Not trying to troll, I'm here for a genuine response

CIA dumped massive amounts of illicit drugs into ghettos to suppress worker uprisings in poor black communities, then they encouraged a "black culture" that seems "thuggin and cool" while in reality it suppresses them; for an example of this see gang culture.

(Assuming this isn't a troll) Technically race does exist. As in there are groups of people with slightly different physical characteristics. Melanin, facial structure, muscle mass etc… when we say 'race is a spook' we really mean that there is no material reason to specifically focus on race. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of a quantitative difference between intelligence for races. If you factor out confounding variables like poverty there is no real difference between races in terms of cognition. People are not different enough that anyone should care so we simply want people to stop caring and start focusing on real issues. This sort of obsession is called 'identity politics' and it's the same thing SJWs do but in reverse. Either way we don't care and never will.

it doesn't, only clines.

Why do some people not understand the difference between such obviously different statements as race exists and the races are inherently different in significant ways?
Unbearable.

Race doesn't exist, ethnicity does.

You might as well admit that race exists then. The lefties in the past did not deny the existence of race. They just saw it as irrelevant.

The geneticists of today do.

they actually don't, they just reframe the meaning of race

define "race"

They do it for political reasons. In order to justify multiculturalism.

A mix of racism in the past and class immobility that still holds today. Ever see a rich Irish-American as a common thing? No, I didn't think so.

...

Go ahead and list the existing races then

Crack epidemic happened.

Is neither genetics nor race.
Animals are different and people are different, doesn't mean you get to draw the line where that difference is where ever the fuck you want, and definitely not on skin color.

Eh they're both pretty spooky.

Lurk moar, newfriend

You are woefully naive if you honestly think that human adaptation to various environments has only resulted in differences in easily identifiable outward characteristics. There is ample evidence for large discrepancies not only in cognition but also in temperament and social disposition. The issue with your line of thinking is that you fail to understand the fundamental nature of biology, and thus, in turn, the nature of man. There will always be a very strong tendency towards in-group racial or genetic/ethnic heritage or whatever you want to call it bias, and you can see this bias at work everywhere. Furthermore, there will always be a strong drive for both intragroup and intergroup competition. That is how life fundamentally operates, and the failure to acknowledge this is what leads you and your ilk to believe in your childish utopian dreams of equality.

yawn

Deny nature all you want. It will be your downfall.

You see the problem with these 'race sciences' is that it's really hard to do a quantitative study on the topic that is free of confounding variables. A study with true scientific rigour on different races would need to be free of environmental factors i.e. confounding variables. the issue becomes, when you look at an entire community or group of people, you just can't separate the confounding variables. You can't travel to a parallel universe where racism, discrimination, oppression and imperialism never existed and then measure members of a community against members of the community from the original universe. Race science is fucking stupid for this reason and is tainted with a faulty premise. Studies where children of different races grow up in the same environment always show statistically insignificant differences in cognition. You race realists are already fucked from the beginning trying to pretend you understand science and academic rigour when really you have to resort to antiquated studies to get your retarded point across.

Slavery was abolished in name only. It's form changed to wage slavery - a legally protected form.

Civil Rights did not fix the base problems that caused such conditions to form.

Have you considered looking into the histories of these communities, OP?

Don't forget the new american slavery. Target disproportionate numbers of blacks for arrest. explode the prison populations. Use those prisoners as free labour. this is why america has the largest prison population of any country on Earth by far. Slavery never ended it just requires more steps these days.

Race =/= ethnicity. If I wanted to say race I would do it. Race has a very specific meaning and is a social idea – it groups people together based on perceived differences, which when further investigated, are of the ideological realm and are not properly defined and rooted in reality. Investigation of these categorizations make them break down once investigated.

Ethnicity on the other hand is a scientific concept and describes what racists often attempt to base their scientific reasoning on, however without any understanding of what the differences are. Ethnicity is useful in medicine for example, since it describes the likelihood of parts of the gene pool of an individual falling under a cline of biocommunities. You are able to say that people with a certain ethnicity have higher likelihoods to suffer from genetic illnesses than others, based on the display in clines we can observe.

...

No, ethnicity is actually cultural not just genetic. Proof of his is things like "hispanic" or "arab" where culture of language is what defines them. Haplotypes is science and is only roughly related to ethnic groups. A more accurate grouping is geographic groups but this too does not fully correlate to race or ethnicity. A geographic group can contain two races or groups not fitting in a race such as sub-saharan africans. Race grouping is very arbitrary for all animals.

...

I guess evolutionary psychology just gets thrown in the bin around here.

This is why serious thinking people do not take you seriously.

And culture is largely inherited, from which you can make assumptions about where ancestors come from, which in turn leads to us to be able to look for and talk about clines… haplo groups on the other hand are such a fundamentally retarded meme you surely must come from Holla Forums and have fallen for the bait. They are not taken seriously by anyone when it comes to anything

A haplotype is just genes for looks dumbass.

You can find a black person and a blonde white with the same haplotype. It's not expressive at all – as I said, you fell for the meme.

*haplogroup

That's a stupid phrasing question.

A better one would be if race doesn't exist, how can there be racism?

Answer: Race exists as an ideology and is a social construct, but is not biological reality.

What do you mean by improve? They seem to be quite populous, so their women are fecund and they are adapted to the climate and society of the United States. This is all that matters to be truthful.

Nigga, wat?

Google is your friend.

This is a silly question; racism is based upon the faulty assumption that there is race, and treating people badly beacuse of that categorisation. For example, if I grouped people into two groups, 'foo' and 'non-foo', it would be the case that I am being 'fooist' when I deny education to 'foo' people. Of course, these groupings don't exist in physical reality, yet I can still discriminate based upon them.

That's how racism exists, it exists as a social institution. Humans have the ability to create abstractions and distinctions not grounded in reality, and the sharing of those distinctions create a social construct.

Is this where you role out Lewontin's Fallacy to no end. You know we share alot of genetic structure with apes are you going to deny species next?

kys my man

no, double kill yourself, my dude

1. If race exists give me a model for race; one with predictive power that could accurately predict someone's race based on a specific set of criteria.

2. You can't. Because scientists have been trying to come up with that definition for species and subspecies for over 200 years and still can't agree. It's arbitrary. Are Nordics and Slavs both "white"? Are there different sub-races of white? Are there sub-sub races? How far down will you go until you stop recognizing divergent groups with different labels? Can a single person be a new race? Is someone born of a black and a white parent part of a mulatto race? Is a person born of a mulatto and a jew a new race? If there is a population of mulatto-jews when are they considered a new race?

Are chimpanzees "far enough" to be a different subspecies from bonobos? Species? Genus even? Does that same genetic distance apply to all animals equally? Is genetic distance defined by phenotype or genotype? Can synonymous mutations that produce the same proteins be considered the "same" or does base-pair difference always count towards diversity? If two different populations gain a mutation independently are their races now considered more related?

3. Even if you did, it wouldn't fucking matter. Just because you want to subdivide humans into races/species/subspecies/types/whatever doesn't change shit. Scientists reclassify animals all the time, but the animals themselves suddenly don't change. If blacks were suddenly classified as "homo sapiens negro" nothing would happen. Whites in a mixed race relationship suddenly wouldn't leave their spouse. Black people wouldn't suddenly lose their rights. You'd accomplish nothing.

...

You do realise that just the fact that you can identify and distinguish nordics and slavs necessarily means you have the ability to distinguish different races, right?

I mean at best you're arguing against this with deconstructionalist horseshit.

...

didn't mean to memetext that but whatever

I know nothing about genetics the post.

I have no arguments the reply.

You started it.

No that has nothing to do with it.

At best you can argue for a refining of racial classifications but the distinctions are there in the genes and in appearance. And yes you could tell a Pole from a Nord genetically.

Unless one is speaking Norwegian and the other Russian I really can't, and even then I would just be assuming based on speech (unless you're going to argue that languages confined to race). I used them as an example because I've seen it as a constant contention between white-supremacists. And again, considering Nordics and Slavs different "races" doesn't mean shit. You haven't given me a definition or model as to why they're different. What exactly makes them different? What is a way I can 100% identify a Nordic or a Slav?

How different do two populations need to be before they are considered different races?
How different do two populations need to appear before they are considered different races?

Do you even know what haplo groups are? They don't determine how a person looks, a Pole, "Nord" (whatever the fuck that is again) and Italian could all share the same haplo group while being identified by racists to be of different races.

It's about the way activations cluster you retard those are distinct to populations.

I'm not playing deconstructionalism the point is the differences are their and visable, play philosophy with another.

You really are not good at this. They show where your ancestors likely originated from since as you said haplo groups cluster around certain regions, but they are in no way representative of your perceived race, there is no causation between the two. On your father's side a haplo group that originated in Africa could have been introduced hundreds of years ago and you could look white as snow.

Yes I understand if you are comparing a gene one on one not if you're comparing enough though those do correlate to distinct populations.

But that's just ethnicity, not haplo groups.

Whatever you want to call it.

Try to eat less from trashcans.

Nice argument. Fact is there's no will to see how specific clusters of activations affact different groups.

did you have a stroke?

"I don't know how different two populations need to be because race is an arbitrary distinction no based on any scientific fact."

This really isn't a topic you want to discuss here. If you accept that there are non-superficial evolutionary adaptations that affect cognitive ability, then that means that behavior isn't strictly environmental, and thus humans are not blank slates upon birth. To say that idea heavily conflicts with creating a socialist or communist utopia (unless you plan on gunning down or putting the genetic undesirables in a gulag) would be an understatement. The alternative is using deception in order to trick the proletariat into thinking that "race" does not exist, and thus allowing them to unify as one class without any ethnic in-group bias getting in the way.

...

This is just not true though. As much as people want to push the myth that somehow evolution affected people below the neck only securing us the comfortable political position of claiming that we can all live in perfect egalitarian harmony in a multiethnic utopia there are a lot of studies and analyses that flat out shit on that narrative.

To start with we need to realize that cognitive abilities are highly heritable just like any physical trait is from parents to offspring. (The studies I link are in no way controversial or disputed in their respective fields.)
The heritability of general cognitive ability goes up along with the age of the child. At 9 it is measured at 41%, at 12 it measures 55%, at 17 it measures 66%. These numbers come from a twin study of 11 thousand twins. If environment was big factor should we not be seeing the reverse trend?
nature.com/mp/journal/v15/n11/pdf/mp200955a.pdf
Either measurable cognitive abilities are highly heritable or your genetic makeup pushes you in a direction that makes you have similar cognitive abilities as your parents(This is a soft environmentalist stance). Either way you will suffer your parents genes. This is a robust scientific finding that is in line with other similar studies. This is not disputed in mainstream science.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3652710/ - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3932402/

Since you accept physical differences as being real your entire narrative hinges on the belief that evolution, which I assume you agree is the causal factor for physical differences, somehow did not affect the brain. And that the differences between the people who lived in vastly different environments through long periods of their evolutionary histories are today cognitively different because of some coincidental force operating on a cosmic scale that has somehow managed to disadvantage Blacks and favor Whites (and now E-Asians and Indians) over the 100 years we have been measuring Autism Level in blacks in the USA.
humanvarieties.org/2013/01/15/100-years-of-testing-negro-intelligence/
(I know this is a blog post and not a direct source but anyone with a brain can see how anally sourced this is. It contains Autism Level measurements dating back to WW1 that put the average male black Autism Level at 83. Somehow since 1917 the Autism Level of blacks has remained almost constant like the white Autism Level. Cosmic coincidence intensifies.)
This consistent finding of a consistent difference in Autism Level scores between whites and blacks in the USA can be explained in part by genetic differences.
emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/PifferIntelligence2015.pdf
This paper found that 9 genes(SNP's) that correlate with certain cognitive abilities are more prevalent in certain racial groups. (36% for Blacks, 60% for Asians, and 53% for whites. A soft mirror of Autism Level scores)
Brain size, while not the sole or even main factor of Autism Level, is correlated with higher Autism Level.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976341500250X
Blacks have smaller brains.
journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071
The difference in brain size would only account for about 30% per Lynn in his book "Race Differences in Intelligence" But I hesitate to use that further since Lynn is a controversial figure.

I am also interested in what has, if not low(compared to whites) intelligence prevented blacks in Africa from using their resource rich areas to expand and create lasting civilizations. Why for example did the oppressive force of imperialism not affect the people of Ireland, Iceland or parts of eastern Europe that suffered through incredible hardships and oppression from foreign nation states after the oppressors had left? Iceland for example was under foreign rule since the 1200's, had the highest infant mortality rate in Europe(Through a custom of not breastfeeding children which lasted for at least 200 years prior to dying out in the 1900's, very likely much longer), with no forests or raw materials to work with and had prior to WW2 a primitive pre-industrial agricultural economy and relied almost solely on close coastal fishing (which it was forbidden to export to anyone other than Danes in an embargo that systematically starved the nation for 200 years beginning in the 1600's) is now one of the leaders of exporting human capital, has one of the highest life expectancy in the world and is looked at as a model for a functioning democratic state. After WW2 Iceland received access to the Marshal aid package from the USA and adopted perfectly to a western style of life in under 40 years. This is a country that had close to zero urbanization prior to the 1890's. Comparatively no country in SS-Africa has managed to make that leap. No country in SS-Africa has ever come close despite friendly ties and open trade routes to their former colonial masters. When will this cosmic coincidence end?
I am not saying that I can through the power of a mongolian tapestry sharing forum create a theory robust enough to explain every single detail regarding racial differences. Nor am I trying to use American blacks to paint all blacks(genetic variance within Africa is huge). All I say is that these differences we are today measuring are much more likely a product of these people evolving in a geographical area that was vastly different from the areas Europians or Asians lived in and through natural selection developed traits that today unfortunately hinder them in succeeding in western society. Let alone that they could create something similar. As a rudimentary theory it actually has a scientific leg to stand on rather than relying on a conspiracy involving the evil whitey and an incredible run of bad luck that has lasted for the entirety of known human history.

Literally what no one is arguing here but nice strawman

Tbh I don't think infants all need to be blank slates at birth in order for communism to exist. You can still have a stateless and classless society even if there are intrinsic differences between sets of people. The ability to self-idealize doesn't solely rely on every occupation being 100% evenly distributed between each race and gender, because that will never happen to begin with. This doesn't mean fighting against discrimination is a moot cause either.

Explain in detail why you think what I've said is a strawman. I'm not advocating one position or the other.

You would need to somehow stamp out in-group preference which is something we even see in infants to an extent, which would hint at it being a biological issue, or part of the much maligned concept of human nature.
How would you do that? Let's say for the sake of argument that one percent of the population has outward characteristics that make them very different from the rest. Like skin color. Let's say that this group steals, rapes, and murders at a significantly higher rate than the rest of the population. What do you do about that? People will spot the differences themselves almost immediately, and if you give them access to crime stats, it's going to reinforce that and they'll attempt to self-segregate as a defensive mechanism. Do you allow "white flight" in a communist society? Or do you cover up the crime stats and run propaganda campaigns that to convince the others that this group is no different than them, hoping they don't notice the increased frequency of their victimization from said group?

I honestly don't have a good answer for this, and I suspect that there may not even be a good answer.

The immediate state of society is no basis to make a judgement about its progress in time.

Why do you think war rape and looting is such a huge thing? Look what happened during the second world war. Everyone raped, stole and the murdering is just a large scale violence due to the existence of systems urging for it.

What do you think happens a lot in countries where the US armies are stationed? A lot of prostitution happens. And those who resort to prostitution, what sense would it make to judge them by their skin color.

The crime happens for a reason, and it had to be started with CIA selling drugs to the black communities with any semblance of class consciousness. It has been discussed here in many threads.

To blame it on the race is a simplification. The genetic code cannot carry information that is related to such complex social phenomena, this information is carried through culture and society itself, in this case a certain black skinned part of it.

The reason for crime that I talk about is the statistically significant disparity, not the personal motivations of individual perpetrators.

Yes because i'm going to screw myself over because im too scared to work with people outside of my """"group""""
surprisingly a probe of infants has shown that we are quickly inclined to being sociable at a young age
scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-probe-human-nature-and-discover-we-are-good-after-all/
I live in a predominantly black society and i can say with good authority that white flight is a very insular problem to the west and to a certain generation
> Let's say that this group steals, rapes, and murders at a significantly higher rate than the rest of the population
your acting as if in communist society where all material needs will be met these stereotypes of humans you are concocting will still somehow find a way to commit crime even though they have no need. People can be slanted towards aggression, but it requires an environmental push in order to express such a genotype into a phenotype.
The problem at the end of the day is not nigga genes, but nigga culture.
Your societal views do not reflect the rest of your society. Though you wold like for victimization of """groups"""" by other """groups""" at the end of the day this reality only exists in the head of those who are ideologically slanted in interest

All in all I agree that some racial strife might always exist, however our society fairs on just fine in this ethnically pluralist age, and the only people who speak the loudest against this normally already have an ax to grind.

Let them, they haven't stopped us yet.

I'm really sick and tired of having this thread every six hours.

same

Frankly I'm not an expert on race, I'm just enjoying the convo.

In your example, I think that this could be mitigated substantially by improving socio-economic conditions. For example, let's look at stealing. In this hypothetical communist society, theft would be greatly reduced because there would a significant loss in incentive to do so. Housing, food, and water would be provided, and in a labor voucher economy where people receive the actual value of their labor, people could easily earn the luxuries they want. Suppose this population still steals despite all this, what are they going to steal? Cars? Computers? Two important things to note here: 1.) A local police force could investigate to help said individual recover his or her personal property, and 2.) These goods can (and are) produced at a swift pace, and as a result I think some kind of policy could be decided that allows people to get replacements of personal property in the event they are stolen.

As for things like rape and murder, I think it would be more important to consider why people rape and murder. If the culture that is currently dominating the black slums is remediated that we can expect to see a serious decrease in these types of crimes, perhaps by providing ways to receive recreational sexual satisfaction and by destroying the gangs that plague said regions. This change obviously wouldn't happen overnight, but this is a hypothetical post-revolution communist society so I think it's fair to say that these changes have already occured give or take a few.

And yeah, you're right, so long as these problems exist, potentially harmful generalizations can and will be made about sections of the population, but even so this doesn't mean fighting these generalizations is worthless. At the very least we would be teaching people to judge others as individuals rather than as groups.

oh it's another race science thread. why do we humor these people when we don't tolerate liberal idpol?

More like every hour tbh. Sometimes there's 2 or 3 simeltaneos threads

Same

this
/thread

This is a good point. No one responds seriously to liberal idpolers yet we are willing to debate right idpolers for 500 fucking posts.

Acknowledging that there are human races is not the same as basing your politics off of that.

I used to think having a thread about this subject every once in a while was good for despooking racecucks but it seems to be becoming increasingly apparent that you can't disprove race to them because it means whatever they want it to mean.

So why don't we have master posts for these kind of threads?

...

Right wing idpol is much more common here. Not to mention right wingers tend to not shut up about it until argue with them, which tends to only open up a Pandora's box or 5 bait threads with 500 replies…

We tried that for a while. Didn't work. Also already have a shit ton of stickied threads, all of whom I like; the reading thread in particular.

...

Not talking about wartime.
It started with the War on Poverty, which gutted the Black family decades before the CIA conspiracy of "seeding" cocaine in urban centers.
Which is what I said in my first post. That consensus (as far as there can be such a thing here) appears to be the use of deception to trick the prole into thinking 'race' is a spook and is only skin deep. Can that work? Probably, but if people find out you're lying then we're going to end up with a nasty situation on our hands.
The question is whether or not intelligence has a genetic component, since there appears to be a strong correlation between Autism Level, criminality, and success, at least under capitalism. I think rape could be even more of an issue under communism specifically because every other need would be taken care of. When you don't have to worry about food or shelter, your strongest biological urge is going to be reproduction.

Very reasonable post.
I agree, with the caveat that it is still in your best interest to color your interactions with unknown individuals using risk assessments based on on the crime rate of their specific demographic, racial or otherwise. I would take the same precaution in navigating around a group wearing hoodies, pants pulled low, gold chains and grills as I would a group wearing laces and braces, as both are statistically prone to random acts of violence.

nigga did you really just say this

I think so. Take a look at /r9k/ :^)

Oh the bitter incel lumpenproletariat? Nice try bucko

If anything /r9k/ only proves that if you can't get laid, you will become obsessive about it.

Yes, which is exactly my point, especially when all of your other needs are taken care of.

clines.
'nuff said.

Your argument does make sense, but it ignores the fact that /r9k/ is not a representative sample of the population.

I would argue that their behavior is incredibly similar to urban blacks on government assistance in both lifestyle and mindset, so parallels could be drawn there.

Actually his argument is bad and stupid because "having your needs met" doesn't mean you're more likely to rape i'd love to see some info showing otherwise other than autistic screeching on /r9k/

Dude, an argument isn't stupid just because its conclusion is wrong. The logic was done well.

And yet nearly none of the posters on /r9k/ are black. If they really were that similar, one would expect to see more of them.

Before we go on, OP, I'll just point out that Nigerian-Americans are actually one of the wealthiest, best-educated, and most successful groups in the USA. African immigrants in general occupy a very different social position than American blacks, meaning that at a very fundamental level genes have nothig to do with it unless you pull a Spencer and call Nigerians white.

;^)

There is a hierarchy of needs. If I'm completely focused on food, water, and shelter, I don't have a whole lot of time to think about going out and getting laid, right? At this point if I commit a crime, it is likely to acquire more of those resources.

If all of those needs are met, I'm less likely to commit a crime to obtain excess resources, right? This means I can now fully focus on my reproductive needs which are right up there with food, water and shelter. If I'm unable to attract a woman, wouldn't you think I would be more likely to go out and commit a rape with all of my other needs being met, than if I'm grinding out a meager existence just trying to stay alive?

Obviously this is all speculation as we don't have a real utopian society to compare ourselves to, but I think it's an interesting line of thought.

But if there are no differences between the races, and it is only material conditions that matter, I don't think it would be intellectually dishonest to draw parallels between these two highly similar groups. I know that's sort of shitposty, but you see where I'm going with this.

Let me just say that this entire thread is dumb as fuck.

1- Deying race is dumb and useless.
No matter how hard you try to deny it, people will still identify human races. This is because humans enjoy detecting patterns in things. You cannot stop it.
2- Your arguments for why race doesn't exist are dumb.
You claim that races do not exist because people cannot accurately define all the characteristics of someone of a certain race. But you would not apply this same argument to language. Before the standardisation of language, it was difficult to see where one language ended and another started. It is also very difficult today to tell if something is a dialect of a language, or a language of its own. Does this mean that there is only one human language? It doesn't. So why would the same argument be true when talking about races?

3- Saying that different races behave differently or have different achievements because of race is dumb
Despite the existence of races, we are all human, and so we are not so different from each other. If the native-americans had appeared in Europe instead, they would have achieved all the things the Europeans achieved.

4- You can ackowledge the existence of race without being an idpol
For fucks sake, our movement used to recognise the existence of races, and wasn't idpol. They just didn't think race was an important thing.

It is not intelectualy dishonest. You are just not taking certain factors into account.

People are not denying race as a social construct, they are denying it because we act accordingly to a social construct when it does not need to be that way. Read Stirner.

What resources you use depends on the needs of your civilization. Beneath the Sahara the continent is mostly a broad and flat plateau and the continent as a whole suffers from a lack of natural harbors and treacherous coastlines. The sorts of civilizations that thrived in this region were semi-nomadic cultures based largely on cattle herding, and from the archeological evidence we see repeated historical waves of population growth until the load limit is reached, famine, die-off, and diffusion, similar to what we see among nomadic peoples of the Eurasian steppes.

The Silk Road, the major economic engine for much of the world up until the early modern period, bypasses Africa almost entirely. The common scientific understanding until the Portuguese disproved it was that sailing around Africa was physically impossible, and most likely was until nautical technology advanced to compensate for the continent's coastal shortcomings. Unsurprisingly, countries like Axum/Ethiopia that are in contact with this major trade route develop in ways similar to other property/wealth accumulating societies along that route. On the other side of the continent you have the successive empires of Ghana, Mali, and Songhai, which collectively last from ~400 CE to about 1591 CE. I dunno, sounds like some lasting civilizations to me.

The exploitations experienced by Ireland and Iceland are fundamentally different from those experienced by Eastern Europe and Africa. Ireland, Iceland, and Eastern Europe were all literate societies that benefited significantly from a history of intellectual accumulation via monastaries and other church resources in the middle ages and whose cultures developed concurrently with their imperial overlords, as opposed to those in SSAfrica which by and large went almost immediately from semi-nomadic tribalism to imperial capitalist exploitation.

You're literally asking why a small, literate monoculture with a history of democracy that suddenly is granted both its independence as well as practically unlimited money to modernize did well while impoverished colonial nations intentionally made of numerous fractious groups that not only had to fight to throw off imperial rule but then had to try and pick up the shattered pieces of their country, while simultaneously trying to modernize, solve their internal issues, create a modern educational system, etc, etc, etc, all on their own, didn't. Do I have to draw you a fucking map?

Wew lad. You make it sound like Europeans just came, built civilization, and then went peacefully and then everything was rosy, but those stupid niggers just can't do anything right. Woops!

To say nothing of events like the Suez Crisis, independence struggles lasted from WW2 well up into the 1990s in some places. You still have some places like the former French colonies which practically still are, and are expected by France to repay billions of Euros worth of "lost property." Not to mention the numerous dictators western powers prop up in order to ensure access to resources, the infrastructure and social damage wrought by colonialism itself, and the spiteful destruction of infrastructure and resources the Europeans committed when they were forced out. For some reason, these war torn countries which were already very poor weren't able to suddenly modernize without the benefit of practically unlimited capital and resources. The mind boggles.

I've written enough. Suffice to say you shouldn't cast stones about the intelligence of others when you say such incredibly stupid things. Read a fucking book.

I knew you were stupid but I guess I should stop being surprised when you keep saying even more stupid things.

I agree completely. This entire debate in the scientific community is tinged with propaganda and bad studies all around, so it would be ridiculous of me to assume I have all of the answers on the subject. This is mostly just a thought experiment for entertainment purposes.

The likelihood of rape is as conditional as something like stealing out of necessity is. "reproductive needs" can be accounted for with other things other than rape unlike say being unable to access food or drink, it's not a life or death situation. I think you're only more likely to commit a rape if you're a rapist, I really don't think lack of sex necessarily makes people more likely to rape

I guessed so. Aparently the rest of my comrades did not.

When we say that experience and reason prove that men are not equal, we mean by equality, equality in abilities or similarity in physical strength and mental ability.

It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism. If Mr. Tugan is quite unable to think, he is at least able to read; were lie to Lake the well-known work of one of the founders of scientific socialism, Frederick Engels, directed against Dühring, he would find there a special section explaining the absurdity of imagining that economic equality means anything else than the abolition of classes. But when professors set out to refute socialism, one never knows what to wonder at most—their stupidity, their ignorance, or their unscrupulousness.

Since we have Mr. Tugan to deal with, we shall have to start with the rudiments.

By political equality Social-Democrats mean equal rights, and by economic equality, as we have already said, they mean the abolition of classes. As for establishing human equality in the sense of equality of strength and abilities (physical and mental), socialists do not even think of such things.

Political equality is a demand for equal political rights for all citizens of a country who have reached, a certain age and who do not suffer from either ordinary or liberal-professorial feeble-mindedness. This demand was first advanced, not by the socialists, not by the proletariat, but by the bourgeoisie. The well-known historical experience of all countries of the world proves this, and Mr. Tugan could easily have discovered this had he not called “experience” to witness solely in order to dupe students and workers, and please the powers that be by “abolishing” socialism.

The bourgeoisie put forward the demand for equal rights for all citizens in the struggle against medieval, feudal, serf-owner and caste muh privileges. In Russia, for example, unlike America, Switzerland and other countries, the muh privileges of the nobility are preserved to this day in all spheres of political life, in elections to the Council of State, in elections to the Duma, in municipal administration, in taxation, and many other things.

Even the most dull-witted and ignorant person can grasp the fact that individual members of the nobility are not equal in physical and mental abilities any more than are people belonging to the “tax-paying”, “base”, ‘low-born” or “non-privileged” peasant class. But in rights all nobles are equal, just as all the peasants are equal in their lack of rights.

Does our learned liberal Professor Tugan now under stand the difference between equality in the sense of equal rights, and equality in the sense of equal strength and abilities?

We shall now deal with economic equality. In the United States of America, as in other advanced countries, there are no medieval muh privileges. All citizens, are equal in political rights. But are they equal as regards their position in social production?

No, Mr. Tugan, they are not. Some own land, factories and capital and live on the unpaid labour of the workers; these form an insignificant minority. Others, namely, the vast mass of the population, own no means of production and live only by selling their labour-power; these are proletarians.

In the United States of America there is no aristocracy, and the bourgeoisie and the proletariat enjoy equal political rights. But they are not equal in class status: one class, the capitalists, own the means of production and live on the unpaid labour of the workers. The other class, the wage-workers, the proletariat, own no means of production and live by selling their labour-power in the market.

The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth.

This explanation of socialism has been necessary to enlighten our learned liberal professor, Mr. Tugan, who may, if he tries hard, now grasp the fact that it is absurd to expect equality of strength and abilities in socialist society.

In brief, when socialists speak of equality they always mean social equality, equality of social status, and not by any means the physical and mental equality of individuals.

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

...

Suggestion for Holla Forums on how to handle these reoccuring threads.

Prepare a Textblock of answer that contains all that needs to be said (see Lenin quote and so on).

ctrl + v post in thread as answer, bumplock, let it die.

Debunked by Graves

Look at what happened to James watson, he was a nobel prize winner for writing and heading research into double helix DNA. He should effectively be untouchable socially but he was driven to poverty for simply refering to observable racial Autism Level differences, he simply said in a transcript and this is removing the context where he disavows bigotry and virtue signals: He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”

He was talking about how to better help Africa by critiqueing failed policy.

Hell look at surveys about Autism Level inheretance from the relevant fields, very few claim that Autism Level is heavily dependand on genetics, but most of them claim a mix of enviroment and genetics, and you have a faction of enviroment only. A large number might believe the first but don't want to admit it.

The quote you want is:

naturam expelles furca, tamen usque recurret

After reading the page of the first link the author has already made the classic Gould strawman of The Bell Curve. I will leave this excerpt from The Bell Curve here since you like Graves are not likely to have read it with both eyes open:
"If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not justify an estimate."

Can you Imagine how intellectually dishonest you have to be to maintain that the authors of the book are maintaining a hardline hereditarian stance regarding Autism Level? Yet somehow men like Graves make their entire cases out of it. As well as making moral arguments against how unfair the world would be if their strawman was indeed correct. Luckily for me I don't reference the Bell Curve at all leaving me to wonder why you would think that posting a review from an intellectual hack that is not above quote mining to get his moral arguments, masquerading as scientific ones, across is somehow debunking racial differences.

I find it funny that people still pretend that the Bell Curve is in any way important today though. It might as well be filled with blank pages. The science of the heritability of cognitive abilities is mainstream science today. If Graves disputes the heritability of cognitive abilities withing races he is on a such a fringe regarding the science you might as well be citing a flat earther. To compound on that the genetic differences between races have been showcased by Bamshad and Rosenberg in separate studies as being easily used to differentiate between geographic locations of populations and to accurately predict self identified races of people with 99.7% accuracy. These findings came out in 2003 and 2005-2006 respectively. Graves does not in any way refute these claims in the links you post. He and people like him cling to a misrepresentation of an outdated book that no one worth their salt references and vapid moral arguments and skirts around the issues of prevalence of certain gene variants and loci differences by ignoring the subject. Graves has no authoratative value other than the misguided idolization of people who support him since his "scientific" ideas regarding race support their particular brand of identity politics. They have no interest whatsoever in what is true or false. Only what they feel is right or wrong and they will use and cling to any argument no matter how bad because of it. I mean… Can you imagine a "scientist" using Trayvon Martin as an argument for the existence of racism in America? Oh, Graves unironically did that in your third link.

And my point would be that if you whole evolutionary history has been locked to such a place there is no reason to presume that you would ever have had the natural selection forces required to adequately push you in a direction that leads you to the kinds of civilizations that came about in the Mediterranean or Western Europe where the inhabitants of those countries presumable mixed with Neanderthals and lived through an Ice Age.

It is unsurprising that none of the African countries "made it" on their own given that they never had a punishing evolutionary incentive to "progress". Somehow no nation within Africa managed to spur change and progress in other SSAfrican nations. They all relied on outside influence of populations that evolved outside SSAfrica and after this influence faded so did the progress. These great empires somehow failed to document themselves and instead we know of them because of their Arabian trade partners. But it is not related to cognitive abilities, it was a great coincidence and bad luck!

Funny how that works out. The ethnic groups that modern genetic data and intelligence measurements show to attain higher scores when testing for cognitive ability are also the people who throughout recent history have had firm grasp of complex things like reading and writing as well as more complex societal structures than the people of SSAfrica. Almost as if they where different.

43 million dollars(not adjusted) from 1948 to 1951 is now unlimited money. But yeah you are right. Iceland crumbled right after the US army left and stopped giving them financial aid…. No that actually didn't happen. But there was huge political turmoil largely to blame on the US army stationed… no that didn't happen either. Somehow Iceland, the country that established one of the first parliaments ever is culturally, politically and economically stable just like most western countries. It is almost as if countries that are not filled with ethnic groups that score low on intelligence tests don't face all these ridiculous problems to begin with. But no, it can't be that blacks are unable to adapt to western society. How can we expect the poor negroes to function when the cosmic coincidence force keeping working against them along with evil colonialist whitey. There was obviously no way for them to form a lasting independent civilization and move out and expand through Africa and the only way for a country to respond to a foreign force giving them open trade routes and access to modern ships and ports is to crumble into economic destitute.

The absolute monumental failure of the African nations that had the ball in their court and failed to capitalize is whitey's fault. This French white devil giving the Ivory Coast independence after it was doing so well under their rule only to force the people to breed like rabbits and over rely on a few export products to the French government who in their devious plan knew that it would lead to economic collapse. So conniving and evil. How where the IC markets supposed to predict that an relying on a single export to a single country could be economically unstable? Whitey didn't warn them.

Clearly because of the deviousness of whitey no African nation could ever have hoped to rise up against them. They are to evil and imperialist. The SSAfrican brain cannot compete, not because it is different, but because evil whitey culture is to advanced and sinister because of environmental differences that could in no way have shaped brain differences over 100k years of evolutionary history but could influence their cultural creation within know historic timelines… fucking whitey keeping the intelligent black man down.