Just the name Cheddar man gives me the creeps. Sounds like the title of a slasher film.
MSN reports:
DNA from a 10,000-year-old skeleton found in an English cave suggests the oldest-known Briton had dark skin and blue eyes, researchers said Wednesday. Scientists from Britain’s Natural History Museum and University College London analyzed the genome of “Cheddar Man,” who was found in Cheddar Gorge in southwest England in 1903.
Scientists led by museum DNA expert Ian Barnes drilled into the skull to extract DNA from bone powder. They say analysis indicates he had blue eyes, dark curly hair and “dark to black” skin pigmentation.
The researchers say the evidence suggests that Europeans’ pale skin tones developed much later than originally thought.
“Cheddar Man subverts people’s expectations of what kinds of genetic traits go together,” said Tom Booth, a postdoctoral researcher at the museum who worked on the project.
“It seems that pale eyes entered Europe long before pale skin or blond hair, which didn’t come along until after the arrival of farming.”
So it seems the earliest Caucasoids looked pretty much identical to today’s South Asians, except with blue eyes or green eyes, as some rare South Asians today have.
.
Also interesting was this quote:
Cheddar Man is the oldest complete skeleton found in Britain. Humans had lived in Britain off and on for thousands of years before his time, but they had been wiped out during periodic ice ages.
So once again we see evidence of just how hard it was to survive the extreme cold of the ice age, thus supporting Richard Lynn’s claim that cold winters were a major selection factor in the evolution of alleged racial IQ gaps.
Of course if climate were the only factor we’d expect Inuit to be among the World’s smartest people, and they don’t appear to be (though they are among the biggest brained), so obviously some other factor(s) would have to be involved too, if you accept HBD. Richard Lynn argued the other factor was population size increasing the odds of favourable mutations (Inuit lacked big populations and were geographically isolated).
In his 2006 magnum opus, Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis, Lynn writes:
The Arctic Peoples experienced the severest winter conditions of all the races with coldest winter temperatures of about -15°C and falling to about -20° C during the main Wiirm glaciation. In response to these cold winters the Arctic Peoples evolved more pronounced forms of the morphological cold adaptations of the East Asians, consisting of the flattened nose, the short legs and thick trunk, the subcutaneous layer of fat that gives the skin a yellowish appearance, and the epicanthic eye-fold. These severe winters would be expected to have acted as a strong selection for increased intelligence, but this evidently failed to occur because their IQ is only 91.
The explanation for this must lie in the small numbers of the Arctic Peoples whose population at the end of the twentieth century was only approximately 56,000 as compared with approximately 1.4 billion East Asians. While it is impossible to make precise estimates of population sizes during the main Wurm glaciation, there can be no doubt that the East Asians were many times more numerous than the Arctic Peoples. The effect of the difference in population size will have been that mutations for higher intelligence occurred and spread in the East Asians that never appeared in the Arctic Peoples. The East Asians consisting of the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese would have formed a single extended breeding population of demes in which mutant alleles for high intelligence would have spread but would not have been transmitted to the Arctic Peoples isolated by high mountain ranges and long distance.
The Arctic Peoples did, however, evolve a larger brain size, approximately the same as that of the East Asians, so it is curious that they do not have the same intelligence. A possible explanation for this is that the Arctic Peoples have evolved strong visual memory that would have been needed when they went out on long hunting expeditions and needed to remember landmarks in order to get home in largely featureless environments of snow and ice. An increase of this ability would have required an increase in brain size but is not measured in intelligence tests.
A further possibility is that one or more new mutant alleles for more efficient neurophysiological processes underlying intelligence may have appeared in the East Asians but not in the Arctic Peoples.
There is a further anomaly in the intelligence of the peoples of Northeast Asia concerning the IQs of the Mongols of Mongolia and the closely related Samoyeds of Northern Siberia. There are no studies of the intelligence of these peoples but their low level of cultural development and technology suggests that it is not so high as that of the East Asians of China, Japan, and Korea. Yet these peoples also experienced many thousands of years of severe winter environments that have produced the pronounced morphological cold adaptations of the epicanthic eye-fold, short legs, and thick trunk that evolved in the Arctic Peoples. The probable explanation of this anomaly is the small population size of these peoples (the population of present- day Mongolia is approximately 2.4 million and there are only a few tens of thousands of Samoyeds of Northern Siberia) and they have been isolated from neighboring peoples by the Gobi desert and high mountain ranges, so new mutations for higher intelligence did not occur and their geographical isolation would have prevented the acquisition of these mutations from other races.
JayMan on the other hand argued that it was not population size, but civilization, that explains why not all cold winter races score high. He argues that races that had both cold winters and civilization evolved the highest IQs (Northeast Asians), and those that had neither remained the lowest (Bushmen, pygmies, Australoids) , with the rest falling in between.
JayMan writes:
So it seems that different latitudinal regions have different ceilings. Broadly speaking, the IQ ceiling in sub-Saharan Africa is lower than it is North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, which is in turn lower than it is in Europe and Northern Asia. Average IQ is allowed to rise somewhat in these northern regions, as the Mongolians, Siberians, Inuit, and Native Americans demonstrate. Civilization then takes it “all the way”.
Of course others might argue civilization was the cause, not the product, of high IQ.
This actually makes sense. It joins the selected by and for theories together. Jaymans theory i mean. The population size critique is dumb because you have jews as an example of a small population thay selected iq.
Mongloids in north anerica were populojs and didnt select iq either.
The population size critique is dumb because you have jews as an example of a small population thay selected iq.
Yes but Jews were surrounded by huge populations, so high IQ mutations in Europe and the Middle East could easily flow into their gene pool. This is different from the small populations of the Arctic or the Americas that were geographically cut-off from new mutations. Even today we see Jews replenishing their gene pool by marrying the highest status Gentiles such the children of Trump and the Clintons.
But JayMan’s theory is plausible too.
Bill clintons daughter is not his daughter
Ashkenazim genetics do not cluster around high IQ Northern Europeans, but lower IQ Southeastern Europeans and West Asians.
I know of Greek guy who runs a diner. He looks like Chuck Schumer separated at childbirth.
It was always ironic to me that Greeks are so antisemitic. Many could pass for Jews.
People sometimes get jealous when people who look like them do well.
The Greek diaspora is successful. So it’s not about jealousy.
Greeks also dislike Anatolian Turks who look like them, and they also look like Jews. Armenians look like Jews, and they share a commonality with them, because of the Armenian genocide, so they don’t dislike Jews as much.
What’s interesting, these groups cluster as one group of people!
A picture of Greece’s right wing party with its logo — Golden Dawn, which is anti-semitic.
They look like Israelis to me, the Ashkenazi types.
Sloppy Wikipedia stats put Greeks as the 9th wealthiest group in America, who are less than .5% of the population.
Italians rank no. 22, and ahead of all the East Asian groups.
Ashkenazim rank no. 2 behind Hindus, who are the wealthiest, but their population is more than 1% and Jews are 2.5% of population.
Ha! The guy in the middle of that pic almost looks like a mulatto.
A better way to explain iq is jarrd doamonds agriculture theory. Humans that are nomadic and pastoral farmers like of goats and that tend to select for more rugged traits and those that had crop farming more k selected ones. I think diamond gets a lot of unfair criticism from sailer as his thery is matches the empirical facts more. All you have to do is list the livestock on every continent available to humans and compare it to brain size. Meso americans only had llamas.
[redacted by pp, feb 8, 2018] Llamas live in South America, on the Andes’ Altiplano. Meso Americans had no large mammals.
They had no beasts of burden and in the case of the Maya their city states weren’t conducive to wheels (though they knew of its existence since they used it on children’s toys). You don’t have to physically use something to know how and why something is used.
Right, plus there is a need of roads or at least firm soils. Tropical soils are either muddy or sandy depending on the season, even motor vehicles struggle on unpaved tropical soils.
Diamonds theory explaons the flynn effect better as well. As agri gets more advanced its onvious people get more intelligent from the nutrition improvement.
[redacted by pp, feb 8, 2018] agriculture always and everywhere has a LESS nutritious diet.
This.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/21/on-diseases-of-civilization-romanticizing-the-hunter-gatherers-diet/
Our diet (Western diet) is horrible compared to theirs. Their disease rate is incredibly low! It’s because they don’t eat garbage, processed food. Like your favorite example, Mugabe, look at the Pima. That’s one of the best examples out there.
Selection effect. Agri populations are much larger than hunter gatherer ones. Ergo, there was a lot of deaths in hunter gatherer societies, possibly from limited nutrition.
All available evidence indicates that they had good nutrition. They certainly had lower disease rates than we do.
In 1914, Hoffman himself had surveyed physicians working for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. “Among some 63,000 Indians of all tribes,” he reported, “there occurred only 2 deaths from cancer as medically observed from the year 1914.” (Taubes, 2008: 92)
“There are no known reasons why cancer should not occasionally occur among any race of people, even though it be below the lowest degree of savagery and barbarism,” Hoffman wrote. (Taubes, 2008: 92)
“Granting the practical difficulties of determining with accuracy the causes of death among the non-civilized races, it is nevertheless a safe assumption that the large number of medical missionaries and other trained medical observers, living for years among native races throughout the world, would long ago have provided a substantial basis of fact regarding the frequency of malignant disease among the so-called “uncivilized” races, if cancer were met with among them to anything like the degree common to practically all civilized countries. Quite the contrary, the negative evidence is convincing that in the opinion of qualified medical observers cancer is exceptionally rare among the primitive peoples.” (Taubes, 2008: 92)
“These reports, often published in the British Medical Journal, The Lancet or local journals like the East African Medical Journal, would typically include the length of service the author had undergone among the natives, the size of the local native population served by the hospital in question, the size of the local European population, and the number of cancers involved in both. F.P. Fouch, for instance, district surgeon of the Orange Free State in South Africa, reported to the BMJ in 1923 that he had spent six years at a hospital that served fourteen thousand natives. “I never saw a single case of gastric or duodenal ulcer, colitis, appendicitis, or cancer in any form in a native, although these diseases were frequently seen among the white or European population.” (Taubes, 2008: 92)
“As a result of these modern processed foods, noted Hoffman, “far-reaching changes in bodily functioning and metabolism are introduced which, extending over many years, are the causes or conditions predisposing to the development of malignant new growths, and in part at least explain the observed increase in cancer death rate of practically all civilized and highly urbanized countries.” (Taubes, 2008: 96)
Not late life disease like cancer. Early life problems like polio or childhood mortality. Miscarriages etc.
I agree the ones that survive are likely to have the best nutrition. Dog eat dog. The ones who weren’t strong and fit, simply died out and the surplus of food given to the strong.
I bet you don’t see many hunter gatherers in wheelchairs.
Think about how long disabled, mentally ill, people with genetic conditions, asthma, MS, Huntingtons etc last in hunter gatherer socieites….the food is taken from them and given to the ‘winners’.
This is why Hobbes called life in these types of societies, ‘nasty, short, brutish’.
Diamond basically says agricultural potential/development is what supports civilisations. He doesnt say brain size or iq but its implicit when he keepa comparing papua new guineans with asian rice paddy workaholics.
In fact, he’s right and he summarizes what all specialists think about the development of complex societies which are a product of environments that can sustain high population densities.
No people (Deserts, rainforests, ice sheets) = no civilization.
A lot of people (fertile soils, temperate climate, low disease burden) = a lot of civilization.
He doesn’t imply anything biologic because it makes no sense.
Since cheddar man was the ancestor of white northern Europeans could we say that they were IQ 100 just with a different complexion? How skin was selected for is hypothesized as an adaptation to low vitamin D. n my medications I take one pill of vitamin D every Monday. But if skin tone of cheddar man was common the vitamin D issue would be less of an issue. A more conducive reason for the change in pigmentations would be sexual selection. The people with the palest skin would breed more because women or men just really like white skin or blond / red hair.
The Inuit people having an IQ of 91 may be a misnomer. My IQ is 113 but my general intelligence is 132. The Inuits may have a general intelligence of 110 of 120. We cannot doubt their vision systems high capacity to develop. IQ tests may not even measure the advanced abilities of the Inuit vision system.
[redacted by pp, feb 8, 2018] britain was uninhabitable because it was covered in ice and nothing lived or grew there. eskimos do NOT live on solid ice year round and when they do live on solid ice they survive by hunting marine mammals. always on the shore. never inland.
[redacted by pp, feb 8, 2018]
nothing lived or grew there.
Citation needed
eskimos do NOT live on solid ice year round and when they do live on solid ice they survive by hunting marine mammals. always on the shore. never inland.
You realize Britain’s an island right?
Nothing grows on ice sheets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cap_climate
Britain was not an island during the ice ages, and was probably only populated during milder periods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum_refugia
I imagine there were some water bordering britain during ice age.
Wooly mammoth somehow survived until 11 kya when it became warm enough for humans to join them, & thus kill them:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20150722-lost-beasts-of-the-ice-age
When it was a tundra, not an ice sheet.
Article says:
For the last 2.6 million years, ice sheets have repeatedly covered Britain and northern Europe. In these frozen wastes, strange giant animals thrived
Maybe the article is wrong or maybe it was never 100% ice sheet
The article is most likely wrong. Ice sheets have no vegetation, which makes it impossible for herbivores to live there. Current day ice sheets like inland Greenland and Antarctica have no fauna.
Yes the article does seem wrong. Mammoths did not live continuously in britain until 11 kya as the article implied, but migrated to Siberia during coldest times then returned.
However i don’t think britain was ever one big ice sheet. Rather it seems it had a bunch of different growing ice sheets that drove many, (though not all?) mammals out, especially huge ones that require a lot of calories:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/jun/17/woolly-mammoth-ice-age
Southern portions of Britain were ice-free even during the glacial maximum. Fossils must have been found there.
There are significant racial differences in body proportions. Such data are not readily available for Chinese children…. The Chinese children were found to have a proportional limb segmental length relative to the trunk that differed significantly from the proportionally longer limbs in whites and blacks.
https://journals.lww.com/clinorthop/Fulltext/1996/02000/Anthropometric_Measurements_and_Body_Proportions.4.aspx
obviously i’m genetically superior.
the tall in the saddle body type is also an example of neotony not ape-like-ness.
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=677&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=7Pl7WsrfOYLSjwPHiLzIAg&q=Eveleth%2C+P.B.%3B+Tanner%2C+J.M.+sitting+height+ratio&oq=Eveleth%2C+P.B.%3B+Tanner%2C+J.M.+sitting+height+ratio&gs_l=psy-ab.3…118479.126230.0.126649.21.21.0.0.0.0.76.1125.21.21.0….0…1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0….0.vhILAwvTIFY#imgrc=Us3uAOgIDPZZMM:
[reacted by pp, feb 8, 2018]
however, this ratio must be for people of the same height across populations, because tall people have a lower ratio that short people.
I don’t see any material advantage of having blue eyes except being more attractive. So the higher the proportion of blue eyes, the freer were the people to mate based on looks and/or the more inclined they were to do so. That would explain why Scandinavian were both lascivious and eugenist people.
I wonder if this means Scandinavians (and Baltics) have bigger penises?
Overall it seems that the more you go down this equator the biggest the penis size which is consistent with warm climates being more r-selecting.
India and East Asia are exceptions. Having civilisation for a long time must have selected for less masculine males.
It’s interesting that the Portuguese are considered an effeminate European group, who were subservient towards their colonial subjects, unlike the more aggressive Spaniards. Lower testosterone gives you a smaller penis. Then there’s Ireland, which was like Portugal, poor and underdeveloped.
Any correlation with lower testosterone and higher IQ gives you poorly developed nations, similar to high testosterone and and lower IQ nations?
What data is used for that map? Lynn’s garbage data?
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/01/are-there-racial-differences-in-penis-size/
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/03/are-there-race-differences-in-penis-size-part-ii/
And haha at the just-so explanation for why you see this (shitty data) pattern.
It doesn’t matter if the data aren’t reliable as long as they aren’t totally made up. You can still see a general trend.
Small populations favor the spread of deleterious mutations, that’s a well known consequence of genetic drift that is amplified by bottlenecks and small populations.
But all non-Africans went through this and carry more deleterious mutations than Africans.
Arctic peoples had a large enough population to evolve a very distinct phenotype. Had eyekew been part of the package, it would have evolved accordingly.
Their actual ability to meaningfully represent either an individual or a museum collection is questionable, as facial reconstructions created for display and published within academic journals show an enduring preference for applying invalidated methods
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4531&context=smhpapers
Soft tissue work is ‘just a guess’ and the prediction methods employed to guess the soft tissue have not been tested. 2) faces are not ‘reconstructed’ from skulls. 3) It’s hardly ‘science’, and more of a form of art due to the guesses and large assumptions poured into the ‘technique’. 4) ‘Reconstructions’ don’t ‘work’ because they help us ‘find’ people, as there is a lot more going on there than the freak-chance happenings of finding a person based on a ‘reconstruction’ which was probably due to chance.
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/s1355-0306(03)71776-6
‘Artistic interpretation’ should be used only “particularly for the morphology of the ears and mouth, and with the skin for an ageing adult” but that “The greatest accuracy is possible when information is available from preserved soft tissue, from a portrait, or from a pathological condition or healed injury.” But she also writes: “… the laboratory studies of the Manchester method suggest that facial reconstruction can reproduce a sufficient likeness to allow recognition by a close friend or family member.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815945/
I wrote something the other day for Nefertiti but the same critiques apply.. I don’t doubt the man had dark skin, but we can’t know the exact color. The soft tissue features are just subjective artist’s interpretation. People are so happy about this, for what? Facial ‘reconstructions’ aren’t science.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/02/06/dont-fall-for-facial-reconstructions/
RR, you make some good points, but iirc, a lot of Cheddar man’s phenotype was inferred from his DNA which apparently revealed dark skin, blue eyes, and curly hair.
I don’t disagree with those three things (skin, eyes and hair type on its face), I disagree with the ‘reconstruction’ because it’s mostly guesswork. What was inferred from his genome is one thing, making a ‘reconstruction’ and saying that the ‘first Briton’ looked like that is incorrect. It’s the best-preserved specimen we have at the moment but the soft tissue features on the ‘reconstruction’ is completely up to the artist there is no type of methodology for tissue depth and whatnot. ‘Reconstructions’ just aren’t science. And it’s funny watching people who should know better (anthropologists etc) pushing this ‘reconstruction’ as if it really means anything (it doesn’t).
They do these type of reconstructions all the time for missing persons cases. I’ve always wondered how accurate they are…
They’re not very accurate. At all. Most that ‘are accurate’ come down to chance. It’s all mostly subjective to the artist (soft tissue).
I was reading about this on another website this morning. Seems like Communist propaganda to me.
Interesting. You think they fake scientific results to hew to the danish narrative? It wouldn’t surprise me. But the scientists mentioned are Tom Booth and Ian Barnes which sound germanic and therefore, honest.
Anglos, not necessarily Germanics are the biggest shills on this entire planet earth, so I don’t know what you mean by that.
Is there anything wrong with the genomic analysis? The ‘reconstruction’ is stupid but genetic analysis shows curly hair, dark skin and blue eyes.
I don’t doubt that a lot of scientific results are faked for propaganda reasons. For example there is a whole literature out there ‘proving’ that race is a social construction in genetics.
Stephen Jay Gould does a more subtle thing where he re-interprets existing fossil and biological data to a plausible narrative.
Weisberg 2014 shows that Gould made a few errors but his analysis was largely correct.
In the final analysis, Gould’s charge that Morton’s analyses exhibit racial bias seems well‐justified. Gould made some analytical errors which were uncovered by Lewis et al., but his two most important claims—that there is evidence that Morton’s seed based measurements exhibit racial bias and that there are no significant differences in mean cranial capacities across races in
Morton’s collection—are sound. Despite the continuing importance of Morton’s collection for modern research, albeit research that rejects Morton’s assumptions about racial categories and the link between cranial capacity and intelligence, his work remains a cautionary example of racial bias in the science of human differences. Gould’s analysis and critique of Morton has been
widely discussed and widely used as an illustration of implicit bias in science; it ought to remain so.
Click to access remeasuring-man.pdf
Also see:
For all that, continuing to ignore Gould’s real mistakes and flaws would, indeed, be intellectually dishonest; no matter how much one might prefer the results of Gould’s statistical summary, the assumptions used in generating those summaries are simply not supportable. But, there is also no reason to accept the assumptions used by Morton in generating his original estimates, nor those used by Lewis et al. in generating their (very similar to Morton’s) estimates.
Click to access KAPGOM.pdf
Kaplan et al say all three measures are wrong whereas Weisberg states that Gould was largely right with small errors. Either way this debate isn’t over.
Yes ‘errors’. Hahaha
Yes ‘read the papers’. Hahaha
hhahahha, at least one paper is missing, I wonder why… hahahha RR
Which paper, Lewis et al? 2011? Haha those two papers are responses to them.
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071
About 50% of results in psychology don’t replicate. I.e. they are fake news.
A lot of the medicine and nutrition papers are inference from autism. Which is why Race can say aggression causes testosterone. Which is like saying blood causes murder.
Because psychology is garbage and highly ideologically driven, especially social and differential psychology.
I think RR would probably be the worst detective in human history. Hed probably arrest his boss because a lot of murders happened while his boss was in charge of the homicide unit.
This looks like roma people or Gypsies. Dark skin and somewhat light hairs and eyes. They originally came from the north of India.
Philosopher argues that Jews are the most sociopathic race. I disagree I believe Gypsies are. I have seen no population acting the way they act. It’s like they litterally don’t experience shame.
I can relate to some self-critical Jews, Blacks or Arabs but I have yet to see a Gypsy acting like a normal human, whatever it means.
Of course I’m not talking about the Snatch/Peaky Blinders gypsies types, I’m talking about those with dark skin.
Pumpkin says jews are evolved gypsies.
Pumpkin says jews are evolved gypsies
Yes, but I didn’t mean it literally. Jews are MENA-white hybrids while gypsies are South Asian-white hybrids. I just find it interesting that the stereotypes about Jews are kind of a sophisticated version of the stereotype about gypsies, so the stereotype paints Jews as a kind of high IQ gypsy. I find this interesting because both groups have a nomadic evolutionary history. Maybe just a coincidence.
Jews don’t have a nomadic history, they only migrated to seize trade opportunities or were expelled from medieval Kingdoms but they lived a sedentary life. Gypsies are real nomads who change place several times during their lifetime.
And a little known fact is that Gypsies were slaves in Eastern Europe until the mid 19th century.
These are improper uses of the term nomad. Migrating is different from being a nomad. Jews live sedentary lives, they don’t spend their lives wandering around the world.
They don’t spend their individual lives wandering, but their life as a people has been spent that way.
A nomad is just “a member of a people that has no fixed home but wanders from place to place”
Actual definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomad
You’re not a nomad if you’re sedentary. It’s simple.
Words have both narrow and broad definitions. Broadly defined Jews are nomads.
No. They don’t follow a nomadic lifestyle, so they are not nomads. You understand that a nomadic population has no permanent settlements unlike the Jews who had kingdoms and long lasting urban communities.
You’re being too concrete. Metaphorically they’re nomads. Language is fluid, not rigid. And “long lasting” is relative.
So, metaphorically, the Chinese are are nomadic too since they have huge overseas communities all over the world. This is not what nomadism is.
But the Chinese have a homeland. The Jews didn’t until recently & even today most don’t live there.
The Jews used to have a homeland, the first Jewish kingdoms in Judea were established circa 1500 BCE, then they were invaded and forced into exile by the beginning of Christian era, but they didn’t live as nomads.
Again, metaphor
Leave metaphors to poetry and use concrete language for science.
I doubt jews are high IQ gypsies will ever be a formal scientific theory, but thanks for the vote of confidence 🙂
Lol obviously, there is nothing scientific in “racial studies”, but if you want to make it sound like science, avoid metaphoric language.
I don’t think large scale scams Jews are known for require as much sociopathy as stealing from old vunerable persons as Gypsies do.
The more a criminal task involve abstract thinking and planning the less you need sociopathy to perform it. You can distanciate yourself from your victims which is not true in street crime.
Plus, all Gypsies steal (or should I say 99.9% of them) while it’s clearly not true to say that of Jews.
When you’re poor and uneducated, you don’t have the luxury of doing white collar crime.
And yeah, Jews and Gypsies were parasitic groups with no homeland for most of their History.
Ashkenazim Jews are related to Anatolian Turks, who were once nomads. Aren’t Arabs of nomadic origins? The same goes for the Mongols, and other Steppe Asians.
Jews seem to be a different group of people, neither nomadic nor sedentary. And nomadic is not interchangeable with parasitic.
No one thinks of Turks, Mongols and Arabs as parasitic. Maybe the term isn’t even applicable to Gypsies. The parasitic description has been designated to Jews most of the time.
I think the problem stems from the lack of versatility with Jewish people. They only seem to be characterized as merchants and other middlemen in a service sector, and not really as the self-contained types of the Christian denomination. Think of the Hasidic Jews who depend on others for sustenance, while the Amish share certain occupations with Hasidic Jews, yet they are self sufficient as a community.
You may agree on « rootless »
I’d say dispersed instead of rootless.
The Ashkenazi Jews’ lack of versatility as a people, became their curse.
JS, I don’t see how Gypsies are not parasitic.
Rootless is in the middle, 75-25 would be dispersed and errant, nomade and settled/sedentary being the arrant 🙂
There’s this “aura” surrounding Ashkenazim Jews that they disdain labor, and tend to embark on occupations that don’t require the manipulation of hands. Hence, the term “parasitic” is fitting for them. Furthermore, Ashkenazim Jews are not versatile as a people, hence their lack of self-sufficiency as a community, and thus they depended on gentiles for food sourcing and other necessities. Moreover, people don’t find Jews as an attractive people, personality-wise. They lack the charm of gypsies and blacks.
“They lack the charm of gypsies and blacks.”
This is news to me. These groups have charm?!
“JayMan on the other hand argued that it was not population size, but civilization, that explains why not all cold winter races score high. He argues that races that had both cold winters and civilization evolved the highest IQs (Northeast Asians), and those that had neither remained the lowest (Bushmen, pygmies, Australoids) , with the rest falling in between.”
Like most—if not all—of HBD theorizing, more and more just-so stories, post hoc, ergo propter hoc. It’s hilarious how HBD theories are largely built on fallacious thinking and just-so stories.
True.
But some criticize the science in the making to deny some unpleasant facts. If some say men are on average taller than women it is a fact. If you the taller the person you re looking for, the less chances it is to be a woman. Above 7 feet, it as also no women. Then, the causes are a matter of debate : is it genetic ? Environmental ? Both ? The science here is not good. Most European are taller than one generation ago and their
Genetic didn’t change . But the. People from the Netherlands are even taller. Some African are shorter now . But is this a cause of the difference between male and female ? Does the men have starved women from protein (eating all the meat) and then fatter shorter women living on lipid only had better chances to survive etc . Is that reversible ? Etc … all theories here are completely in a very incipient chaotic stage .
But the underlying facts are clear and the people denying there is such a thing as height,nor a measurable height nor a real difference more or less constant for every ethnic group between male and female are just lying and/or delusional ….
I would say it looks the same to me for IQ and differential psychology . But I know much less than you guys about this topic !
Men taller than women is a biological fact. The fact that height increased is due to malnutrition etc. JayMan’s comment quoted above is a literal case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. X happened before Y, Y was caused by something that happened before Y, therefore X caused Y. That’s fallacious. I think JayMan should know better…
Also, is there any scientific field so littered with bias? I think psychology is one of the biggest out there, with nutrition science and disciplines of anthropology right there with them.
No, height and IQ are definitely not comparable, neither are race and sex.
Height is a material reality, eyekew is a made up construct.
Male = XY, female = XX and this it causes the entirety of the height differences in societies where both sexes have the same nutritional status. Race on the contrary has no genetic definition and is largely unrelated to a person’s height, except in pygmy peoples for which it was a demonstrated genetic adaptation.
Even supposing it were as subjective as beauty. Then beauty varies within one race. And it varies among races but it’s clear that the inter-racial variation are far less objective than the intra-racial variation and more difficult to measure. But despite the definition being quite difficult and varyig through time and regions, most people would be able to say quite accurately who is ugly and who could be an elite model, whatever the races.
Afrosapiens, why do you use a French and European Union flag?
Because I’m French and pro EU.
Why do you spend days exposing your ignorance on this blog?
There’s no need to be so aggressive.
At least you can infer “post hoc, ergo non propter hoc.” wich is something 😉
I was actually shocked to see an Asian man doing sport punditry on this programme. Its just goes to show you how much I stereotype people.
I actually have to admit that I kept expecting him to make statistical points or to mention numbers of cards/fouls etc. Hahahaha.
Red Dead Redemption. Great game. Good old fashioned western. Catching up on all these games after 5 years off the habit not that im unemployed and living in a basement.
Pumpkin thinks measuring things is science. Hahahahaha. So when I measure the weight of my piggybank, that means im a scientist.
Necessary is not sufficiency ….
Why don’t your posts appear on reddit? I feel like you’d get more views.
I’ll look into it
I remember Pumpkin saying once that he thought native americans were descended from sasquatches. So its strange to think Cheddar Man and sasquatches roamed the earth around the same time and didnt bother mating.
lmao
[redacted by pp, feb 9, 2018]
trudeau says he was joking.
He might just be saying that to save face since the comment bombed.
I bet Pumpkin supports Trudeaus comment. Ive always thought pumpkin was a closet SJW. Especially when he uses terms like ‘institutional racism’ and ‘legacy of colonialism’.
SJWs don’t need to be in the closet
Many are in LGBTQESFJB so they would be in the closet, technically.
nazis need to be in the closet. they’re a persecuted minority. an extremely sexy persecuted minority.
deal faps to this video over and over.
goran gets it.
SJWs have zero interest in social justice. they’re too dumb to understand marx.
Social justice warrior (commonly abbreviated SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism,[1][2] as well as identity politics.[3]
note “socially progressive” not “economically progressive”. the word “social” has come to mean its opposite.
SJWs are the vanguard of the parasite capitalist class. they aren’t socialists.
SJWs belong to the “we fool you level”.
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/presentation1-100517032828-phpapp01/95/presentation1-8-728.jpg?cb=1274067036
and the “we shoot at you level”. they destroy people’s lives. that’s violence. adamson was fired from his job at malmo uninversity college. that’s violence.
Jews tend to adapt better to multiculturalism due to their higher IQs and a strong tribal tradition that serves their interests. They enforce it. but they also relish it, because they can. The most successful of Jews tend to live in Manhattan.
And speaking of Greeks vs Italians, in America, Greeks are friendlier towards blacks, the same way, Jews are friendlier towards blacks than Italians and the Irish.
Watching this dating show and every episode they have a gay date. My god the lesbians are always so ugly. But the gays are over the top gay.
I know I joke with Santo a lot but honestly I don’t hate gays at all. I find them frivolous but most of them are harmless and generally high empathy or low sociopath people.
I would bet most psychopaths are straight and sexuality 100% is related to that fact. I.e. I doubt you can be gay and have the same brain. But I suppose many people would call paedos sociopathic by definition. And most of those are gay.
Its clear Santo can’t take jokes about his sexuality. However oftentimes I was asking him honest questions about whether he has encountered homosexual celebrities like Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan. Did you know the average homosexual has over 100 partners during their lifetime? I mean, if gays are 6-7% and they are sleeping with over 100 men, surely they would have met celebrities by now?
I remember a gay work colleague said he met the Duke of Luxembourg once in a non sexual situation.
These are honest questions! I love celeb gossip.
i love celeb gossip and i can’t stop talking about gayness. i think i’m turning gay.
My prof mentioned this today. 2202 Evolution and Human Diversity. Constantly complaining that he has to keep updating his slides because of new information.
What a guy
Anyone familiar with Turchin’s “Secular Cycle” theory? If so, thoughts?
gibbon blamed to decline and fall of the roman empire on christianity.
Rushton blamed it on immigration & dysgenics
Complete speculation with nothing to back his assertions. At all.
To be fair Santo was kind of right that homsexuality/straight/bi is a kind of spectrum one moves along in life if exposed to certain environments.
Maybe you can say, one is born somewhere on the spectrum and the environment can push you along it rather than it being determinate or purely environmental.
I reflected on this because I remember seeing documentaries on homosexual children and I remember the mother in 1 of them said she knew her child was gay since the day he opened his mouth e.g he would play with dolls and with the girls instead of boys.
On the other hand, it is obvious any genetic inclination to homosexuality would be forcefully selected out both sexually and by people executing/suppressing gays as they have done in most cultures.
So there you go Santo, I was wrong. And you were half wrong too.
the “gender non-conforming” child may be pushed into homosexuality. the exotic becomes erotic.
A question is: why do feminine environments turn people gay? Why does the mind warp in that odd non-reproductive manner. Is it God trying to remove ‘weaklings’ from the gene pool? In ancient Rome and Greece it was common for the upper class to take young men as concubines. It doesn’t make sense to me why nature would make the most wealthy/powerful people end their bloodline. Maybe nature intends ‘churn’ that the masculine lower classes continually revolt and agitate against weakening upper classes every so often. This ensures social renewal and ‘competitiveness’. Maybe.
One thing one always notes about gays is the lack of aggression, sociopathy and inability to take things seriously. For me, this is a psychological blueprint to self destruct in natural law.
Now, I can’t explain lesbianism at all. I don’t have a theory about it. I disagree that all lesbians are women who havent found masculine enough men. Its very puzzling really. I can’t understand why women would become or be born lesbians as at least with a gay couple, both men can gather resources and protect each other….but women historically cannot gather resources and fend, so lesbian households are a total maladaptation.
Perhaps the old DSMs were right in that homosexuality is a type of mental illness in the clinical sense. For example, most people would classify paedophilia, bestiality or incest as things that ‘sick’ people do. I would argue some people instinctively feel that paedophilia in particular is a mental illness.
Entertain the notion that homosexuality is a mental illness for a moment then. Like say, schizophrenia.
This would entail 2 things:
1. It may be possible to ‘lessen symptoms with the right pharmaceuticals in the future.
2. People can likewise be carrying genes for a disposition to it. Like schizophrenia it is completely maladaptive and the bloodline ends with a progressed case.
By my reasoning, I would suggest homosexuality is more similar to schizophrenia than say, tay sachs. And in non western countries, almost more maladaptive. For example, I can pass as a normie in most circumstances with people, but a gay man is usually very noticeable even to the most autistic person.
Gays can be very sociopathic that’s why they rule the fashion industry. Also if you can check out the new American Crime Story about Versace and his little gay twink Andrew Cunanan.
Look up narcissistic, boderline, and histrionic personality disorder. Those are over-represented in gays vs. straight men. Suicide and depression too.
Mental illness is a dumb label, its not something intrinsic to any trait. pedos were accepted in many social circles in the past. by your categoorization, any deviation is an mental illnes (unless you feel its a good thing). Most people consider mental illness whatever they dislike and is devious.
I should win nobel prizes for my brilliance.
Of course, some people would say not being able to reproduce doesn’t constitute the basis for a mental illness. However I would rejoinder that making one act completely erratically and outside of the norm in terms of sexual appetites constitutes an illness. Just because jews legalised sodomy, doesn’t mean people don’t instinctively find sodomy repulsive. Or maybe my mind is too ‘primitive’. I notice the autistics don’t care what sexuality people are and tolerate just about any behavioural deviance bar paedophilia.
sodomy is very bad for your health. no sodomy, no AIDS.
I remember growing up, people that were seen as not cool or weak were just labelled ‘faggots’ or ‘queers’ even if they weren’t gay. You can see the natural law operating there. Children and young men instinctively want to ‘beat up’ and ‘bully’ homosexuality carriers.
I also notice autistic people got bullied as well.
People can’t realise that it doesn’t matter what rationale the bullies use for why they pick victims. It is simply enough to know that all cultures pick the same victims and all bullies instinctively chose these targets. This shows something larger is working its powers through human minds.
People say God is Love. Perhaps Neitsche is right….if God exists God Loves the Strong and hates the weak and liking weak people is a social construction of slaves and other malcontents to pity themselves. Its obvious natural law favours the strong and accords garlands, affection and popularity to them when nobody is brainwashing nobody.
i heard oprah said “God is love.” the is from the first epistle of john. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
i heard oprah say “God is love.” this from the first epistle of john. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
marion says from the OT to the NT the change is ego sum qui sum, God is Being in heidegger’s sense, to deus caritus est, God is love.
I use the phrase ‘natural law’ a lot. I take this to mean how people act without conditioning, religion or other brainwashing. In most parts of Africa you can see natural law working when 50% of women are raped in their lifetime or homosexuals are beaten to death.
I honestly think if civilisation broke down in Asia and Europe, you would also get 50% rape rates and beatings of homosexuals. This is ‘natural law’ and the creator is well aware of it when it designed the rules we follow in our brains.
In many ways most people would consider following natural law ‘immoral’ From the woman committing adultery hypergamously looking to sleep with the Alpha cad to gang/clan societies that form without police. Most morality in humans is an agreement to suspend the rules of natural law in my opinion.
Wait… So morality is the fourth sence to decipher aestheticts? and breaking peoples sense of aesthetics (which i would assume that aesthetics and natural law is the same thing)?
The only way to make sense of this is to claim that there are different types of intuitions, and that one of them (natural law) hates gays, while the other (aesthetics) also does in another maner, and so that certain raping women is natural law while morality is working against it. And that the cases where discrimination occurs is when natural law and aesthetics coincide in judgement, such as interacting with blacks or homos.
Did i get it right?
Many blacks are unbrainwashable. I’ve noted before how blacks even when religious, re-purpose the religion to fulfil their instinct – e.g. polygamy, beating up gays, tribalism etc.
I don’t know if this is a complement. But if you wanted to see the world clearly without blinders I would bet there are more blacks that see the world as it works than the average college graduate even though the IQ is 40 points lower.
Notice the way all blacks even with higher IQs repurpose theories to justify their instinct. For example, this is why Afro can say ‘being French’ really means being him.
Its brainwash proofing in the genetics. Jews can’t touch it. They can only carrot and stick these people. Never ‘convince’ them.
As an alt-righter you believe the media/academia is brainwashing whites to oppose their ethnic genetic interests and support black EGI. Blacks consume the same culture, so their tribal instincts would just be reinforced by the same brainwashing. Only if the brainwashing were turned against black EGI would your theory be tested.
the world as it works
You think that civilization does not exist?
You think rule of law and technology does not exist?
If the world works a certain way it is not a complete breakdown into gang warfare with no oil for cars and no water in the tap.
If we say the world works by having the most powerful gangs/tribes in charge I see very little evidence of it since I don’t see people killing each other on the streets for power. I see people in cars going to Wendy’s restaurant and game store.
Is capitalism supposed to be the instinct the black African has of the way the world works? Or is it that they live in Africa that has “natural law”. You’re bullshitting yourself if you think the way the world works is the way things work in Africa. Africa is not the world so his instincts do not apply to first world capitalism. Your “natural law” does not apply in the west. In the west, cooperation is good enough we do not have genocide on a regular basis like in Africa. The word does not work like that.
Other interesting article from Robert Lindsay’s blog :
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2018/02/02/interesting-racial-arguments-blacks-as-less-domesticated-humans-and-whites-and-asians-as-domesticated-slave-races/
I don’t agree with all of it but it there are some interesting points.
Europeans are not more human than Africans, they are more domesticable and amenable to so-called civilized life, actually it is a more polite expression to say they are easier to enslave and put to hard work by neurological programming rather than by mere physical shackles only.
100% lindsay is on the right track with that comment.
I think if anything blacks are the easiest to enslave. Every other group that Euros tried to enslave throughout history, whether Slavs or Native Americans or South Indians, resisted when Western Euros came along and tried to enslave them. Native Americans and Irish indentured servants (basically semi-slaves) would routinely committ suicide during American slavery. But blacks just went along with it and tap danced and sang Negro spirituals while doing so.
Lul.
Slavs, are called Slavs because they’ve because Slavic lands were the largest reservoir of slaves for the Mediterranean world until the middle ages, they never resisted.
As for Native Americans, they were badly enslaved and decimated until their numbers fell so dramatically that they had to be replaced by Africans.
Africans on the other end could not be enslaved or conquered in their own lands until the late 19th century and the Haitian revolution as well as the Zanj revolt in Iraq were the sole successful slave revolts in history. Various Maroon communities in Latin America and the Caribbean posed a much bigger threat on the colonies that any native tribe ever did.
Of course what Lindsay and Philosopher say is stupid, but your ignorance shows.
As for Native Americans, they were badly enslaved and decimated until their numbers fell so dramatically that they had to be replaced by Africans.
I think G-man’s point is Native Americans were so good at escaping and would run circles around white slave traders who tried to catch them, outsmarting them by hiding behind trees, under grass, and by throwing rocks to trick the traders into running in the wrong directions. Tired of constantly being outsmarted, the slave traders were forced to go all the way to Africa. There’s a great documentary where Native Americans chuckle at how they made monkeys out of white slave traders. But sadly, being so genetically isolated on the Americas, the Natives were no match for disease, and so eventually were decimated.
But Afro does make a good point about the Hatian revolution. Even Rushton couldn’t explain away that one when asked about it.
They had the advantage of knowing the Land, but until the early 18th century, the US exported more Native slaves to the Caribbean than it imported slaves from Africa. And those natives sent away from their lands had no way out.
Abduction from another land makes people more easy to keep as slaves. In North America, blacks were in completely unfamiliar environments and greatly outnumbered by whites, so even if they left the plantations as many did they had not much to do.
That was another story in Latin America and the Caribbean where they were familiar with the tropical conditions and found it very easy to escape. That’s why the slavery system was different there. Mortality was high, so the population had to be renewed with fresh African captives, those who survived long enough were very often freed to prevent them from joining the maroon communities.who frequently looted plantations and freed slaves. Brazil and Jamaica were under constant threat of Maroon overtaking, whereas Haiti was the only non-white country in the Americas to get rid of European domination, and this led to the abolition of the slave trade as European powers realized that the growing African population would make them unable to keep control on their colonies.
As for slavery in the US, many have argued that the living conditions of slaves were not much worse than those of the peasantry, and some aspects were even better like healthcare. Of course there are things inherent to slavery that make it horrible, but the few rewards of freedom were likely not worth the risk of escaping in most cases. I read books saying that it was frequent for slaves to runaway for a few months, very often, they stayed on some relative’s plantations and eventually returned to their own, it seems planters just dealt with it.
Life was tough for all lower classes back then. The conditions life of a free white peasant, that of an African slave or that of a native tribesman were about equally desperate.
The Haitian Revolution has always been an interesting (and surprisingly successful) example of black resistance. I need to read more about it…
To be fair a lot of MENA races do this too.
Most MENA are mixed with Negroid with the average admixture being up to 25%.
Most MENA do not look Negroid at all:
We have a lot of very caucasoid-looking Algerians in the south of France and they are the worst. Quadroons don’t act like this.
Genetic studies, not looks. Some populations are still 0% mixed, but most of the population of the lower class peasants is mixed. Higher class unmixed.
I’m sorry to shackle your little world view fenoopy, but those genetic studies don’t exist, except those showing that Maghrebis of higher SES have more peninsular Arabic ancestry, especially from Yemen. Other than that, for your average French racist, North Africans are all equally troublesome and are only surpassed by Gypsies.
Ooops, sorry, Gypsies don’t even surpass you.
Now instead of playing wannabe Aryan, you should rather fight these ridiculous stereotypes instead of pseudo-intellectualizing them.
Shatter, not shackle.
jungle juice, not orange juice.
afro didn’t spell it out.
to the extent that maghrebians are descended from arabians (peninsular arabs), they are…
1. higher class, AND…
2. LESS white.
THE RETARDATION OF ARABS SINCE THEIR LOSS AT TOURS…
IS DOWN TO 2 THINGS.
1. THEY DON’T DRINK. 99%.
2. THEY HATE WOMEN. 1%.
“I’m sorry to shackle your little world view fenoopy, but those genetic studies don’t exist”
There’s plenty of research and I’ve already posted a paper regarding Morocco. Egypt too has high Negroid admixture.
“Now instead of playing wannabe Aryan, you should rather fight these ridiculous stereotypes instead of pseudo-intellectualizing them.”
I believe Negroids are genetically less intelligent on average. Genetically intelligent Negroids do exist, but the average genetic IQ of Negroids is lower than the average genetic IQ of Caucasoids and Mongoloids. Ultimately, your genetic IQ, just like your genetic height, comes down to your individual genes and the average matters little.
I don’t believe Negroids are genetically less intelligent, I believe that on average, Negroids are genetically less intelligent.
Why do you believe all Caucasoids are equally intelligent when all the evidences say this is not true ?
Caucasoids are not the monolitic entity you are trying to make of it.
Impregnate all german women with north african semen and we will see that the next generation of Germans will have the same abilities and behaviour and will sustain german economy without any problem, sure !
The matter with you Fenoopy is that you are either agreeing and disagreeing with HBD conclusions whenever it suits you.
You are whining like the average non-white welfare parasite whenever someone say something you don’t like about your people but behind that you have no problem saying the Negro is a subhuman.
And obviously you weren’t trolling, that is just the opinion of the average North African about black people. Now you are getting softer in your words as anyone start to notice your hypocrisy, which is btw characteristic of your people.
Fenoopy, the studies the studies that don’t exist are not the one showing MENA people have subsaharan admixture. Those that don’t exist are the ones supporting your lies that there is an admixture gradient in North Africa with those on the top monopolizing all desirable traits are of pure Berber stock and that the behaviors that make North Africans look bad are clustered in those with more Arab and Subsaharan admixture.
That’s a lie that you’ve been telling yourself or that other Bereberists of your type have made up to satisfy their Aryan-envy. All of this makes you sound very stupid. I dare you to explain your theories to the French alt-right, or even to average North Africans. Everybody knows it doesn’t add up and the Zidane-types that you worship really have nothing noticeably better than the rest of the pack.
I’m sorry, it’s just the way it is. I personally don’t subscribe to stereotypes, but if you want to have a racist worldview, just accept that your people will never be anywhere close to the top of the hierarchy and that subsaharan admixture really has nothing to do with this.
“those on the top monopolizing all desirable traits are of pure Berber stock”
For the fourth decade in a row, Kabyle score the highest academically of all Algerians. Kabyle dominate Algeria and indeed, Algeria’s deep state (the power & Mohamed Mediene) are Kabyle.
“that the behaviors that make North Africans look bad are clustered in those with more Arab and Subsaharan admixture.”
I am just another example of a high-achieving Kabyle, I don’t run the streets listening to French gangster music and assaulting old ladies like my browner Berber cousins.
“That’s a lie that you’ve been telling yourself”
Mixed-race individuals score less in terms of average IQ than pure whites. This is a fact, though the causes are unknown. They are likely to be genetic. Unfortunately, Negroid admixture causing lower IQ isn’t a lie at all.
“I dare you to explain your theories to the French alt-right”
I’m not fond of the alt-right at all, I greatly dislike them, though they do have many valid points, especially in regard to mass-immigration.
“or even to average North Africans”
Average North Africans already experience an inferiority complex in regard to pure blooded Berbers.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Kabyles-think-they-are-more-superior-than-the-rest-of-the-Algerians
“Everybody knows it doesn’t add up”
Everybody knows ____? This is playground logic.
“Zidane-types that you worship really have nothing noticeably better than the rest of the pack.”
I’m not sure what you’re insinuating. Zidane is ahead of the pack and that’s just a fact.
“if you want to have a racist worldview”
I don’t have a racist worldview, I have a realist worldview. I don’t judge the individual by his race, but I am aware of statistical realities. A black man can still very well be genetically more intelligent than a white man.
“your people will never be anywhere close to the top of the hierarchy”
My people dominated a large chunk of Europe for almost a millennia. Civilizations, empires, they come and go.
“Why do you believe all Caucasoids are equally intelligent when all the evidences say this is not true ?”
I’ve presented you with all the evidence in the form of papers and statistics, you’ve given me nothing but anecdotes and opinions.
“Caucasoids are not the monolitic entity you are trying to make of it.”
Caucasoids can be classified by skull shape. The skull shapes of Caucasoids are very much the same, controlling for height.
“Impregnate all german women with north african semen and we will see that the next generation of Germans will have the same abilities and behaviour and will sustain german economy without any problem, sure !”
North Africans today are on average a mixed population and I have provided you with the evidence.
“The matter with you Fenoopy is that you are either agreeing and disagreeing with HBD conclusions whenever it suits you.”
I’m providing you with evidence to back up my opinions, I welcome you to do the same. I agree or disagree based on the facts presented to me, your opinions won’t influence me.
“You are whining like the average non-white welfare parasite whenever someone say something you don’t like about your people but behind that you have no problem saying the Negro is a subhuman.”
There is no whining, I present evidence to refute your claims and/or opinions. You’re welcome to feel upset.
“And obviously you weren’t trolling, that is just the opinion of the average North African about black people.”
I don’t dislike a person for being Black.
“Now you are getting softer in your words as anyone start to notice your hypocrisy, which is btw characteristic of your people.”
I wasn’t aware hypocrisy was a characteristic of my people, thank you for educating me Lyrion.
I am perfectly aware most North Africans have some black admixture but not enough to explain their low IQs.
There are plenty of evidences that North Africans/Arabs have clearly lower IQs than ethnic Europeans. There are absolutely none that they have the same intelligence.
You are now free to deny these IQ score as evidences and to discuss the validity of IQ tests but don’t say you have proven that your people are equals to Whites when it come to intelligence because you didn’t provide any evidence of it.
“I wasn’t aware hypocrisy was a characteristic of my people, thank you for educating me Lyrion.”
Most North Africans bitch about white “racism” for nothing but are the worst racist against black people. Seems like hypocrisy to me.
I’ve proven that unmixed Berbers are equal to Spanish and Sicilian people genetically, I think that’s enough. Even mixed Moroccans raised in Europe score a 92 IQ in the 2nd generation and an 84 IQ in the first. This is about has bright as native Greeks whom Lynn asserts have an average IQ of 92.
“Most North Africans bitch about white “racism” for nothing but are the worst racist against black people.”
In England, white people have been nothing but good to me and I have never experienced racism.
Some Spaniards have been mixed with Berbers, same with Sicilians. They aren’t representative.
I never denied that Berbers could score higher on IQ tests in better conditions but you have yet to show me evidences of Berbers scoring equals to Whites, I ask to see these, then we could accord some credits to your claims of cognitive equality among Caucasians.
Can you give a study/link/source that Moroccans score 92 IQ ?
“In England, white people have been nothing but good to me and I have never experienced racism.”
Some are bitching about white cops supposed racism and discrimination, others are bitching about white “racism” and “supremacism” over the Internet.
Algerians are extremely inbred which is not the case of Spaniards. May be one of the explanations for the underachievement and low IQ of these populations.
“yet to show me evidences of Berbers scoring equals to Whites”
There has been no genetically controlled study on pure blooded Berbers as of yet. On average, Moroccan immigrants appear to be more intelligent than Negroid immigrants but less intelligent than Nordic Europeans (equal in intelligence to Greek Europeans, Irish Europeans and Balkan Europeans).
It is factually correct for you to say that North Africans (Moroccans) appear to be on average less intelligent than Nordics.
Given there has been no study on pure blooded Berbers, aka isolated populations, it is incorrect to say Berbers as a genetic group are less intelligent as there has not yet been a study on the subject to my knowledge.
“Can you give a study/link/source that Moroccans score 92 IQ ?”
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/jws/per/2004/00000018/00000005/art00003
“Algerians are extremely inbred which is not the case of Spaniards. May be one of the explanations for the underachievement and low IQ of these populations.”
Are Jews not inbred?
An interesting snippet for you.
I dont’t know about Jews inbreeding but they are likely to have gone through selection for intelligence as they have some specific genetic diseases linked to high IQ.
Have you evidences Ashkenazi Jews are as inbred as Algerians ?
As for the text you showed me it’s interesting and seems to let Berbers a lot of margin for IQ increasing, but that’s not evidence.
“Have you evidences Ashkenazi Jews are as inbred as Algerians ?”
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms5835
Given they’re descended from only 350 people, they’re fantastically inbred in comparison to Algerians.
“As for the text you showed me it’s interesting and seems to let Berbers a lot of margin for IQ increasing, but that’s not evidence.”
It’s evidence that many European immigrant populations had similarly low IQs and that IQ can increase tremendously depending on culture, religion, upbringing and environment, though yes, it doesn’t relate to non-mixed Berbers directly.
Although phil78 had a link showing Jews were not that inbred; I think being a mix of two different groups (whites and MENA) added whatever genetic diversity they lost from the genetic bottleneck.
Some may well have added genetic diversity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3334583/
Given the propensity for genetic diseases in their population however, it can be presumed that they are likely still significantly more inbred than the Algerian population given the Algerian population doesn’t suffer from the same rates of genetic disease.
Except Cochran argues those Ashkenazi diseases were selected for because they enhance IQ (Afro and RR disagree).
Realistically, MENA people probably are less intelligent than whites because of a combination of inbreeding and less exposure to the ice age, however I now think all racial differences are much smaller than most HBDers think. My current best guess for the genetic IQ of the races:
Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians: 105
Whites: 100
MENA, South Asians, Pacific Islanders, Southeast Asians, Native Americans, Arctic people: 95
Congoids, Australoids, Capoids: 90
MENA isn’t a race and neither is White, so it’s difficult for me to respond to this but I agree that racial differences exist but are much smaller than most HBDers think..
I should have used the word “group”, not “race”, since the latter is hard to pin down.
Actually MENA people are pretty different from Blacks. They act worst in some way, better in others.
I kind of agree with these Robert Lindsay’s articles :
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2018/02/09/problems-of-the-arab-mind-with-a-nod-to-raphael-patai/
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/the-arab-mind-intelligence-and-culture-benefits-and-drawbacks/
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/cruel-people-in-a-cruel-land-human-geography-in-arabia/
Berbers/Arabs are clearly more sociopathic than Blacks. But smarter, less wild and more suited for civilisation.
Are maghrebi and mashreki/Arabs the same in HBD terms ? .
I was stunned to discover that apart being European (west and south) in equal proportions I was 6.50% mena (1 person our 16 , 4th generation). This person must have been 3/4 Arab (arab/Levantine not maghreb) and 1/4 from Central Asia (I am 1/64th from Central Asia (Afghanistan to Khazakstan). The 2 tests – I took with different companies – gave the same results .
My hope is that it would be sefardim/mizrahim. I was disappointed not to have one ounce of ashkenazim despite my loving Yiddish culture and language and culture.
Sociopathy isn’t low intelligence.
RR is not the only one here to have reading comprehension issues.
All those articles are utter garbage and there are no papers, research or evidence, just anecdotes and trash opinions. That isn’t science.
HBDer logic: DEsERt IS A CruEl LanD, SPAwNs CruEl EVil PEopLe LiKe The Jew TElls Us
IcEAGe Is A CrUEl LaNd, SpAwns GooD aAAnd HoNoRable NOrD
And what is your logic? I’ve seen your comments for a while and you sounded just as idiotic. So tell us, share all your science on “pure Berber” superiority.
I was trolling, I don’t do that anymore because I get banned for it. I don’t actually think like that, I talk like that when trying to get under the skin of people I find annoying because it works. I get annoyed when people make childish assertions I expect to see on Stormfront without any evidence.
No, you’re not trolling. You’re butthurt. All you want to hear is that pure Berbers are on par with Europeans on the racial ladder. Man, you’re so obvious and you don’t even notice it.
I mean you’re free to do whatever, your Berber fantasies are just as stupid as HBD. But don’t try to force them on an audience that will never buy them. Create your own Berberist blog.
“No, you’re not trolling. You’re butthurt. All you want to hear is that pure Berbers are on par with Europeans on the racial ladder. Man, you’re so obvious and you don’t even notice it.”
I debate on all platforms, but my preference is alt-right and HBD communities. The reason is that I don’t debate with people that already agree with me. I’m not here to convince anyone but rather to find the truth.
“I mean you’re free to do whatever, your Berber fantasies are just as stupid as HBD. But don’t try to force them on an audience that will never buy them. Create your own Berberist blog.”
If you disagree with my belief that Negroids are on average less intelligent, feel free to try and refute this belief with evidence and a convincing argument. I’m open to changing my mind.
Fenoopy going hysterical because some truths are being said about him and his people.
He’s not yet hysterical. But please, you are not better than him. Except for noticing his ridiculous Aryan-envy.
You have more in common with him than you think.