different as lifting skills, may be blacks are better at punching and being violent and less good at lifting.”
Well you referred to fighting in your example, or at least ass kicking, so the video came to mind.
“i don’t know may be i’m fooling myself but it seems like you pick a random black person and a random ne asian person to have a fight the black have better chances to win.”
I’ll admit that it does seem that way, but I’ve rarely thought of an instance without weapons or such.
Wjat i do know is that street asians, like Bruce Lee, often had street fights partly based on ancient traditions.
When you control of “street instincts”, it may end up differently.
“especially black women who i think are much stronger (in fighting) than women from other races. they are also much more violent in first order which might explain it.”
Louder, perhaps? Stronger? Maybe compared to a suburban Wasp, but a stereotypical trailer park type of similar age or and comparable latina? Might be harder to say.
Hand to hand combat requires a complex mix of high level physical skills, physical training, and mindset. It takes more than just raw power, quickness or intelligence. Note that (while not technically combat) MMA has a pretty diverse mix.
More interesting to check who’s making the money off MMA.
i think the best mma fighters are whites, blacks are second. with a lot of mulattoes and mestizos. not many ne asians.
“Wjat i do know is that street asians, like Bruce Lee, often had street fights partly based on ancient traditions.”
i think asians martial arts are mostly choregraphic. ne asians make poor street fighters in my opinion, except in hollywood.
“Louder, perhaps? Stronger? Maybe compared to a suburban Wasp, but a stereotypical trailer park type of similar age or and comparable latina? Might be harder to say.”
there are good latino mma fighters but i think latinos overall are inferior to blacks in combat sports.
“I’ll admit that it does seem that way, but I’ve rarely thought of an instance without weapons or such.”
when i was younger i was more willing to fight (for fun) with a non-black than with a blacks. i had a black high school friend and his punching where always more painful than others. like melo says blacks are more like chimps in term of strenght.
not that i’m racist but blacks always seems more like incontrollable savage animals with more explosive strenght than other races.
” may be blacks are better at punching and being violent and less good at lifting.”
Black are stronger, whites are better at lifting.
“i think the best mma fighters are whites, blacks are second. ”
Whites do better at MMA because it involves wrestling, which requires enormous muscle endurance. Type 1 fibers are good for that. Blacks tend to dominate boxing(assuming kick boxing too). Lloyd, Tyson, Ali. Bruce lee is one of the racial exceptions and he was obsessed with working out his Fast twitch muscle fibers, which is why he was so powerful and fast. It just so Happens those are the same muscle fibers that Africans and chimps have a higher concentration of……
“Black are stronger, whites are better at lifting.”
No evidence. My arguments in this article call your assertion into question. Blacks have longer limbs which is better for boxing. If blacks were stronger they’d be stronger than Whites. But due to biomechanics this is not the case.
“Whites do better at MMA because it involves wrestling,”
interesting, i never thought of it this way but it make sense.
“No evidence. My arguments in this article call your assertion into question. Blacks have longer limbs which is better for boxing. If blacks were stronger they’d be stronger than Whites. But due to biomechanics this is not the case.”
is there any racial studies on who have the most powerful punch ? i think blacks do due to more explosive strenght.
“Blacks have longer limbs which is better for boxing. If blacks were stronger they’d be stronger than Whites. But due to biomechanics this is not the case.”
Longer limbs only increase reach, they don’t make you hit harder. Most of your power in boxing comes from your trunk. Europeans and East asians have proportionately thicker torsos so they should have that advantage. Long arms can be a disadvantage in close combat. Mike tyson had relatively short arms but is arguably the hardest hitting boxer that ever lived. Also Body frame does not explain bruce lee.
Elite boxers have a mesomorphic somatype. Of course there are great Eastern European boxers as well.
“Elite boxers have a mesomorphic somatype.”
So explain why a mesomorphic Somatotype is preferable to boxing. Otherwise I’ll assume it’s just a correlation.
Because mesomorphs have longer arms which is conducive to boxing success. (Do I need to explain why longer arms are better for boxing?) Here’s a citation for meso somatype and boxing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4155226/
i doubt blacks are good at boxing and fighting simply because “they have long arms”
“Because mesomorphs have longer arms which is conducive to boxing success.”
No. Arm length is not a measurement that defines mesomorphic phenotypes, otherwise why would you have asked me for my arm proportions? The reason the correlation exists is because West Africans are usually Mesomorphic and Africans also tend to have long arms but this has nothing to due with their mesomorphy. Not to say that they don’t share the same roots in adaptation to warmer climates but the two traits are not dependent on each other. A white mesomorph will more than likely have shorter arms as well. So Mesomorphic somatotype is only correlated to boxing, there is no causal relationship.
“(Do I need to explain why longer arms are better for boxing?)”
You don’t actually know about boxing dynamics, so I doubt you could tell me anything of substance. Long arms have disadvantages and any benefit bares only a minority of significance and could not entirely explain racial discrepancies.
didn’t really get the chimp reasoning too. so chimp are stronger than humans because they are smaller ?
It’s not just type II fibers that dictate their strength but also their smaller stature in comparison to humans as well, they can generate more force pound-for-pound.
yes, but their smallness doesn’t explain why they are stronger than humans.
smaller animals tend to be weaker than larger animals though proportionally stronger, but only proportionally.
“smaller animals tend to be weaker than larger animals though proportionally stronger, but only proportionally.”
This is because pound for pound doesn’t mean anything, at least relevant to the discussion of absolute strength.
Larger animals should be stronger because they have larger appendages, heavier weight, and denser bones to support aforementioned traits. Therefore they have more force with each movement Except chimps defy this logic at least in comparison to humans, and this is because of their larger percentage of Type 2(fast twitch) muscle fibers. In fact humans are one of the few animals that do have more slow twitch relative to fast twitch fibers.
“When the researchers then looked at the muscle fiber breakdown in mammals such as mice, guinea pigs, cats, dogs, horses, lemurs, and macaques, they found that only two animals regularly had more slow-twitch fibers: a small, lethargic primate called the slow loris and humans.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/how-chimps-outmuscle-humans
This Implies Humans are actually pretty weak for their size.
“This Implies Humans are actually pretty weak for their size.”
humans are stronger than horses for their size. i read this somewhere.
You should find that sauce.
I don’t see anything like what conversanus stated doing a cursory Google search. I’ll look later. Merry Christmas you filthy animals.
Chimps are stronger than humans because they swing from fucking trees all day. Show me a human who does that and I’ll show you a human who can rip 99.99% of the rest of humanities arms off.
Also, when a chimp attacks a human, they don’t simianomorphize humans like we anthropomorphize them. The make the correct assumption that “this is a different species than me, so I better kill it and eat it before it does the same to me”.
Chimps are stronger than humans because they swing from fucking trees all day. Show me a human who does that and I’ll show you a human who can rip 99.99% of the rest of humanities arms off.
I don’t think so. I suspect even chimps raised in captivity can rip the arms off the stronest human.
philosopher did you watch the late movie “bright” on a modern world where orcs, elves, humans and fairy coexist ?
I saw that movie. I wonder if the Elves were the jews or East asians. I think jews are more accurate. Even in the alternate world, blacks were immersed in gang culture that’s separate form orc gang culture.
Pumpkin you should do something on that movie it’s actually really interesting in it’s relevance to HBD.
Pumpkin you should do something on that movie it’s actually really interesting in it’s relevance to HBD.
Interesting you guys should mention that. I just noticed that movie on Netflix a couple nights ago and added it to my watch list. I’ll have to check it out soon.
Th acting is a lil sub par sometimes but will smith makes up for it.
yes, i also saw the elves as jews not asians. they don’t seem to produce real work, they have magical powers a bit like the ability jews have for mind control and influence.
they even look more like jews than ne asians. they have an arrogance we don’t find in ne asians. we could also compare them with italians.
if i had to compare the fairy with a human population i would say the gypsy, a vermine that need to be exterminated (i don’t think they should be exterminated but a lot of people think this way, subconciously).
orcs are definitely the negroids. even if funnily they don’t have the same body type at all, it’s even said in the movie they can’t jump and they are none of them in the NBA. funny parallel with reality.
I feel like there’s more rich jews than rich asians. The elves were mostly white and basically ran the world’s economy so yeah it definitely gave off a jew vibe.
I wasn’t sure what the fairy could have been, maybe just an allegory for pests like cockroaches and the such. I mean when you think about it I’m sure people would cringe more at an e fairy getting splattered than an insect simply because the fairy is anthropomorphic.
“funny parallel with reality.”
It was funny when the cop said “its not racist it’s physics”. As HBDers we tend to not bat an eye to the generalizations of biological differences between races, but it was intriguing seeing it as a part of popular culture. Not too long ago america had that attitude toward minorities.
“I wasn’t sure what the fairy could have been, maybe just an allegory for pests like cockroaches and the such.”
yes that what i thought too, my comparison with gypsies was more for the fun of comparing them with a human pop.
if we cloned neanderthals in the modern world and integrate them to our society they would probably be similar to the orcs with their slow and heavy body and superhuman strenght and sense of smell.
they would also like heavy metal music just like the orcs do.
I can’t wait until Jason sees this article.
who is jason?
In my opinion, our greatest commenter here. And the only person who has the guts to stand up against RACE RACIST.
what does pill know about commodity futures?
Zilch.
Apocalypse Now is a better movie than The Godfather.
so is Taxi Driver…
gangster movies are entertaining. it’s easy to raise money for them in (((hollywood))).
but it’s kind of sad that most of scorsese’s movies have been about gangsters.
scorsese’s masterpiece is Taxi Driver.
ebert agrees.
the best movie about cosa nostra is Goodfellas…
even though it’s basically just a music video.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=9AUEjzVQwKo%3Fstart%3D90
ethnic gangsterism is still a YUGE reality.
black gangs
mexican gangs
salvadoran gangs
russian gangs
…
and…
THEY ALL STILL FEAR THE ITALIANS.
FEAR!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1Bf3Dzm-xk
organization
PLUS
guns
=
FEAR
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone.
You can go a long way with a smile. You can go a lot farther with a smile and a gun.
I don’t even know what street Canada is on.
I am like any other man. All I do is supply a demand.
Prohibition has made nothing but trouble.
Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class.
When I sell liquor, it’s called bootlegging; when my patrons serve it on Lake Shore Drive, it’s called hospitality.
I have built my organization upon fear.
Vote early and vote often.
Once in the racket you’re always in it.
Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class.
even though it’s just a music video…
ROME wins!
ROME WINS!
ROME WINS!
ROME…
…
ROME…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za3vgqxQDHE
JESUS always wins…
in the END.
There is great variation of sub-races within the categories which makes these large comparisons meaningless. There are groups of Caucasoids that are extremely mesomorphic, there are extremely long-legged Caucasoids in the Balkans (Dinarids), there are long-limbed Mongoloids in Northern China (North-Sinid), stocky Negrids (Paleo-Negrids) in the forest regions, muscular and tall Mongoloids in North-East America (Silvids) and the extreme South (Pampids)… This comparison is essentially worthless.
“This comparison is essentially worthless.”
Or just on Americans in an attempt to explain racial strength differences? You’re aware that the average somatypes for the races are known, correct? That’s what I based this on. .
Except that the average somatypes are totally different even within the races. “Average” means virtually nothing in a comparison of billions of people, spread around the world. No way are those studies a true overview of human body diversity. The examples are countless, e.g. Mongolids in North China come close the Northern European average in height, but Southern “Paleo-Mongolids” are midget size. True Mongols are short but sturdy and muscular… and so on. It’s mostly done of selected groups of Americans who are “averaged out” and breed out all the particularities of the various subraces, by intermixture (also of sub-races and various populations, not other races) to begin with.
Then you can apply what I wrote here to the average subgroup somatype.
“It’s mostly done of selected groups of Americans who are “averaged out””
I never claimed otherwise and I literally continously specified it in the article. Take what I wrote about for the average somatypes and apply it to the subgroups you’re talking about. It doesn’t change. And there is an “average” somatype. East Asians in Asia still have high body fat and shorter limbs. West Africans have longer limbs and less body fat. (Northern) Europeans have a classic endomorph body type with shorter limbs. Turn on the World’s Strongest Man to see what I’m talking about.
And on race and somatype for whites and blacks see here.
RR,
Nice Article.
“People with longer arms excel at pulling exercises whereas people with shorter arms excel at pushing exercises.”
Body shape is not the end all be all to strength. I’m not sure what makes you think you can only place importance on these two arbitrary traits while ignoring others.
“The fact that chimpanzees have a higher proportion of type II fibers compared to humans is also irrelevant. Chimpanzees have a smaller stature and they can, therefore, generate way more power pound-for-pound.”
Pound for pound is what is irrelevant. I guy who weighs 150 but can bench 300 is not stronger than they guy who can bench 310 but weighs 240 pounds in the absolute sense. If a chimp was our size it would still be stronger.
“Attempting to replace Africans with chimpanzees in this scenario doesn’t make sense because Africans have longer limbs than Europeans and would, therefore, generate less force pound-for-pound.”
Chimps have proportionately longer limbs than Humans, but are not weaker. I agree they would probably excel at pulling vs pushing just like Africans, but that doesn’t mean the muscle potential doesn’t exist. What I am arguing is that Muscle is the proximate cause of strength, Body frame simply controls which kind of lifts you can do.
“Overall strength is related to mortality; stronger people live longer and have fewer maladies than weaker people. This too lends credence to my argument that whites are stronger”
Correlation without Causation. While I don’t doubt the connection, life span can be affected by a lot of factors, including IQ.
“Body shape is not the end all be all to strength. I’m not sure what makes you think you can only place importance on these two arbitrary traits while ignoring others.”
Of course it’s not the be all end all to strength. I’m not ignoring anything. I’ve written about fibers ad nauseum. Now it’s time for morphology. Morphology is key to strength as you can see. Want me to discuss grit, focus, determination etc etc or actual physical and physiological variables that are measurable? These two things (somatype and muscle fibers) are arguably the two most important parts to weight lifting and power lifting. As you can see, body type can and does greatly affect strength on certain lifts.
“Pound for pound is what is irrelevant. I guy who weighs 150 but can bench 300 is not stronger than they guy who can bench 310 but weighs 240 pounds in the absolute sense. If a chimp was our size it would still be stronger.”
No it isn’t. If you have two people at wildly different weights then this is how you see who is stronger.
“What I am arguing is that Muscle is the proximate cause of strength, Body frame simply controls which kind of lifts you can do.”
Body frame also dictates how strong you’d be on certain lifts relative to another with a different body type as well. I have long arms. Yet I have a strong overhead press (relatively, My bench press relatively suffers) its because I have strong shoulders and wide clavicles. And your argument about African American strength is clearly wrong, as evidenced here, biomechanically.
“Correlation without Causation. While I don’t doubt the connection, life span can be affected by a lot of factors, including IQ.”
Sure. Not discussing IQ here.
Muscular strength is a protector against cardiovascular disease. The causation is genetic, I saw a GWAS hand grip study identifying a few SNPs that supposedly cause the relationship. But of course someone who goes to the gym and strength trains will live longer than someone who doesn’t, all else being equal. Accept or deny? Though genes aren’t causes etc etc.
“Morphology is key to strength as you can see. ”
It’s the key to what kind of lifts you can do, not strength. Why do you continue to conflate the two concepts?
” As you can see, body type can and does greatly affect strength on certain lifts.”
Okay, looks like I’m going to have to explain physics to you too. let’s say you have a 40 or 50 pound 2X10 board and you have to lift it with one arm completely off the ground. Most grown men could probably pick that up with one hand by the center and hold it to the side or preferably balance it on their shoulders. But if you were forced to pick it up by the end completely off the ground it becomes exponentially harder to lift, because all of the weight is concentrated at one end. You have to be very very strong to override this force. It doesn’t mean that man does not have the muscle potential to lift the board it’s all about the leverage he had before hand.
“If you have two people at wildly different weights then this is how you see who is stronger.”
….Dude I know you’re not this fucking stupid, 310 is a higher number than 300.n Even if one participant doe shave lower bodyweight and equal lift weight to it’s heavier counterpart that individual still can only bench aforementioned amount, so it doesn’t make them stronger. Its like EQ vs Brain size.
“Body frame also dictates how strong you’d be on certain lifts relative to another with a different body type as well. I have long arms. ”
Right but that doesn’t mean your chest muscles are weak your body type just gives less leverage for bench presses. I literally just said this.
“your argument about African American strength is clearly wrong, as evidenced here, biomechanically.”
Where did you demonstrate this? Bio mechanics are secondary to muscles which are the proximate cause of strength output.
“Sure. Not discussing IQ here.”
Im using it as an example of what else can cause discrepancies in Life span besides strength. No need to get offended.
“It’s the key to what kind of lifts you can do, not strength. Why do you continue to conflate the two concepts?”
Because they’re conflateable concepts. It’s clearly the key to strength too. Two people one with short arms and one with long on the overhead press, who’d be stronger? (at equal body weights too.)
“You have to be very very strong to override this force. It doesn’t mean that man does not have the muscle potential to lift the board it’s all about the leverage he had before hand.”
And if he did have the potential he’d lift it right then and there. How are they attempting to lift it? In which way? (but of course there’d be differences to due leverages.)
” ….Dude I know you’re not this fucking stupid, 310 is a higher number than 300.n Even if one participant doe shave lower bodyweight and equal lift weight to it’s heavier counterpart that individual still can only bench aforementioned amount, so it doesn’t make them stronger. Its like EQ vs Brain size.”
Dude I’d rather you not disrespect me in a field I’m in. Thank you.
It doesn’t matter if 300 is a higher number than 310 when talking about pound for pound strength. If someone weighs 150 pounds and benches 300 and another guy benches 310 but weighs 310, which is more impressive? Who is stronger?
“Right but that doesn’t mean your chest muscles are weak your body type just gives less leverage for bench presses. I literally just said this.”
My chest muscles are proportionately weak due to my long arms.
“Where did you demonstrate this?”
With my examples on the Big Four Lifts.
“Bio mechanics are secondary to muscles which are the proximate cause of strength output.”
Biomechanics dictates which lifts you’ll be stronger on in comparison to one with a more favorable body type with different mechanics on a certain lift. This is literally basic anatomy and physiology. Open a textbook.
“Im using it as an example of what else can cause discrepancies in Life span besides strength. No need to get offended.”
Not offended. Rather not talk about IQ all the time. Other threads to discuss that.
Dont you ever get embarrassed at your own ranting?
This is gold coming from you.
“Two people one with short arms and one with long on the overhead press, who’d be stronger? (at equal body weights too.)”
I can’t really answer that question unless I know the relative muscle composition between each participant.
“And if he did have the potential he’d lift it right then and there. How are they attempting to lift it? In which way?”
Ok since you didn’t get it the first time, I’ll try again. You know what a dumbbell looks like right? Well next time you hit the gym and you go to do some curls or whatever instead of holding the dumbbell the proper way,(by the center bar) Hold it by the end so the other end is parallel to the ground, and then try to lift. See how much harder it was to lift even though it’s still the same weight? Leverage is important to how you can lift something but I think what actually governs strength output is your muscles.
“which is more impressive? Who is stronger?”
That’s the issue, the gut who weigh less in obviously more impressive but he can’t actually lift more than the other guy so how is he stronger(assuming all else equal but weight)?
“My chest muscles are proportionately weak due to my long arms.”
I seriously doubt that, A bench press wont even tell you that anyway. You’d have to do flyes or something.
“With my examples on the Big Four Lifts.”
I don’t see how that contradicted anything I said.
“This is literally basic anatomy and physiology. Open a textbook.”
This is literally irrelevant to everything I just said. Open your brain.
“Not offended. Rather not talk about IQ all the time.”
I did not discuss anything about IQ, It was an example so obviously you are offended. I could of brought up nutrition, economic environment, parasite load etc, but IQ is the first thing that comes to mind because I’m an HBDer.
“I can’t really answer that question unless I know the relative muscle composition between each participant.
I’ll make the claim that, all else equal, someone with short arms will be stronger than someone with long arms on, say the overhead press. Say 65/35 skew for both individuals fast/slow. (I’ve seen it myself. I’ve sent people for biopsies and so I know there composition and kept that in mind while training them.)
“See how much harder it was to lift even though it’s still the same weight?”
I tried it today. Wasn’t hard.
“but I think what actually governs strength output is your muscles”
Your not really wrong but what you’re saying is incomplete.
“That’s the issue, the gut who weigh less in obviously more impressive but he can’t actually lift more than the other guy so how is he stronger(assuming all else equal but weight)?”
Because his body generates more force and power to move the same amount of weight at a lower body weight. If you agree the smaller person lifting more is more impressive than the guy benching his body weight then you agree with me. Some fat guy benching 300 and weighing 300 isn’t more impressive than someone who weighs 150 and benches 290.
“I seriously doubt that, A bench press wont even tell you that anyway. You’d have to do flyes or something”
You don’t have to believe me. I’ve not competed yet because my bench is too low and I’m not competing until I get it up. It’s literally due to my long arms.
Yea a bench does tell me that because I know how to isolate the chest on a flat bench.
“I don’t see how that contradicted anything I said”
So go back and reread it. The best predictor of bench press is body mass. Blacks have less body mass (re fat mass) on average than whites and Asians (see references in article on the Chinese). Therefore they also are hurt there due to low body fat and the bar has yet further to move. That’s literally one example. Open your brain to think of more.
“This is literally irrelevant to everything I just said. Open your brain.”
No it isn’t. My brain is open. I’m knowledgeable on this subject. Read the references I provided. Yes it’s possible for people with long arms to be good pushers and people with short arms to be good pullers, but all else equal, between two elite people, what I wrote on biomechanics will come into play.
“I did not discuss anything about IQ, It was an example so obviously you are offended. I could of brought up nutrition, economic environment, parasite load etc, but IQ is the first thing that comes to mind because I’m an HBDer”
Not arguing over this.
“I’ll make the claim that, all else equal, someone with short arms will be stronger than someone with long arms on, say the overhead press. Say 65/35 skew for both individuals fast/slow.”
In that scenario, they are both the same strength but the shorter armed fellow has better torque in lifting the bar because of his limb proportions. Essentially the longer armed fellow will have to work harder to reach the same weight but will ultimately be stronger.
“I tried it today. Wasn’t hard.”
No you didn’t. Either a) you are lying or b) you used a relatively small weight compared to your max curl. It is literally physical law.
“If you have to lift a 50 lb, 10 foot board, common sense prompts you to pick up the long board at its center because it balances more easily and is more easily handled. You don’t lift boards by their ends because the board has a long lever arm and your fingers have a short lever arm. In this example, the board is said to have a mechanical advantage of 10 because its lever arm is 10 times longer. Since the torques must be equal for equilibrium, you have to exert a force 10 times as large.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/handb.html
“A person holds a 500 Newton (N) dumbbell in his right hand. His forearm and hand are held stationery in the horizontal position with no rotation at the elbow joint. The forearm and hand segment weighs 17 N, and the center of gravity of the forearm/hand segment is 0.23 meters (m) from the axis of the elbow joint. The center of gravity of the dumbbell is 0.34 m from the elbow joint. If the muscle holding the arm in this position inserts 0.05 m from the elbow joint, how much muscle force is required to keep the forearm/hand from rotating at the elbow joint? The muscle torque required to prevent rotation is 3,478 N.”
http://www.dummies.com/education/science/biophysics/calculate-muscle-force-at-the-elbow-joint-when-holding-a-dumbbell/
What the largest amount you can curl for 1 set of 3 reps?
“The best predictor of bench press”
Bench press is not the only or most absolute way to measure strength.
“In that scenario, they are both the same strength but the shorter armed fellow has better torque in lifting the bar because of his limb proportions. Essentially the longer armed fellow will have to work harder to reach the same weight but will ultimately be stronger.”
And you’re wrong. Leverages literally denote which lifts you excel at and which you do not. Way more often than not, your anatomic proportions will appear in your max lifts. So all else being equal, endo vs meso, long arms vs short, the short arm person will most always excel in that life in comparison to the other individual.
“No you didn’t. Either a) you are lying or b) you used a relatively small weight ”
I used 80 pounds. Got a youtube video on this?
“compared to your max curl.
What the largest amount you can curl for 1 set of 3 reps?”
I don’t curl. Weighted chin ups > curling.
“Bench press is not the only or most absolute way to measure strength.”
It was one example from the article in question. I showed that body mass is the best predictor of bench press. I’ve shown countless times that blacks have less fat mass and whites and Asians have more, ergo, blacks are worse at benching due to long arms and less body fat. Simple logical progression (with sources in the article).
You’re being extremely vague, I’m stating which exercises and why due to biomechanics and body fat differences affecting leverage and power output.
From your previous comment:
“Body frame simply controls which kind of lifts you can do.”
And it dictates and controls which lifts you excel on in comparison to others; which lifts you would do well on in comparison to another with different frame/levers.
“So all else being equal, endo vs meso, long arms vs short, the short arm person will most always excel in that life in comparison to the other individual.”
All else equal Type 2 > type 1 muscle fibers.
“I used 80 pounds. ”
No you didn’t.
” Got a youtube video on this?”
So mathematical formulas and picture diagrams are not enough?
“All else equal”
For strength? Yes. But the reasons why Africans don’t excel is because of their somatype too. The best example is Mark Henry. Classic Endomorph. One of the strongest men of all time. But one reason why Europeans dominate these competitions is due to their abundance of type I fibers. This is a fact.
“No you didn’t.”
Yes I did.
“mathematical formulas and diagrams”
I’d like to see it in action.
“But one reason why Europeans dominate these competitions is due to their abundance of type I fibers.”
Why are type 1 fibers better in that scenario?
“Yes I did.”
You’re such a bad liar LOL.
“I’d like to see it in action.”
Something similar:
“Why are type 1 fibers better in that scenario?”
Because the muscle fiber distribution of powerlifters has a high number of type I fibers among with type II. Through muscle biopsies we know that blacks dont have a high number of type I fibers. Type I fibers are not necessarily better since all fibers work in concert to produce the desired effects, but since type I fibers have a higher oxidative capacity, they have a higher fatigue resistance in comparison to type II fibers. Yes type II fibers produce high amounts of force which is needed during heavy lifting, however you need a large number of type I fibers to offset the fatigue from the type II fibers. Further, powerlifting, on comparison to weightlifting, is slower in regard to the actual movements, and type I fibers will be useful there, contrary to what you may read on this subject.
“You’re such a bad liar LOL.”
On vacation at the moment. So I’ll see if I can take a video next time I hit the gym.
Do you have a source for this particular quote of yours? just doing some research on the topic.
“Type IIa possesses more aerobic potential than IIx, but less anaerobic potential than type I fibers. ”
“On vacation at the moment. So I’ll see if I can take a video next time I hit the gym.”
Ill be waiting.
Melo, I don’t recall the source for your quote of mine off the top of my head. If I recall correctly, it’s in one of the Fry et al articles. The Sci-Hub links I used there don’t work anymore so just find the full papers on either libgen.io or sci-hub.tw. I’ll get the sources for my claims when I have access to my laptop.
“Not offended. Rather not talk about IQ all the time.”
traumatized by IQ tests 🙂
IQ is not the be all end all and there are other ways to explain it other than what hereditarians say. Last word on this subject here. If you want to discuss IQ discuss on my blog or elsewhere on PP’s. This article is for strength and race.
it bother you whenever someone bring up IQ but not when ian smith praise italians even if it’s clearly more off topic than melo’s analogy about IQ.
weird.
“it bother you whenever someone bring up IQ”
No it doesn’t. It doesn’t need to be discussed in every thread because it’s not relevant here. I largely ignore Ian Smith. There’s nothing weird about it. You can discuss IQ in other threads on this blog along with my blog.
The guardian seems to be not ‘in on it’ in terms of the conspiracy to keep people serving Israel. But its ‘morally compromised’. Which is the most ironic thing as they would be the first to claim moral cleanliness.They can’t figure out their ‘morality’ and social justice preening also comes from the same corrupt elites they fight against in their reporting on economics or corruption.
To be fair, the UK red tops seem to be controlled by Tory private school boys rather than jews from everything I see. You can see the diference immediately between a gentile and jew controlled paper – the amount of blacks in stories and features.
I said it before – jews have a bizarre fascination with blacks. No other race of man thinks about blacks like jews do. 2% of the population in the UK. 13% in America. 70% of a jewish editor’s psychological idea of the ‘perfect citizen’.
it’s not a genuine fascination, jews generally hate blacks
I agree with Robert that the social justice stuff is linked to the neoliberal stuff. But wheareas Robert thinks these people care about their bank accounts, its pretty obvious to me that they would be happy to lose any amount of money pushing social engineering. Because money, without social engineering, doesn’t mean anything.
But wheareas Robert thinks these people care about their bank accounts, its pretty obvious to me that they would be happy to lose any amount of money pushing social engineering. Because money, without social engineering, doesn’t mean anything.
Chomsky used his superior IQ to very skillfully manipulate Mug of Pee and the rest of the pseudointellectual left into thinking the purpose of the social engineering is just to make more money.
i didn’t get that idea from chomsky lying dyke. he’s never expressed it.
i know of only two people who have expressed it. zizek and thiel.
peter thiel and zizek are also pseudointellectual leftists fooled by chomsky.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Zi0zmAPIJ4I%3Fstart%3D245
https://youtube.com/watch?v=AyMKRW5O8U4%3Fstart%3D1287
If they had anything truly subversive and honest to say they wouldn’t be given forums like PBS and the Republican convention to say it.
Thats a good point pumpkin.
I am a ‘crank’. Commenter on youtube asked me what my ‘evidence’ was that Africa is poor because of the people there. I said: “RR, please ask somebody to read the newspaper for you if you can’t infer anything”.
So all the conspiracy theorists seem to have conglomerated around the jew angle now. I’ve said it before as well – they might be wrong on a lot of things. But their very instinct to ask hard questions and entertain ‘crank’ ideas means they are immune to accepting things like the Iraq WMD or Russia hacking the election and I would imagine if we did a tickbox exercise on things, know more than the average person about how the world works.
People on rense.com were talking about HBD 20 years ago. I guarantee it.
One should observe the epistemology of this. If you can guess based on hunches and instinct you tend to be more right than someone reading ‘offficial’ sources – textbooks, academic papers, newspapers, people in authority.
One of the central things I say is that relying on instinct is always better than relying on your ‘intelligence’. Because people more intelligent will have ensnared you from birth into a cult more often than not.
Its very easy for me to ignore contradictory ‘official’ sources like what I read in college or what I see on TV. Because most people are domesticated in civilized nations, their ‘instinct’ (or lack of), is to do what is ‘expected’ of them i.e. believe the plan for you is just.
The root bias of all domesticated animals and people is to comply believing that master’s plan for you is good. Deep down I mean. Its like an implanted formative idea. Some people reject it immediately. They were the ‘rebels’ in school. They might be dropouts or drug addicts today, but they are sexually atttractive to women precisely because they don’t serve the will of Master.
One of the central ideas of jewish postmodernism and social justice is essentially – ignore your instinct. The whole wall of fraud and lies is based on this for a reason. Your instinct is a lot better than your brain at knowing the right response and answer.
This is quite murky though because it precludes the idea of free will. In a kind of sorry way not giving into instinct merely makes you the slave to the person that does give into instinct and bamboozles you verbally.
Instinct is part of reason, part of deduction, induction. Hypothesising.
Idiots with inferior reasoning abilities and social awareness get exploited into buying rationalizations that work backwards from an assumed conclusion to explain away obvious exploitations.
Assumed conclusions aren’t necessarily bad, all hypotheses are assumed conclusions, but the real art of the bullshit rationalization is emotional blackmail e.g. “And if you don’t accept this rationalization it’s because you’re a racist” and if you’re really clever you make your rationalization as complex as possible because then you can imply that the sucker you’re taking for a ride is intellectually inferior and they just don’t “Get” it, in this way the scam artist makes his assumed conclusion absolute and unquestionable. These techniques are especially effective on young people, the education system tries to instill you when you’re young and vulnerable to authority and don’t have the intellectual tools to question it.
Bullshit social programming starts in schools, and is effective, and kicks into overdrive in Universities where they exploit the IQ 120 crowd’s smug sense of self-superiority to further entrench bad ideas from critical analysis and the necessary repudiation.
As a result in this life you need to be three things to not get caught up, firstly smart enough to reason abstractly enough to recognize the inconsistencies in these ideas as they’re presented to you, I suppose 130+ IQ, and this usually isn’t enough because a fine mind is just as capable of rationalization and more importantly will still have been incubated with bad ideas in highschool at a time where they simply lacked the knowledge to exploit their intelligence to its fullest and question it, secondly and more importantly be strong of will and with sense of your own self-interest, not necessarily to the point of machiavellianism but a sense of your own best interest before others will give you first cause to reject any hypothesis that even vaguely smacks of a scam or self-deprecation, but thirdly and much, much more importantly you need to be lucky, lucky enough to have encountered very early the right ideas, books, and people to incubate the personal philosophies and intellectual tools that allow you to exploit a high level of intelligence to its fullest.
instill you with them*
you have seen the skill of a true ninja*
it was chomsky who said education intended first as indoctrination and rewards obedience and that those who see how stupid it is are de-selected. they’re called “behavior problems”. but he also said that this results in the elite being the most obedient, not the most intelligent. chomsky is paranoid sometimes.
The most obedient to what agenda? For Chomsky, the agenda is always imperialism, corporate greed & other forms of avarice.
obedient per se, obedient to whoever demands obedience, whenever is in a position of power and or authority. in the US there are school districts where this is explicitly taught. obey authority.
an example from dogs: some breeds are much better at obedience competitions than others. border collies and poodles are the best. but there is a saying, “playing deaf”. in other words two breeds can be equally intelligent but one much more easily trained. wolves have larger brains but my guess is they can’t be trained at all. my irish setter killed 6 squirrels. my aunt’s poodle is a “genius” but he’s failed to kill a single squirrel. and he’s tried many times.
In brief: They exploit you when you’re defenseless, and then further exploit your ego to entrench their poison.
It’s like protecting the poison that’s rotting your soul.
Jesus, mohammed, John Smith, l Ron Hubbard….cult leaders who made it big. Louis theroux seems fascinated with the idea of cult leaders. He did another special on scientology. I suspect he sees the parallels with ‘mainstream religion’ and possibly ‘mainstream morality’ pretty quickly.
But his best doc was the one with the man who was pretending to be the reincarnation of Jesus and lead the doomsday cult. People like him create morality for people.
Though wolves are trainable, they lack the same degree of tractability seen in dogs. They are generally not as responsive as dogs to coercive techniques involving fear, aversion to stimuli, and force. Generally, far more work is required to obtain the same degree of reliability seen in most dogs. Even then, once a certain behavior has been repeated several times, wolves may get bored and ignore subsequent commands. Wolves are most responsive toward positive conditioning and rewards,[9] though simple praise is not sufficient as in most dogs.[10] Unlike dogs, wolves tend to respond more to hand signals than voice.[10] Although they are more difficult to control than dogs, they can be easier to teach if the motivation exists.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves_as_pets_and_working_animals#Trainability
…if the motivation exists…
it’s also odd that poodles are very un-dog-like. non-dog-people wouldn’t know this.
at least the black standard poodle is the michael corleone of the dog world.
I don’t feel I have to wipe everybody out, Tom. Just my enemies.
modern man is a domesticated animal for the most part.
first man domesticated other animals.
then plants.
then himself.
Pumpkin keeps mentioning his promethean friend. What does he think about social issues?
I’ve suspected people like Chris Langan share similar views to myself, but would be less rabid about it. Or maybe they comment anonymously like I do.
Or he could be a half wit like Terry Tao or that 2nd smartest man in america who repeated high school 8 times because he enjoyed it too much.
Or he could be a half wit like Terry Tao
I don’t know what he thought about social issues, I only discussed IQ with him.
As for Terry Tao, I think you underestimate the social IQ of nerds. I think social IQ is a relative weakness for most nerds, but if your overall IQ is high enough, even your weak points are stronger than average. I doubt Gates could have become the World’s richest man if he was socially stupid, too many people would have scammed him out of his money.
In evolution there’s a term called heterozygote advantage, which means if you have something in moderation, it’s an advantage, but too much is a handicap.
So a little nerdiness makes you technologically smart, but too much makes you autistic. A little schizophrenia makes you socially smart, but too much makes you psychotic.
Your problem is you assume anyone with a little nerdiness has full-blown autism.
Terry Tao is extremely nerdy. You can’t see that?
I’ve never seen him on video but English is not his first language & he had an isolated upbringing so you have to factor that in too
English is his first language. He’s australian.
I think he learned English second despite growing up australian
Just look at him man. Jesus. You don’t need to hear someone speak to tell.
Something tells me Chris Langan is pretty woke on a lot of issues.
He had a rough background, trauma tends to make you question authority.
rr, you say asians and whites are stronger than blacks so it mean that the average asian and white would have more chances to win against a black in an armwrestling ?
i strongly doubt it seeing how the average asian is.
RR says a lot of nonsense. I am a pretty ‘rac-ist’ guy and I will be the first to admit blacks are naturally more athletic. RR has autism.
“rr, you say asians and whites are stronger than blacks so it mean that the average asian and white would have more chances to win against a black in an armwrestling ?
i strongly doubt it seeing how the average asian is.”
The problem here is that you are talking about observation by “looking” rather than actual practice.
In other words, if you have actually SEEN racial differences in arm wrestling or similar activities, then you would have a chance of being accurate.
That, and arm wrestling deals with specialized strength such as in the biceps and technique, biomechanics having a present but not as much of a role as it does in lifting in regards to body proportions.
“RR says a lot of nonsense. I am a pretty ‘rac-ist’ guy and I will be the first to admit blacks are naturally more athletic. RR has autism.”
Define “athletic”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_championships_medalists_in_powerlifting_(men)
Count the Russian, Northern European, and East Asian last names.
Now when you find Black American Power lifters, who set fairly high records like Mike Henry or Ray Williams, keep my and RR’s comments in mind on body types and lifting at the top of the comment section.
https://barbend.com/ray-williams-1053lb-squat/
the point is that everyone is an endomorph when it comes to maximizing strength.
i know this from personal experience.
in order to maximize one’s lift he must also put on a lot of fat…
even if the fat he puts on is much less than others must put on.
the strongest men are about 6′ and fat.
i want evidences of the average white/asian being stronger than the average black.
the claims that asians/whites are stronger than blacks is inccurate. them doing best in powerlifting tell us nothing about the average white/asian/black.
you have none evidences guys.
I would believe whites are stronger power lifters. But all round strength and explosive power is blacks.
I remember growing up there was one guy who entertained conspiracy theories. But he was talking about things like fluoride in the water or mass chipping of people. Most of the people I grew up with didn’t go onto sites like Rense like I did. I really liked reading about the aliens and false flags and that. I suppose an outside observer could see then that I was very different to other people, even the other people in chess club or applied math class.
I remember sitting in my ‘high school’ computer class and back then computers and the internet were very new and I typed in ‘real reason why George Bush invaded Iraq’. I thought the WMD stuff was garbage the day I heard it. With 9-11, I kind of assumed it was linked to Iraq, but not in the way neocons wanted me to think. As we know, Iraq was not the only country invaded or that has american black ops involved.
Another country that I strongly suspect has been meddled with economically is Venezuala. This country is 100% a gentile elite fixation. I don’t blame jews at all for the CIA dropping crates of bolivars into the countryside to drive up inflation.
One of big topics in conspiracy land when I was younger was inflation and going off the gold standard. As I look back on it now, I would say this: the government needs to print money to give it to people who will do some economic activity with it.
Keynes is right, money eventually gets hoarded by a small minority so like a lubricant it needs to be sloshed around the system.
But the goldbuggers are also right that it gives carte blanche to a group of people to print money for reasons to themselves. This is essentially modern day seignorage and what plutocrats did in the middle ages by ripping gold off the coins at the time.
From what I can tell, central banks do what they say on paper though and aren’t a magic money machine for a small group of people to have an unlimited income. But the move of central banks to ‘independence’ is suspicious. There is the strange fact that the countries with non independent central banks are all americas ‘greatest enemies’ – Venezuala, Iran, North Korea etc.
yes.
the ONLY solution is a central bank which IS under the control of NON-CORRUPT politicians elected by the people.
the very idea that a central bank should be above politics is IDEOLOGY in marx’s pejorative sense.
Another theory that is discussed a lot is environmental or medical contamination – fluroide, chemtrails, weather modification, vaccines, genetically engineered crops.
I’m not an agriculture expert nor a chemicals person. But I think they are broadly correct that Monsanto is trying to get farmers to change to GE patented crops to monopolise crop growing. It failed. As I can tell GE crops haven’t taken on since they came into use 10 years ago.
Does the US government engineer the water, atmosphere and so on to make US citizens stupid? Its an interesting theory. There is a very common theory that some congress people have said publicly that vaccines cause autism.
As you all know, I think autism is what is cultivated by our elites. So the idea elites would spread autism forcibly through injections makes sense to me. I think its important to distinguish between vaccines in general and vaccines in America. THe American elite is parasitic and evil so it wouldn’t surprise me if that was indeed the case. That the vaccines make people more servile.
It needs much more evidence though.
Bill Gates is rich because Master rewards the autistic spectrum and wants to eliminate the schiz spectrum (except in the promotion of blacks of course).
Just imagine you are master – would you want the readers of Rense.com as subjects or the readers of the Microsoft offical blog.
Its very obvious to me.
Too simplistic a narrative. Most autistics are not rewarded, they’re not even employed. And outside high tech, most powerful people are very socially savvy or do you think bill clinton, obama, Rupert Murdoch are all autistic too?
The masters will reward whoever advances their interests. The autist’s loyalty might be more genuine, but there are plenty of socially savvy opportunists who will advance master’s interests to advance their own careers. That’s the vast majority of people who get ahead.
it’s such a “vast majority” that they don’t exist.
peepee just makes shit up.
So most U.S. presidents are not socially smart?
And yes, pill (who is pro-psychology) is using autism in the DSM sense, though he may be expanding it to include the broader autistic phenotype.
it is impossible to get to the top unless you are autistic or sociopathic.
this is another advantage of a genuine class system.
prof shoe has said many times that most at the top are sociopaths. he neglects to mention that the remainder are autistic.
yes. chomsky has said this many times. there are two types at the top. the first are people who will do anything in order to get to the next wrung, the sociopaths. the second are those who never find the system chafing or ridiculous or stupid, the autistic. he says, contra prof shoe, that this faction is the majority. i agree with professor shoe.
another way of putting it is that extroverts dominate at the top. extroverts in jung’s original sense. in jung’s original sense “extrovert” means “autistic” in the sense pill and i use the term.
“extrovert” in jung’s original sense was someone who was incapable of making value judgements of his own. that is, the value judgements he made were always merely assumed from those around him. in this way the extrovert is amoral and sociopathic. it’s just that modern psychology uses the terms extrovert and introvert in an entirely different way than jung did. but jung’s senses were the first. he coined the terms. the extrovert is a sheep, a domesticated. tamed human.
another way of putting it is that extroverts dominate at the top. extroverts in jung’s original sense. in jung’s original sense “extrovert” means “autistic” in the sense pill and i use the term.
No pill uses the term autistic literally. He even thinks there a conspiracy to create more autist’s through vaccines. Pill is brilliant but sadly psychotic also.
or almost impossible. contra pill, buffett is an example of someone who never had to manage people or be managed. he’s a one man band…with the assistance of charles munger.
so similarly high IQ and normal people can become very rich via speculation or gambling. or via leveraged investments.
but this is extremely rare.
the organization man is not normal as far as human history goes. he’s new to the last 250 years.
organization man = systems guy = autist/sociopath
…i agree with professor shoe…
what i meant to say is, “i agree with prof chomsky.”
that is the people at the top of the system have been selected by the system.
that is the people at the top of the system have been selected by the system.
That’s not nessecarily the same as pill’s selected by master theory. Capitalism is as meritocratic a system you can have short of a testocracy
i’ve given this example so many times it bleeds…
is the pope catholic?
it’s too elliptical.
what it means is…
in order to ever have a chance of becoming pope (since 1750 at least), one must be a genuine believer.
a secret capitalist, muslim, atheist, jewish pope…
it’s impossible.
no one can fake it that well.
the folks who make it to the top are either really good at faking, sociopaths.
OR
true believers, autists.
the folks who make it to the top are either really good at faking, sociopaths.
OR
true believers, autists.
You don’t have to be a faker or a true believer to get rich in America. You just have to be smart enough to see an opportunity and be smart/motivated/lucky enough to exploit it. warren buffett’s not a sociopath I don’t think, nor is he a true believer in capitalism. Just the opposite, he’s always saying that he only get rich because the economy happened to value his skillset at this particular time so I have no idea why pill uses people like him as examples of master selecting autistics. And what Mug of Pee calls autism for some bizarre reason is better termed just-world belief and real autistics are the least likely to embrace that semi-religious philosophy.
they are 100% sincere in their system-olatry.
it’s double idolatry.
peepee doesn’t even know what “capitalism” means.
sad!
“meritocracy” has always meant “testocracy”.
provided that the test is objective.
just read the wiki on “meritocracy”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy
d b cooper wants peepee on his team.
she’s tractable. unlike a wolf.
none who’ve seen the savage beauty of the cascades can remain peepee-ists.
Capitalism is a meritocracy in that the people who win have the highest test scores on average, even when they didn’t have to pass any tests to get where they are.
Capitalism reminds me of the very survival of the fittest that caused intelligence to evolve in the first place, but with laws to prevent people from getting hurt too badly.
It’s just a mostly disorganized memetic mutation.
I talked about brainwashing, but though these ideologies started with deliberacy of intent since they became popular they’ve taken on a life of their own.
Even though there are certainly parties that take advantage of the Zeitgeist, Zeitgeist really is the term that expresses it because like the spirit of the times, it has a life and an identity all to itself, it self-perpetuates.
The reason people in the institutions brainwash, is they themselves are brainwashed, and the people who’ve started the cycle are long dead, the thing they created having never ultimately fulfilled their intention because it grew past them.
No, I think a priest caste exists to garden it and prune it as necessary. In the past the priest caste were literally called priests. Today they are the media and tv talking heads.
Marx would say that is the whole point of the priest caste – to make people follow the rules when nobody is looking. This is why he advocated abolishing organised religion. He would have been better off just as well abolishing ‘mass morality’.
I’m not saying the Zeitgeist doesn’t create acolytes, that’s how it self-perpetuates, that’s how memes work.
But it’s a mistake to think it’s controlled by any one party. The Priest class you’re describing are just one group of people taking advantage of the Zeitgeist and allowing it to self-perpetuate.
The trait of a good servant is not just to be ignorant. But to actively work towards ignorance – blocking out contradictory commands from other Masters, ignoring other slaves or people, focusing only on the task given. Its a very energy intensive thing unless you were neurologically warped to do it.
For example, if I told someone vaccines cause autism most people would ask ‘why?’ But autists would just say – “That is stupid. There is no god. Back to work.”. Thats inbuilt programming. 100%.
the best servants combine genius and idiocy in one person.
The interaction with other Masters is interesting. So an autist asian looking at social justice nonsense will see our ‘moral instruction’ as gibberish and nonsensical. Possibly evil.
Likewise an autist in the West will look at Chinese ‘moral instruction’ as gibberish and crude. Even bafflingly stupid.
They will look at each others instructions and think ‘how can people believe in this stuff’.
It reminds me of what Orwell wrote in 1984. He was very prescient.
and chomsky has said he dislikes 1984.
perhaps telling…
that chomsky is a jew.
1984 was intended to be a criticism of anglo-american capitalism just as much as soviet communism.
The old british imperial orientalist academics I must praise as they were some of the first of any race or peoples to look at different countries moral instruction and teaching with a relativist or a ‘that is what works for these people’ type without actually doing the jewish thing of then declaring the other countries were morally superior!
WHY PUMPKIN IS RIGHT ABOUT PROGRESSIVE EVOLUTION
So i have changed my views on iq and evolution today. I have accumulated a summary of facts that proves mathematically, Pumpkin is right in that evolution is progressive, and not random.
Based on genetic testing 60% of all men who have ever lived on earth died without reproducing, and then of the 40% who did reproduce, 80% had 1 wife and 2-3 children while the other 20% had tens, dozens, and hundreds of children with multiple wives. Now, since a baby boy being born on earth is 1,000 times more likely to be born to a father with 1,000 children than to a father with lets say 1. That baby boy is born into an akward situation, where he is still most likely to die without reproducing,
because REMEMBER MOST MALES DONT REPRODUCE. The fact that his father had 1,000 children means absolutely nothing. He is still born a baby boy and therefore has a 60% of dieing childless.
perfect example: image a population, half of them die and the other half have 10 children.
those parents AND their children have the fittest genes.
then the children grow up into adults and half of them die.
and the other half of adults have 10 kids.
now those adults are the fittest OF the fittest!
now imagine that going on for thousands of years! this means that evolution is entirely progressive, on an ABSOLUTE SCALE, however not on a RELATIVE SCALE.
example: Ghengis Khan had over 1,000 children however we as in us blog posters have lets say 0-6. in a relative sense he was genetically superior to everyone in his generation, however absolutely compared to us we are genetically superior.
better example, imagine playing an MMORPG like World of Warcraft
max lvl is 60 then an expansion comes out and the new max level is 70
the new lvl 70s are exponentially stronger than the old lvl 60s however the relative difference between two lvl 60s is the same as between two lvl 70s.
the most amazing thing about The Godfather part i and ii is pacino’s performance…
and his performance without speaking, sitting in a chair.
and pacino has a fantastic voice…
makes it all the more amazing.
he’s like khan. a high IQ sociopath.
the autist is blind.
he can’t see with his eyes?
that’s not it.
the autist cannot see that his society and its conventions are accidental, un-necessary, un-natural, man-made.
in marx’s sense of “ideology”…
the autist is incapable of seeing ideology.
society and its conventions are accidental, un-necessary, un-natural, man-made.
Humans are the animal that naturally creates its own environment so man-made is natural for humans.
Pumpkin = Wrong.
Rey was no one, yet she had the force inside her. It does not matter who you are, you can be the one to determine the fate of the galaxy. Because you have the character to stand out. To face yourself in the mirror and see greatness. To let go of the darkness and see the light. Emotional pain is something you must accept or it will never go away. The Streath you need comes from the inner self. When Rey had to protect Finn pure instinct/awareness of the force happened. She realized that she was not nobody, but a person that had a calling. A calling to the force.
https://youtu.be/rWF0f183tSA
I am so disappointed the last Jedi was nothing like the trailers. If the movie was like the trailers it would have been the greatest movie of all time.
here’s proof that my memory hasn’t been destroyed by alcohol.
ctrl-f “super heavyweight”.
https://www.vox.com/2016/8/9/12387684/olympic-heights
the following explains why italian americans can never be fully accepted as americans in the same way albanian americans can be.
because italy is the former MASTER and in religious terms is STILL the master.
i WISH italy could solve its north south problem and be so economically powerful it could give germany and france the FU.
it’s not happening.
but i did buy some shares in intesa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXZhYJcXh2I
Sarah Packard: Sure, sure, just the money, and the aristocratic pleasure of seeing him fall apart. You’re a Roman, Bert. You have to win them all.
Damnit! I only have 1 child, i have to make more at all costs! but gaining more than the avg amount is close to impossible. I wont let it stop me! Ill workout every day! and save my money! and spread my seed far and wide, as far as the eye can see!
“A thinner, elongated face is characteristic of adaption to a diet high in Carbs. Cro magnon has the prominent chin but the face is notably more square and robust.”
i think you didn’t answer me on this melo. can you explain ? sounds very interesting
damnit you guys, we should be out here reproducing, not discussing scientific theories!
maybe im in the wrong forum, even so you guys are smarter than the PUA’s fucking at like it and build a harem ffs.
That’s the smartest thing you’ve said all year, Mikey.
There’s a reason why I’m one of the least frequent posters.
ian smith is the most frequent poster, and he is here since the beginning.
what does it tell about him ?
Too much free time, not enough game.
you can do both, but indeed reproducing is important it’s your children who will take care of you when you will be old and society collapse so you will never receive your pension, family is everything you can’t rely on government
bro we live in a fucked up society were hyper intelligence is selected by the institutions for both sexes, however natural selection is selecting for hyper good looks, and a hyper masculine personality (both sexes) (criminals out reproduce non criminals) so good luck finding a woman whos extremely intelligent, beautiful, and criminaly violent.
i don’t think modern society select for hyper intelligence, it wouldn’t be fucked up then. i don’t know what modern society select, but dumb people are know able to reproduce more than clever people thanks to the welfare state.
i’m still looking forward for an answer of melo on this. i want to know why us caucasoids are so different from ne asians.
To put it as simply as possible softer foods allow the jaws to become smaller.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170574/
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/34/9050
ne asians have smaller jaws en teeth than caucasoids so it doesn’t answer my question.
what about differences in nose shape ?
A combination of climate and sexual selection. I assume skinnier noses are preferred for drier climates.
“ne asians have smaller jaws en teeth than caucasoids so it doesn’t answer my question.”
Yes it does, East asians had a different diet than Caucasoids and the Mongoloids who did invent farming and agriculture do infact have less robust jaws than their hunter gatherer counterparts.
but caucasoids don’t all live in dry climates.
what about capoid hunter gatherers (smaller jaws and teeth) vs congoid farmers (bigger jaws and teeth) ?
“but caucasoids don’t all live in dry climates.”
The Caucausoid’s ancestral environment was the middle east which is a very dry location and it has been noted by other scientists that the dryer and colder a place is usually the thinner the nose bridge.
https://www.popsci.com/climate-nose-shape-evolution
“what about capoid hunter gatherers (smaller jaws and teeth) vs congoid farmers (bigger jaws and teeth) ?”
Both groups have relatively Wide jaws. IDK about tooth size. Congoids are just larger in general. I don’t expect the correlation to be perfect.
Congoid farmers, who likely developed farming independently from Middle eastern farming, used soft grain products less and completely lacked dairy products aside from certain nilotics, who also happen to have narrower jaws.
Also, while NE asian do have smaller teeth, their Jaws are actually relatively wide compared to Caucasoids, as well as weaker chins.
This is consistent with the paedomorphic traits Melo highlighted, so perhaps sexual selections is the culprit there as well.
iirc central asia was the ancestral environment of both europeans (r1 haplogroup i think) and mongoloids. arctic people evolved in the cold but don’t have thin nose, pretty much the opposite.
if middle east it’s the ancestral environment of caucasoids it’s interesting and make sense, but what’s the ancestral environment of mongoloids ? when mongoloids and caucasoids became separate groups ?
“This is consistent with the paedomorphic traits Melo highlighted”
wider jaws is paedomorphic ?
“iirc central asia was the ancestral environment of both europeans (r1 haplogroup i think) and mongoloids.”
Haplogroup is not a defining proxy of race.
“arctic people evolved in the cold but don’t have thin nose, pretty much the opposite.”
As phil stated it was probably sexual selection. Traits that are influenced by sexual pressures can be incredibly variable because they are not dependent on a specific environment. Plus Allen’s rule.
“but what’s the ancestral environment of mongoloids ? ”
China.
“wider jaws is paedomorphic ?”
It actually depends on the heterochronic processes that define the developmental change, wider jaws could actually be peramorphic in some instances, but since Babies tend to have wider jaws it is a childlike trait even if it’s peramorphic, so it adds to an innocent appearance.
“iirc central asia was the ancestral environment of both europeans (r1 haplogroup i think) and mongoloids. arctic people evolved in the cold but don’t have thin nose, pretty much the opposite.”
A few things
1. Europeans shouldn’t be confused with “Aryans” or Caucasians in general. Aryans seems to be the population you are referring to and while the partically evolved their, that isnt their entire component.
2. Aryans actually developed from the pontic steppe (read up on the Yamna) which isn’t exactly “arctic”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic%E2%80%93Caspian_steppe
It’s also worth nothing that on comparable Latitudes in China (around the Yellow River) Mongoloids known as Sinids have thinner noses than subtypes further South.
4. Regarding Aryans, them ans their relativelys have tow components with two subtypes.
Baltic- stocky, wider faced type with generally broad features compared to narrrow neolithic features of Caucasians represents their East European Hunter-gatherer component in their genes. In Caucasians it is typically found in all slavic speaking populations depending on how many actually descend genetically from slavics.
Irano-Afghan nordic/Med- This phenotype likely represents the “Near eastern” huntergathers compoenet in Aryans, as noth this and it’s lighter counterpart in Europe known as the “Corded Nordic”, which is connect to the Central European Aryan culture known as the Corded Ware Culture, is described metrically as very similar to Neolithic meds due to their Straight noses, narrow jaws, long heads, and long faces.
The differences arises in regards to forehead height and longer chins.
This is likely the contributor to the narrow nose component to Europeans.
“if middle east it’s the ancestrar environment of caucasoids it’s interesting and make sense, but what’s the ancestral environment of mongoloids ? when mongoloids and caucasoids became separate groups ?”
Mongoloids, with Mongloid extreme traits being strongest Southward in East China prior to mixing with South East Asian, was likely a mix between Tropical and Temperate conditions but that’s only a rough guess in my opinion on how their phenotype arised.
When they split with europeans varies from 40k-25k ago depending on the study.
On wide jaws being paedomorphic, basically they are.
Basically yes.
Something to keep in mind is paedomorphic being under stood as deccelarated development, not just “neotonic”. As one matures, their Jawline becomes relatively narrow in Homo Sapiens compared to other hominids. This trait is extensive development, making it peramorphic like longer legs.
“them ans their relativelys have tow components with two subtypes.”
Should read as- They and their relatives have two components with two subtypes.
blogger robert lindsay says mongoloids evolved from australoids.
so :
negroids < mena caucasoids < europeans caucasoids
negroids < australoids < se asians mongoloids < ne asians mongoloids
i think that's how robert lindsay sees it. don't know what genetic says, but he doesn't really believe in genetic.
This information is a bit outdated, but here’s what scientists thought 10 years ago:
Modern humans arose in East Africa around 200,000 years ago (as you probably know). It looks like there were 2 major migrations of those modern humans out of Africa and the Levant in ancient times.
Around 70,000 years ago, the ancestors of the present day Australian Aboriginals and Melanesians left Africa and travelled along the south coast of Asia. It is thought that many of the darker-skinned peoples of south Asia and South East Asia are descended from the same migration – the Australoid or “Dravidian” peoples of India, Andaman Islanders, and Negritos of SE Asia.
Around 40,000 years ago, a second group of humans migrated out of Africa, this time heading north. These are the ancestors of today’s Europeans and Asians. Europeans and west Asians are closely related genetically and are really a single group (what is sometimes called ‘Race” although that’s a controversial term), the Eurasians. Another part of the same group underwent adaptations for cold dry weather, probably somewhere on the Tibetan Plateau, around 30,000 to 20,000 years ago. These are the ancestors of the current East Asians, Siberians and indigenous Americans.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070817113533AAT24Q5
Actually, if that is supposed to be a reflection of how races evolved, that is actually inaccurate.
Genetically, and morphologically, it works closer to something like this.
Basal Humans- Basal Africans- Ancient East Africans.
Basal Africans<Khoi San and Pygmies with some admixture from surrounding populations.
Ancient East Africans+Basal Africans- Modern Negroids at varying degrees of this component.
Ancient East Africans- Basal Eurasian
Basal Eurasian- West HG, Caucasus HG, East Asian HG
Basal Eurasian+ West Hunter gatherers- Neolithic Farmers
Caucasus HG+ West HG- Ancient North Eurasians
Ancient North Eurasians+ West HG+ Neolithic farmers- Modern europeans and other Modern West Eurasians to varying degrees.
East Asian HG< Oceanic, South East Asians, and North East Asians.
North East Asian + Ancient North Eurasians- Native Americans and some admixture from some oceanic migrations in South America thousands of years ago.
Oceanic+Neolithic farmer- Dravidians, who eventually mixed with Aryans creating modern populations native to the Indian sub continent.
Neolithic Farmers+ Ancient East Africans- Modern East Africans of the Horn.
Neolithic farmers+ WG+Ancient east African- Modern North Africans, adjusting for theit Negroid Admixture.
Edit- My comment was in response to conversanus, as for my comments on Asians and Oceanics I made a mistake.
“Basally” speaking, it works like this.
Basal Eurasian<Oceanic and mainland Eurasian.
Mainland eurasian< West, Caucasus, and East Asian HG.
PP's link reflects this.
phil78, i didn’t understood shit to your comment. what are supposed to mean all the + and – ?
“Europeans and west Asians are closely related genetically and are really a single group (what is sometimes called ‘Race” although that’s a controversial term), the Eurasians.”
eurasians = caucasoids ?
Yes, they mean Caucasoid
“It looks like there were 2 major migrations of those modern humans out of Africa and the Levant in ancient times.”
See i thought that too, but phil told me in an email that Eurasians derive from Austronesian populations
“See i thought that too, but phil told me in an email that Eurasians derive from Austronesian populations.”
True, I have, but upon clarification I meant that Modern SE Asians are found to be more basal compared to NE and West Eurasians, and that austronesian would pose as an example.
PP refered to a study on the topic before. However, from what I can find now, SE Asians seem to be basal only compared to NE asians.
I often refer to this tree by Cavalli-Sforza who used neutral genetic distance as a chronology for how the races separated, but we need a more up to date tree, given all the recent research:
in cavalli-sforza tree se asians and pacific islanders are a different group from ne asians, and mena look they appear at the same time as europeans. se also appear closer to australoids than to other mongoloids.
All that tree was meant to tell us was how long ago two races shared a common ancestor, so the split between MENA and Europeans is very high on the tree, because their most recent common ancestor is very recent & Australoids and Northeast Asians separated long before Northeast Asians and Caucasoids separated, according to how Cavalli-Sforza interpreted this tree. Of course all this is complicated by all the race mixing.
Key:
“-” means a single population descending from a single population.
“<" means multiple populations descending from a single population. (forgot to do this with the descendants of basal Eurasians).
"+" means populations mixing.
"in cavalli-sforza tree se asians and pacific islanders are a different group from ne asians, and mena look they appear at the same time as europeans. se also appear closer to australoids than to other mongoloids."
They were likely closer to polynesians than actual Australoids, though it begs the question whther the group are a mixing between mainland asians and oceanic peoples or an independent branch all together. I believe the latter is the offical position.
phil, thanks for the clarification.
se asians are probably originally an independant population but all of them appear to be mixed with regular ne asians to a degree. otherwise it would mean they developed slanted eyes independantly of ne asians.
is mena a real group ? are turks part of mena ? pakistanis ? what about south asians overall ?
“phil, thanks for the clarification.
se asians are probably originally an independant population but all of them appear to be mixed with regular ne asians to a degree.”
Place like vietnam seem to comply with this argument, though I’m unsure of any place of lower latitude or outside of the mainland without documentation or genetic research.
“otherwise it would mean they developed slanted eyes independantly of ne asians.”
Technically that could be possible, for instance Western and Eastern Pygmies in Africa develop their height independently of eachother. This was determined by genetic research and record showing that they grow at different patterns.
“is mena a real group ? are turks part of mena ? pakistanis ? what about south asians overall ?”
It’s really a cultural construct based the spread of Arabic influence from the Middle Ages, but their is a genetic link.
Middle Easterners and North Africans are connected by the Neolithic Farmers from the Levant, though they are different with North Africans having a higher component of the “basal Eurasians”, as well as Gulf Arabs.
Some other traces that effect differentiation is the influence of Aryan Nomads in their DNA, but not to the same extent as Europeans. In that case, the closest the come to that would be Ancient Anatolians and Caucasians who spoke Indo-European Languages prior to the invasion of Turkish speakers. They can be seen as a border inbetween Central Asia and MENA.
As for Turks proper, the ethnic group itself, as well as the genetics of the original group, is Central Asian which can be defined as a mixture of Mongoloid and Caucasians, particularly those similar to Aryan Nomads. They are their own group.
Pakistanis and Afghanis, along with the rest of South Asia, may have some influence from Neolithic farmers from the Caucasus like civilizations such as ancient dravidians who mixed with ancient south-east Asians like the negritos, but overall are distinguished by their Nomad Ancestry and are thus their own group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples#Genetics
According to this, based on Iranian speakers, those in iran are closest to people of the southern caucasus (Near eastern). Afghan Iranian speakers themselves are closest to south Asian, so you can consider this border to be the border of South Asia and the Near East.
This link also helps.
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003316
Many people think of South Asians as pure Caucasoids who evolved black skin, but recent research suggests they are a hybrid of two populations; the first being related to Europeans and MENAs and the second being related to Andaman islanders. But if they’re related to Andaman islanders, why no kinky hair?
“Many people think of South Asians as pure Caucasoids who evolved black skin, but recent research suggests they are a hybrid of two populations; the first being related to Europeans and MENAs and the second being related to Andaman islanders. But if they’re related to Andaman islanders, why no kinky hair?”
Well, aside from curly/wavy hair being common in Veddoid populations of south Asia, seeing how kinky hair is rare even in Sri Lanka, presumbly with one of the highest levels of admixture, it implies a few possiblities.
A. The “negrito” population wasn’t necessarily of the Kinky hair type of Andamans, but rather due to the less tropical conditions of the subcontinent it is closer to that of australoids.
B. The neolithic/Aryan waves of farmers and pastoralists influence was so overwhelming, kinky hair diminsihed as a phenotype. This is somewhat supported given earlie studies showing the dravidians in ambiguous relationship with West Eurasians and Oceanic populations making ity hard to pinpoint.
we should do grip strength measurement for average individuals of each race to truly determine which race is the strongest in average.
only when we have this done we could say race A is stronger than race B.
these grip strength measurements are better than the big 4 because they are not dependant of morphology.
they are better than any powerlifting competition which are biased in favor of certain morphotypes.
what is interesting to know is the real muscular strength potential of each race.
why would the only expression of strength be lifting weights in a certain way ? strength is a much more general ability.
i insist on these measurements being done on average people.
rr based his conclusions on professionals but there is no evidence the average asian is stronger than the average black, actually it’s more likely to be the opposite.
for what we know know blacks have a higher grip strength than whites, even if the study need to be replicated to give more solid results.
i tend to agree with melo, blacks are stronger and whites are better at powerlifting.
100% I stand by my claim Master selects for autism. The proof is the societies where Master ruled longest. People like Warren Buffet don’t exist among native Americans or berbers. When I say Master selected Warren Buffet, I mean to say Master selected someone with the attributes of Buffet. There are thousands of people born with Buffet’s brain that didn’t become rich in speculation.
There are hundreds of thousands more that are slightly less autistic on the spectrum the fulfil the functionnaire duties of cogs in the system.
Pumpkin also has a very naive view of capitalism being a ‘fair game’ where people start out with equal endowments of social and financial capital and this is a ‘meritocracy’. For example being born a jew probably makes you 30-50% more likely to be admitted to harvard than being a gentile. Same with top level positions in media, finance, hollywood, and the court system. Or being born a white gentile is more advantageous than being born in a ghetto. Being born in Sweden is a much better environment to compete than America for a middle class person competing with an elite child.
Marx was correct – capitalism rewards the most sociopathic traits in people. This is one way in which it is untenable. No society can last long promoting its worst traits if it wishes to remain a society. The whole point of the system is to destroy itself.
It is deeply ironic that jews would invent a contradictory ideology of communism via marx and his followers to the one ideology since the middle ages that had improved their lot and was tailor made for jews – capitalism. Or in other words, usury.
Usury is seen as moral today. 500 years ago it was highly immoral. It would be interesting looking at how attitudes to usury have changed in relation to jews social standing as the two are synonymous for hundreds of years in both Europe and MENA where usury is similarly banned by islam.
Remove usury and theres not much else to talk about when discussing how capitalism works. It is a ‘moral’ decision.
Likewise slavery and prostitution were once seen as completely characteristic of capitalism.
Its a sociopathic way of arranging relations between men.
Marx is right. It needs to be overriden either with religious softness or regulated secularly.
Marx didn’t say with religious softness. I did. I think Protestantism doesn’t cause capitalist attitudes. I actually would say that Weber was wrong and that christianity tamed many of the effects of early capitalism.
For example, before pensions and welfare there were poor houses and orphanages. Nunneries and charitable organisations. These were the proto welfare state before capitalism entered the Fordist compromise.
What Henry Ford said was : ‘If I pay my workers more, they will buy more cars’.
It was a remarkable insight from an industrialist himself that created the middle class.
Ford also published The International Jew. I am reading this at the moment and it is 100% spot on as well. H even relates the jew to capitalism as Marx did.
Pumpkin also has a very naive view of capitalism being a ‘fair game’ where people start out with equal endowments of social and financial capital and this is a ‘meritocracy’. For example being born a jew probably makes you 30-50% more likely to be admitted to harvard than being a gentile.
But Jews are a high IQ race, so what you’re describing is still meritocratic at the level of group competition, if not always at the individual level. My point is capitalism is much like the very natural selection that caused human intelligence to evolve in the first place, in that the smartest individuals and groups thrive and monopolize limited resources at the expense of less smart groups.
peepee is making shit up again.
100% I stand by my claim Master selects for autism. The proof is the societies where Master ruled longest. People like Warren Buffet don’t exist among native Americans or berbers. When I say Master selected Warren Buffet, I mean to say Master selected someone with the attributes of Buffet. There are thousands of people born with Buffet’s brain that didn’t become rich in speculation.
There are hundreds of thousands more that are slightly less autistic on the spectrum the fulfil the functionnaire duties of cogs in the system.
This assumes that selecting the perfect slave would create a race of autists. Dogs were selected by master; wolves were selected by nature. Yet wolves are much more autistic than dogs, as measured by social intelligence. But dogs use their social intelligence to serve their human masters.
If you read some of the quotes from Italian fascist party and the National Socialist party the rhetoric about capitalism is not far off from the communist party rhetoric.
Both populist extremes seen the problem with capitalism.
In many ways capitalism didn’t ‘win’ the 20th century. It got 2 very serious critiques and reformed itself under them.
When Hitler wanted to put Germans back to work after the Great Depression, he didn’t ring Frederich Hayek. Neither did Stalin. Neither did Roosevelt. Capitalism’s victory is a 100% academic fraud. It never won. It keeps failing. It spites itself in the face. And will spite itself 100 times more because its a complete contradiction in human nature.
it’s biggest failure since 1970 is the one country which adheres to its dicta most and preaches it to the world, the US. real median wages have been stagnant since 1970 in the US. the UK isn’t much better. they’ve risen in all other developed countries. if the same had happened in the USSR can you imagine what the talking heads would say?
yes. government employment and taxes have risen everywhere since 1929. and by a lot. trickle down is an empirical failure. it just causes asset price inflation.
and QE is the biggest trickle down scam ever. better would be to simply give the poor money. QE gives the rich money, and no one talks about it.
unearned money spent on consumption only causes inflation to the extent that the marginal labor cost of production is greater than 0. if it isn’t much greater than 0, then there isn’t much inflation.
that is, the way the economy actually works today with only about 10% of the population producing everything and everyone else engaged in some kind of scam, these 10% can actually produce more without longer hours.
the reason for the stagnation in productivity is precisely because the remaining 40% of the population which is employed isn’t really producing anything.
Robert is right that autists can’t see how weird their current circumstances are. Everything always is because it was. Its orwellian. There is no reason for a woman to greet you at the dentist office. She is given paper with numbers on it to sit there and smile at you from 9-5pm. The central bank could print more papers and give it to the dentist and she might be convinced to sit there naked for 24 hours.
In this way human beings under capitalism fiat money can achieve anything provided inflation is monitored. The fact they aren’t acheiving anything beyond building websites using old milliatry technology is 100% the decision of Master.
Master is farming right now. Not creating.
Genius! 100% fact. Although as much as I hat to admit it, the elite are in fact genetically superior to the lower social classes, which includes me and you. There will never be a revolution, the relative power difference will always stay the same.
look at African Americans for example…. We are absolutely better off now than 100 years ago, however the actual system hasn’t changed one bit. we are still 2nd class citizens in America and always will be. Our fate was sealed the moment Europeans came to our shores, with guns and armor, while we only had bows and arrows.
I’m 56% African specifically from the twin countries Benin and Togo. Today they are third world and the national language is French. God help us all.
way too simplistic mikey[redacted by pp, dec 31, 2017]
way!
you’ve grown up with the individualist ideology so you accept it as a law of nature.
the evidence as far as i know it suggests that…
1. the potential of individual blacks is equal or nearly equal that of whites and koreans and jews and whatever.
BUT
2. when blacks form a quorum it makes them all dumber.
this is why some diversity is fine, contra the nazis.
but that some is quite small.
there’re just way too many stupid white people.
read chisala.