Debunking Race Realists

Hey /cuckoldpol/. I'm a proud leftist homosexual inferior white boi. And if you ever have to deal with these racist "race realists" you can just tell them that black men are superior to white bois because their cocks are so big and black and they feel so good in my leftist white boipucci and in my mouth while im making them hard for my wife or in my daughters little white pussy when i watch him fuck a big black superior cock from the closet while fapping. That is the true reality of race. We white boi leftist cucks need to accept black superiority. I'm a proud cuckold just like all of you my cuck comrades!. LEts be cucks together /cuckpol/! Pic related im the wite boi on the right. What should be our motto? "If you get cucked by your enemy, you win"?

Nice strawman

There is no difference between different races or genders Except of course the big black cocks that superior black men have my cuckrade

well done OP you sure proved a lot today.

...

Hey Checkers.

Because most of those resources are only useful to a post-industrial society and are not really useful for getting you to such as stage.

The soil in Africa is really poor for agriculture, and diamonds are not going to help you build a civilization, if you don't even have the things required to feed a large population who instead have to go hunting and cannot devote their time to other things.

>africaresource.com/sci-tech-a-business/genetics/528-race-intelligence-and-iq-are-blacks-smarter-than-whites

kek. Seems legit.

Man, do you remember that time when Apartheid ended and all those skyscrapers were just swallowed by the earth and all those shantytowns that didn't exist before just sprang forth from nothingness?
That was fucking amazing.

...

>debunkingstormfags.blogspot.com

wew lad

he wrote that

You win, Tankies. Fire up the gulags.

rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs112-race-just-a-social-construct.html

Is this what happens when you fully swallow the Stirnerpill?

Srsly? Without having any information whatsoever about the distribution, the chances the next one you pick is purple is 1/2. Learn some basic logic.

If you fuckers actually read the paper (home.dbio.uevora.pt/~fcs/bioh10.pdf) then you'd see the authors are actually arguing against humans being separate species, in fact they argue that Sapiens, Neanderthals and Erectus were all extremes in a Homo continuum and the line between the groups was very blurry. The paper is literally the exact opposite of what you're trying to claim it is.

Yeah no. Africa is a large continent. There are places with fertile soil and others with infertile soil. The South of Africa has better soil than anything Europe has to offer. Incidentally the most developed part of Africa has historically been the North despite its poor soil (nile valley excepted).

Strawman. The pic said nothing about Homo Erectus being a different species.

They didn't disappear. Simply were allowed to degrade through neglect.

Your move OP.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=Wfg-DK1I1JE

Debunking race realists is stupid because they are technically right. What can and must be addressed are the consequences of their claims. It can and must be argued that whatever the differences between human populations may be, they are too minutes to justify a difference in dignity and treatment between those populations. This is the approach of Chomsky, and the only effective approach.

True, but the vast majority of Africa is not located within the temperate climate belt, and southern africa was always relatively scarcely populated. North africa is placed in the medetarrian region, that is both filled with rich trade, and indeed, fairly good soil for agriculture.

The temperate zone is shit for anything but corn and tubers, and Africa didn't have those.

I meant the tropical zone.

The temperate one is great for crops.

Literally liberal.

Even if you buy the racialist claim fully, there are still plenty of black people who are as smart or even smarter than some white people.

If the argument is one about intelligence, why would we not look to their personal merits?

Southern Africa had Sorghum and it has been cultivated there with great success. The relative lack of development had little to do with an agricultural problem. Isolation from international exchanges was a much more significant factor.

Holla Forumsyp, please go.

No but it's trying to imply blacks are a different "race" or "species". It doesn't have to say it when other pictures posted with it are trying to say the same thing. The picture is disingenuously trying to highlight differences between europeans and africans when the paper's point was that they're so close together they couldn't possibly a different species or "race".

It's a practical concern rather than anything spooky. If you start to discriminate human groups because of a perceived lack of cognitive abilities, what of people of your own group that are way below average and even below the average of the other group? And what of the outliers of the other group who are above the average of your own group? because of all those outliers, discriminating groups is just as spooky as your "universal moral obligation". The only non-spooky approach is to consider the abilities of individuals. To permit that you need a level-playing field: a legal fiction of the equality of all individuals before the law.

Well, yeah. The west is absolute god tier compared to the third world, so it's natural that everyone would want to move there.
And on what grounds could you reject their immigration? "Fuck off we're full?" You don't even believe in borders, after all.
The very phrase "treat them like human beings" already implies bending over backwards to accomodate their needs.

The problem with acting according to ethics such as these is that they don't actually benefit you in any way, they solely benefit the "other", whom you care about only because of bullshit indoctrination.

We can and do, at least according to the propaganda. For example in Germany there is the joke of calling refugees "fachkräfte" (roughly 'skilled labour') because the media advertised them along the lines of "DUDE THEY ALL HAVE PHD IN CHEMISTRY IT WILL BE GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY"

If we would truly only discriminate by individual abilities there would really be no problem, but that's not the case either in capitalism or communism.

Capitalism of course also lets in shit labor because they want wageslaves. But communism (at least any form that isn't tanky nazbol) lets in everyone because they only look at needs of the person, not what benefits HE could bring to the society.
In the end everyone just reverts to "but we can't just let them starve outside our walls!!!" roughly speaking.

That's not what "no borders" mean. Of course local communities have right to self-determination and thus also who gets to live in them.

It doesn't. It implies judging them based on their individual merits and values.

What? Yes that's a part of it.
In the end, it's about abolishing the need to even have to have people work and thus making individual merit irrelevant, but until then it matters a lot.
I am an anarchist, but I'll quote Marx:

"one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural muh privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby"

That's not what "from each according to ability, to each according to need" means.

Again, the whole point is for the self-determination of local communes.

In many cases, letting people starve at our walls is a pretty bad idea as it spreads unrest and violence that might impact us gravely and it is thus against our self-interest.
That is of course beyond the ethical rammifications of the "fuck you, got mine" mentality.

That's untrue. Non tankies still have decision-making structures (communes or others) that may permit to curb unwanted immigration if there is consensus. Also early phases of communism are still "From each according to his ability", not "to each according to his needs". When later phases are reached unwanted immigration should not be a problem as the end of its causes (poverty) would have ended it.

It's easy.

mfw this thread

we know

Archived version of the last thread on this, which had some extra arguments from other people in addition to the (excellent) ones from the OP: archive.is/Wxqs6

So your leftist sites says something that favors leftist opinions?

L.o.L.

Race Realists? Wouldn't that name imply they're correct? I see you're trying to debunk them and avoid using the term "racist" (perhaps because you don't want to be mistaken to those uneducated SJWs or whatever) but how about using another name?

Realism does not imply being accurate, rather it implies a focus on what the movement itself considers reality.
Take Realist painting as an example. This movement focused on every day event and people. Despite this adherence to 'the real' and minimizing stylization, painters still idealized the subject rather than trying to exterminate idealization completely.

...

LMAOOOOOO. Killed the Holla Forumstard

thank you comrade. I will read it all

Hmmm

and these pictures might not even be the same place
probs not

In fact realism does imply being accurate. I don't know how you managed to think otherwise.

IQ isn't scientific
Boom

OP I like the initiative, and think this could be very useful for citing, but you're going about it badly. Theories like stereotype threat and culture bias are generally unsubstantiated and themselves strongly biased toward United States society. Even if they weren't useless, they'd have a strong liberal wiener connotation to them.

Instead, they should focus on how the IQ predictions of figures like Murray and Rushton were plain and simply wrong and how the racial gap has actually been shrinking for years, with Richard Lynn's analysis of sub-Saharan Africa even being disproven. They threw a fit when it was point out but the data from Flynn and company was clearly cogent.

This should be backed up with influences on cognitive ability that have strong empirical backings, like disease, malnutrition, heavy metal pollution, drug use during pregnancy, etc. It should also be heavily stressed, despite it being seemingly obvious, that there is no denial of any sort of meaningful genetic diversity between humans, only that this particular example is flawed, as opposed to, say, Down syndrome being hereditary.

And while we're at it, why not point out the fringe political biases of hereditarian researchers? Linda Gottfredson has spoken with Molly and the Cato Institute, J. P. Rushton was heavily involved in white nationalism and thought Islam was genetic, etc. In comparison, most of their academic opposition are politically neutral and James Flynn has even come out to criticize people who want to restrict free speech for hereditarian viewpoints.

>>>/liberalpol/

what?

Leftypol trying to be the opposite(anti racist just because pol is racist)

we're not racist, irrespective of what Holla Forums thinks

FUCK YOU STOP MAKING US LOOK BAD
back to >>>/idpol/ and never come back

hue

And how is this supposed to make us look bad exactly? You would better let blatant bullshit unopposed?

shitty sources

le "differences in abilities trigger me" meme

The blogs list their sources, thoses are what one should look.

you should have linked the sources not the blog to avoid looking like a poor cite job/clickbate

Truly the mark of an intellectual

Because a Nazi masturbation fantasy and mass deporations isn't going to damage the stability of our civilization.

Realism focusses on the particular instead of the abstraction and race is an abstraction.

Don't listen to , "Race Realists" is a name that the stormfags came up with to refer to themselves, to avoid the 'racism' brand.

nice photoshop filter

about one of the genes cited

bruce lahn was the main scientst on this study

The only ones you are fooling are other dumbocrats libtards. So enjoy yourself you are tricking your own comrades, also using a word or phrase does not equal or even tolerance for that word, topic or even its meaning, keep projecting..

lol wut

Yes, Holla Forums sure likes to discuss cucks. Along with cuckolding, chastity cages, big black cocks, BLACKED, prepping the bull, interracial, and every other search term remotely associated with the fetish to a degree that dwarfs most porn sites.

It must be because they hate it so much.

Regardless of the omission of a word that post still made complete logical sense.

You are fucking retarded.
We don't have an archive. That is 4chan /pols/ archive. 4chan Holla Forums and Holla Forums Holla Forums are not even close to similar. If you need it spelled out further to simpler terms using the word cuck does not make you a cuck. Project harder.

Yeah, naw.
Mods have posted those peoples post history and proven that that shit is all of their post aka try harder next time buddy, literally try harder with your argument and your falseflagging as a Holla Forums who is a cuck, its very clear you leftautists are trying to set public opinion about a political opponent of yours and the only ones buying it are your other retard friends. Project harder.

bumping this thread because it triggers Holla Forums

Also some articles debunking the internet Alt-right meme which is Human biodiversity which you can put on that blog OP:

nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.gr/2010/05/blog-post.html

bigwowo.com/2011/10/the-perversity-of-human-biodiversity-a-k-a-scientific-racism/

livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/race-reconciled-debunks-race/

>bigwowo.com/2011/10/the-perversity-of-human-biodiversity-a-k-a-scientific-racism/

Wow, what a sad article. His argument basically boils down to "b-but we don't know for sure that niggers are useless!" which is what everyone already is saying.

What kind of mental gymnastics does it take to come to this conclusion?

...

Nah bro, its definitely Holla Forums who is obsessed with cucking and irrelevant shiting I swear bro.

Has nothing to do with racism. No one wants to be told that they have lower intelligence than others, just because of how they were born.
Do you really expect anyone would admit that in an argument about what race is superior?

I feel the alt-right rides the IQ argument too hard. It feels like it is a fact, it sounds like finally there's proof that those scawwy blacks are inferior to you, but at the end it comes down to culture and household that decides whether you are soft, intellectual and knowledge-striving or hardened and striving for respect and strength.

As much as I hate Holla Forums and leftists in general, I don't think this thread was made by regular Holla Forums users. I feel like this place is being subverted by actually politically correct leftists (SJWs and liberals) spouting bullshit like this thread

normally I wouldn't care but now I do because I fear leftypol will open the floodgates to infect millions of tumblr users and SJWs to Holla Forums instead of being home to the regular politically incorrect leftists we all know and love

There is an influence of genetics on IQ. You have smarts Blacks, Whites and Chineses and dumb Blacks Whites and Chinese.
It doen't mean any race is inherently superior.

Explain to us why height varies within and among populations, nazifag

You do realize that muscle mass depends on training and food primarily?

No. Leftist arn't races. I'm just tired of debating with you guys and would rather talk about economic theory. Nazbol's are about the only leftist group that you would "consider politically incorrect". Anfem poster is cancer, but no leftist would judge an entire "race" based on a statistical average.

you decide to take dumb ironic shitposts more serious than smart ones, and act like it's the majority of Holla Forums

arn't racist*

just fuck your e key up

It certainly does mean that IQ can and usually does differ by race
exception =/= the rule

"Superior" and "inferior" are just blanket terms used for simplicity, it doesn't mean everyone believes in a literal god-given race hierarchy.

It's more like "look, as far as I know blacks are inherently dumb and aggressive, so why the fuck would we want them in our society?"

Blacks as a whole are not INHERENTLY anything, neither are Whites.

Race and intelligence does not depend on the success of Communism. I think this was fairly understood by Marx and Engels who thought that people who were to fucking dumb or too "weak", would "perish in the revolutionary holocaust". Of course many people say Marx was anti-semitic, racist against slavs, asians, negroes etc. But it doesn't matter, since his premise isn't founded on merely a vulgar biological determinism, but rather on materialism. Thus he looks at Communism as a historical necessity replacing Capitalism when the workers "out-compete" or overthrow the Capitalists. That's all there is to it.

Holla Forums is against all idpol, because unlike everyone else who claims he is a materialist on one issue and discards materialism on another, we follow Marxism/materialism all the fucking way in economic and social areas. (except that Yui-posting nut)

No. As posted earlier in this thread, the IQ gap between Whites and Blacks has closed a lot and black IQ is increasing at a faster IQ than white. You guys and you're dumb racialist ""scientist"" still use the old average black IQ estimate of 85 to prove your point. In 2006 it was 91. And there have been studies where when South Africans were given proper college education it fields that focused more on logic, the average of the group was 96.

Race is a defunct classification and that is why it was dropped in anthropology. You guys like to prop up idiots like Taylor who pretend the evil commies got in academia and that's why we haven't had any useful research for the past 30 years. The doublethink in your ideology is astounding, as in

Please. Just fuck off back to Holla Forums. I hate when leftypol waste more time race instead of actually trying to unite the left. We will never ever judge someone based on a statistical average. Especially a marginalized group.

A black person with grey hair you see in the streets remembers a time when they weren't aloud to use the same bathroom as whites, and when they were shouted at and called a dirty nigger while walking down the street to the store. Where their friends were being tied to trucks and dragged through the streets, nothing left of them but their mutilated corpse. But hehe their niggers right?

I'm not trying to do the whole "muh white muh privilege" thing and scold you( cause like I said, I don't believe in holding X accountable for the actions of Y), but you truly have no idea what these people went through and how terrible the material conditions they lived/live in are. You are a clueless, pseudo-intellecutal on a Canadian beaver hunting board trying to make yourself feel better about your lack of accomplishments by associating yourself with the achievements of someone you're very vaguely similar to on a genetic level.

You faggots do the same thing on all the other boards so why should you not be equally subjected to it?

00

dang

Tell that to the BLM protesters, or all the blacks in academia (oh wait, they don't exist outside a small few celebrity figureheads)

lmao r u even educated

Don't exist? Would you say that they're almost… mythical?

Like, orcs, per chance?

Fuck off people can and should discriminate based on averages. If people don't like they can just kill their excellent counterparts to get rid of the stereotype.

Besides the whole >muh individuals is hilariously intellectual dishonest considering you don't advocate for actual individual selection either, you just want to let everyone based on some "WE ALL HUMANZ" shit.

No they shouldn't. To do so would be making an over-generalisation, and thus an informal logical fallacy. Humans have the ability to judge other humans individually. This is how immigration, in my humble opinion, should work.

So your solution to unfair treatment is to kill people, rather than expend the extra effort to judge individuals by their abilities. Not only is it inefficient, but it's also reprehensible.

Essentially you are misidentifying the cause of the stereotype; you are saying that your own stupid biases should be the problem of other people to resolve.

Instead of looking for solutions outside of your mind, why not do some introspection and see what's causing you to think this way?

Your problem is created by your own mind, and only you can change that.

And that's quite unfortunate.

Wrong, over-generalization is using sample sizes that are too small. (That's why it's called OVER-generalization). What happens here is simple generalization. There is overwhelming evidence that the negative qualities apply to the vast majority of subjects. Trying to filter out the few golden eggs is what's inefficient and pointless.

No, I'm saying if they want to be treated fairly they should get rid of their undesirables. It's their responsibility and their choice.

Well shucks you've convinced me now!

Why don't you do some introspection and see what made you buy into the "I must care for the well-being of people I have nothing to do with and whose improvement is of no actual benefit to myself, because mommy told me my morals must apply to all humans" meme?

Why? Your personal feelings of bitterness are not some law of the universe. We don't care.

Great idea, user, let's start with our own pests, eugenism FTW!

...

The point

You

is meant to be retarded, using the same logic as you

kek

You're saying that you care enough about quality to condone the killing of millions, but you don't care enough to expend the extra effort to find good people. That's even if your hypothesis that the majority of a group (enough of a majority to declare any exceptions to be 'golden eggs') are as bad as you say.

Besides, when dealing with matters of life and death and opportunity, I think that there are very few things which we should put over them. The inefficiency is the price to pay for justice. We don't stop court hearings because they're inefficient. The civilised world dosen't kill people because it's efficient.

Your biases are only your own responsibility. Is it your responsibility to make me look good because I'm the same race as you? No? So then why is it the responsibility of other people to make people of their own race look bad?

That's not what I'm saying; I feel compassion for them, but I'm not saying that I ought to care for their well-being.

The improvement of humanity is a benefit to me, because it means, for example, that I'm less likely to be killed by a terrorist, there is a greater wealth of knowledge about the world (more educated people), and there is a richer culture due to a more diverse range of contributions.

What justification would I have to apply them to a subset of humans? Because such people are disadvantaged, mentally or physically? That's no justification to treat them badly. The fact that someone is different to me is no reason to treat them badly.

Furthermore, I'm getting the feeling that you think "high" morality should apply to some group you are personally a member of; if I am correct, may I ask what justification you have to keep such a standard?

If it's gender or sex, why is the other gender excluded?
If it's race, why are other races (or a particular race) excluded?
If it's eye colour, why are people with other eye colours excluded?
etc.

And to say "because this other (sex|race|eye colour) is inferior" isn't a justification, because you must then show why someone being inferior entitles that someone to less moral consideration.

I seriously don't get this, can somebody explain this to me?
Like, I've seen the nazis here say shit like this before, like "lol being good is just a meme dude", but can somebody explain this shit to me? Are these people literally sociopaths?
I just don't get it, usually segregation and other fascist bullshit is argued from a moral viewpoint, but the nazis here argue that the baseline assumption for most human behavior (That other human beings are conscious beings with feelings and experiences like them) is some joke that the grown ups played on them? (Do they think that black people are p-zombies?)

I've never seen any argument that wasn't just

Did somebody somewhere make some really convincing argument that your moral worth was tied to the averaged IQ score of your population?

Might be I'm spooked, but have any of these people read even the slightest bit of theory on ethics?

Good post.
Whenever I see nazi posts on here and read terms like "undesirables" and their unreasonable infatuation with IQ I think of that technocracy guy who thinks that one can plan a society using Science™, without making any philosophical justifications for ones assumptions.

RIGHTIST DELUSION IS REAL

If you're riding this hard on IQ, then why not discriminate based on that instead of race, that way we can deport useless whites as well.

No, your obsession is usually tied to denying someone rights based on race, regardless of merit.

Lysenkoism BTFO. Material conditions confirmed false.

Reversed searched them and got nothing.

Wow. So with the best possible advantages black south Africans come in below the Russian average. This strongly suggests that socioeconomic factors can only take you so far and that your 'potential' is indeed genetic.

I hate to say I agree with this statement, but I kind of do.
I don't know if it's people who are new or just Holla Forums trying to slide the board.

...

here's somthing about one of the genes all get to the other ones

btw bruce lahn was the guy who did the study

96 is above the average for quite a few european countries

Not Northern Europe.

And if true that education can affect IQ, 96 is the south African high. I mean if we block all white people from Uni for a few decades and give every slot to blacks we may just about average out.

Not that specifically, but I've seen other things.

Nice, trustworthy and 100% verifiable sources.
OP is a nigger.

it's time to debunk OP's denial of being a cuck

If you want a sustainable leftist society, you have to acknowledge race.

Blacks and other minorities will only serve to contribute less than what they take out.

Damn, Holla Forums on suicide watch.

Most is Europe is higher than that. Also the reason why African immigrants are "the most educated" is because of affirmative action.

the posts are linking actual scientific articles you idiot. They were compiled in the previous thread.

The max amount you can build is determined by genetics. If it was all about training, nutrition, and roads then there would be a new mr. Olympia and WSM every year

i meant southern an estern europe, thats still europe

ireland is 90

...

Sorry, but evolution doesn't work that way.
If it did this problem would have been solved thousands of years ago.

The first picture makes absolutely no sense. The logic on the right reminds me of this old pic. How do you know they're purple or whatever? It's a ridiculous unsubstantiated statement.

There is also the fact that these supposed genetic links have not even been proven themselves: the data is almost never replicated, as been shown by meta-analyses. scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Nisbett-et-al.-2012.pdf

Also, the second pic is highly flawed because it cherry picks data from small, specific sources. Whites in North Carolina also underachieve by national standards, for example. Formal education rates have skyrocketed amongst people of all races over the century and there is now only about a 10% difference, give or take. Differences in informal education, meanwhile, are largely due to college becoming extremely more expensive over the years–easier entry for minorities doesn't mean shit if you can't afford it, and whites are no less likely to be awarded scholarships.

Its supposed factor control is also questionable. Income is actually a poor example of socioeconomic status because your entire environment out of the home matters more than just your home life, which is why IQ is moderately variable among siblings. And what is "other factors"? It's a nebulous remark that should not be taken seriously.

The biggest kicker, though, is the implication that the libruls are just making excuses for the fact that the gap persists, which is denying the antecedent–it silently declares this gap persistence with no evidence. In reality, it has shrunk considerably for decades, and is now projected to close in the future.

brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_iq.pdf

Whoever made this pic probably knows, though. See how it just blindly references the MTAS with a single simple bar graph? Let's look at the fine text:

This is what the stormcucks are gambling on, for you to just take all this shit at face value instead of looking it up further and seeing the details. It's intellectually dishonest and a prime symptom of unadulterated faggotry.

I looked it up and it's about 92. Assuming it's not a low ball, which is possible since Richard Lynn is a britbong with political motives, it's surprising to me since my father's side of the family is almost entirely Irish and my mother's side are…well, lumpens.

It's also a little funny since that's about the current average IQ of American blacks.

I taught English there for a short time and as much as a quarter of the general population is legitimately illiterate or functionally illiterate. I'm not joking, it's seriously obscene.

pity (You)

Do you have the images that compiled the posts?

yeah i read about how lynn calculated the iq of eqautorial guinea buy, iq testing immigrants , from the eq who lived in a spanish home fot the devolepmentally disabled, (totally acurate sample) and for colombia he used the iq test of a few hundred teenage boys, and i think for mexico he used the iq of mexican immigrants in argentina (maybe it was some other latin american country can't remember) the point is lynn is notorius for using shitty data sets

All this literally does not matter because humans are tribalistic by nature. Who cares whether racism is rational or not? Humans will always be racist regardless because we are not rational animals.

Hear me out, the reason why I'm a racist is because I hate niggers. This is the same with all people. So I'm racist, and then I look for proof about my racism. Therefore, talking logically about race is by nature pretty dumb. Its like trying to convince someone who believes in god that god logically doesn't exist.

You can't! Because they believe in god first, and then justify their belief.

If you can prove that racially homogeneous societies are functional, then I'd be interested. the entire development of racially heterogenous societies begs to differ.

Trying to prove that niggers are equal to us in a physical sense seems pretty weird, doesn't it? I mean, I know some guys who are stupid as fuck but I treat them as equal to me, because why wouldn't I? I'd be an asshole if I didn't.

But I could never treat a nigger, even one who's a genius with a Nobel prize as equal to me, because he's a fucking nigger. I ACTUALLY WANT to treat niggers as human beings, but I can't

K, I hope you understand my viewpoint better now.

dude, just stop.

take it easy, and if you really feel like this, just stay away from them

So you admit that your entire political project is intrinsically antisocial and sociopathic?

Do you have anything to back that up? How do you know what's going to happen a million years from now and how humans will evolve?

You also have guys that don't give a shit about race. Some places (like La Reunion) are multiracial without it causing major problems. If humans are always racist what does it makes thoses who are not? ayylmaos?

I said EVEN IF it irrational, it is practically intrinsic to humanity

Literally the entire history of states with a racially heterogeneous population is my proof. But you're right that I don't know if this human tendency could dissapear, and obviously that would preferable

really?

...

Material conditions are influencing the way people are coexisting. Who would have tought?

...

That's not LotGH is it?

That's obviously Zeta Gundam

Think of it as humans vs orcs.

You are in a thread filled with people that disprove your world view just by existing. Re-evaluate your life choices, friendo.

...

Learn English.

also

i hate to use anactdotes but i live in a multiethnic city, (san diego) and we got along fine

i feel like average IQ does not have much of an effect on how advanced the nation is

I mean the UAE's average IQ is like 84 and look at how good it looks

that's because IQ is about as reliable as horoscopes

it becuase of their oil feilds and foriegn capital

influx of forreign capital

so it's more based on their wealth and resources than average IQ

yes, but if your in country with few natraul resources, and a low nation iq your out of luck