Holla Forumsbabbies toddle in here to try and "redpill" and "debate"

Does one become a brainlet because of Holla Forums, or does one become Holla Forums because they're brainlets?

Other urls found in this thread:


And not a single substantiated argument was posted. No for real gg my dude you really proved me wrong there.

Also, every study saying otherwise is Jewish.

Holy shit maybe they're onto something.


The latter.
People have a natural tendency to gravitate towards communities that reinforce their confirmation bias, and that is only heightened in individuals who are poorly socialized, uneducated and lack reasoning skills such as Holla Forumsyps. There have even been studies outlining that right-wingers are on average less intelligent than leftists and liberals, but of course it's da jooz when they're on the receiving end of their bullshit.

Take the most aryan medieval farm-oaf you can imagine. Do you think he could outmatch an modern educated nigerian in Autism Level when he, the uneducated and somewhat nutritionally poorly fed farmer, can't even read or count and hasn't done much more than physical labour his entire life?

The influence of genetics and Autism Level is still under debate, but the discussion currently revolves around if it has a small or does it have a negligible effect. In adults genetics is claimed to have an effect of 0.70-0.90 points. Not that much, is it?

Why do you do this?
Do you seriously believe you'll convince him of anything? By getting baited into the same retarded argument we have on a daily basis you're just giving him an excuse to go on a tirade of retardation that some gullible fuck might read and buy into.
Seriously, wee need to move on from debating Holla Forumsyps, they're beneath us.

Heh I will just let this hang here for all to see.


lmao, you are reading that number wrong
The heritability figure is .75 for teens and young adults. Meaning that intelligence is around 75% inherited.

The education in most 1st world countries make people into brainlets who then fall into Holla Forums.



it's because we're retarded incels who use racism to mask our impotence

It's very frustrating to argue with people that have no idea what they are talking about but still insist they are correct.

75% is pretty much the scientific consensus. I have also seen between 70% and 80%, but never outside that range (for adults).

Here is a screenshot from Wikipedia, I can post studies, but most are behind paywalls.

It's very frustrating to see people argue about Autism Level on the internet while acting like they aren't huge faggots.

i just don't get the relation between 0.75 Autism Level heritability and intelligence being 75% inherited
does 0.75 Autism Level heritability mean that genetics will give you at most +0.75 or -0.75 Autism Level or what? apologies for being a brainlet

Dunning-Kruger rules all arguments about this subject.
There are a only a handful of people on Holla Forums who actually understand this issue. There is one poster in particular I have seen who is extraordinarily well informed and I suspect is actually a geneticist IRL. I believe he is mostly a lurker though as he hasn't posted in a while.

A .75 heritability figure means that approximately 75% of the variability in a given trait (within a population) can be ascribed to inheritance and 25% can be ascribed to environmental effects. Height for example, has about a .8 heritability figure.




how is that even measured? I mean, a kid who has been malnurished his whole life has no chance of getting anywhere near the average height, no matter his genes, same is true for kid who huffs paint or drank heavily leaded water his whole life without treatment.
To me it seems just like really mangled, broad statistics and not something that could be applied on an individual level.

Sam Seder go home.

It is calculated within populations. It is not calculated by comparing malnourished kids to well nourished kids.

yes but most kids in Africa are malnurished, which is why people in Nigeria and South Africa are shorter than people in China, but when Africans come to America they play basketball better than whites.
And you don't see people calling Africans a race of manlets.
But you do hear people calling African brainlets while completely ignoring Malaria, weird worms that come through your feet that the USA eliminated in the 19th century that are the reason southern whites used to be stereotyped as dumb, and malnutrition, or their completely fucked, underfunded education systems.


No it doesn't, it means that much of the variability is attributable to the genes. Not all genes are inherited, yet they will still influence the phenotype. Random mutations in the DNA can drastically alter the phenotype of any given individual, while that mutated gene was NOT present in either parent's DNA.

Stereotypes. The British are a county of big fatsos, on average even fatter than the gluttonous Americans, yet they are not stereotyped as such.

You are nitpicking. The probability of a mutation effecting the studied trait in an individual is astronomically low.

Yeah I don't give tons of credence to the 'I.Q maps' that get posted. Immigrant populations within industrialized countries are the best way to make the case.

For example, Somalis have low I.Qs wether they live in Sweden, Minnesota, or Somalia. It's pretty clear in that case that their low scores are mostly genetic.

This is how a Holla Forumsyp debates IRL. Watch it and laugh your ass off:

Yeh this is a weird one, i think the thing is being a Brit you rarely see the mega obese common in America, its just a large number of people are just plain fat, not huge, just not fit and not slim and eat shit all the time such as irn bru and fish suppers so they are over weight. We don't have fat people scooters here also or not that I've seen

Using the term "inherited" is still needlessly confusing to a layman. It would appear to allow room for misinterpretation (that is, it could lead one to erroneously assume that, say, "two parents with schizophrenia = schizophrenic offspring" invariably).

Fuck that's salty

Kind of feel sad that the kid is this dumb.
And that there are so many like him online.

Source? Google shows me studies that apparently never properly tested Somalis' Autism Level

…it all makes sense now

do you have Autism Level studies that account for socioeconomic condition, education and the like?
i never really trust Autism Level stuff after getting over my Holla Forumsyp phase.

Study about intellectual disabilities in Somali children in Minnesota

Study about intellectual disabilities in immigrant children in Stockholm (predominantly Somali iirc)

I.Q isn't directly measured but it seems shows that genetics is having some impact on their intellectual capacities.

The types of studies needed to definitively put this issue to rest have gone out of fashion in Western social sciences, so we will have to patiently wait for genome wide association studies to solve it for us.

There are many that adoption studies which control for socioeconomic status, but none of them are perfect. The most famous is this one.

If you aren't familiar with this, then you were never very deep into Holla Forums to begin with.

I never said I was a methodical Holla Forumsyp, the whole board is filled with illiterate fucks and I was one of them.
Still am really.

Recommended trick for everyone that wants to read studies for free:

1. Find the DOI number
2. Go to sci-hub.cc and enter it
3. Enjoy your free study!


This was actually painful to watch.


Try .bz, .zc, or .io.
.bz works for me.


Of course you'd all fight against the notion of heritability and Autism Level studies because if true it completely destroys your entire world view. That is unless you decide to ignore the immorality of its inevitable consequences of imposing unjust tyranny to mandate equal results.

Communism doesn't depend on Autism Level not being heritable

I fail to see how dialectical materialism is destroyed by race or genetics.

Lamarckian inheritance has been discredited repeatedly.

leftism is compatible with race realism

Nietzsche was right, with you fuckers, it really is eternal recurrence in a reactionary sense - you return time and time again and nothing changes for anyone. We just fucking spasm at one another and no one leaves any more edified than when they entered.

Of course you can't explain why it destroys our world view because you actually never read anything about communism.


Because both parties accept diametrically opposed a priori truths. Both consider one another utter idiots for not seeing what they know to be real. Trying to play the same game with different rules.


quick references to chief arguments?

So the solution is to learn each other's games and play each other's rules?



Yeah, totally fits. Like a glove.

Except Communism generally has a system of labour vouchers where the amount of work you put in yields you the amount of benefits you get out

Google labour vouchers

Chief arguments of RR?
Something like this:

not all leftists are orthodox marxists

Wrong. Read a book.

Even using the most skewed, biased Autism Level Bell Curves, the vast majority of humans from every race share the same amount of Autism Level.

what definitive qualities of low intelligence make for this

Holla Forums uses this documentary to the push the Autism Level agenda, completely ignoring the history of the Congo. delet dis

Worthless. Pretty sure you'll trigger the other commies by bringing it up too.

That sure explains why Africa is the way it is. I guess Marxism didn't help them much when they overthrew those Imperial powers. Whoops.

propensity for violent crime mostly



all right, lets say this is all true. That doesnt mean that theyre dumber, because most scientists agree that Autism Level is not a good way of measuring all human intelligence, that it only focuses on one aspect of cognitive ability compared to the hundreds we have.

Holla Forums we've gone over this, please stop coming back qhen we answer your questions.

lmao ik, i remember one Holla Forums thread where they sperged out because they couldnt understand a comment my Year 9 brother wrote.

To be fair the only half decent refutation of the belle curve was by Stephen Jay Gould, a well known retard, and laughing stock who was known for sing pseudoscience and sophistry to attack anything that conflicted with his beliefs.


Wrong, go read the mainstream scientific literature. Autism Level isn't perfect, but it's a devastatingly accurate predictor of many life outcomes.

I will grant you that intelligence is multifaceted, (spacial intelligence, verbal intelligence etc), but they all highly correlate to general intelligence anyway.


woops, misreply. here is your source

Explain the Kulaks. Their land and wealth was forcibly redistributed to those less productive than themselves. They were also not handed any 'labor vouchers' in compensation.

Let me know if this sounds familiar at all.

A necessary transition to communism.

How the fuck are you being productive if you keep hoarding whatever you're producing to stick it to the man?

If they produced it shouldn't they be able to do what they want with it?

Sure, they can do whatever they want with it, and also face the consequences of whatever it is they do.

It's not like money because it doesn't circulate. Why wouldn't you be able to save it? More than likely it'll be issued by collective banks. Your retort was worthless, go read a book and understand something for once instead of doing the typical 4chan meme arrow nitpick replies to get the last word on an argument.

Economic instability due to power struggles post-imperialist thus a lack of democracy/institutions, extreme climates, disease, US imperialism, etc. Guns, Germs, and Steel provides good insight on why civilizations develop unevenly, e.g some needed a writing system because of agriculture.

Except that's not what heritability means you dumb faggot.

The kulaks don't produce jack shit. They are fat cats that receive all the wealth just because they own a plot of land.
I hope you're a false flag

They caused the holodomor by hoarding grain and slaughtering millions of animals.




Brainlet incarnate.

Jared Diamond is a moron. He makes an a priori assumption that all differences in outcome are environmental.

He literally was nitpicking though. The effect of random mutations are negligible, unless you are talking about multigenerational time scales.


By your logic anybody who so much as catches the flu should be executed on the spot because they're unable to be productive and therefore should not receive any produce. From each according to their ability and to each according to their need means that you pitch in wherever you're capable and you take only what you need. If people are absolutely incapable of being productive, like if they're in a coma for example, why should they have to die? They're still doing their best to be productive even if it isn't very much comparitively and they should still get their basic needs, even if it might be a lot comparatively. Continuously advancing technology also means that they might not always be useless. At the very least they make great test subjects to advance scientific research.

They defended themselves from tyranny by using starvation as a weapon. Everyone who starved was self defense kill. It's a shame Patton didn't get to Invade the soviets and massacre them. 20 million casualties wasn't enough. Don't even @ me

This. That guy is almost as bad as Gould. The fact that people on here take those two serious proves how illiterate this board is.


kulaks were a real thing, they seriously burnt their crops, killed livestock and many people just stopped harvesting.

When you stop reading low I.Q. authors.

Then they were violating the NAP and deserved to have their property seized for committing aggression against innocent, unrelated people.

racists are low Autism Level on average. there's a scientific fact you won't hear from Holla Forums.


Then why are people less racist whne thei'r Intelligence is lowered?

I'm not saying I agree with everything he's said. I said it provided some insight on human development, what's your alternative explanation for this?

What does that have to do with racists on average being low ayekyuu?

What did he mean by this?

This post is unironically pretty hilarious. Good job

What's hilarious about me being correct, as usual?

It means that it's false because less intelligent people are less racist.

lol holy fuck low Autism Level spotted

Everything my fellow American. You sure showed those lefty pinkos what's up! Feel free to swing by my house, drink a few cold ones and fuck my wife, you're welcome any time.

Why am I smarter than every leftist ever? Seriously I bet my I.Q. is at least 50 points higher than marx.

chuckled audibly

Those Imperial powers still have an immense effect on the economic development. Capitalism relies on low-skilled labour in third-world countries in order to generate massive amounts of capital and value essentially for slave-tier wages. This is an undisputable fact.

You think just because colonialism ended a while ago that the people from those countries are free from economic exploitation from far more powerful, influential powers? The naivete of Holla Forums never ceases to amaze me.

I really hope you're just trying to bait me rather than actually being this fucking stupid.

You could make that argument for Asia, but nothing in my house says made in Zimbabwe

Really gets those neurotransmitter firing

Zimbabwe used to have a functional economy and export lots of agricultural goods
oh wait, that was Rhodesia

Ember when they starving when the land was privately owned but then they murdered the farmers and collectivized the land and everyone prospered?

Where do you think all those rare earth minerals the gooks use to make your phone comes from, dumbass?

If they were firing that means that they're working, but they're obviously not lmao it's okay kid you'll get 'em next time.

China and the US produce the most ore, dumbass.

Zimbabwe could hardly be considered prosperous

Now watch the retards post smug faces in response to these facts. It's always the same. Holla Forums makes a shitty thread accusing Holla Forums of being illiterate, then Holla Forums shows up and tears them a new asshole and they get all smug and defensive about being humiliated and having their entire ideology discredited; rinse and repeat.

Agriculture. Chinese population boom because someone accidentally found out you could use fish bones as fertilizer. Literacy, healthcare and industrialization thanks to communist revolution. USSR lost the cold war, China realized it can't survive US imperialism with sanctions and embargoes it was under. China forced to make a deal opens their markets. Now it's convenient for a board of dictators to unemploy locals and move their capital to China for profits.

you dumbasses do realize that the fact china and the us produce the most ore in general doesn't mean they also produce the most of the rare earth minerals? they might, but that pic definitely doesn't prove shit, so get a relevant pic/stat and you'll get another (You)


I'm having trouble finding the source of this. "USGS scientific investigations report" isn't a source.

oops, didn't see the subtitle
go fuck yourself anyway

That source a little old. But here's a more recent one. But still No African countries on the list.


Cute blog, did you write that yourself? I don't see a source in that page either and they sure as hell didn't conduct original research.

Typical for a leftist.

Seriously, how the fuck did you miss this?
It was highlighted. Another amazing display of the typical leftist inferior literacy? Are you non-American by any chance? Only someone not from America could be this retarded?

Low Autism Level virgin can't even post shit properly

Follow your leader. >>>Holla Forums

btfo by Body Odor
I. Q.

It doesn't matter which country produces the most minerals you autist. If we're talking about imperialism then the fact is, the US controls most of the world economy and consumes most of the world's resources.

I bet this is how people in the Peace Corps feel when trying to tech niggers how to farm, and not get AIDs

So what? What is your point? If niggers truly are subhuman orcs, how would that invalidate Marxism or BTFO the communist movement?
I know the_donald Holla Forums banned books at one point, but can you at least bother to read a few wikipedia articles?

Way to go, /cargo-cult/. You sure showed me

This is why you always be retarded, the paper says it's about 2016 net US imports, nothing about where the metald were originally mined. Stop being such a gullible idiot and look at the original source for your claims, thanks.

Are you replying to

That's not me, but anyway. the presence of biological differences in merit invalidated dialectical materialism because it proves that not everything is the result of material conditions/the means of production. It also highlights the impossibility of an egalitarian society that disregards race. Like cargo cultists, you leftists are magical thinkers.

You are what happens when someone doesn't read books, just blog posts. Rude sage.

You are what happens when someone only reads books written by low I.Q. authors

Such as?

Marx, Kropotkin, Bookchin, Parenti, etc


If racial differences were real they would obviously be materialistic. Marxism dismisses racial theory on the grounds that it is irrelevenant to the relationship between worker and owner. Black people being sub-human wouldn't disprove a labour theory orginating from observing european factories and businesses.

But wait, don't jews have a higher I.Q. than whites? Every Holla Forumsyp agrees on that.

scroll up in the thread for better discussion

Did you just get here, bud. I posted tons of sources debunking your friends' arguments.

Wow, you said something somewhat correct.

You mean those studies with small sapmle sizes and tons of selection bias

So do you have an actual source of the location where the world's minerals are mined or are we just going through the motions again?

Do you know what epigenetics is, or how different environments select for different traits? Intelligence differences between populations exist because of material conditions.

Neither Marx, nor Engels argued for the creation of some kind of The Giver type society. Marx even admitted that productivity between workers wouldn't suddenly equalize.
Nor does it follow that - even under labor vouchers - everyone would earn the same. The fact that you seem to think this shows that you either don't understand, or haven't heard of Socially Necessary Labor Time.
If it takes an hour for me to produce a product, but it takes others 10 hours with the same tools, it doesn't mean that I will be paid the same amount of labor vouchers as my co-workers. If labor-vouchers - as Marx described it - were implemented I'd actually get paid more relatively because I'm more productive.

The situation you describe is actually more relevant to capitalism. Because in capitalism the capitalist can profit off the varying productivity of their workers. I.e. hiring the best workers, but only paying them the average market rate. Marx describes this in his 1844 manuscripts.
Read. A. Fucking. Book.

Pic related.

Meant to quote

Read the fucking PDF

Niggers and non whites have lower Autism Level because of millennia of different material conditions than whites and therefore different evolution.

There we go. user posts and obvious nazi propaganda, that's your source. Read a fucking book kid.

Google the sources in the pic

I'm talking to both of you, learn some reading comprehension. And every corner of the globe is being exploited, how do you think 8 people come to owning half the world's wealth? Le rare earths minerals is a moot argument.

Non hereditary.

That implies genetic difference

You're the one who needs to read a book since you haven't read one in years it looks like. Did you read those books you claim as your sources? If so, which ones?

YOU read the fucking PDF, as I said here it's about the US' net imports for 2016, NOT where the minerals themselves came from. Proof still has not been provided as to where these materials were produced, which was the original claim.

Fucking gorgeous

Perhaps a video will explain it to you better brainlet.

It also says that China mines the most. As for the US read pages 9 through 12
". The
estimated value of nonfuel mineral raw materials produced
at mines in the United States in 2016 was $74.6 billion, a
slight increase from the revised total of $73.4 billion in
2015. "

Page number? The rest of your post really had nothing to do with any of this, not sure why you included it.

I can't believe that nigger talked
You're the one that said that the PDF didn't mention where the minerals came from. I proved you wrong, and therefore invalidated everything you have said previously in this thread, and everything you wil say later on. As for china you have to read through most of it since each section talks about specific minerals. Just read the sections concerning rare earth metals. There's no one page that tells you what you need to know

You don't seem to understand that when a country imports materials those imports can originally come from other countries. China has a history of going into other countries and exploiting their resources. China did not produce the minerals they took from other countries.

Again; China's mines produce the most. They hardly import anything, their domestic mines produce enough for them to flood the market.

china doesn't import raw materials like ore

*besides iron
they import tons of iron for steel obviously

Economic exploitation isn't limited to things like brands. Consider the massive debt we put onto Africa through loans which they have no methods of repaying, which you can see in the fact that between 1990 and 2003, the US gave $540 Billion in loans to African nations. By doing this, they effectively transform African nations into debtor countries, and when they had to repay their loans they ended up paying $580 Billion, plus another $330 Billion as debt.

On the lines of exploitation of materials, one needs only look at the World Bank and the IMF essentially tricking African nations into debt traps by offering them loans, privatizing their economies in order to access their markets.

Then we have multinationals evading taxes, essentially robbing Africans of their wealth (and with very little they can do to combat this), where it gets transported to tax havens or western countries.

The list doesn't stop there. We've got illegal logging, illegal fishing, asymmetric trade, exploitation of cheap labour, child labour, and so on.

replying to

Alright thanks, I admit that I'm not familiar with this topic. The PDF really doesn't include the same information this post
claims it does which triggered me. The little blurbs of text for each mineral doesn't fully explain where they were originally mined other than domestic info which doesn't help either. Some of the metals actually describe China importing some of it. It's quite refreshing seeing someone actually look at the original source so thanks again, will research more into this.

If you're not that other dipshit then you two geniuses are really falling down on proving Holla Forums isn't dumb as fucking shit.

lol cucks of a feather fuck up together. The one doesn't understand how studies work and the other follows the classic Holla Forums playbook of posting a contextless, sourceless .png Actual research is a little harder than finding the first or second hit in google and cherry picking a jpg to spit out. Longer still if you actually want to understand any of it, which no doubt is an alien concept to you.

How much they mine doesn't you fucking idiot, especially since these numbers are from 2012. The 2016 USGS numbers show that the US didn't produce any last year (minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/rare_earths/mcs-2017-raree.pdf). They have only one company and one operation, which was shut down in late 2015 for maintenance on the mine.

But you wouldn't know anything about that, because you're a fucking brainlet.

In 2007 China imported 67 tons of coltan. Coltan is a REE necessary for cell phone components

30% of coltan comes from "Africa," only 8% from China.

In 2000 12.5% of Coltan came from DRC.

In addition to the US, in 2010, no tantalum at all was produced in Australia

hurrrrrr I wonder why African aren't aren't listed


DRC's global supply of tantalum fluctuates between 14 and 130 tons, and 1.5-18.5% of total global supply in any given year.


China's production of tantalum, a coltan derivative, was only 60 metric tons.

Western corporations such as Citibank are complicit in the looting and transfer of money of these illegal sales.

"We know our components are made with blood minerals and we don't care."

You and all Holla Forumscucks are brainlets. If you're really so concerned about low Autism Level individuals you'd off yourselves first.



God i cant wait for anuddah shoah, im so voting hillary in 2020 and fucking a black woman

Take your americanism there pls.

Im the least burger-person around


So qualify what "produces" means. Is it natively mined or are Chinese-owned mines in foreign countries included? Is recycling counted in "production?" China does "mine the most" but they also consume the most, with 75% of their production consumed by native industry.

Wew lad. They import massive amounts, especially of heavy and rare earth minerals. Aside from the environmental cost of extracting them, refining them produces tons of radioactive and otherwise toxic waste. This is in part why China is the world's largest producer, because it mostly takes place in the middle of fucking Mongolia and who the fuck cares.





Oh and also
This is the tricky thing because some sources seem to conflate tantalum with it's coltan predecessor, using coltan, tantalum ore, and tantalum pretty much interchangeably. So in

I'm assuming they're talking about importing 67 tons of tantalum ore, because 67 tons of tantalum would be nearly half the global supply.

It's not like they actually know anything either.

Is a microbrain and posting a contextless .png rather than the source of it is a dead giveaway. These idiots are even dumber apparently, or just dishonest, for not calling him on it. The "low Autism Level = less racist" user is a dipshit too that didn't even read his own fucking link, to the surprise of fucking no one.

And the brainlet parade continues.

link for that too pls?


can you explain this?


IQ scores aren't very volatile though. They stabilize in our late teens, and can't be altered much after that point.


This was an editorial published in the New York Times by 52 professors in response of the controversy surrounding the Bell Curve.

all right, and with this information, we can deduce that decades of consistently bad environments lead to worsening Autism Level scores and worsening genes for Autism Level scores?

which can then explain why countries with poor standards of living and a horrible history of colonialism have lower Autism Level scores than other nations. unless im missing something here?

Not decades, millennia.
Humans began diverging into different populations around 200,000 years ago (or possibly even earlier), and differences have been accruing since that point.

One idea I seen thrown around a bit is that groups which were at higher latitudes during the last ice age had might have had greater selective pressure for high intelligence so they could deal with the cold environment.

Also this is super Lamarkian. 'Bad enviorments' don't cause genes 'get worse'.

Holla Forums 2013 v 2017. Notice the anatomical fun of the creature.


Glad to hear it comrade

Welcome to the struggle comrade.

Welcome aboard.

is that mouthy buddha?

captcha: jei Q

The true power of ML

You're such a dishonest piece of shit.

You are fucking retarded.

Welp guys we've been shown up by Holla Forums's intellectual superiority as always.


The irony of citing the SPLC, a basically Jewish organization known for equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, to discredit "eugenicists" for being part of a racist organization, is amazing.

Bit of an impasse here.

What exactly do you think is not plausible about that idea.

Why are people acting like I got BTFO? Samefagging, or is everyone here sub 130 I.Q.?

It's not "irony" you fucking dipshit. The point isn't that they're "racist," it's that the study was financed by the Pioneer fund, who also financed Linda Gottfredson, and whose cronies that signed the letter weren't qualified, and even those that were received money from the Pioneer fund. You fucking massive retard.

Post your supporting evidence or fuck off.

But the earliest civilizations were centered around Mesopotamia, and later still around the Mediterranean. If anything, snownigger germanics have little bitchbaby brains and in fact only contributed rape and destruction in Europe for a thousand years after Rome's fall.

May as well cite the JDIF. It would been just as feelsy, and lacked actual debunking.

Most of the people who "debunked" the bell curve are not credible scientists. see
This wouldn't be the first time a lefty pseudoscientist attacked a race study on false premise

Just you, brainlet.


You're a brainlet and a charlatan and need to go back to Holla Forums with the rest of the smallbrains.


He's just trying to change the subject because he can't defend Pioneer fund recipients writing an letter to defend another PF recipient's Pioneer Funded """""study."""""

"And that is what one does, and has always done, within every prevailing morality and religion: the reasons and intents behind habits are invented only when some people start attacking the habits and asking for reasons and intents. Here we have the great dishonesty of conservatives of all times -they are the add-on-liars"

I didn't claim I had evidence. I just said it's a possible explanation for the significant well documented biogeographic variation in Autism Level.

So then who is "throwing around" this """""""""idea"""""""""", you fucking retard? Or do you not feel like sharing because it'll expose you for the racecuck dullard that you are?

Here is a paper it's mentioned in.

Also, wew lad no need to get so ass blasted.

Not all that different from a bunch of Jewish scientists signing onto a letter rejecting race as an unscientific category, really. If racist scientists can organize and lie to promote their racist views, why can't Jewish scientists organize and lie to promote anti-racism?

except you call every scientist who disagrees with you a Jewish scientist. we call racialists and eugenists who get funded by racialist and eugenist orgs to do research that supports racialist and eugenist conclusions racist.

Many prominent anti-racist scientists like Gould, Lewontin etc. actually ARE Jewish, with a strong sense of Jewish identity, a firm commitment to anti-racism, and Communist-leaning politics, though. Obviously a Western scientist with a strong sense of European identity, right-leaning politics, etc. would be considered non-credible in politically-charged fields by the left, but apparently blinders can be put on regarding organized left-wing Jewish activism if it flatters one's priors.

Leftists don't really care about race and I.Q., they are more concerned about the implications of class and I.Q. Just as divergent evolution has concentrated genes for higher intelligence among certain human racial populations, natural caste specialization and selective breeding have also concentrated genes for intelligence among certain social classes within races. If leftists were to admit the existence of genetic capital, they would have to concede that they themselves are part of the global genetic elite which hoards the most valuable capital in existence; the genes for intelligence. Any principled intelligent leftist would then have to breed exclusively with the low-I.Q. underclass in order to redistribute the genetic capital hoarded by his ancestors. Most leftists are completely unprincipled status seekers, high-I.Q. people who have failed to climb the social ladder to elite status through traditionally accepted means such as academia and business, they wish instead to manipulate the low-I.Q. underclasses into killing off their elite rivals and establishing themselves as the new hereditary elite. To such unprincipled people, the egalitarian society which would result from the redistribution of genetic capital bears no appeal.

This is really the main thesis of the the Bell Curve. Murray and Herrnstein's basically claimed that porky is a genetic elite, and that the extent to which intelligence is rewarded in post-industrial economies is very concerning and leading to massive inequality.

If the final 1/3 of the book (which deals about race) wasn't included, it would be the bible of technocratic neolibs.

Murray actually did that a couple of years ago with "Coming Apart." It has that same core message but only applies to white people so it cannot be racist.

Indeed. I don't believe for a second that all of this I.Q. hysteria among elites is out of sympathy for the racial underclasses. Our technocratic high-I.Q. elite castes claim that they derive their right to rule from their exceptional work ethic and superior moral characteristics, in reality their elite status is merely a result of the hoarding of genetic capital by their ancestors through the use of selective breeding.

One of the most disquieting consequences of this process is the active war that the elite castes have been waging against their co-ethnic lower classes. Despite the difference in average intelligence between the elite and the white working classes, given their substantial genetic overlap and greater demographic base, it is not unusual for the outlier children of random white workers to match the elite in their cognitive characteristics. Our elites appear to be trying to raise the drawbridge into elite status for the rest of us and destroy what is left of the white working classes through outsourcing of labor and demographic displacement by third-worlders. We are truly fighting in the greatest intra-racial class war to ever be waged, and low-I.Q. third worlders are the weapon of choice for elites.

The redistribution of genetic capital must be the primary policy demand of any modern Socialist movement. Genetic elites must be reabsorbed into the general population, if they are allowed to continue hoarding genetic capital, they will surely turn us into mindless mystery-meat helots before replacing us with machines and starving us to death.

Somehow I can't be surprised that this all keeps coming back to this Pioneer Fund clique that all seem to be the only ones to cite and support each other's "work."

Kill yourself.

Yeah it's a pretty taboo subject so racists are the only one doing this research, but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid area of inquiry.

The idiocy goes even deeper. If I were a non-racist scientist and I began research into the field of divergent evolution of cognitive traits, I would become a racist by mere association with the topic. Just being interested in the topic means that you are by default racist. No "non-racist" research into the field can ever occur, because everyone involved would be axiomatically racist.

I.Q. hoarding elitist parasite detected. The genes of production don't belong to you, your ancestors unethically hoarded them from the rest of society and they must be redistributed in order for our society to return to some semblance of a fair and egalitarian social order.

No, it doesn't, but if their work were valid they'd be able to cite more than just their friends to support their claims, or works of fiction like 1001 Nights and Untrodden Fields.

It's really starting to seem more like your band of racist brainlets aren't in the least bit credible, and a lot less like they're ostracized because it's "taboo" and more because they're all hacks that either reference each others' work or just make up whatever is convenient toward what they want to prove. The "study" you linked cites an internet map made up of sources from "surveymonkey.com," Richard Lynn himself, a "Journal of Sexology" which doesn't seem to exist or ever have existed (the only references I could find to one are a German publication defunct since 1938 and blog posts referencing "a study performed by the Journal of Sexology in Japan"), "genitalsize.com," and miscellaneous other publications, journals, and organizations which may or may not exist.

>Lynn's claims about differences in penis length between races build on earlier claims by Rushton and Bogaert (1987). The Rushton and Boagert paper is striking for its use of non-scholarly sources (Weizmann, Wiener, Wiesenthal, & Ziegler, 1991). These include a book of semi-pornographic “tall tales” by an anonymous nineteenth century French surgeon that makes wildly inconsistent claims about genital sizes in people of different races. Lynn also refers to this book without mentioning any problems with this as a source of information. Another odd data source cited by Rushton and Bogaert is an article authored by a certain “P. Nobile” published in Forum: International Journal of Human Relations. This publication is better known to the public as “The Penthouse Forum”, a popular men’s magazine.

I'm sure "P. Nobile" is a credible source.

The persecution complex is real. It doesn't seem as though this work isn't done because its "racist" but because it's been as thoroughly refuted as phrenology. If the linked paper by Richard Lynn is anything to go by their science is bad and is just a flimsy pretense for their unscientific and in some cases outright xenophobic beliefs.

I sincerely agree with your sentiment, my fellow vertebrate comrade, but i venture that in order to achieve true equality we as the planetary elite must first breed with animals and of course the underprivileged fungi and plants. We must seize the genes of production and introduce a one cell policy. One cell is enough for any organism and cell-hoarders should get the guillotine until cell-equality is achieved.

For example
The first is from Lynn's fellow Pioneer Funder Templer, the second is the world map website that sources Lynn himself, and the third is from a now defunct website everyoneweb.com/worldpenissize/.

So where are the proofs, Billy? Have the evil Jews used their advanced Autism Levels to travel back in time and replaced Lynn's undoubtedly credible sources with complete bullshit?

An actual refutation would involve replicating a major international I.Q. study and falsifying Lynn's results, nobody seems very eager to do so, all that Lynn's well-funded academic critics do is nit-pick at his methodology while screaming "RACIST!!11!!".

No serious person believes that evolution does not apply to human beings. Lynn's data indicates that the evolution of higher intelligence is correlated with cold-weather agriculture. This result has even been replicated by the Japanese. Northern Japanese are on average, smarter, taller and less violent than Southern Japanese. This is a straightforward global evolutionary phenomenon, nobody is stupid enough to buy your denialism anymore.

Biogeographic variation in human skull size has been documented by scientists outside the Pioneer Fund mafia. And skull size seems to correlate to intelligence.

Phrenology rehabilitated as a legitimate field when.

*skull capacity

every organism will get one cell, a neuron, and form the basis of the hyperintelligent global communist brain
thus achieve completely equality and solidarity in all parameters

Imagine my fucking surprise.

What "results?"
When his methodology includes citing himself, his friends, or works of fiction they're right to criticize his bullshit methodology.
Sure, but actual scientists when they say this can actually back it up.
lol, and right off the bat who do we find cited in this paper? Rushton and Lynn. I'm shocked
Yeah, and Southern Japanese tend to live in poorer prefectures. The South is also much less developed than Northern Japan. You can see that Shikoku, one of the hottest spots on your map, is the least developed.

Now, I wonder why poor people tend to be shorter, less intelligent, and more prone to violence.

There is also a north to south cline in skin tone, therefore there is a correlation between skin tone and income. Clearly, having money makes you whiter.

nah. That's a priori. You don't know, neither does he. More research is needed.

As already mentioned, Lynn (2010a) derived regional Autism Levels
from the OECD-PISA 2006 assessment for 15-year-old students.
Since the PISA tests resulted in scores in science, reading and
mathematical ability, in his database Lynn averaged the results
of the tests regarding these three subject areas and expressed
them in standard deviation units in relation to the British mean.
These figures were converted into conventional Autism Levels by
multiplying them by 15. The Autism Level score obtained in the North
of Italy was 100, thus equal to the British, and in the South it
was 90, with Sardinia at 89.
Associations among variables cannot,
however, prove that regional differences in average cognitive
abilities are heritable. Furthermore, in Templer's study, data
regarding the biological characteristics of individuals (such as
the cephalic indices, schizophrenia rates or eye colour) are from
very far back in time (as at the end of 19th century), while mean
regional Autism Level scores are taken from recent assessments. So, data
on biological characteristics and Autism Level test scores refer to different
epochs, that is to totally different individuals and populations,
and this limits our possibility of deriving conclusive inferences
from the presented correlations.
In Italy, PISA mean scores exhibited an increasing trend
from 2003 to 2013 assessments. Table 9 reports the mean
performance in maths and reading for the five Italian macro-
regions. Between 2003 and 2012, the mean national score in
maths rose by 19 points, and that in reading by 14 points. These
national trends were almost entirely due to the performances
of the South and South-Islands regions, where the mean scores
increased by 36 and 23 points for mathematics, and by 30 and
19 points for reading assessments. In the Northern regions,
instead, the variations were negligible or, even, negative.
It is of note that these trends are perfectly consistent with
those documented at the international level both for average
IQs (Flynn, 1999, 2012) and scholastic achievement test scores,
such as PISA and TIMMS (Meisenberg & Woodley, 2013). At the
regional level, the case of Germany presents some analogies
with that of the Italian regions. In the course of the 1990s, after
reunification, previous differences in Autism Level between East and West
German conscripts rapidly diminished, given the strong gains,
of 0.5 Autism Level points per annum, recorded for East German conscripts
(Roivainen, 2012). It does not result that former East and West
Germans had any genetic differences but, rather, they lived in
diverse socio-economic and institutional contexts.

Civilization was also denser in Southern Europe than in Northern Europe until recently. This is because southern regions are more agriculturally productive, allowing for larger populations and more exceptional individuals. On average, a Germanic villager in ancient Denmark was smarter than the average Roman, even though the Germanic villager did not have the surplus population to support complex social specialization and the resulting cultural output. Northerners usual have greater average genetic capital while Southerners are sometimes able to make up for this by having greater total genetic capital.

There's nothing at all to suggest that cold climates produced more intelligent people, or that urban living is the culprit either. It's pap for impotent racists that need a fairy tale for why they're special and the niggers aren't.

There is no evidence that you could possibly have to support such an absurd and vague assertion.
The evidence for all Holla Forumsyps being brainlets just keeps piling up and up.

Well I doubt it's latitude because Akita and Kyoto, those bright blue spots with highest Autism Level etc, are by far the fairest skinned, and Kochi is by far the darkest skinned, and while Akita is pretty far north Kyoto and Kochi might as well be on the same latitude. You can't even pretend they were colonized by populations from more extreme latitudes because they are themselves the populations with the most extreme skin colors by far (and hypothesizing that people from Akita resettled Kyoto or something is asinine.) I'm particularly amazed to find Kochi is darker than Okinawa etc.
The historical capital of Kyoto mysteriously appears to be the Japanese "Hyperborea" of pale skin and high Autism Level, almost as if it's an aristocratic city or something, while Kochi has been an irrelevant hick backwater forever (I believe it's the least densely populated and urbanized prefecture.) Akita has been something of a northern capital historically and happens to contain the biggest oil field in Japan (it also had impressive mineral wealth but it was quickly exploited and depleted.)

It's pretty telling that height happens to be much better correlated with latitude than Autism Level also. In fact the north-south Autism Level cline is rather weak: the distribution appears to be mostly homogeneous with a two bright spots on the Japanese sea coast and darker spots at BOTH latitude extremes. In general you could make a much stronger case saying that being on the Japanese sea coast leads to better outcomes while being on the Pacific oceanic coast leads to worst outcomes, it explains the paradox of Tokyo in particular.

In fact the paper says as much somewhere down the middle:
It seems pretty weird then that they used latitude instead of climate to prove their hypothesis that climates cause evolution, when in Japan climate is much more tied to marine exposition and elevation than latitude.

A modest alternative to the climate hypothesis:
being on the Pacific coast made you a lot more exposed to environmental devastation such as tsunami and American air raids.


ehh, yes you can.

I'm still waiting for the non-racist global I.Q. study which shows a uniform planetary average I.Q. of 100, with no racial or latitudinal correlations. But even if Lynn is right, the truth is that these paler northern peoples are simply more unethical than southern populations, they stole all of the money from the south and used it to get taller and get higher I.Q.'s.
This Jap is clearly also RACIST by association with RACISTS, his independent Japanese statistics are therefore invalidated.
Most of Japan's industry is in the south, but sure, project your Eurocentric biases onto another civilization. All southern peoples are oppressed by northern peoples, Southern Japanese must be oppressed by Northern Japanese imperialists, THAT'S JUST HOW IT WORKS. It couldn't possibly be the case that Southern Japan has always politically dominated Northern Japan.
It is also strange how being poor also makes you browner and more likely to live closer to the equator. Maybe one day we will have the knowledge to unravel this profound mystery of our age.

It is entirely possible that Kyoto accumulated genetic capital from all over Japan during the thousand year period when it was the capital city.

Another interesting corollary between Akita and Northern Europe, is the Akita women are considered to be the most beautiful; taller, paler and more feminine than other Japanese women.

What the fuck are you even trying to say?

Abbos have a brain mass over 200 ml less than Whites and have piss poor Autism Level scores while being unable to count to 3 in their native languages but that's just like racist propganda man. All human beings are created equal. It's just porky's fault that the abbos are literally retarded by Western standards.

will brainlets ever learn?

It's a .png you FUCKING RETARD.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that that's what you have a problem with when you have to cite blogs with unknown authors that publish translations of obscure Romanian racialists


is this a false flag?


How fucking retarded can they get?

There are quite a few things which suggest that this is the case. Cold weather agriculture would strongly select for the ability to plan months in advance as well as to defer gratification. The data so far indicates that north/south national I.Q. clines exist in Spain, Italy and Japan, that continental clines exist in Europe and Asia and that an overall global I.Q. cline also exists.

There is even evidence of this evolutionary process took place in the Americas. As in Eurasia, agriculture was first developed in milder southern climates of the Americas. Also as in Eurasia, agricultural practices eventually made their way up to northern populations. By the time of European arrival, there was a substantial young agricultural civilization along the Mississippi river. As European diseases spread, the Mississippians abandoned their major settlements and migrated south. The descendants of Mississippians were noted for their exceptional intelligence when compared to other tribes which did not have a significant history of cold-weather agriculture.

The global phenomenon of northern farmers having higher genetic capital cannot be attributed to some sort of materialist conspiracy theory. It is an evolutionary reality that harsher winters select for smarter farmers.

There is the historical reality that as Northern European population size approached that of Souther Europe, Northern Europe began to surpass Southern Europe in every measure of civilizational complexity.

So Conan was based on real life. Who'd've thunk it?

Not any more than warm weather agriculture would.
Not really, no, you fucking brainlet, as was refuted earlier in the thread.

You are a fucking brainlet that talks out of both sides of your idiot mouth. Why would agriculture develop in the 'mild' south first you retard? If the logic is that warm-weather climates have more plentiful food, then there'd be no reason for agriculture to develop there over a suitable Northern climate which would have more need for the regular and increased food supply made necessary by a relatively more hostile environment.

In your fucking idiot mind. Illness, pillage, war, weather, and innumerable other chances don't give a shit how smart you are. A smart farmer on bad land isn't going to do better than a dumb farmer on fertile land. Farming in warm environments requires just as much "intelligence" as a cold one would, you stupid fucker.

You keep babbling this dumb bullshit and haven't provided a single source, probably because it's from the same gaggle of Pioniggers and Nazi cucks that you picked up nonsense like "genetic capital" from.


All agriculture is somewhat eugenic, as more planning and forethought can only help a harvest. Colder weather agriculture is more eugenic because it requires more planning to survive longer non-productive seasons. Towards the northern edges of Eurasia, it is not uncommon for agriculturists to live off of 3 or 4 months of growth annually, an impressive feat of logistics. After at least 4000 years of this eugenic process, it is hardly surprising that there are villages in Northern Europe which have contributed more to human knowledge than the combined populations of multiple southern continents.
Screeching "PIONEER FUND!" does not constitute a refutation of a major body of social science gathered over a century from countless independent sources, in addition to the overwhelming weight of historical fact and modern circumstance which perfectly coincide with the assumption of climate mediated evolution of human neurological diversity.
Good question. First, let us note that all agricultural complexes were indeed developed in milder climates. This can be explained through a few simple sociological processes. First, it is important to note that under natural circumstances, no population has plentiful food for long. After arriving in a new habitat, it only takes a few generations of population growth before all available resources are maximally exploited and the Malthusian limit is reached. Therefore, southern hunter-gatherers never had more surplus resources than northern hunter-gatherers. With that in mind, it is not difficult to give a statistical justification for the initial development of agricultural complexes in southern regions. Simply put, the south had more people, higher population densities, more plants, longer growing seasons and a more sedentary existence, as the environment was more productive and did not require as much seasonal migration. All of these factors increased the probability of agriculture being initially developed in a milder climate.
There is no certain evolutionary adaptation against the unpredictable catastrophe, but there definitely is an evolutionary adaptation against the predictable annual catastrophe that is winter. That adaptation involves improvements in memory and problem-solving ability.
Indeed, northerners have largely given up on agricultural self-sufficiency. They are now substantially dependent on trading their valuable cognitive services for the fruits of dumb people's fertile land.
I really doubt it. Perhaps you can give an example of a warm-weather farming population which is on average cognitively competitive with northern farmers?
Calm down, friend. It is well known that the rocky soils of Northern Europe could not support substantial agriculture until relatively recently. The heavy Chinese plow was introduced into Northern Europe during the early middle ages, allowing Northern Europeans to substantially increase their quantity of arable land. This resulted in a major population boom in Northern Europe, and the eventual intellectual eclipsing of Southern Europe.

As people developed specialized skills (along with the contingent superstitious beliefs) they settled wherever they could.

There exists food that is not tofu pups you fucking emotard.

I would like to idpol against your class-accusation of babies haviing pol-tier intelligence…

I would like to idpol against your class-accusation of babies haviing pol-tier intelligence…

>Colder weather agriculture is more eugenic because it requires more planning to survive longer non-productive seasons.

how much more "eugenic"? How much more planing? how are either quantified? how did you create the metrics to quantify either? What criteria must be meet to be designated as northern and southern respectively? have any of these methods been peer reviewed? if so by whom?

Well if the sources are countless it should be a little worrying how frequently they end up being associated with the Pioneer fund. Peer review is important and anything that erodes confidence in that shouldn't be dismissed. At the very least you should understand how someone could be skeptical. why not just produce some more sources?

A source would be appreciated. that's the problem with speaking about northern and southern in such a vague way without a case study. Science needs a bit more rigor than just following the logic of a vague hypothetical not attached to any specific situation.

again you need actual stats. You can't just say somethings possible just because it makes sense to you based in a premise you created.

Why not commies do it all the time.

It's a good thing that's not what happened then you illiterate Holla Forumsnigger.

Every single thing in every single one of your posts is retarded and you are too stupid to bother with.

Evolution can be quantified with a Selection Coefficient. We would need a reference population, a divergent population and the length of the selective period.
Most southern agriculturalists have average I.Q.'s in the range of 90, we can take them as a reference population. Northern agriculturalists have average I.Q.'s in the range of 100, we can take them as a divergent population. We can now say that the selective coefficient was 10 I.Q. points over 4000 years of northern agriculture, or an average of about 0.0025 I.Q. points per year. This coefficient would be different if we used another reference population.
Like I previously mentioned, northern and southern is merely a proxy for the length of the growing season.
Thomas Malthus was the first articulate that absent substantial predation, conflict or plague, all populations grow until they reach the limit of their ability to extract resources from a given environment, after which point the population size stabilizes at an equilibrium just above famine conditions. Due to recent technological improvements in our ability to extract calories from the environment and our adoption of birth-control measures, our people are currently below the Malthusian limit and have some surplus calories available. To correct this problem, our elites have decided to feed foreign populations and import them into our homes, so as to facilitate our timely return to Malthusian conditions.
I don't feel any particular need to explain why agriculture developed in the south, it is a generally accepted archaeological fact which is not terribly relevant to my argument. I gave my opinion on the question, you can find other explanations elsewhere if you wish, different explanations for why agriculture first developed in mild climates won't effect my overall argument.

This is the crux of the whole debate. You are unwilling to think for yourself and won't accept any information unless it has been sanctified by the elite guardians of opinion. Nothing that I have said requires more than a rudimentary understanding of evolution to comprehend, and it was all common knowledge until quite recently. This is a radical political dissident forum, perhaps you should stop denouncing unsanctioned opinions as heretical and learn to think for yourself.

This forum is generally amenable to the ideas of Marx, and I come here because I see a Marxist formulation to our social problems. It is plainly obvious that genetic capital is the driving force behind all other capital. It is also plainly obvious that the fanatical denial of the existence of genetic capital is lead by endogamous high-I.Q. castes which specialize in hoarding genetic capital through selective breeding. White nationalists formulate this phenomenon as a high-I.Q. Ashkenazi merchant clan invading European countries and attempting to liquidate their populations out of racial hate. Since the majority of the European elite has fully allied with Ashkenazim and in many cases freely intermarries with them, I believe that the modern political landscape can best be characterized as an inbred Euro-Ashkenazi elite clique which specializes in hoarding genetic capital, attempting to liquidate their traditional class enemies through the control of information and migration. The primary goal of the information control policy is the suppression of any information on the heritability of intelligence, how can we worry about an unequal distribution of capital if we don't know of its existence? No matter how much we redistribute material resources, elites would always be able to use their superior genetic capital to reacquire those resources. I owe much of my thinking the social-economist Gregory Clark, whose books detail the inter-generational persistence of elite status. youtube.com/watch?v=QyIMwzHuiCU Even after the communist revolution in China, the traditional elite aristocratic families were able to work their way back into power and now once again constitute the Chinese elite. qz.com/314720/heres-the-surprising-social-trait-that-the-english-and-chinese-have-in-common/
Marxism must begin taking genetic capital into account in order to maintain its ideological relevance, but I find that modern Marxist movements are often thoroughly infiltrated by genetic elites who attempt to funnel the efforts of principled egalitarians into pointless and counterproductive directions. There will never be an officially sanctioned academic assessment of the distribution of genetic capital until we remove the elite genetic clique from power, as any academic interest in the topic is met with immediate denouncement, termination and blacklisting. White nationalists such as the Pioneer fund have managed to accumulate some of this data for their own reasons, it is to the profound discredit of Marxists that they have been rused into aggressively ignoring the distribution of the most valuable capital in existence.

if cold climates make for smarter humans why are all the oldest civilizations located in mesopotamia whilst the snowniggers fucked around raping and murdering even a thousand years after rome's fall?





Let's say I have an Autism Level of 145+ (I do).
It is therefore my duty to breed as many children as I can? Cool.
Jokes aside, you often see aristocratic bloodlines degenerate. Check out Charles II of Spain for a sad example.
I believe the proletariat is full of very high-IQ individuals, think of highly skilled craftsmen, musicians, any expert of his craft really.
Therefore it is irrational to imagine the bourgeoisie hoards any genetic capital. Also the complete and total incapacity displayed by the bourgeoisie to either manage the production mode or to propose any sort of coherent thought that isn't self-contradictory when confronted to anything that came after Kant. High Autism Level means nothing if you're unable to think due to your decadent class condition.

You could just do that then

back to this vague southern/northern thing again?

is it really that hard to list a specific interval than use that to decide which is which?

I wouldn't call simple peer review elitist. besides the whole point of science is fallibility. The whole point is to make a claim and then prove it wrong. Having all of you methods be vetted by people with an active interest in you being right is just poor form.

Learn to think for myself but not question people? I really wouldn't care if you didn't insist on presenting you opinion as scientifically rigorous

*meant falsifiability

dont attempt to rationalize Holla Forums,
they are always looking for the hidden truth in any matter, and often reach horrific ends, which might be really interesting, but its slowly red pills you into uhh something strange
really dont try to rationalize it, their goal isnt even to be rational

How the fuck do you make that assumption that socialism is against having intelligent people in leading positions? Are you implying that the Chinese leaders that may or may not originate from aristocratic families still enforce a feudal mode of production in modern China?

Honestly I've read this entire thread now and I think both sides have been performing rather poor. Holla Forums mixes some valid points with utter nonsense, such as talking about "genetic capital" and the claim that Tasmanians are less evolved than the homo erectus. On the other hand, I don't see any serious on attempts of refutation on Holla Forums's side, just very emotional answers and attacking the source instead of the argument. We used to have some graduate in biology and genetics on this board but it seems he left.

I miss that user. What happened to the screencaps he shared around?

I miss that user.

it all makes sense now

RIP geneticist user

So northern Europeans developed higher Autism Level because of cold weather, versus southern Europeans in a the milder climate. Now you say Southern Europeans developed civilization faster because of better agricultural production. Thus their Autism Level just stopped rising, while Northern Europeans kept rising? Next, Southern peoples were engaged in civilization and scholasticism (education, learning, science, art, philosophy, architecture etc.) for thousands of years before Northern peoples. Why exactly would this not have an impact on Autism Level. Why don't whites who live in adverse conditions today, like in Appalachia for example, regularly produce high Autism Level genisuses. Why do you argue soley for agracultural conditions tens of thousands of years ago as the sole predictor of success today?

I've never understood the revulsion the Left has for heritable intelligence or different levels of intelligence between demographic populations, but they'll have no problem admitting to the same differences when it comes to physical attributes, like blacks being better at sports.

As always, we're ignored on this board, unless when Howard Scott says some outrageous shit.

I don't see why genetics are normatively relevant to communism. It's not like we're defending left Jacobinism, nothing about freely associated production hinges on ontological equality.

Besides, it's any more normatively relevant than winning a lottery (if it's true).

You do realize there's a coordinated shilling campaign of people pretending to be Holla Forums on other boards

you're eating up the bait

Yes, it's very easy to blame the Jews and not go after real issues.
No that was NATO and America bombingand destabilizing the Middle East
No, America is run by Trump, and NATO for the most part will do whatever America says

literally communism and marxism was designed by the bourgeoisie, all your little regimes were desired by the very forces you fight, ive written essays on this man, this is why communism when most people interpret it , is for fucking morons

What is there to fucking refute? Nothing they've put forth is based on anything like facts.
You're a liar and or retarded.

You need to face the fact that Holla Forums is almost exclusively morons.

Its a gigantic conspiracy by 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧them🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧?

To quote you:

Hi Dr Mengele

trump was always for the jews though

is it really that hard to list a specific interval than use that to decide which is which?
The most important dividing line is in places when where year-round agriculture becomes impossible due to frost. Tropical climates allow for year-round agriculture. As do most milder climates, provided that there is access to a river which never stops flowing. There is a specific point in latitude when year-round agriculture is no longer viable, making the capacity for long-term planning a prerequisite for existing in that environment. You can clearly see this line on Italian regional I.Q. maps.
The peer review system is fanatically repressive when in comes to these topics, specifically because it is dominated by genetic elites trying to suppress discussion about their genetic capital.

Excessive hoarding of genetic capital sometimes results in inbreeding. Our contemporary elites resolve this problem by sending their children to distant elite educational institutions, allowing elites to maintain some minimum level of genetic variability.
Are you Eastern European? If you are, your indigenous genetic elites were either expelled or exterminated, allowing for greater social solidarity and egalitarianism. Eastern Europeans no longer understand what it is like to live under a hostile high-I.Q. caste. Western Europe and its diaspora are ruled by a totalitarian genetic clique which has almost no kinship links with their general populations. Western working-classes are basically under a foreign occupation regime which is determined to exterminate them through mass importation of genetic refuse, and they barely have the genetic capital to organize any resistance.
Our elites pursue their interests quite aggressively at our expense, they seem to be able to think just fine.



I meant about research into what causes or relieves comas, not to perform inhumane experiments on the less well off. If you just kill everyone in a coma you'll never understand them. If you just kill all blacks you'll nevet understand them.

Every so often, a high-I.Q. genetic outlier is born to an average family. This type of individual has close family links to people of average intelligence and displays a greater amount of social solidarity with the general population. In contrast, when an inbred genetic clique develops through selective breeding, their interests become completely divorced from those of the general population. Since the contemporary Chinese elite belong to such an inbred clique, they cannot be trusted to pursue the interests of the general population.

What is your argument against the existence of genetic capital?

Because education has no effect on general intelligence, which is a genetic characteristic. The only way to change the average intelligence of a population is to change the gene-frequencies within it. In the north, low-I.Q. people were failing to reproduce at a higher rate than in the south, causing continuous positive selection for intelligence.
My argument is genetic not cultural. To the degree that Appalachian-Europeans perform worse than other European-Americans on various social metrics, this is likely the result of their founding population, a clan of semi-agricultural border-bandits. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Reivers
As for Appalachian environmental conditions;
1. They are probably less harsh than where the Appalachians originally evolved.
2. They haven't lived there long enough to change gene-frequencies that much anyway.
3. Since the industrial revolution, we have had enough surplus resources to subsidize the economically unproductive. Without mass death to change gene-frequencies, no anti-entropic genetic change is likely.
Because evolution is (selective pressure)x(time).

Because cognitive capacity is the limiting factor in all production and an expression of genetics. The means of production cannot truly be redistributed if we leave the genes of production untouched.


I liked it better when I Q was a medical concept and not a religion for narcissistic manchildren

Whites are intelligent except when they are not is basically what you are saying here. 300 years of raiding should not undue (de-evolution) millions of years of evolution, as you said (selective pressure)x(time), there shouldn't be enough time to have a huge negative impact on Autism Level.
If this is the case then the average intelligence of the entire human species will lower as selective pressures have been lowering since the development of agriculture. Once the population has reached an equilibrium in regards to surviving off farming, that is to say they got the whole farming thing down to a tee, selective pressures lessened. This is not the case as tests prove Autism Level is rising through all groups tested (including whites) despite increasingly easier living conditions. You're simply wrong here through and through, the numbers don't lie. If you believe in Autism Level then you basically just disproved your own argument.

fuggin filters

Agriculturally unproductive rocky highlands are usually dominated by less intelligent and more violent herder clans. This was also partially a case of self-selection from within a larger gene-pool. What few did farm in the area left, as farming became an untenable lifestyle on the Anglo-Scottish border due to the armies which would periodically raid through the area. All of the more docile and agriculturally inclined highlanders migrated elsewhere, with only the most martial and violent element electing to stay and make their living as border raiders.
You are suggesting that hunting requires greater intelligence than farming. This is unlikely, as many existing hunter-gatherer populations have some of the lowest recorded average I.Q.'s of any existing human populations.
Selective pressures never lessen. Farmers now had to compete with each other, both directly and indirectly. Lazy and ineffective farmers would have fewer surviving offspring than industrious and diligent farmers, causing gene-frequencies to change over time. Farmers also had to learn how to utilize organized violence in order to seize and defend agricultural territory from rival populations.
You are confusing I.Q. tests for g (general intelligence factor). Tests need to be periodically re-normed as people get more adept at analyzing abstract visual information. Among Europeans there has been a dysgenic decline in g since the industrial revolution, as the the intelligent have begun to utilize birth-control while the reproduction of worst has been subsidized by the state.

This is how I know you are full of shit if that was already not apparent. The region you are talking and indeed most of the U.K. was at one point heavily forested. Increased farming and population meant they they basically made the land unsuitable for forests in many places. The moorlands of Scotland are not natural. There fore the people living here including this one specific clan until relatively recently lives in the same conditions as the people they began to raid until the 13th century. Same people, same race, same selective pressure, and by your own logic not enough time to effect their I Q despite the whole gene-pool mumbo jumbo.

Getting way ahead of yourself here, I have no idea how you extrapolated that from my statement. I was referring to the increasingly easy "selective conditions" caused by capitalism. Again if your argument is true I Q should be decreasing but it isn't. Your argument is then literally "people are too smart so they become dumber".

Theres this little thing called, land owners and feudalism. Farmers never had to defend land from other farmers, they had to defend the land against lords other than their own, at the behest of their lord under feudalism. This was the case from Roman times until the complete triumph of capitalism. Once again proving you know almost nothing about the society you are talking about. You literally come up with a hypothesis and find anything that can fit into it. Maybe you are too smart for this idk.

Moving the goalpost.
Also can't read that paper, why link to it if no one can read its its meaningless. Unless I can see its methodology he might as well be asking, "Is Goku stronger than superman?"

The funny thing is on average East Asians and Azkenazi Jews have higher Autism Level than whites.

In less than 20 years han Chinese will be using western racialism to justify imperialism in middle America.
Screencap this.

to be fair, nobody born in Tasmania can count to three, they're too busy arguing with their conjoined twin

Moorland means rocky hills that can't be farmed. The border region between what is today Scotland and England has always been unsuitable for intensive agriculture, but ideal for herding. There is no reason to assume that this region was not dominated by herders since the arrival of Yamnaya 4,000 years ago, perhaps even longer.
The hunter-gatherer lifestyle selects for certain traits, like good visual acuity and high physical athleticism. The agricultural lifestyle rewards different traits, such as planning ability, social cooperation and a strong work ethic. Why do you believe that a transition to agriculture would result in the evolution of lower average intelligence?
Germanics began expanding out of Denmark about 2500 years ago. Eventually they conquered many of the Southern and Eastern European peoples and subjected them to serfdom. Feudalism was the result of a specific population expansion and their racial relations with the conquered peoples, not a general characteristic of agricultural societies.

General intelligence is not the only relevant characteristic to practicing successful imperialism. With the possible exception of the hunter-admixed Japanese, East Asian rice farmers are perhaps the least martial race on the planet, they are a very small, docile and effeminate people. Theirs is a history of being the subjugated rather than the subjugator. Additionally, the mere capacity to process information at a slightly faster rate than your rivals does not in itself guarantee technological supremacy. The East Asian mind can solve problems which confront it, buy has no inclination to go out in search of new problems to solve. Relative to their proportion of the population, East Asians are basically non-existent at the highest levels of human intellectual achievement. If Europeans ceased sharing their technologies, there is no reason to assume that East Asians would not remain technologically stagnant.

Moving goalposts again, and conceding literally every point. Answer the questions or points presented. You are simply going off on unrelated tangents.

Simply put no. A simple google search proves you wrong. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorland#United_Kingdom

The sources there are good, just use bookz irc.

Again not addressing the argument. "Why do you believe that a transition to agriculture would result in the evolution of lower average intelligence?" I don't believe that, but it makes perfect sense given your arguments throughout the thread. Me making an argument is not expressing a belief for a position (learn to read). But this really highlights the problem with you polyps, everything you believe stems from your ideology, and thus twisted to suit it, but I digress.

Literally not addressing the argument again. According to your logic given time the average Autism Level of a population should decrease as time goes on as life conditions improve. Also feudalism was the result of better farming techniques and serfs instead of slaves being more efficient on a wide scale, again you are going off on an unrelated tangent.

Let me explain something, you propose something, I counter and provide evidence. You are then supposed to counter that point, with your own counter point and evidence, which you have not done this whole thread. Or you concede the point. Given that you don't address anyone's arguments, and go off on unrelated tangents, you concede every point. My point about feudalism (lessened selective conditions) was that given your logic of adverse conditions making smarter people, then positive conditions will therefore reduce their intelligence. You never address this instead you talk about German people invading, and made no counterpoint.
Also the paper you linked does not support any of your claims. You claim that selective pressures are the same therefore g would have to be the same, but the paper disproves your point. Learn to fucking read.

Yeah, he's an idiot and every single post of his in this thread proves it.



Like clockwork polyp loses debate, laugh it off, name call, etc. And strut around like a chicken.

>Simply put no. A simple google search proves you wrong. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorland#United_Kingdom
How does posting a list of moorlands refute my argument that moorlands are unsuitable for crop agriculture and used primarily for livestock pasture? This is simply common knowledge.
Again, why do you assume that the quality of life for the average agriculturalist was better than that of the average hunter-gatherer? Quite the contrary, agriculture increased population density and increased competition for resources. Overall health declined as every available tract of land became fully exploited and the booming population consumed all surrounding game resources, leading to widespread malnutrition. The agricultural lifestyle was much harsher than the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
Whig nonsense. Human quality of life depends on the availability of surplus resources. Since every population rapidly increased their numbers until all available resources were utilized and a Malthusian population plateau was reached, it was only after wars and plagues that people could experience a temporary increase in quality of life, and then rapidly expand back to the Malthusian limit. It was only in the last two centuries that Europeans managed to temporarily break out of the Malthusian cycle by using science and technology to massively increase the quantity of resources which could be extracted from the environment while at the same time using contraceptives to restrict their own population growth. Your belief that "as time goes on as life conditions improve" is false, based off of a mere blip in the historical record which occurred among a small and eccentric population in an isolated corner of the world.
Since the industrial revolution, selective pressures have indeed collapsed in the Western World. Where did I say that selective pressures haven't decreased?

Transparent samefagging, but I'll bite.
With regard to the differences between highland Anglo-Scottish herders and lowland Anglo-Scottish agriculturalists, we are talking about only a fraction of a standard deviation difference in behavioral characteristics. West Virginian white average I.Q. is about 97, they are still geniuses by global standards.

Except not.

I'm sure it comforts you to think that.

Read the page it talks about mans effect on creating some moorlands.

Yeah bro I'm sure abbos and American Indians had easier lives that European farmers, spending damn near every waking hour trying to survive.
This is literally elementary school history. First if you want proof agriculture is better literally look outside. Farming is the backbone of civilization.
No hunter gatherers ever developed advanced civilizations. Again you are not dressing my argument. Just taking some backround into I posted i support of a claim and trying to poke holes without ever actually addressing the argument.

Yeah, but what is your argument? How does the fact that humans deforested some of those moors effect this discussion?
Before the industrial revolution, they objectively did have better lives, as in access to more surplus calories and having longer average lifespans than the typical European farmer. You can't project post-industrial living standards back into the neolithic period.
Whigs were a progressive movement which tried to fit localized improvements in European quality of life with an extremely optimistic utopian historiography which sees improvements in living standards as an inevitable consequence of history rather than hard fought and transient peaks in a history of suffering and squalor. You were using Whig reasoning when claiming that living standards were continuously improving throughout history.
Just because civilizations can build pyramids and palaces doesn't mean that the life of an average person was better than that of a hunter. Until many Europeans began to break free of the Malthusian trap in the latter part of the 18th century, the average peasant had to contend with near continuous war, plague and famine, with an average lifespan which rarely went beyond 40 years; like I said, you are using baseless utopian Whig reasoning.
30-40% of Europeans still haven't evolved the ability to digest milk. Perhaps another 20% still can't fully digest wheat. Even putting those issues aside, farmers at the Malthusian limit were always at the edge of famine, as all surplus calories would be consumed by population growth. For most of human history, farmers were perpetually near the edge of starvation.
There is no such thing as "positive conditions" and "negative conditions", there is selective pressure for specific traits.
>You posted the paper (lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/were-the-victorians-smarter-than-us.pdf) in support of your claims. The paper claimed that "cleverness" since Victorian times has fallen given that you argue that selective pressures increase intelligence, g , i q, whatever you wanna move goalposts to. Threfore the only logical conclusion given your argument (selective pressure increases intelligence) and the source you provided that claims intelligence lowered, ergo selective pressure must have lessened. You literally btfo yourself all the while never addressing my points properly.
I still don't follow. How does admitting that selective pressures for intelligence have decreased in post-Malthusian industrial societies contradict what I have previously said? What are we even arguing about?

Let's start from the beginning. Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe in the evolution of divergent cognitive traits among different human populations? Do you believe in human cognitive universalism? What exactly are we arguing about?

We are still at the beginning you never once provided a counter argument or any solid evidence for your initial claim. The only sources you posted are irrelevant or accidentally make a stronger case towards my argument.
Also i assumed it was obvious but positive conditions referring to the variables that formsthe selective pressure for increased I Q, intelligence etc. as per your your own post.

yeah this sums up pretty much all or your posts

M8, I've seen Holla Forums properly btfo a lot of.faggots on here
M8 I've seen Holla Forums properly btfo a lot of faggots on Holla Forums

When will leftists and rightists stop acting like anti-dialectical children? There are smart dudes on both sides, get over yourselves holy shit

stop your not supposed to make sense with that flag on

Is the entirety of Holla Forums simply due to sexual frustration?

Too bad none of these allegedly smart ones have come to this thread



I would take any claim of dysgenics with a grain of salt. They are usually defined based on value judgments, not scientific objectivity.
This article is particularly dumb because it cherry picks how it measures I Q to give vastly different results.


Gujira - Succubus♂ wo Zetsurin de Toriko ni Suru!!

Why don't they show the other people?