Holla Forums reviews Lefty-user's video:

Hi, /leftpol/.

Holla Forums here. One of your anons from yesterday in the Proof of Leftypol's fun thread recommended a video for me to watch by Xexizy (which can be found embedded). I had promised said lefty-user a review to the video and a thread dedicated to it on your board, which I am here to do now as I try to keep my word. A lot of the video itself is presentation of argument over presenting the argument, but I'll try my best and some things may get unintentionally skipped over. A lot of the video seems to be a direct 'attack' on Nazis, so I will just address them as I feel. Sorry if it is not a full or satisfactory review, for I have to write this all via cellphone and please forgive any typeos. I will be speaking for my views and not for Holla Forums's or anyone else's.

Hopefully the user I was talking to sees this. Thank you.

"There seeks to be a slogan almost among Nazis that we need to preserve our culture, our morals and tradition."
Personally, I see the Appeal to Tradition Fallacy to be valid. I do not see seek to preserve traditions or morals. I do aim to preserve culture. I do not aim to preserve a specific aspect of mine or anyone's culture, I aim to preserve the right to let my culture form and grow organically without forced or outside influences. To say that cultures do not change is outlandish. I do though aim to preserve our organic identity, despite our identity changing over time or reforming. The reason why I seek to preserve this organic formation is that it allows a people to know themselves, where they come from, their history and what may or may not work for them. This can be very helpful when making decisions that involve group behavior because it allows you to know what your group might naturally react to and how it might do so. Is it also important in knowing how a group has organically formed as this can tell us what selective pressures they have endured and how it reflects the group today.

"I want to make it clear: there is a difference between morals and ethics. Ethics are more about what's good universally. Morals is about what's socially acceptable in a giving society at a giving time."
Okay, so he gives me a hard definition here. So, by his definition, then yes, morals are not a necessity to preserve. If they were, it would fall under ethics as it is universally ''good" for everyone or the group.

"The idea is morals will always be changing. Ethics will only change when a philosophical idea changes, but that's independent from culture and society."
Well, by using his definition, ethics would be 'independent' from society and cultures as it is "universal" and therefore applies to no one society or culture. But, I would like to point out that it is very hard to say what is ethical conditions and or behavior because what is "good" for one group may not be good for another group, as personality of a group varies by regions (1).

"Anyone from any part of the world can contribute to understanding ethics."
Yes, but as said, it is very hard as it is to understand what is ethical to all groups.

"Cultural and morals are fluid. They only reflective a society at any giving time"
Cultural and morals are very fluid, yes, but I would argue that it is not only a reflective of that time, but reflective of present, past and future behavior of that group because personality is highly inheritable (2) and it can again tell us what selective pressures that group was under socially and how certain alleles in a group might have came to be.

"All arguments for preserving cultural is that our culture is objectively better or that we've had it for a while and we should keep it that way."
The argument for 'we should keep our culture the way it is' does have valid merit - to an extent. It you wish to preserve the objectively better aspects of your culture while reforming the 'negative' aspects of it, then this does have merit. It does highly depend on what aspects of your culture you seek to preserve. Personally, I take that view: that we should preserve what is measurably great about our culture and constantly work to reform what is not. As for what is the 'objectively' better culture - well, this can be measured and measured many different ways. Culture as being defined as "the cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion, notions of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe, and material objects and possessions acquired by a group of people in the course of generations through individual and group striving" can all be measured individually in a culture and sorted into what is objectively better. Of course, all depending on what your criteria for measurement is.

Other urls found in this thread:

web-beta.archive.org/web/20170404025123/http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Author/shapiro-thomas-m/racialwealthgapbrief.pdf for
web-beta.archive.org/web/20170310090018/http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/why-we-write/459909/ and
archive.is/cwQFT and http://archive.is/hRxGW which
archive.is/MntJD ).
archive.is/1eBu5 ),
archive.is/StDp5 ).
books.google.com/books?id=EQEMF7Qvh2cC&lpg=PP1&pg=PT19 also
archive.is/48Xkj –the
archive.is/gzy0z ).
archive.is/lcCT6 ).

"You will like your culture better because you've lived in it. You only understand your own culture so you like it better or others like it."
Absolutely correct - but I again would like to argue that this is mainly from a personality aspect that is inheritible (2). But, I am not a genetic determinist…

"As culture changes from region to region, it is harder to say which one is objectively better"
I already responded to this.

"You're afraid of change and things you're not familiar with."
Ad-hominem! But really, we, or I, are not. We understand that things change, groups change and that they should act accordingly to those changes. I am not for change for the pure fact that it is change. I am for change if it is evidently better.

"Other argument is that you need to be proud of your culture but this is just afaid of change and when your ideology boils down to being afaid of change it can mostly be disregarded unless you can give very specific reasons for being afaid of change."
We are not afraid of change. But the argument of 'you should be proud of your culture' is coming from that you should be proud of what great aspects you and your group have and not let the negatives fill you with apathy or self-hatred as that will not help any aspects of your culture improve. You are far more likely to care about something if it has meaning to you and the argument comes from 'your culture should have meaning to you because obviously culture does have an effect on your life and by caring about your culture, you are more likely to want to improve your culture and therefore your life.'

"I know what you're thinking, 'what about those cultures that cut off people's heads and stuff like that?' Yeah, I get that. I understand. But it's because it conflicts with our ethics and not our preexisting culture."
It conflicts with what is our group's personality traits and since it conflicts with us, it is objectively worse for us to have a trait that conflicts with our organic behavior as this trait will be foreign in behavior to us. For example, it would be like telling someone to kill their brother - it would be a foreign feeling to them because it conflicts with personality traits of theirs that say this is objectively wrong. (I am not saying beheading someone is a genetic personality trait - I am just talking personality/cultural traits in a general sense here)

"What if we have a culture that fails in line with ethics, we should work to preserve that? Well, yeah but we don't have a clear, cut definition of what ethics are. We have vague definitions but they can be challenged in philosophy and since we don't have a definition, all culture is built on morals."
You gave us what seems to be a clear, cut definition earlier…

"It's not up to us to decide as a society as to how our culture builds and forms."
I would that it is and is not. I would argue that it is our job to 'preserve' our 'objectively' good aspects of our culture. Everything else that is subjective in our culture that does not hinder the 'objective' aspects should be completely left to organic formation. For example, I'll give you guys something you can relate to: let's say we did have Communism. In our Communist society, some Capitalist decide they're going to make some art that would influence the public to turn towards Capitalism. You would argue that Capitalism is objectively worse for your culture and group so you would seek to 'destroy' the Capitalist's art because that subjective cultural influence of art would hinder the objectively better aspect of your culture and group's behavior.

"Base super structure: mode of production is what influences culture. As long as we have the material conditions, we don't need to worry about our culture. So preserving culture does not matter because 'good culture' will form itself. It is stupid to have an idealogy as the culture as the main focus as the idea/building block. This is why some culture are shit, because some cultures lack a good means of production. But Nazis like to jump to the conclusion of 'oh it's because they're dumber.'"
I would argue that it is personality traits that influences culture and not socioeconomic statuses. My reasoning for this is because what 'mode of production' you choose will be highly based on what your favored group's economic system is and as we know, politics is quite inheritible (3).

"For your sake, I'll say that whites are the master race and with this I will introduce the idea of equal opportunity. True equal opportunity is only achieveable in communism because wealth inequality is gone. People would be based purely on merit and not purely on their fincial conditions that they're born into."
I never once claimed in my life that Whites are the 'master race' and I hear many Nazis say that they are not. Actually, one of our arguments against cultural-bias testing is the fact that Asians score higher than Whites on many test. As for equal opportunity under Communism, I would argue that is false because genes do not stop having an effect because of 'desirable' SES. We also know that childern who are put into a high SES at birth gain massive Autism Level points in their childhood but these Autism Level gains go away by the time they're 17-25 as gene expression emphasis later in life more and I would also argue that this provides bases for Autism Level being the causation of SES and not vise versa (4). So under any system, you will not have equal opportunity.

"I want to stress something…Capitalism can not give everyone an equal start in life and only socialism/communism can. So if white people really are better, they'll rise to the top."
I addressed already why even Communism can not give everyone a equal start in life. So for Whites 'rising to the top,' you don't need Communism for that. Capital is already a hierarchy, at least an economic one at that.

"White people want to form a racial hierarchy that keeps white people at the top and superior without actually proving they're superior."
Hmm? No? I wouldn't care even if I was the most inferior people around. I would still desire my group's own space for us to be organically who we are. As for proving it, I don't think we need to prove who and who is not superior, but all we have to prove is why we should at least have a space that we can call ours.

"Let's go over the whole nonWhites causing violence thing…if you have one group more poor and one not, the poor group will commit more crime inherently. Poverty correlates with more crime, so no matter the race, they will commit more crime."
Very true. Poverty does correlate with crime. But, even when adjusted for SES, different ethnic groups do commit more crime (5).

Muke is a retard, stop wasting your time with him.

"Even though Blacks commit more crime when adjusted for being poor, it's because of oppression and slavery"
Hmm? This does seem like a sound argument, but it does not hold much merit when looking at Blacks in other countries (6).

"I understand that multiculturalism causes friction and can create problems. Leftist understand that there's friction, but a
Lot of this friction is due to capitalism, but this warrent alone is not complete justification for segregation."
I would argue this is due to ingroup and outgroup preferences (7) and different personalities.

"Degeneracy: why freakout about sex and drugs if you're responsible? The whole point to live on earth is to stimulate your sensory and have fun before you die. It angers me because it's like 'we should prevent ourselves from having fun.' Especially because morals won't stay consistent for more than half a decade. You're throwing away your life for this idea of morals. I pity people who won't do drugs due to morals.
If people do drugs it's because poverty is high."
No one is saying don't have fun. I believe that everything can be done in moderation. I discourage drugs as much as possible due to dependency being a very real problem that can be easily formed. I do discourage promiscuity for obvious reasons, STDs, STIs and studies showing that monogamous relationships fix polygamous ways (8).

"Only commies are good at economics. Nazi Germanys economy was shit."
Ad-hominem at best since no evidence was provided to this. But, I don't particularly care for the N.S.D.A.P.'s economics. Not saying I don't like their economics, but I disagree on some aspects of it.

Sources below:

(1) Besides establishing national Autism Level levels, Richard Lynn also started and inspired studies attempting to find out regularities behind the national differences in personality. Recent large-scale collaborative projects involving hundreds of psychologists from about 50 countries allowed for determination of the aggregate national scores of personality for the most popular personality models, including the Big Five. These studies have already revealed several universal and geographically regular patterns in the global personality trait distributions. The area of the study of national differences in personality has arguably matured to a level where it can start to help solving fundamental problems such as the relationship between genes, culture, and personality.

(2) For the vast majority of behavioral traits for which there is a reliable test, substantial heritability has been found.

(3) Study on twins suggests our political beliefs may be hard-wired.

(4) "The relevance of the home environment is also cast into doubt by early intervention studies. In these studies, a group of disadvantaged kids is exposed to an extremely enriching and stimulating cognitive environment. Home life, nutrition, education, etc,. are all improved. These programs produce Autism Level gains while they are ongoing, but meta-analyses have shown that these gains completely disappear by the time the kids grow up (Protzko, 2015). The fact that massively improving home life doesn’t produce lasting effects on Autism Level clearly supports the notion that the home environment cannot explain why existence in Autism Level scores in adulthood exist."

(5) "A second fact worth noting is that there are substantial differences across neighborhoods within race. Homicide rates for whites in the most dangerous neighborhoods were more than six times greater than the median white in 1970 and three to four times higher in 1980 and 1990. The black residents most at risk faced homicide rates two to three times greater than the median black and almost one hundred times greater than the safest black residents. Homicide rates rose about 25 percent in Chicago over the time period examined, but a substantial part of this increase was due to an increase in the black population, rather than changes in per-capita victimization rates within race…..Table 6 presents homicide rates across neighborhoods ranked by median family income. Each figure in Table 6 corresponds to the same figure in Table 5, except that the homicide rate for these same neighborhoods is reported in place of the median family income. There is a strong correspondence between median family income and homicide rates in the early part of the sample. The poorest white neighborhoods experienced murder rates ten times greater than the richest white neighborhoods; for blacks, the corresponding ratio was almost twenty to one. It is striking, however, that the link between income and homicide weakened substantially over time. For whites, homicide rates were unrelated to income in the 1986-95 period. In fact, the very lowest homicide rates were reported in the poorest white neighborhoods. For blacks, the pattern was less pronounced. The worst black neighborhoods experienced higher homicide rates in later years, but the rise in homicides in these neighborhoods was much smaller than the proportionate increase in the richer black neighborhoods. Murder rates in the 75th to 90th income percentile more than quadrupled for blacks; rates for the highest 10 percent of blacks more than doubled."

(6) Ireland: Africans are 1.4% of the population. Africans were 6% of persons committed to prison & places of detention 2001-2006.

(7) Sandra Susan Smith, Department of Socialogy, University of California, Berkeley, California: "Conclusion: Race is most important determination of trust. This review of the literature is an effort to explicate why. Although the research includes qualitative and quantitative research on Blacks, Whites, Lations, and Asians, the bulk of the review focus on Blacks and Whites, the trust gap is starkest, and the black-white trust gap cannot be easily accounted for such factors as class. Instead, a careful review of literature highlights the roles of historical contemporary discrimination, neighborhood context, and enthnoracial socialization to explain enthnoracial differences in generalized trust, and the differences in the extent of embeddedness in structures of trust worthiness help us to understand ethnoracial difference in strategic trust."

(8) Monogamy reduces major social problems of polygamist cultures.

| autism

Yeah, but what about this?

user from Holla Forums told Holla Forums to watch a video. I said I would review it. Here it is.

Muke here, that's an old video and my arguments aren't very well fleshed out in it. My cultural Marxism video might be better if you're a Holla Forumsack.

No one's reading any of that btw.

Are you a jew?

This is the video you guys chose. I'm not gonna go right to reviewing more videos.

Gay as fuck OP.

We are all jews here.

We know.

Yeah I've noticed in the random more obscure YouTube videos you guys share here. Lots of Jewish chicks casting spells and kabbalahists. Spoopy to be honest but I can't say I'm surprised.

Holla Forums eternally BTFO?

Thanks for editing my post, mods.

Also, dont you guys just ever crave the taste of white cock? I mean, im not the only one right, its just that whenever i see those fit true Aryan men i can help but get this feeling to suck cock. I wouldn't though, fucking degenerates….

No I'm half Cypriot.


I'm a powerful Hibernian using my pagan magic to curse your line. Our Hibernian-Jewish alliance of paganist and kabbalahist magic will further the cause of anuddah shoah. You are powerless to stop it.

Those are word filters

Muke is a teenager and this is an old video of him, he was much better in his recent videos as he already said himself

Overanalyzing that doesn't really make that much sense, you'd be better of making your own video response

Why do you guys filter Autism Level?

you are autistic

Shit meme you kike.

I'm not gonna and review a whole new video. I'm positive that it will just come out to the same arguments that are presented here.

Too many threads about it opened by clueless Holla Forums shitposters. It got boring after a while. The filter can actually result in pretty fun posts once in a while.


Firstly let's debunk your bullshit about race, starting with Lynn.

Lynn's research is not only laughable, but highly flawed.

The scientists point out that the average African Autism Level is currently comparable to the average level in the Netherlands around 1950. However, Autism Level scores in Western countries have risen sharply over the course of the 20th century. In view of this trend, Wicherts and his colleagues claim there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that sub-Saharan countries are poor due to the lower Autism Level scores of their populations. As it turns out, the average Autism Level of African adults is seeing a similar rising trend, which is expected to continue if living conditions in Africa improve in future.

None of my sources are from Lynn, dumbass.

Can I see the study from Wicherts?


Laughably false when it comes to race, and strangely twisted when it comes to personality, considering the fact that when exposed to different socio-economic factors, people's behaviours can be influenced, especially that of low-income households. This isn't the "not the vice versa" round, this is a fact.




Your article even writes in conclusion

You can change political views, surprisingly. Who would have thought?

Single motherhood rate, more likely to come across gangs, hardly any father figures and due to them AS A DEMOGRAPHIC being in more poverty than whites (which again, I have listed the negative causes of it) can you really be surprised.


Combine this with the fact that they are unhealthy and more likely to suffer health issues (which could probably be solved via universal healthcare) is it a surprise that they're under fed and that these environments have a negative effect on their genes which people can inherit? (see the pdf linked)


none of my sources are from Lynn.

Oh so you can't read too, lol.

thank fuck for word filters lmao

To continue, your shit about the traditional family/ nuclear family and the idpol bullshit it just a bunch of spooks, which are really not worth my time.



dude you spam the same 4 links every fucking day, you don't read the links anyone else posts and you don't understand that it doesn't matter if biological race isn't real. Because, its close enough to being real (admitted in your own study, the threshold was .25 and they found .1 consistency) and intelligence and academic achievement along with behavior are genetic and highly heritable. You believe a position that is autistic and psychotic. No one in academia who isn't worried about being fired will say that race isn't useful for medicine or education or therapy or social planning. Intelligence is highly heritable .8 genetic correlation vs Height which has a .6 genetic correlation. It is the most heritable complex multi-gene trait there is and its purposefully selected for by other intelligent people. The assortative mating correlation for intelligence is .6, for attractiveness its .4 and for height as well. So people are selecting for it heavily none of this matters. I have studies showing intelligence is genetic and you're posting non-scientific articles and mixing them with scientific studies, which are not enough by themselves. I think i understand your bullshit now. You're clearly trying to do damage control. More and more people on twitter and image boards are actually becoming literate in genetics and human development and are realizing that what you believe isn't tenable.
WHY are blacks more likely to be single mothers? Why are they more likely to react with violence to small slights and to law enforcement? Why do they settle disputes with hyper violence? why do they have really high rates of child abuse? its not because of their environment EXCLUSIVELY obviously like 40% of it is environment at any given time. BUT its because they are genetically predisposed to those behaviors. Whites are predisposed to being sociopaths and psychopaths. They have higher rates of criminal pathology but lower rates of impulsive violent behavior. Stop being a fucking autist who has their head in the sand. Genes have a causal effect on behavior, they are literally a person's soul. I'm disgusted by this feigned forgetting of the genetics factor.


Stop being a fucking dip shit its infuriating coming on here and seeing people lying to new posters about genetics. Your intelligence is mostly a product of your parents genes. Some of it is upbringing, but smart poor kids would not be possible IF IT WASN'T GENETIC. Why do some black kids excel way more than others despite coming from the same bad schools? Genetics you idiot.

But just because I'm a stinky little anarkiddie. Yes the nazi economy was shit.

It was a corporatist hell hole



the main thing I remember is the arcitect who wanted to build a dome so big it, rainclouds would form inside of it.


Ok lad, whatever helps you cope.

Then explain why Ibo Africans outperform all other ethnicities in britain, and Ibo women outperform all other groups. Or why white test scores are going down in britain.

We need a sticky thread fulla debating resources for when Holla Forumscucks cone to Holla Forums to preach the totally scientific gospel of their prophet Richard Lynn (peace be upon him).



r u sure





ok, buddy.

I can vouch for this as a LondonBong. Nigerian boys got the worst kind of slipper beatings at home if they didn't bring home straight A's. My school's student that graduated with honours was also some sort of African.

I know you mean well, I am not racist and I'm not from Holla Forums. But race is useful for all of the social sciences including economics AND intelligence is highly heritable and bound up in genetics

Half of the links are not studies, they're articles discussing studies. The some of them have nothing to do with genetics and are social science studies which are extremely notorious for being unreproducible and biased. You're forgetting causality

Cause: Genetics and Heritability
Effect: Behavior

Stop being fucking dense, its infuriating

Quick, the infographics have failed!
Deploy the youtube videos!


Consider what you write to be ignored, m8


How do I archive this thread? Like, save it for later? It's got quite a wealth of sources I need to look into. Great job, comrades!

>Laughably false when it comes to race, and strangely twisted when it comes to personality, considering the fact that when exposed to different socio-economic factors, people's behaviours can be influenced, especially that of low-income households. This isn't the "not the vice versa" round, this is a fact. brookings.edu/articles/the-behavioral-aspects-of-poverty/
Yeah, if you've ever read any studies on why that is it's because not all people who are in poverty have a inherited shit personality or Autism Level, the reason for poverty can be either unique circumstances or due to SES being highly inheritible.

Literally does not dispute what I said. All that is saying is that it's part environment, epigenetics and non-additive genetics. Did not dispute anything.

Yes, expect that blacks have always had higher per-capita imprisonment:

Even when they're families were more intact

Hispanics have a higher gangrate but commit less crime:

And when factored for SES, black still commit more….

Study is not by Lynn, check the link. It just mentions his last works.

No stop fucking ignoring me, I'm the only person in this thread whose not from Holla Forums and isn't a racist. Intelligence is fucking heritable stop ignoring what I'm saying. You're purposefully ignoring 90% of what i'm saying. I've already read most of what you posted. I've seen you spamming these links before. They're not convincing and many of them do not directly build on the same general premise that race is not real or that there aren't genetic factors to behavior. Its fucking nonsensical, stop fucking ignoring me and address what I'm saying. You're making the board look bad.

do you have a singlicious satisfact to snack that up?

It's actually shitting on race "realism".

lol what a surprise


okay now you're really mad



yes, i'm fucking annoyed. He ignores me consistently when I bring this up and he's the only poster on here besides our resident geneticist who even vaguely understands genetics enough to discuss it. Its frustrating. I'm not from Holla Forums i am not racist, I deplore racism. I just don't believe that race isn't useful or that intelligence is not genetic and doesn ot heavily effect behavior. That's it. There's nothing awful about that. But, people are so scared that admitting this will be a victory for fascism that they lie purposefully or obfuscate the truth.

I'm giving you an explanation as to why this is the case. No one is disputing the fact that blacks commit more crime.

In future, don't shift the goal posts.

IQ largely genetic:

I'm actually 22. If you wanna meme you'd better meme correct, son.

The only person making the board look bad is you for not reading the links and articles. Hence why you will be ignored.

Nobody's actually reading anybody's sources. Nobody ever does in these race realist debates. Whoever stops link dumping studies from the most obscure corners of the web first loses.

In future, don't shift the goal posts.
M8, I just gave you links showing that even when they had higher rates marriage compared to Whites, they still commited more crime. Female headed household is not the causation then. I also gave you a study in the OP factoring for SES (poverty).

Racial explanation for Autism Level is false and environmental factors can have lasting effects on your genes which can be passed down to offspring

But what about the inheritance of intelligence?

intelligence is heritable, so smart blacks from poor backgrounds are almost certainly smarter than their peers because of their parents inherited traits. Not because of environment. Schools and the State WANT environment to be everything because then everything is a culture war and subject to their influence. If its genetic than its all in the hands of nature and scientists, not the educational system.

Not all blacks are unintelligent, but a larger number of them are than whites. Not all whites are intelligent, but a larger number

i've read your fucking links, none of them address the heritability of violent compulsive behavior, none of them address decision making, none of them address 'g' factors heritability, none of them address the highly heritable nature of academic achievement (why is it that doctors from Nigeria produce Ace students in London? i wonder why? assortative mating? no, couldn't be) seriously you're a fucking pseud. You're the biggest pseud on this board. Worse than howard and hoochie (thank god she's gone).

Already given in the links provided.




Did you learn about genes yesterday and think you understood humanity now? Are you retarded? Do you think you can just start making normative judgments without logic now because genetics influence us? Or did you just stop thinking once you read a few wiki articles?

What happened to my Hoochie

stop hiding your discrimination behind a thin veil of pseudoscience. if you want me to beleive ths garbage then you'll needo ne motherfucker of a source.

If intelligence is inheritable, your parents must have downs.

confirmed for never having studied any biology

he hasn't addressed it at all he's lying


fuck off you fucking idiot

shut the fuck up you stupid autist, he's ignored me in 3 different threads over the last month regarding this issue. He NEVER reads my studies and NEVER debates me on this or anyone else. He always says, oh you haven't read what i posted. Nope its already debunked. Its fucking pseudointellectual behavior and its grossly dishonest. Fuck yourself, for not taking things like this more seriously. The fact that lying about science is normal on this board is despicable.

Wew lad, already been disproven by SES factoring.

Answer me this:

Giving that the environmental differences between Africans and Africans in the U.S. only produces a 3 point increase - that is going from Africa to the U.S. - how plausible is it that the environmental difference in the U.S. between Blacks and Whites would produce a 15 point gap? Is the difference between U.S. Africans and U.S. Europeans really so huge that they have the same effect as environmental factors compared to Africa?

"Our estimate of average Autism Level converges with the finding that national Autism Levels of sub-Saharan African countries as predicted from several international studies of student achievement are around 82."


You were complaining in another thread that leftypol doesn't debate racists. Now you are complaining in such a thread that we never take it seriously, yet you are a complete noob so you can't know.

The guy with the cat flag icon keeping all the race realists at bay with an arsenal of scientific research and well thought out rebuttals needs a shout out. Keep em' coming, m8!

because he doesn't want some autist following him around prodding him with useless information? or that your sources are shit? or that you're just being a pest?

Your argument does not follow from the data you link, so maybe you should establish a link first before sperging out.

no you dumb faggot

she left for greener pastures on bunkerchan or somewhere else, thank god she's gone. I was sick of her manic behavior and retarded sperging

you're a dumb faggot here's a source: hint there are literal thousands of these studies I just don't have access to most and don't know how to find them on sci-hub (i don't use sci-hub, pardon my ignorance)


both my parents are of normal intelligence you fag

i said in the social sciences and in medicine its not useful in biology or taxonomy you stupid fag

I give credit when credit's due. Read the post I made before this one.

Yes, I agree. The problem is that you are the one trying to normalize it.

top jej
This is utter shit. It just blusters about
it's fucking nothing.

Marginally, not really relevant for any political ideology or analysis of societies. Calm down and stop thinking the world is out to get you but only you have the truth.

And they still committed more crime than…
Did someone make them sell drugs?
Burdern of proof is on you.

Black Autism Level is increasing and is predicted to increase within the following years

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4603674/ journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0138412#pone-0138412-t001

Black Americans Reduce The Racial Autism Level Gap jstor.org/stable/40064475?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents


Although the implications of our psychometric findings for the potential of the Flynn Effect in sub-Saharan Africa remain unclear, the Raven's tests and other Autism Level tests have shown robust increases in many populations (Daley et al., 2003; Flynn, 2007). So suppose that there were a well-validated Autism Level test that showed measurement invariant scores between westerners and Africans. Even then, lower Autism Levels of Africans still would not support Lynn and Vanhanen's (2002, 2006) assertion that countries in sub-Saharan Africa are poorly developed economically because of their low "national Autism Level". Wicherts, Borsboom, and Dolan (2010b) found that "national Autism Levels" are rather strongly confounded with the developmental status of countries. Given the well-documented Flynn Effect, we know that "national Autism Levels" are subject to change. An average Autism Level around 80 among Africans may appear to be low, but from a historical perspective this average is not low at all. A representative sample of British adults, who took the SPM in 1948 would have an average Autism Level of 81 in terms of the British norms of 1992 (J. C. Raven, 1960; J. C. Raven et al., 1996). Using older British norms, the average Autism Level of Africans would be much closer to 100. This is evident in Figure 2, where we compared SPM scores of Africans to older norms. In this figure, the average Autism Level of several African samples is near or above 100.

Present-day sub-Saharan Africa is one of the poorest regions in the world and the home to some of the world's most deprived children. The majority of sub-Saharan children are chronically malnourished, not only from lack of food but particularly from food lacking vital elements related to both physical growth and intellectual development. It has been estimated that up to 70 percent of rural children live in absolute poverty and 90 percent suffer severe deprivation (Gordon, Nancy, Pantazis, Pemberton, & Townsend, 2003). A substantial number of sub-Saharan African children are under-educated. According to Garcia, Gillian, and Dunkelberg (2008), only about 12 percent of sub-Sahara African children have attended preschool, and this generally for well less than a year. They note that children who do not attend or have only minimal experience in pre-primary school tend to do less well in primary school than children who have had that experience. Further, it is important that the preschool experience be successful. For example, Jaramillo and Mingat (2008) have shown that children who have a poor experience in preschool and have to repeat a year or part of a year have a high drop-out rate in primary school (r = -0.875). The probability of preschool without repetition and who complete primary school is low but positive (r = 0.209). With or without preschool experience, approximately only fifty-five percent of 10-14 year-olds in sub-Saharan Africa complete primary school.

4 non arguments in a row! that has to be a record.

Hi, I'm Afroplasm, and I speak on behalf of the entire black race (fake-niggers not included). Me and my race are sorry that we doubted that leftypol were on the right side of the race debates. I'm here to promise on behalf of my race that this will not happen again.

p.s. fuck the Irish, nobody can know the suffering my race went through


Could anyone of the racialists here atleast explain why genetic differences should matter in larger society?

Kill all niggers

because muh superior race and muh foreign hordes.

GOOD point

That guys sources are not shit.



So starting with you?

As a black person and the representative of the black race (fake-niggers excluded) I detest this information. My race has approx. the same levels of autism (increase/decrease of) than other races.

Probably the only exception being the Irish, who are clearly autistic faux-slaves.

I'm a white fucking male.

I'm referring to countless times I've done it in various threads which you decided to ignore. You're a retard my dude.

i'm not being a pest this is an open forum, half the posters have autism or are friendless virgins. All the attention we all get on here is welcome regardless if its negative. Why do you think the nazis and the idiots are arguing for hours during work hours??? He just doesn't want to deal with me because i'm not a nazi and its embarassing for him to deal with another leftist who doesn't buy his retardation.

my argument follows from the data i linked. The study proves without a doubt that intelligence is heritable, its heritabilty increases over time and that its selected for in mating much more frequently than any other complex trait like height or attractiveness. This causally suggests that it would affect life outcomes and be concentrated in certain groups. I read the study, you didn't you skimmed it. Fuck off idiot

the study was published in nature and was cited 70 times you lying faggot. Its a scientific study. there is no bluster. They found out through gene analysis that the heritability of genes associated with the trait 'g' factor or intelligence were extremely high and that the heritability increased over time. There are literally dozens of other studies linking to that one that say the same thing, I don't have access and don't understand how to use Sci-Hub. you guys ignore everything, you don't read what I post. I read what you post, the Nazis do too and they specifically address it. you're a fucking liar

no, not marginally. It has a massive effect on psychology, social organization, criminology and learning. Stop being obtuse. Use causal reasoning, learn to think in more than one way. It MUST have an effect because all culture is downstream from biology. Again uncontroversial among most molecular biologists.

Gas the kikes
Race war now

Sure you are.

tee hee
Source A suffers from "talk for horus but not say anything" syndrome and source B fails to post any useful charts or conclusions. it's all talk.


Yes, prison population goes up, crime goes down. Tell me what you are trying to indicate by this.

What does the rate of autism have to do with what we are talking about right now?

yeah it's a funny name but a legitimate source
this is a bit juvenile


you are chasing one person across three fucking threads. you are a fucking pest.

And now you're just pulling this out of your ass. YOUR SOURCES ARE SHIT. SHIIIIIIIIIIT.

my responses are the exact same as the Nazi posters. you haven't proven its not heritable, social science studies are worthless. They're not scientific. Studies from molecular psychiatrists and biologists have truth value. What have you said that proves that its not heritable? Do you have other studies from the last 2 years that corroborate what that one says? My study is from 2015 and was cited over 40 times by other academics. You're just a lying pathetic pseudointellectual and you should understand that this board's reputation suffers the more we lie about genetics to new users. I am not a racist. I do not support fascism. But you are pathetic and dishonest

I'm a doctor you're all mentally ill

oh shit niggas

har har har

stop posting you fucking sperg faggot, you have no good input. My study was cited by 40 other academics which proves it has validity and is worth discussing its also from 2015 and was posted in nature. I don't have access to a large number of studies because I'm not privy to databases which contain them and I don't understand how to find specific studies on sci-hub and I'm not reading through entire volumes of nature or the lancet

I summoned a demon

Ah yes, you were the one missing from this thread.





Read the links, and fuck off.

I.Q has been filtered to Autism Level. It's a word filter the mods put in. Preferably I'd prefer it if they switched it too Good boy points.

I suck big block Cox now I'm no longer a lesbian

well fug :DDDDDD

you can whine about B-BBUT IT WAS CITED 695068409568405 TIMES BY OXFORD UNIVERSITY and it wouldn't make a single bit of difference. face it, the source is all fucking talk. It contains no useful data, no charts, outcomes, nothing. it's pure abstraction.

I like rape culture I want to be raped by white males


You're a fucking retard trying to subvert the board. If you even read the sources


You wouldn't be sperging out. Unironically kys.

Pay attention to me


The truth finally comes out :^)

Come on, m8, even you know just posting random links with no context is gish galloping.

I haven't read the first article, but the second clearly shows intelligence is largely heritable. It's not just talk.

your making a fool out of yourselve. Accept that nurture is relevant and that heritabillity doesnt mean what you think it means in practice. You seem to be interested in the topic so maybe study biology. Its fun and you can help humanity, but dont forget to visit some philsophy and theory of science lectures on the side, these are sadly far to neglected.

it shows fucking nothing. It's just big blocks of bluster about race and intelligence but fails to make any worthwhile connections.


(Klassic kike shill tactic)

There isn't any talk about race.
You're either retarded or a false flag.


Not him, but I'm the OP and I pointed out multiple times that it's nurture, nature and particularly epigenetic vs non-additive genes.

oh hi Holla Forums

Huh, really makes you think.

So have we, and we pointed out that a racial explanation for it is bullshit.

Speaking of which.
That's the central issue here.
The "missing link" between anons studies and race


Then why not the Whites arrested more? Why take the chance of someone noticing that Blacks only go away? Why not just do Whites since there's more of them and no one will notice?

The people who are just shouting and not talking about studies need to shut up and stop false flagging.

No, I linked multiple studies factoring for environment and even went down a list with you of environmental causes.

first 3 are worthless articles, unless they are posted in an academic journal and are discussing recent studies I will not read it. It must be a from an academic journal as an article or study. otherwise I will not read it. This is only for scientific discussion, we are not doing any social science here. Leave fake science out of this

The ap central link is literally evil fake science lying, its sources are pathetic and out of date. 2 studies and none from the last 10 years. Fucking idiot

gene geek isn't an academic journal, its a bunch of pozzed Canadians. It also has no sources or links and is not peer reviewed. So nope

the Nature study posts data and charts, there's tons of charts and they show their methodology too and discuss in depth their intentions and findings. you're literally lying outright. The PNAC study is supplementary but also shows methods, charts, findings and intentions. You're literally lying again outright.

the last link is the only one with merit and is not itself a peer reviewed article and its sources it cites are all old or do not at all satisfactorialy debunk what i'm saying at all

i posted two studies from the last 6 years, both from reputable sources, both are peer reviewed. One is from nature and is cited 40 times and shows all of its methodology and findings. You're just not reading them or lying to suit your agenda.
no it means the trait is genetic and comes from the genetic lineage of that organism. Which means that smart parents produce smart children
its less than half the equation and even if it mattered as much as genes, you all act as if genes are less than half the equation. You act as if they're just the barebones skeleton for the organism and everything else is nurture. But the heritability of certain traits like intelligence increases with age. Gene expression continuously modulates behavior and thus intelligence is more heritable for adults than for children and is very important for life outcomes. You're purposefully not linking together obvious findings that go with each other. If i see that an organization has an embezzlement problem, and i notice that certain managers are spending too much time with their secretaries and with the accounting department, then I know where to look for the embezzlement culprits. Stop being retarded its pathetic.

none of which tell us anything remotely conclusive. they decided on their conclusion and bungled their way towards it. the PNAC is more of the same, fucking nothing. talk talk talk, nothing to show for.


Again, blacks as a demographic are more likely to be in poverty, unhealthy, have single motherhood rates and be exposed to gangs.
Top that off with environmental factors effecting their genes.



hai Holla Forums


This whole thread is pissing me off.
All of you people are full of shit.

Wew lad.

Translation from Holla Forums speak: "as it should be."

how is it not conclusive? Which part, where? compared to what? They showed their data and they discussed its meaning. It made perfect sense to me. What is your issue? What about PNAC study? How is it any less rigorous than the un-peer reviewed sperging on the debunkingdenialism claims?

Do you honestly think that two people who are 90 autism level will produce a 120 autism level person reliably? Similarly two 120 autism level scientists, do you think they'll produce a sub-100 autism level offspring? Of course not. Now seriously fuck off you're insufferable


With the implication that there was a racial factor, either that or I've been arguing with the wrong person.

My apologies in advance.

Again, we factored crime for poverty. A none issue since it was factored for.
Define "unhealthy," because there's been some studies that show that Blacks are actually mentally healthier than Whites.
I posted you 2 links showing that when they're family unit was better than whites, they still had high crime rates.
Hispanics are more likely as shown and Hispanics have lower crime rates than Blacks.
Which is again, factored for by environment. It's called epigenetics, by the way.

Implying I read Nazi bullshit. Its pretty funny actually that you guys base all of your retarded ideology on irrelevant bullshit that doenst justifiy your position at all. Its not possible to have a discussion with you guys as misunderstanding stuff and conspiracy theories are at the basis of your ideology. Not to forget the logic jumps and emotions sprinkled throughout, its simply incoherent and even if parts of your claims are true nothing follows logically out of that to justify the rest of your opinions.

And no internet discussion in this style will ever cause you to change your opinion. And you will never change my opinion because I know my shit and even if race actually exists its not relevant in any sense to my ideology.

Anyway I am out of this shit thread, people are to dumb to actually have any kind of sensible relation to the data and social sciences. Is anyone here actually a studied biologist? Has anyone here actually received any well rounded education on the topic and is not just going of self "taught" selective reading? No. And this means you should just believe the mainstream of science.

Good. It's making us enjoy this thread even more.

lol at this, its the same on twitter and on image boards

the hwole damn thing is inconclusive and on top of that, uses outdated sources.

I will keep saying that it's a piece of crap hashed out by biased idiots who don't even know how to lie convincingly.



Will you talk to the guy who is making walls of text at you?

It is possible to have a conversation with us. What do you think this thread is for? A leftyanon asked me to watch a video and I did and responded. It doesn't get much better than that.




I once believed intelligence wasn't racial but then I went to Australia and saw aborginals.

And I explained that those """"Crime rates"""" can't necessarily be met with scrutiny due to historical evidence of racist cops and the finance of the prison complex.

The African American population of the United States is statistically more likely to be exposed to many detrimental environmental factors such as poorer neighborhoods, schools, nutrition, and prenatal and postnatal health care (Nesbit, 2009 and Cooper 2005).

Well at least we can finally agree on something.


Judging by the massive nazi sperging all over the thread and bringing your stupid conspiracy theories into it it clearly isnt.

It's done by capitalism, btw.

Furthemore, I did adress the effects that poverty has on behaviour. Which, as I said, blacks as a demographic are more likely to be in.

meant for

I'll have to write a review of it later. I'll do it sometime this week and make a thread. Sound good?
user, I keep telling you that we factored for SES.
Remember in the OP I posted the study showing that school effect wears off in later life.
Blacks have the highest rate of diabetes. Hardly call that a nutrition problem.

its a study you idiot its from 2015 the study was done in the last 5 years. Its not outdated, you never cited what was wrong with it. I know realize you're literally just sperging to keep me from discussing with the people who know what they're talking about. you're worthless. you didn't read it and don't understand why you disagree with it. please go away. they're not biased the studies have nothing to do with race and the authors admit they have no vested interest at the bottom (i've read it top to bottom, because i like knowledge unlike you)

nope, he doesn't like me or my studies or the fact that I've read his retarded links and very few of them stand up to scrutiny or are even scientific, the first debunking denialism is all smoke and mirrors there are no claims backed up by studies or research or consensus. he's just ad nauseum repeating his interpretation of heritability vs inheritance, which he misconstrues as the crux of my argument (and other more nuanced HBD posters). Which is that IF it is highly heritable which it is, and if its heritability is upwards of fucking .8 at age 21 then obviously people in the West specifically who have low intelligence INHERITED IT. That's why smart parents produce smart kids. Its more heritable than attractiveness AND height. Its one of the most gene dependent of all the traits in existence. You absolutely cannot make someone a lot smarter who does not have the genetics to support it. Its not possible and violates everything we know about biology and gene theory.

Are the Jews considered to be an environmental factor? Because someone sure lowered your I Q and I bet it was the Jews!

I addressed that too. Again, SES does not make the Autism Level. The reason why poverty SES has such a high level of variety is because not everyone motived by wealth and some refuse to move SES because they're not motived.

Come on, it's not like cops let whites get away with crimes they would arrest blacks for, even when they are racists.

Hmm? I haven't said a single word on Jews this entire thread. That's the other anons.


You don't fucking read, which is why I ignore you.

The article goes to show the behavioural aspects, as well as the environmental factors which effect genetics, which account for the I.Q. which you pointed out.

Yes, yes. Epigenetics: but again, we have factored this out with SES and then you and I both went on to go down your list.

Do me a favor since you're the only one willing to talk to about anything. Make a list of environmental factors YOU think it is so I can make a review of it. I'll post the thread sometime this week.

I read everything its nothing. There is nothing there, the last link is the only one that is vaguely literate and it itself is not a study nor does it debunk or even come close to removing the significance of my studies. There is nothing there saying that intelligence is not genetic, that its proven to be environmentally based or that heritability does not imply prevalence of a trait DUE to genetics and not environment (which is what it fucking means). I read everything. You have nothing. I am appalled at how sparse your evidence is.

You keep doing this thing where you:

assume that what your links say is scientific, most of it is not. Most of it is people explaining science to lay-men which is not itself science. Then the debunking denialism shit is absolutely impotent and has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Also he fantastically muddles the meaning of heritabilty when its very clearly a measure of the prevalence of phenotypic variation in a population and how much of that is attributable to inherited genetics and how much is from environment (which implies that the trait is caused by genes). He then muddles it by saying this has nothing to do with individuals (but genetics and biology DO NOT DEAL WITH INDIVIDUALS they deal with species and populations). Then you fucking post brookings institute and straight up webpages which are worthless, absolutely worthless. you're a fucking pseud dude

You will never be able to have a conversation here about this due to all the conflicting interests and underhanded shit people are trying to pull.

there's only 2 posters here besides me who are trying to discuss this. The rest are crashing the thread, the only poster who defends the idea that intelligence is mostly environmental has failed to post a single study or article directly from a reputable peer-reviewed journal which attests to his beliefs. I literally just see progressives and science explainers sperging out about un-biased studies on intelligence, and then outlier cases of lolberts trying to say intelligence is 70% genes which is insane. Honestly I think I'm done posting on this board after this. This is the last straw. I like the discourse and enjoy your guys' company and insights about economics and politics but this is grotesque to me.

Except, again, this also due to poverty due to the fact that better food and living conditions and health cannot be afforded, which in turn gives rise to the epigenetics I've pointed out.

The sources that you would get are pretty much just epigenetic factors which you don't deny, so there wouldn't be much point considering you and i agree that this certainly is a factor.

Decent food is more affordable than junk food, compare the price of a sack of rice or potatoes with a KFC menu.

Huh, really makes you think.

No place is perfect.
Don't leave and make it worse.

Okay. Poverty in studies is known as your Socioeconomic Status. With SES, these tend to have the same common environment, e.g. food, nutrition, education, occupational status (not job), and living conditions. We've factored for this, user. The only time there difference is in unique environment, which generally does not happen in the middle class SES and higher class SES. But! It plays a big role in lower SES because as pointed out, you have a lot of smarter people not motivated by wealth, which is why SES varies so much in ability. "Health can not be afforded," but people of the same SES tend to have the same access to healthcare.

No, as stated above, we factored for epigenetics by factoring for SES. There's a reason why studies don't like using lower SES - because genes play a higher role as environment goes up. As pointed out, even when low SES childern are giving high SES environments, they're gains in I-Q are lost.

I did not miss you.

I give you major props for putting with what an insignificant little TWAT millennial cuck that hasn't reach puberty had to say. He will definitely regret 10 years down the line.

And again, I've pointed out the behavioural effects this can have, along with the epigenetics (some of which are permanent and heritable) which it seems you have chosen to ignore or even read.

Video is irrelevant because it's leftypol culture

Who cares what the cause is? You haven't established the gap is in any way relevant towards policy. What is your measure for a better society? Is high autism a goal in itself? If not, then what is? Does low autism make them less human? Does it mean you can round up and deport people, segregate populations, machine-gun boats full of refugees? If it doesn't, you'd better take off your flag because you are just a little bitch who doesn't even realize what his sick ideology actually entails.

Yes, but when you factor for causation of epigenetics, you can't blame epigenetics for the causation because it's been factored for.
Post the link to epigenetics being heritable again, please.

Why not? There is nothing wrong with any of that. The only reason rapefugees exist is because the first couple of boats weren't machine gunned

Well yeah. That's why it's important to them.
This is why they want to do those things.

No, I believe in complete freedom of association. Let people fuck off and do what they want to do. The only thing though is that we can't. We don't have freedom of association under our current rule of law and I am forced into association with you guys.

This is why libertarians become Nazis

It's the other way around actually.


Posted in link



And the Holla Forumsyp reveals himself.

Watch this while you're at it.


I'm not watching your kike shill bullshit

Read it (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24717751) study completely ignores that triats are passed down to kids which can cause their shit behavior in later in life. It didn't factor out kids of the same genes in too different environments. This could be done by twin studies, which it didn't do.

Nobody brought up the bellcurve and it's 26 pages. I don't have time to read that right now. Have anything else on the inheritance of epigenetics? Take into account, if it is passed down, it's a additive gene then.

You don't seem to be willing to embrace new information either it seems, yet you wish to """""review""""" it.

That's not me. I'm OP. I haven't said the word Jew, kike, or anything the whole thread.

Uhhhh lower Autism Level doesn't have to exist to justify mass murder. Jewish Autism Level was higher but the Holocaust was necessary.

Surprise surprise, what you are exposed to effects you.

Are you going to keep on ignoring evidence? If so I'll leave. I've got better shit to do.

Is that ted cruz?

You mean the Zodiac killer?


Does it matter? Are you a hair better? Are you not similarly reductive of real - people? Why bother going on and on about the heritability of autism level if not to imply that a nigger is just a - nigger?

Yes, and again, you have not pointed out what this epigenetic trait is. We already factored for SES, female headed household, nutrition, slavery, and more. What epigenetic traits do you think it is? Keep in mind, epigenetic traits go away in organism as soon as the environment improves.

1. We have factored for SES, SES tend to have the same nutritional factors in play. So a non issue. 2. As shown, even if you put these children into a improved environmental status, their Autism Level gains wear off later in adulthood. This is because genes become more expressed later in life. 3. Do we know that their poor outcomes are due to their environment or their genes passed on from their parents? One way to adress this is to take twins that are separated at birth and see how their I-Q compares to each other in different SES. This study did not do this. It used childern, which widly vary in their genetic expression from one another. Not only that, they compared entirely different families!

>I've got better shit to do.

Environmental factors including lead exposure, breast feeding, (as stated by Campbell, 2002) and nutrition (as covered by Ivanovic, 2004 and Salojee and Pettifor, 2001) can significantly affect cognitive development and functioning

The African American population of the United States is statistically more likely to be exposed to many detrimental environmental factors such as poorer neighborhoods, schools, nutrition, and prenatal and postnatal health care (Nesbit, 2009 and Cooper 2005).

Mackintosh (2011) points out that for American Blacks infant mortality is about twice as high as for whites, and low birthweight is twice as prevalent. At the same time white mothers are twice as likely to breastfeed their infants, and breastfeeding is highly correlated with Autism Level for low birthweight infants.


So no, you're wrong.

Again, provided in the pdf.

Seems to be a common trait amongst you Holla Forumsyps

You also do realise that most of those epigenetic traits are permanent right?

Such impairments may sometimes be permanent, sometimes be partially or wholly compensated for by later growth. The first two years of life is the critical time for malnutrition, the consequences of which are often irreversible and include poor cognitive development, educability, and future economic productivity.

(As covered in The Lancet Series on Maternal and child Undernutrition, 2008)


We already covered nutrition.
Breast feeding does not explain a 1 SD gap.
Two studies factored for lead exposure, blacks still commit more crime:

Exposed more =/= can not be factored for. Which it has.

Again, does not explain a 15 point gap. Infant mortality is the same among Whites and Hispanics despite being difficult on average SES: prb.org/Publications/Articles/2007/ColorDivideinInfantMortality.aspx

Taken care in SES factoring. You keep ignoring this point, why? Yes, on average they have shit nutrition, but even when factored, it doesn't close the gap.

Again, you haven't told me what thid special environmental factor is meant to be, since epigenetics is due to response in environmental causes.

" Epigenetics is the study of mechanisms that switch genes on or off. It is involved in every aspect of life and such reversible, heritable changes affect the way we live as well as our future generations."

And yet, we use twins separated at birth…


I'll have you know I'm a fox trapped in a man's body. Check your species priviledge, human oppressor scum!

Do you hear that? It's the sound of every geneticist in the world laughing at once.

Did you eat a bowl of stupid for breakfast?

please lurk moar you stupid fucking tripfag. i see you in every thread and you never contribute anything of substance and betray your fugging newness in every post

ok so you can't read.

I'll post it again

The African American population of the United States is statistically more likely to be exposed to many detrimental environmental factors such as poorer neighborhoods, schools, nutrition, and prenatal and postnatal health care (Nesbit, 2009 and Cooper 2005).

Mackintosh (2011) points out that for American Blacks infant mortality is about twice as high as for whites, and low birthweight is twice as prevalent. At the same time white mothers are twice as likely to breastfeed their infants, and breastfeeding is highly correlated with Autism Level for low birthweight infants. In this way a wide number of health related factors that influence Autism Level are unequally distributed between the two group.


Ok lad

Shit nutrition which makes it detrimental on their behavioural and cognitivie ability.

Why do YOU keep ignoring this?

Fair point, I'll cop that, but that still doesn't debunk the fact that factors caused by the environment on individuals and groups have permanent effects.

The main problem is that the adoptive homes in which those separated twins often find themselves are uniformly enriched learning environments. Nisbett’s book was reviewed by Jim Holt of the NYT Book Review:

Nisbett bridles at the hereditarian claim that I.Q. is 75 to 85 percent heritable; the real figure, he thinks, is less than 50 percent. Estimates come from comparing the I.Q.’s of blood relatives — identical twins, fraternal twins, siblings — growing up in different adoptive families. But there is a snare here. As Nisbett observes, “adoptive families, like Tolstoy’s happy families, are all alike.” Not only are they more affluent than average, they also tend to give children lots of cognitive stimulation. Thus data from them yield erroneously high estimates of I.Q. heritability. (Think: if we all grew up in exactly the same environment, I.Q. differences would appear to be 100 percent genetic.) This underscores an important point: there is no fixed value for heritability. The notion makes sense only relative to a population. Heritability of I.Q. is higher for upper-class families than for lower-class families, because lower-class families provide a wider range of cognitive environments, from terrible to pretty good."


Top that off with not only the LEAD EXPOSURE and environmental effects that this has on your genetics, and combine this with not only poverty but increased single mother hood rate and gang violence, then yeah no shit blacks are going to commit more crime.


The poverty rate for black families with intact marriages drops to 10.8% but rises dramatically in the cases of unmarried single parents. 31.2% of single fathers with children under 18 are impoverished, as are 46.1% of single mothers with children under 18.

These figures follow the trend of economic hardship for single parents throughout the rest of the United States, albeit slightly more exaggerated. This has resulted in the black children living in poverty outnumbering white children living in poverty, in spite of white children outnumbering black children by three to one.




Top top this off, blacks as a demographic have more single parent hood homes than any other demographic


So in conclusion, top this off with poverty, environmental factors which effect your genetics, permanent damage done to children which effects their life later on down the road, along with single parenthood homes, you have a recipe for disaster.

There are other potentially important environmental differences besides income. For one, blacks at the same income level as whites often have a lot less wealth due to things like housing discrimination, see


for info, and housing discrimination also means that poorer blacks are much more likely to live in neighborhoods of "concentrated poverty" even if you compare them whites at exactly the same income level (which of course means worse schools due to the local funding system we have in the U.S.), for info on this you can go to


theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/why-we-write/459909/ and scroll down to the part with all the graphs.

can we create an race containment thread?

That would be a good idea

Isn't this the race containment thread? Just link everyone here and report them if they disobey.

De-facto race containment thread
We need an official one

Should also mention

1. I already went through this, stating that the police force during the eras you talked about were corrupt and seek to finance the prisons

2.US Census Bureau data shows that over half of black children do not live with their biological fathers.


we should disable thread creation and have 15 cycled generals on the front page tbh

Breast feeding only adds on 3.76 points. This would at max, drop the racial gap down to 12 points. Still a high gap.

No, I can't.

M8, again, we've factored for all of this. We've gone over it. None of these factors explain the gap. I've posted the studies over and over and went down your list multiple times.
We'll go down the list again:
Factored with SES.

We just factored for breastfeeding too. Also, as pointed out, Hispanics have the same infant mortality as Whites despite lower average SES.

And we've factored for these causes and yet, still no a gap in crime. As shown. That's now lead, breast feeding, nutrition, female headed household, SES, school, healthcare all factored for. Any other environmental causes?

And you're evidence has a flaw - it meets a ceiling: because as shown with Hispanics, even having the same mortality rates, they still have different levels of crime and Autism Level.

Do you not know how factoring works? Even when they have the same nutrition, differences still remain, as shown.

Because as shown when factored the gap remains. Why do YOU keep ignoring this?

No, it even says that it's reversible. The reason why it is passed down generation to generation is because the last generation has the same environment as the last - but when you take that environmental factor out, cross generational epigenetics is reversed.

Nope! That's how we know that low SES varies more because we've done studies comparing low SES adopted twins and high SES adopted twins. SES is compared at all incomes unless specified in the methology. But, as stated before, studies do like to use high and middle SES because it lowers chance of environmental causes.

Your study doesn't say if it tested them later in life, when Autism Level isn't as fluid. Again, as posted, Autism Level is not fluid in later life and SES gains go away in adulthood.
Almost like I told YOU this earlier and you ignored it, user.

I already posted 2 studies showing the crime rate is still higher for Blacks even adjusted after lead. Also, as show earlier - Hispanics are more in gangs than Blacks but commit less crime. And WAY earlier I showed you that even WHEN the black family was stronger that Blacks still committed more crime. Also, this slight racial gap in blood lead levels diminishes to virtually nothing by adulthood.

Posting a link with no context is not helpful.

Again, we've factored for both. Not an issue.

First link doesn't work. As far as I can tell, the second study does not factor for region, Cost of Living, nor past credit and credit scores.

As said the 100th time - higher education depletes at older ages and the effect wears off.

Should also mention

Yeah, no. Again, as pointed out, the rate of crime as stayed constantly higher through the 20th century. And I highly doubt that for the entire 20th century there was a grand conspiracy of "muh white!" to put the blackman down.

Still factored for.

So it does have an effect on your intelligence, which is what i was pointing out. Good to know.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT YOU ARE RETARDED you literally cannot read

We just factored for breastfeeding too. Also, as pointed out, Hispanics have the same infant mortality as Whites despite lower average SES.

We're talking about blacks, not hispanics you buffoon. Again, which hispanics? your studies link to various types.

And are raised in different environments you fool.

I'm giving you an EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE GAP EXISTS you fucking ingraine.

If you read the pdfs attached and the studies shown, you'll see that it is. You are a moron.

Okey doke.




You're a fucking moron

I've given you an explanation for the factors on the rest and you still deliberately ignore it.

I also just gave you explanation that those black families are not strong, with teenage preganancy, lack of education as well as the fact that most of the parents aren't their biological fathers.

I've given you an explanation as to why there is a gap, and yet you're arguing in circles. You don't make any fucking sense. I'm done talking to you.

Idk if someone else has them but there are four archived threads of Holla Forums getting btfo that pretty much cover all the bases of their typical argumentation techiniques.

You are new but the cat poster BTFOing Holla Forumsyps is a pretty regular occurrence on this board.

NOOOOOOOOOO. I thought you were gone, newfags I would highly recommend filter this user by clicking the arrow to the left of her name and selecing add filter, trip code. She is extremely irritating.

hoochie I love you please marry me

Should add, use and download the sources I have. Save them for future dumb fucks like OP. He may reject evidence but it's funny to see

I'm not always going to be here when it comes to race-realist raids.

Why put "toxic" before idpol? Idpol is idpol.

And this is without a doubt idpol.

Of lmao 3 points. Still a 12 point gap.

You have proven to me that you do not know how averages work and factorization. We know these factors effect them but when these environmental causes are factored for a gap nonetheless stays the same.

We just factored for breastfeeding too. Also, as pointed out, Hispanics have the same infant mortality as Whites despite lower average SES.

You clearly misunderstood my point. My point was that SES does not have a great impact on infant mortality as you think because as shown, Hispanics have the same rate despite a big difference in SES compared to Whites. This means that poverty is not as a high as a factor as you think.

Which, again, is factored for in SES. School, education, Autism Level, nutrition, healthcare and more all get factored for in SES because of how their causative relationship is.

[I'm giving you an EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE GAP EXISTS you fucking ingraine.
And when factored for the causes you think it is, the gap still remains.

So you agree, when you factor out environmental causes, epigenetics cease to exist. Good job.

I did not ignore evidence. We clearly have studies that show adopted twins in low SES. Also, it says "on average." You can still study statical outliners, asshat.

Jim crow? Really? That was only in the South. Also, if Blacks had it so bad during Jim Crow, why didn't they leave the South? They ran from slavery despite having nothing and being actively hunted, but yet they stated in the South because? Crime rates stayed constant through out all regions. War on drugs is recent and does not explain preexisting crime gaps.

Only says up until 50 years ago with the KKK in the South.
Clan peaked at 3,000,000–6,000,000[1] (peaked in 1924–25) - wiki
America's population was 106,021,537 - wiki
So literally 5% of the population at max of 6 million. Literally nothing.


You've ignored all of my points.

Bro, I pointed out that when they're families were WAY stronger than Whites, the gap was there. I pointed out that even when giving the same economic opportunities: still there. Breastfeeding is the only thing you got me on, and it's 3 points: literally nothing. Lead? Nope - factored for and it disappears in adults.

Fine! Don't reply back.



Fine, I'll bite.

Due to the fact that they are caused by those factors you retard. How hard is this for you to understand?

Because it is caused by those factors. How hard is it for you to understand this?

Considering that the laws were different during those eras, you're also failing to take this into account, along with the ACTUAL fact that these far right wing groups have infiltrated the police force.

Those """strong families""" would be torn apart and subject to racist cops.

Because there was no where else for them to go. They couldn't afford moving away to different locations mostly due to them being slaves. On top of that, you've conveniently ignored my part on housing discrimination.

There are other potentially important environmental differences besides income. For one, blacks at the same income level as whites often have a lot less wealth due to things like housing discrimination, see web-beta.archive.org/web/20170404025123/http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Author/shapiro-thomas-m/racialwealthgapbrief.pdf for info, and housing discrimination also means that poorer blacks are much more likely to live in neighborhoods of "concentrated poverty" even if you compare them whites at exactly the same income level (which of course means worse schools due to the local funding system we have in the U.S.), for info on this you can go to web-beta.archive.org/web/20170310090018/http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/why-we-write/459909/ and scroll down to the part with all the graphs.

Consider suicide.

love how this retarded pic still gets posted even when it was btfoed the moment it appeared

Not the guy you're replying to but..

Those factors only account for a 3 point gap. What about the other 12-15 points?

Do you have any empirical evidence destroying it? I don't think debunking denialism or the rationalwiki are more credible than the Bureau of justice.

Lead poisoning, poor nutrition, poor health, and the fact that these factors continue to effect your genetic offspring.

There's a whole pdf on this.

You will never leave.

Yes, what do you think we've been doing? We've been discussing (more fighting) about what environmental factors does what and we've gone down your list, took them all out, and the gap still remains.

Again - we took out the question of environment and I have shown you that differences still remain.

What's hard for me to understand is how you still think environment plays a part when we've factored for it.

You haven't debunked shit.

Discrimination: as shown, high SES does not matter. Racist cops: lmao 5% of the whole population in 1925. Segregation: so they need White communities to function?

M8, you know how small far right groups are? It would have at max a minimal impact.

Stronger than White families, as shown. Are you saying blacks have never had strong families?

Slaves with their families ran away while being hunted and poorer than Blacks during Jim Crow. No excuses. Really? That study did not factor in cost of living, past and current credit scores, or region. It's a shit study.

As said - shit study - left out lurking variables.

Once again. Even with higher SES, I. Q gains fall. So, SES will not matter.

I have before.

Different Black and White intelligence means were found in preschoolers even when controlled for parental education: "The present study explored the nature of differences in performance on the 3rd revision of the Stanford-Binet for groups and white preschoolers matched for parental education in two independent experiments. Large mean differences, favoring the white children, were found in both experiments. In addition, significant race × items interactions at level III, in both experiments, and level III-6, in Experiment 2, indicated that the differences in performance between blacks and whites were much larger on some items relative to others. Results were further examined by contrasting items on which black and white performance was not significantly different with items which showed large significant differences in performance."

So the majority of blacks in the US have lead poisoning.

And again, I've said that those environmental factors which effect people are carried down to their offspring.

If you're implying that blacks are dumb as a """race"""" you are wrong, considering that 1. I've given you the explanation as to WHY these people cannot complete their genetic potential, mostly due to the hindrance caused by environmental factors and nutritions which PERMANETELY affects their intelligence, which again, you have decided to ignore. I have debunked your points and you still purposefully ignore it.

Funny you should say that, considering the following

It isn't. For example, read archive.is/cwQFT and http://archive.is/hRxGW which talk about how right now black teens in the UK have higher average scores than white teens on the GCSE, an SAT-style test that's strongly correlated with I Q (see archive.is/MntJD ). And even if we just look at the U.S., some evidence of the importance of environment can be seen in the fact that white teens from Alabama score about 15 points lower on the NAEP math test (which is used as a proxy for I Q) than white teens from Massachusetts (see archive.is/1eBu5 ), and black teens from Massachusetts score about the same as white teens from Alabama (see archive.is/StDp5 ). The book at books.google.com/books?id=EQEMF7Qvh2cC&lpg=PP1&pg=PT19 also mentions that "Army tests in the First World War showed white soldiers from Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Mississippi scoring lower on mental tests than black soldiers from Ohio, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania."

In general, evidence that environment alone can cause large I Q gaps can be found by looking at examples of differences among Europeans, like the fact that Catholics in Northern Ireland, who are a minority who face a lot of discrimination there, scored about 15 points lower in I Q than Protestants in the 1960s (see archive.is/48Xkj –the reference is to a book called 'The Bell Curve Debate', I checked the reference and it said it was based on a test of 1,083 Irish schoolchildren in 1966), but in recent years the Irish and British I Q scores have converged (see archive.is/gzy0z ). And there are a lot of similar examples of European countries which have shown huge I Q gains in just a few decades (see archive.is/lcCT6 ).

Let's also consider the fact that poor white kids perform worse than black students in britain.


Futhermore, this doesn't take into account the CLOSING I.Q gap between blacks and whites

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4603674/ journals.plos.org/plosone/articleid=10.1371/journal.pone.0138412#pone-0138412-t001


Now before he misinterprets me, yes I am aware that intelligence is genetic, but to say that the environment doesn't effect your genetics, have permanent damage on them, and that blacks, as a """race""" are dumb, is laughable.

Well this thread has given me some reading to do.

Except those statistics aren't real. The DOJ doesn't have data on household income and race for homocides, they refer to the FBI and the FBI doesn't have them either.


look at page six

Hey m8 the link isn't working.

it's working for me, although the main doj site isn't. try using a different browser


Cheers m8

"And again, I've said that those environmental factors which effect people are carried down to their offspring."
And as we've concluded, epigenetics go away when that environmental cause is removing. You even said you admitted it. I even gave you the link saying epigenetics is reversible once environment is improved.

In my OP, I stated I did not think them to be dumb. Blacks are number one in diabetes in America - hardly lacking nutrition. Also, as pointed out, Africans only have a 3 point gap to African Americans - are you saying that Blacks in America are starving as much as Africans?

>It isn't. For example, read archive.is/cwQFT and archive.is/hRxGW which talk about how right now black teens in the UK have higher average scores than white teens on the GCSE, an SAT-style test that's strongly correlated with I Q (see archive.is/MntJD ).
Selective representative of minorities since the U.K. has high selection immigration.
Also, you say blacks are smarter the U.K. than Whites, but yet they commit massive crime:


>And even if we just look at the U.S., some evidence of the importance of environment can be seen in the fact that white teens from Alabama score about 15 points lower on the NAEP math test (which is used as a proxy for I Q) than white teens from Massachusetts (see archive.is/1eBu5 ), and black teens from Massachusetts score about the same as white teens from Alabama (see archive.is/StDp5 ). The book at books.google.com/books?id=EQEMF7Qvh2cC&lpg=PP1&pg=PT19 also mentions that "Army tests in the First World War showed white soldiers from Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Mississippi scoring lower on mental tests than black soldiers from Ohio, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania."
Wow - almost like if you take blacks/whites from rich states and compare them to shit states, one will score better! Good job NOT FACTORING for SES! Proud of you, son!

[In general, evidence that environment alone can cause large I Q gaps can be found by looking at examples of differences among Europeans, like the fact that Catholics in Northern Ireland, who are a minority who face a lot of discrimination there, scored about 15 points lower in I Q than Protestants in the 1960s (see archive.is/48Xkj –the reference is to a book called 'The Bell Curve Debate', I checked the reference and it said it was based on a test of 1,083 Irish schoolchildren in 1966), but in recent years the Irish and British I Q scores have converged (see archive.is/gzy0z ). And there are a lot of similar examples of European countries which have shown huge I Q gains in just a few decades (see archive.is/lcCT6 ).
Nobody said blacks are not discriminated against - we are saying that when factored for the impacts of discrimination, the gap still remains.

Comparing a power SES to a average SES is just flatout retarded. Also, selective immigration.

Closing gap =/= not a gap.

Nobody said they're dumb. 85 Autism Level is actually very smart, especially if you wanna anything about the Flynn Affect. And again, I'm not a genetic determinist. I realize it's both epigenetics, non-additive and environmental factors.

Poverty is a lot more than just income fam, costs of living can be quite high in many cities, and many other structural issues play a part. See pdf related

And the fact that it is closing so fast indicates the root cause is cultural rather than genetic.

Nutrition is more than just calories. The reason they are number one in diabetes is because the food they have access to is not very nutritious. Look at nuts, for example, after it was discovered that they have useful healthy properties, well off white people started eating them, but blacks couldn't because they were too expensive.

meant to type homicide rate

Alright, guys. I, OP, gotta go now and take care of shit.

Been fun, cat-user. Cheers!

Yeah, here. Check out page 6. They already factored for a lot of different shit and still found differences in mental health and health, but it is significantly reduce.


see ya


You do realise that diabetes is the cause of eating unhealthy food, not one with sufficient and healthy nutrition.

Due to the fact that most of these people live in poverty, AS A DEMOGRAPHIC


30 percent for Indians and Black Caribbeans.
50% for Black Africans.

Huh, would have thought?

I never denied the fact there wasn't a gap, there is clearly a gap.

And I have stated, time and time again the detrimental factors that poverty can have on people, which is reflected throughout these crime trends and the fact that, and I'll say this again, AS A DEMOGRAPHIC, there are more black people living in poverty.

Which, in a sense I've been arguing for.

Are you going to keep on dancing around the points of poverty having a negative effect on people? Because that would mean that you're ignoring socio-economic factors.

Would you be able to thoroughly give your stance on all this (genetics), how it could be properly dealt with (like handling any kind of pockets of genuine low I.Q communities?) as well as any and all sources that back and shape your stance(s)? Assuming you're I'm perfectly willing to see through this as none of this appears to inherently "destroy" Leftist foundations of egalitarianism once you get past any knee-jerk reactions to its face value, like what is saying here.

This and the other thread is beginning to feel like a humiliation-conga for this board, and generally the deteriorating quality on this board is getting depressing, as I truly believe in Leftism and therefore believe we need to reform ourselves in order to really stand any tests in the possible future, like what is saying

T. Hapa

user are you only now realizing commies lie about science?


cummunists always give me a hearty kek when they pretend to be materialists

Niggers barely went through anything. Try being Slavic

can I just lovingly embrace you instead? :(


You could have read a decent book.
Instead you wasted time watching a Muke video.

Here. Have something that's actually worth your time.

I would be more open to this stuff if I had not seen the proponents so keen on being dishonest as often as I have.
Every time they misrepresent the findings of a study or just outright lie, it gives me serious reservations.

Considering how some people want to profit politically from this information, I'm pretty wary.
They often speak with such a sense of authority and urgency that I don't think appreciates the weight of the issue.
It almost feels as if people are pushing for us to accept these findings uncritically and uncautiously.
And then if the evidence is so certain, why do people bother to lie about it? What do they gain from that?

For now I will be looking over threads like this and gathering my own conclusions from the studies posted.
Anyone who wants to strongly shift my opinion one way or the other is suspect in my eyes.
Like even the guy you are talking to, I found his studies convincing, but his behavior concerning.
OP was pretty reasonable though throughout most of the thread.

Just my two cents.

under somewhat ok educational conditions genotypic mean sub saharan african Autism Level is ~90(a figure lower than 100, but still not that low since we also know that 100

No group is sub 90 given optimal conditions/environment.

yeah right, the moms too, so they don't "regress to the mean"
but somehow no selection took place for other whites, asians, but the SAME exact selection took place for caribbean blacks and africans

where those vids from. YT link?


let's do some math
white incarceration rate in the us is 0.45% meaning 450 per 100000, while it is 150 per 100000 in the UK

from your article

GO figure

+ there is the added factor of age
the black population in the UK is younger - the most criminal age is 18-40 yo
whether they have a murder rate of 5/100000 or 2/100000 isn't really all that important

also and most imporantly

i've seen the exact same articles shilled by someone like you on /sci/ and am copying responses from archived threads
unrefuted responses


The webms need improvement.

where is the report that contains this chart

in other words, source

it's shit

See this is what gets me.
If all it's so conclusive, beyond refutation, why lie?
Why do they judge people for being so indecisive?

Really makes you think.

I read all of it and thought it was pretty good.

So I'm guessing you're another spectator? Do share any of these, as you said, convincing studies, or perhaps share a pastebin sometime in a thread of your own in the future. I admit to still being more or less a brainlet on deep leftist theory and my current to-do list with political-material is to thoroughly go through most, if not all foundational Leftist literature while hoarding stuff like genetic studies to a backlog. If that other user is the same guy from the "Alt-Right and Irony" thread, they pasted only 2 articles on genetic studies, so I feel I'm still in the dark with this stuff

As for that other user: I am willing to give them the benefit of a doubt for now as I consider their behavior to be understandable in that they seem to be ignored or flat out dismissed with that dumb pigshit pic, so I could see myself being frustrated in such a situation, though I do agree in being cautious about because their lashing out at sabocat user could be their way of beating them down through ad-homs, so who knows.

I was told by a Holla Forumsack once that this is the source of that picture, despite it not showing up anywhere on the page. Make of that as you will.

Yeah I'm gathering all the genetics papers I find together into a backlog too and am probably going to go through all of them in detail when I have a good number to compare.

I like threads like this because people are putting up primary sources and not just shooting infographics and news articles around (although there is a lot of that too unfortunately). Most of the links here are broken here too which is a pain, and some are behind a paywall. I want to make sure I have the big picture down before I make any decisions. Particularly with such a controversial topic. That's why I am wary of people trying to rush a consensus. I can see why that user is upset, but I don't really trust him from how he acted. I don't really trust catfag either though for the same reason. I'll just have to figure things out myself through the papers, and I'll probably do some digging of my own too later.

It's with things like this I don't trust anybody, but we are going to have to deal with it eventually, so I guess it's time to get to lurking and studying.

Yeah. It honestly really sucks that the neoliberal establishment, social liberals more specifically, have put this stuff off in the way they have (hostile dismissiveness, dishonesty, etc.), otherwise we wouldn't be in a situation where there has been an equally hostile and seemingly dishonest reaction

I found the page

oh shit this board is good again

wapo = racism

You can be literally brain damaged and have a high I.Q.
It's a pretty terrible standard, tbh.

WaPo is literally a CIA rag retard.



those stats have nothing to do with who commits more crime but with who gets arrested/convicted more

holy shit this whole thread is one big tl;dr