That's excellent! I hope they remain the majority forever in the countries they built! Around 90% should be good! I've heard of many nationalist parties rising throughout many European countries as well! We need them to take over all the countries to ensure their survival!
I want to make a think tank of reasonable Nationalists. To create strategies for regaining sovereignty in Europe. I think Europeans and immigrants can benefit from repatriation programs. Limiting turkish immigrants to 10 year visa programs so they can get educated in Germany work and then go back to turkey to live their lives. Or Pakistanis in England being limited to 10 year programs and their children being denied citizenship or birthright if born in england. There are ways of mutually benefiting.Also germany can reach out to ethnic germans abroad to return and give them training instead of turks.
Your responses truly frighten me. Nationalism creates an “Us versus Them” mentality that ultimately leads to massacres like El Paso. What are you guys afraid of exactly? If Hispanics become a majority in US, I highly doubt the oligarchic government we currently have under Trump would change that much.
@OddBeMe I am partly Mexican I don't fear Hispanics becoming a majority in the USABut I know what the consequences will be. Eventually the south west will either break off from the rest of the USA (not on immediate future) or there will be some sort of major conflict. if you read my opinion you would see I am talking about Europe and said "the USA is a lot different" Trump won't change shit, we know this. Why don't you read some books on demographics, warfare, economics geo-political strategy. Before using Retarded rhetoric. You sound like a CNN investigative journalist 😂 "The El Paso Shooting"A few days ago was the 2nd anniversary of the Las Vegas shooting. No one cares! 😂 people die shit happens.We are talking about Europe not the usa.
@OddBeMe If Hispanics become a majority in US I think that the Democrats will be in for a shock for as a group they tend to be conservative in their outlook, if you have any doubt about that look at their response when asked about Illegal Immigration when they have legally migrated to the US, they are more vehemently opposed to it than their white neighbours.
EDIT there should be *are not * between *people truly* I've a case of thick fingers to night and my trypings not what it should be
Nobody thinks of themselves as a racist. They just do racist things and vote for racist policies. But they are not racists.
this lass has knowledge.
But Rome fell for a reason. And it wasn’t immigration. It was wealth disparity and stupid wars. Sound familiar?
@OddBeMe nope it was built on wars. It's wealth attracted invaders from the east. It was Citizens unwilling to fight for Rome, failing to remember what made them a power in the first place and mass immigration of people's who couldn't assimilate into Roman culture.
Couldn’t be more wrong. Read Godsworthy “How Rome Fell”. Basically plagued by Rome trying to invade and assimilate everyone in present day Europe.
@OddBeMe The population in Rome became a formless mass of people with no sense of identity. The borders were open to immigrants from all over the known world. The original Romans disappeared and with them the organisational skills and discipline that created the empire in the first place. Ancient Rome died out because the population that created it died out.
@OddBeMe read it again because they already invaded and assimilated most of present day Europe barring Germany which is what turned them into a major power. The real problems were in the east when they came up against other empires just as rich and technicall advanced. Some of these they were able to conquer such as the Greek hellenic kingdom's but kingdom's like the parthians and sassinads were not so easy.
You’re right, and Rome focused on idiotic wars and not their own populace. Oh and Emperors like Commodus treated their positions like Trump is treating his. Which led to several downfalls actually.
@OddBeMe Rome's Wars were never idiotic, they built the Roman Empire. An empire that lasted from 300BC-1453AD.Despite Commodus, Caligula, nero and quite a few other mental bastards the empire continued. Commodus's reign was rather peaceful, his father Marcus Arelius was always at war. Europe had it's longest periods of peace during Roman times the PAX Romana.
@OddBeMe Rome was conquered by the Turks and subjugated via mass migration. The only reason the Western Roman empire fell was because of the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Suebi, Anglo-Saxons, Franks, etc. who's only reason entering the Roman Empire was to get land and flee the Huns (Sound familiar?)Yes, they were engaged with wars with Persians, but they've been fighting wars with the Persians for centuries and it never put a dent into the empire. The fiscal effects of war are temporary, mass migration is permanent.
@znouj actually the Eastern Roman empire was seriously weakened by the crusaders who raided Constantinople as well as the Italian city States.The eastern Roman empire did alright up until the medieval period, the Turks weren't yet organised. It was ultimately the arab Muslims who weakened them 400 years before the fall taking all their middle eastern &North African territories after defeating the Persians. The revenue lost from trade, taxes and Egyptian grain left them a shell of their former might.In the West the loss of territories to various barbarians meant less money for armies and they were finally finished by the Lombards who took most of Italy, the arabs/Moore's took Scilly and southern Italy for a time.
Yes, but it was conquered and ended by the Turks. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Arabs, etc. also weakened the Byzantines, but they did not end it. Also, the Vandals took North Africa and Sicily before the Arabs did, it was later briefly reconquered by the Byzantines and then conquered again by the Arabs.
@znouj the vandals only took as far as the boarders of modern Algeria. The eastern Roman empire held the rest and even reconquered parts of Italy. When the arabs arrived the Eastern empire was going through a major revitalization and were stronger than they had been for some time.
Here's a quote from the Vandal Wikipedia: " By 439 they established a kingdom which included the Roman province of Africa as well as Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, Malta and the Balearic Islands."It's also cited before you criticized Wikipedia.
@znouj upload.wikimedia.org/.../...laris_%28125_AD%29.svgProvincia Africa Proconsularis, The Roman province of Africa.
Greatest extent of the Vandal African kingdom
Are you stupid?" the Vandals entered North Africa. By 439 they established a kingdom which included the Roman province of Africa as well as Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, Malta and the Balearic Islands"PROVINCE OF AFRICASICILYCORSICABALEARIC ISLANDSSARDINIAMALTALike, are you blind?
Yes.. and that includes Sicily...
@znouj i didn't disagree
And out of the fall of Rome we got Europe.
@BlacklightShade you got the dark ages.
Ok, sorry then. I thought you were debating me and I was really confused by that.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
So Asia for Asiana, Africa for Africans, but white countries for everybody? Don't you think we deserve a Homeland too?
thanks for the downvote... thats a great way to have a discussion... look at south africa and the western influence over the rest of africa maybe before making that continent an example and as for asia maybe look at how many westerners are there too. its not so long ago that the uk controlled india and pakistan and even more recently held hong kong but what i find more ironic than anything with you being American is that america was built on immigration. the problem here is our versions of 'we' seem to differ. you seem to use it to describe other people with white skin whereas i use it to refer to everyone
Lol, there a bunch of white people in Africa. In Benoni, Gauteng there's 40% white people and 45% black people come with ur facts bro
I recall reading that India and Pakistan benefited greatly from colonization. The same with Hong Kong. I also recall reading that South Africa was in much better shape back when it was under white rule. Sure thing, we did bad, but have done so much more good for human civilization, culture, technology, and heritage. We sailed the seas and conquered others like those in Africa because we were ahead of blacks technologically, who hadn't even invented the wheel or had a written a language. You think blacks wouldn't have done the same if they had mastered sailing? Every group on Earth has done terrible things. Why do only white people get to be bitched at for it?Indeed, the US was built overwhelmingly on white immigration. Up until 1965, this country was 90% white. Afterwards, it started to dip to where it is now at 60%. This is a tragedy because there's no way you can sustain a 1st world country with 3rd world people.
thats hilarious... its like you are defending the elites. the 1percent who are happy to see homelessnes and no health services but who also put more of you in prison than any other nation. the capitalist system has really sucked you in hasn't it? if the 1 percent paid for the wealth they stole from the third world then everyone could eat and have a reasonable standard of life but hey as long as you get free next day shipping its fine for the likes of bezos to hold so much money he alone could end hunger for 4 years and dont get me started on the fossil fuellers
@0oGreyo0White people are only 9% of the population in Africa. That's small. Their rate is decreasing as well. They have a low birth rate. The population of Sub-Saharan Africans in Europe is growing with a high birth rate.
I'm sorry wankiam, it's 1244 AM and I can't concentrate that well. I agree with what you said so far, so I can't say anything back at the moment. All I know is that if Muslims, Blacks, and Mestizos can have Homelands where they can enjoy their culture and way of life, why can't is white people? Why is this multiculturalism and diversity only shoved down white people's throats? I want my people and beautiful culture to survive.
well for me skin colour and religious beliefs dont interest me when it comes down to human interaction so thats why i have no issues with multiculturalism. to me the true enemy of humanity is the greed of the corporate worls and whatever colour your skin is we all get pissed on nowadays
Race isn't a social construct, and it isn't only skin deep. It doesn't make sense to believe that evolution stopped at the neck. And you can't possibly say blacks are simply dark skinned versions of whites. That just doesn't add up. The reason blacks do so poorly in general wherever they go is because of their Low average IQs, and not because of racism.
You say that but Nigerians have the highest level of education in the us i believe
you are American right? the place where black people are generally forced to live in poor areas and then get jumped on as an inferior race because they have lower iqs and higher crime rates. in the uk poor areas are far more multicultural so we see the same lack of good education and higher crime rates but our poorest areas aren't just black areas. thats why i dont follow the same logic as you.
Look at Canada and how badly blacks do there as well. Canada had a virtually non-existent history of slavery and a lack of a Jim Crow Era, and yet we see that they have the highest levels of incarceration and they score the lowest IQs among all races. In this case you can't say that a history of oppression is what caused their failure since it was basically absent. The reason why they tend to fail is because we're holding them to the same standards as whites. Britain also had a lack of a Jim Crow Era and slavery, and blacks still are the worst performers there as well. How do you explain that? Indians are nearly as dark-skinned as American blacks, yet they have the highest average educational attainment and highest average income among the Asian American group. Jews were oppressed for thousands of years and faced slavery for a more extensive period of time than blacks, and yet they're still doing far better than most people. There's just no excuse. The Irish and Italians were oppressed about as long as blacks, and they're still doing much better. You can't use the oppression narrative because the other groups would have been worse off considering their histories.Or maybe that isn't what you're trying to say?Look at Haiti. It was the second country to gain its independence in the Western Hemisphere after the United States, and lo and behold, 4,000 miles away from Africa, and they tend to bring a very African way of life filled with poverty, corruption, disease, and violence. There isn't a single prosperous, progressive, and successful 1st world Black African country in existence. How can they you really believe that Sub-Saharan Africans are just as capable of inventing Grand Opera, Nuclear Physics, or being able to maintain a technologically advanced society like the Japanese?
The countries in Africa which were the most colonized like the Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and South Africa, are now the wealthiest and most advanced countries in all of Africa. The countries which had little or no colonization like Liberia or Ethiopia are the worst in Africa. How do you explain that?
@0oGreyo0 "Lol, there a bunch of white people in Africa. In Benoni, Gauteng there's 40% white people and 45% black people come with ur facts bro"That's one area, population 158,777 (so 64k whites), in one city, population 3 million, in one district, population 12 million, in one country, population about 60 million, in Africa, population well over a billion.
diamonds gold and oil stripped from the continent by the west
@goaded we import old fords from guarteng... i can confirm your figures
Africa as it is today is still extremely resource rich. They're simply too incompetent to be able to harvest it. Look at the nation of Japan. It's an extremely mountainous country with hardly any resources and it's a 1st world highly developed country. Colonization also occurred in India, Hong Kong, South Korea, and China, and they're now doing very well economically. Why did colonization only affect Africa negatively? Once again, the most colonized countries in Africa are the most developed ones.I recall reading that Africa would've been worse off without colonization, and that they simply would've never reached the levels of development seen in Asia and Europe even if they were never invaded. Take a look at this well done video:
you should do a mytake rather than asking a question
"Africa would've been worse off without colonization"It would have been better off with fair trade and examples of how good government can work well for all its citizens. (I know, that wasn't going to happen in colonial days, but there's no need to pretend it was a kind thing to do.)When was Japan colonised?
@goaded im ducking out now but i like what you are saying. i will just leave you with this thought though... argueing with a fool just means there are now two fools. i have to remind myself of this a lot just lately on g@g
@goadedI never said Japan was colonized.By the way, DO please watch the video I posted above in its entirety. It's really interesting and fascinating!
I provided a ton of arguments and you weren't able to provide me a straight answer for most of them and yet I'm the fool huh? What's the worst I've done to you anyway? Give you a dislike?
I'm not going to go through the whole video; of course Wakanda isn't real. However, at about 5:20, the narrator states that the UK had the fourth highest quality of life in the world in 1929, and slipped to 11th by the 1960's. Why did they slip below those other countries at the height of the British Empire, he asks. I can't be bothered to listen to his answer, because the simple answer is that 1929 was the height of the Empire, then we bankrupted ourselves in a massive war (you might have heard of it), leaving us with a debt to the US that only got finally paid off this century, and lost control of many of our colonies in the intervening three decades. Seeing as those are facts I'm aware of, and the video misrepresents the situation, why should I watch any more?
What kind of laws?
Against minorities? Stop and frisk, “papers please”, rendition to Guantanamo... any ringing a bell?
What's wrong with stop and frisk? What's wrong with showing your papers if you're legal here or not? It's called enforcing the law.
Is called Nazism. Read your history, fascist. Stats don’t lie. Immigration creates wealth, white people commit more crime. Not sure what you assholes are afraid of. Losing your woman to a svelte Latino?
Blacks are 13% of the population, yet commit more than half the crime. How is enforcing the law Nazism? Japan, South Korea, China, India, and Taiwan are overwhelmingly Asian, and are among the wealthiest nations in the world. Wealthier than most. Most of the wealthiest countries in the world are majority white like those still found in Europe. By the way, I'm Spanish, which technically makes me Latino.
You’re Latino fighting for white supremacy. A psychologist should write a book about you. But bottom line: none of the racist laws actually make us safer. Immigration makes communities wealthier. And blacks are imprisoned disproportionally because of racist laws. Read a book and stop watching Fox News.
Spaniards are white. The original Hispanic and Latinos are the original peoples of Spain, Portugal, and Italy. I'm white, not Mestizo. Blacks commit more crimes. What racist laws are there exactly? What other white majority country has had a black president and supreme Court Justice? Blacks have affirmative action preferences over whites. What exactly are you talking about?
So because we had a black president we should disregard all racism? by the way race is a social construct. So there’s not a racial solution to crime. Only an economic one. Decrease poverty, decrease crime.
Why do you find it virtuous for white people to disappear from their very own lands in Europe and be replaced by low IQ, backwards 3rd world people from Africa and the middle east? Why should their culture live on and prosper? Why should they be able to have a homeland where they remain the majority? Shouldn't white people be able to do the same too? How is it our fault that blacks and Muslims are too stupid to built successful, prosperous, and progressive countries like white people can? So they have to come to ours? Why are you okay with this? Why are you okay with your people dying off, but not those low IQ degenerates? Do you think a 1st world country can be sustained by 3rd worlders?
This thread shows there are plenty of low IQ people in all societies.
The average IQ if Africa is 70; they're technically borderline retarded. The average IQ in Europe is 100; in Germany it's 102. Idiots like those in Africa don't have the sufficient intelligence necessary to run a 1st world country like Germany. Indeed there are genius blacks and stupid whites, but we're talking about averages here. And you're much more likely to find genius Asians or Europeans, than genius Blacks or Muslims.
@znoujIndeed, they need to wake up before it's too late.
"The average IQ..."And how do you know that's because of their race, and not the society they live in, or the amount of money spent on education?(I'm not going to get into the obvious racist name-calling, so you might as well both give it a rest.)
I don't have the Xper levels to post links yet, so I'll just cite traditionally. According to "Panizzon, Matthew S., et al. "Genetic and environmental influences on general cognitive ability: Is g a valid latent construct?" Intelligence 43 (2014): 65-76."The heritability of IQ is 86%.According to "lomin, Robert, and Ian J. Deary. "Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings." Molecular Psychiatry 20.1 (2015): 98-108."The heritability of IQ is 80%This means that around 80% of the variation in g-factor IQ is 80%, meaning that 80% of the differences between whites and blacks are due to genetics. Not to mention, that other environmental factors are influenced by genetics, like the heritability of diet is 30%.
@znoujThank you for posting that! I was in the process of referencing that study along with other studies pointing out how IQ is mostly influenced by genetics than rather than environment. Poor white kids scored better on IQ tests than wealthy black kids for example. Black Canadians also scored the worst in IQ tests among all races in Canada, despite the lack of a Jim Crow Era and slavery being virtually non-existent in Canada. So one can't say that it's because of their history of oppression either. Since they show similar rates of failure and incarceration in Canada.
Intelligence doesn't measure educational attainment or knowledge. It measures ones ability to rationalize, reason, and use critical thinking skills. It measures logic and reason, not knowledge. It's mostly genetic as well. Let me give you an example. There have been studies done which showed that very poor white teens scored much better on IQ tests and the SAT than black teens from very wealthy families. That was a study here in the US. There were no studies where the wealthy black teens scored better. Another study was done where two researchers wanted to figure out if intelligence was more as a result of nurture or nature. They tracked many black babies adopted and raised by wealthy white families. When they first tested them for their IQ at age 5, they showed that they scored on average the same as any other black child at their age. They then tested them again when they turned 18 years old. It showed that they had an average IQ of 87, which is only 2 points higher than the average for African-Americans in general at 85. It certainly raised it a teeny bit but didn't eliminate the 15 point difference among whites. This shows that IQ is mostly genetic. Another study done by Dr. Piffer, showed that Asians and whites had the most favorable combinations of genes responsible for intelligence, while blacks had the least favorable.
"This means that around 80% of the variation in g-factor IQ is 80%, meaning that 80% of the differences between whites and blacks are due to genetics. Not to mention, that other environmental factors are influenced by genetics, like the heritability of diet is 30%."This is wrong. IQ is not dependent on race and that little exert of yours does not imply such. A lot of people foolishly assumed that the correlation between the races in IQ must imply that race must be the causal factor. The issue with this line of thinking is that you have extreme variations with the races (far greater than what's between them). You have low IQ white people and high IQ black people walking around. While IQ is most definitely determined by one's genes, you cannot conflate individual genetics to races since the genetic variation within any given race is far abundant than that exist between races. Currently, in the UK, Black students are doing better than their white counterparts in terms of academics.www2.le.ac.uk/.../against-the-odds-ethnic-minority-students-are-excelling-at-schoolIn the USA, Nigerian Americans have overtaken Asian Americans as the most educated demographic in the nations.www.chron.com/.../...ucated-in-the-U-S-1600808.phpAnd there are many other cases of other minorities outperforming their white counterparts in academics. What this entails is that IQ is simply not something you can assign to a race but is something that needs to be evaluated on an individual basis. Charles Murray, who is one of the men who you wrote the most controversial book in modern history, "The Bell Curve" has stated many times that anyone who tries to extrapolate his finding onto an entire race is foolish. IQ differences are an individual matter, not something you can apply to a race.
@Physics-ManWhy are you citing a non-peer reviewed paper by Davide Piffer. The peer-reviewed journal he was trying to turn his manuscript into even stated that his "paper is full of poorly justified conclusions". You might want to start increasing you standards when you start citing sources. Not all science is good science and the article you cited with Piffer is a prime example of bad science.
Another thing. Physics-Man you are cherry-picking a lot of data that confirms your beliefs. We call this in Psychology confirmation bias and it is a very disingenuous trick to play. I also see an error in your post. You mentioned several studies that proved your point, but were you aware that there are also studies that contradict the ones you mentioned. For example, an adoption study conducted by Elise Moore and carried out by Arizona State University showed that when Black and Mixed children were adopted by middle-class white parents, their IQ scores were on average 13.5 points higher than those adopted by Black parents. A similar study conducted by Lee Willerman saw an 11 point increase. These two studies together imply that about 4/5th of the gap in IQ can be traced to SES factors.Another study took place during WWII. During the war, Black and White American soldiers fathered children with German women. Researchers kept track of these children as they were reared by their German mother in Germany. When researchers evaluated these children's IQ later on, the differences were negligible. A child with 100% European ancestry (white father + white mother) had an average IQ of 97. The children with 50% European ancestry and 50% Black ancestry (black father + white mother) had an average IQ of 96.5. And these studies aren't even the type of the iceberg. The discovery of the Flynn Effect was so monumental, that the man who wrote the Bell Curve, Charles Murray, was left baffled regarding the role that racial genetics play in IQ for there is no way that genetics could have altered that quickly to account for such an upward trend in IQ.As for that error, I was talking about earlier, you stated that poor whites did better than wealthy Blacks in SAT and IQ tests. This is wrong. Wealthy whites do better than their wealthy Black counterparts, but I couldn't find any data on poor whites doing the same. In all honesty, I have no idea where you got that information from.
@StarrkCan you provide links to those?
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-24139-001www.brookings.edu/.../9780815746096_chapter1.pdfStart on Page 123. Is titled "IQ Test Performance of Black Children Adopted by White"Familiestent/uploads/2014/06/Race-Social-Class-and-individual-Differences-in-IQ-Scarr. pdfI can't find a direct link to the German study but the name of it is the "Eyferth Study". You can read up on it via Google.
arthurjensen.net/.../...ifferences-in-IQ-Scarr.pdfI gave you the wrong link. This is the one that starts on page 123 and is titled "IQ Test Performance of Black Children Adopted by White"
@znouj Respect, for linking to something serious.@Starrk Thanks for saving me the trouble of finding out what was wrong with them!
@Starrk James Flynn himself said the Flynn Effect does not affect the racial differences, in "Flynn James, 2013/11/01, SP -851–857, The “Flynn Effect” and Flynn's paradox, 10.1016/j. intell.2013.06.014, Intelligence.""“The magnitude of white/ black IQ differences on Wechsler subtests at any given time is correlated with the g loadings of the subtests; the magnitude of IQ gains over time on subtests is not usually so correlated; the causes of the two phenomena are not the same.” – Flynn 2013"You also say that IQ is not dependent on race, I never said that it's dependent on any sort of category you put people into. IQ is dependent upon your genes, and the genes of people of African descent and Europeans differ, unless you want to deny evolution. Then you go forward to pick cherrypicked examples, but here's the deal with them, I'm assuming you know how a bell curve works? You have a mean, then the tail ends.. so there can be high IQ black people and low IQ white people. Almost all of the Nigerians in the United states come from the Igbo tribe, and all of the Igbo in the United States are from the rich and elite. African immigrants as a whole are not exceptional, and it's because we're mostly not getting an elite slice. As for the U. K, I'll just link this video instead of going on: "U. K Gaslight, by People's VETO"I'm not XPER level 3 yet so I can't post the link. Also, just as an extra thing: A survey done by Snyderman and Rothman in 1984 found that 45% of researchers said that the black-white IQ gap was a mixture of genes and environment, 1% said it was totally genetic, 15% said that it was totally environmental, 14% did not respond, and 24% said there was insufficient evidence:For the survey in 2013 by Rindermann, Coyle & Becker, they found that 42% of the 228 experts though that 0-40% of the black-white IQ gap was due to genes, 18% said that 50% of the gap was due to genes, and 39% said that 60-100% of the black-white IQ gap was due to genes:
About your ( Eyferth (1961).) Study:The first step in interpreting this study is to understand what we would expect to be true if the hereditarian hypothesis is correct. Because we are dealing with mixed race children, the expected Black-White IQ gap can immediately be cut in half to 7.5 points, giving Blacks a predicted IQ of 92.5. Next, we should account for the fact that the military rejected the bottom 30% of Black applicants compared to only 3% for Whites. This is therefore an elite sample of Blacks. This would lead us to predict a Black-White IQ gap several points lesser, perhaps 5 or 4 points, and a mean Black IQ of something more like 94.5 or 95.5. Then, we have to take into account the fact that the White mothers in question were of low socio-economic status. The Black-White IQ gap is generally much smaller among low SES families, and this alone could lead us to predict a gap several points smaller, maybe 2.5 or 3.5 points, giving us a predicted biracial IQ of something like 96.5 or 97.5. This, we might note, is exactly what the biracial IQ score was.The problem, then, comes from the Whites, and in particular the White women. Standardization data for the IQ test administered in this study showed that it exhibited no significant difference between samples of men and women. Among the biracial children, this holds true. However, there is an 8 point gap between White males and White females. Because of the previously referenced standardization data, we can therefore conclude that this sample of Whites is unrepresentative and, due to random sampling error, has unusually dumb White females. Among males, the IQ gap between biracial and White children was 4 points. As we’ve seen, this is fully consistent with the hereditarian hypothesis.Eyferth’s study demonstrably suffered from sampling error and contained an elite sample of Blacks. After taking these flaws into account, Eyferth’s findings are totally consistent with both hereditarianism and environmentalism.
@znouj The Flynn Effect by itself does not explain the race-IQ gap but it does prove that the environment is actively playing a role in one's IQ. When coupled with the findings of Eric Turkheimer, it does place a dent in the argument that the gap between races is primarily the result of genetics. ibg.colorado.edu/.../Turkheimer_2003.pdf"Then you go forward to pick cherrypicked examples"Coming from the guy who only told one side of the IQ/Race story this means a lot. My intention in producing the data I did was to show that opinions on the IQ disparity between groups varies and to counter the "Pro-Genetic" side you were advertising. You have those in Psychology who believe it's predominately hereditary/genetic and you have those that believe the environment is just as significant as genes. Despite all the studies we have, there is no concise answer on what the cause is between the disparity. I see you included the opinions of experts in one of your posts, and even within those opinions, you see variations especially when it comes to determining how much genes play a role. "IQ is dependent upon your genes, and the genes of people of African descent and Europeans differ unless you want to deny evolution."You can reject the premise without rejecting the conclusion. While there may be genetic differences, I do not believe these genetic differences are enough to warrant races nor are they as stark as many would have you believe. If dividing people based on genetic similarity is the goal, then broad terms like European/African/Asian are missing the mark by a mile. rosenberglab.stanford.edu/.../popstructSupp.pdfhttps://genome.cshlp.org/content/12/4/602.long
@znouj "Almost all of the Nigerians in the United states come from the Igbo tribe, and all of the Igbo in the United States are from the rich and elite."Wait a minute. Last time I checked, being rich and an elite are SES factors. Are you low-key arguing in favor of the environment accounting for Nigerians immigrants' advancement in American society academically?As for the Eyferth study, I see you copied and pasted the response of Arthur Jensen on the Eyferth study. Unfortunately for you, Richard Nisbett has already responded to the critique of Jensen. www.peterdanpsychology.ro/.../...%20black%20iq.pdfI watched the UK Gaslighting video, and I must admit, it was entertaining UNTIL he started ranting about race, whiteness, and shitting on ethnic minorities. The moment he mentioned that was the moment his credibility was demolished. Sorry, but there is no way in hell, I'm trusting his word considering he has a clear agenda in proving the alternate.
@Starrk Eric Turkheimer has been disproven and his results weren't replicated, check: "Eric Turkheimer" by People's VETO on YouTubeand various studies he links showing the studies weren't replicated and he's lying for political motives.About Nigerians, I was arguing they were rich and elite back in Nigeria because of their IQ. I'm arguing IQ causes ones socioeconomic status. Sounds like you think the dog is wagging the tail.And yes, you are cherry picking. You're a Lysenkoist and you projecting onto is insulting.
You dismissing someone because they hurt your feelings is not an argument too.
Eric Turkheimer has been disproven and his results weren't replicated, check: "Eric Turkheimer" by People's VETO on YouTubeand various studies he links showing the studies weren't replicated and he's lying for political motives.About Nigerians, I was arguing they were rich and elite back in Nigeria because of their IQ. I'm arguing IQ causes ones socioeconomic status. Sounds like you think the tail is wagging the dog*.And yes, you are cherry picking. You're a Lysenkoist and you projecting onto is insulting.You dismissing someone because they hurt your feelings is not an argument too.
@znouj Eric Turkheimer's study was most certainly not disproved by any reputable study. You're making stuff up and considering how you're not posting any article or study on how it was debunked indicates such.People's VETO is as credible as a Donald Trump tweet for all I'm concern about. I don't follow hearsay from people with a clear agenda. You're calling it me having my feelings hurt, but it's quite the opposite. I was laughing my ass off when the guy went from talking formally to trash-talking minorities in just a time span of 10 seconds. Give me some peer-reviewed articles if you want to rock my belief, not some youtube video from a guy with a clear bias and whose argument is clearly a rant wrapped in a facade of false intellect.I'm not cherry-picking nor am I projecting. I'm being fair and balance. In addition to that, I have supplied countless evidence for my stance. It's not my fault you can rebuke none of them."I'm arguing IQ causes ones socioeconomic status."And you would be partially correct. While IQ most definitely influence SES. SES also influence IQ as well. It's not necessarily that having more money or a higher class automatically makes you more intelligent, but more so that a high SES ensures that you receive a proper nutritional diet during those crucial developmental years and you're reared in a home environment that's cognitively stimulating.www.pnas.org/.../1417106112.abstracthttps://www.nature.com/articles/340552a0
@Starrk He posted studies in the Video description and they're on his website, which is also in the description. They're also brought up in the video. We've already had heritability studies done on this dude, and we also know that things like diet are also influenced by genes as diet's heritability is.30.It's obvious you're not going to change your name, so why bother to continue to waste our time? I don't have a problem with debate, but I have a lot of work to do so sorry but I'm going to stop replying after this.
@znouj Of course, I'm not going to change my name, but this is a topic that I have changed my mind on in the past. A few years ago I was a believer that IQ was primarily genetic. But as I read more studies that highlighted environmental factors and read some of Richard Nisbett's work and spoke with some of my professors (all Psychologists), I changed my mind and was convinced that the environment was highly crucial in IQ as well as genetics.I'm always open to someone changing my mind, but it's going to require more than Youtube videos, rants and some guy whose work isn't even peer-reviewed to change my mind.
@Starrk Yeah, I said name instead of mind because I'm exhausted bud. I intensely disagree with everything you've written and the people you've cited, and something not being peer reviewed doesn't mean it's wrong. Also, you yourself aren't peer reviewed like him so that means that you're wrong about everything you've been writing according to your logic. Goodbye dude.
@znouj "Also, you yourself aren't peer-reviewed like him so that means that you're wrong about everything you've been writing according to your logic."Not being peer-reviewed doesn't mean its automatically wrong. But it does lack legitimacy and that seal of credibility from those who are most competent in the field. Of course, I'm not peer-reviewed, I'm a person. I'm not the one producing a body of research nor am I claiming to know all the answers. I'm simply a guy who is somewhat knowledgeable on the literature within the field of Psychology, especially IQ.All my sources have been peer-reviewed so while you may intensely disagree with it, my sources have all been valid. See Ya dude!!
@Starrk All of his sources were peer-reviewed, you're literally no different from him you clown.
@znouj Wait a minute. Didn't you say Goodbye already?Also, @goaded I would like to apologize for allowing this discussion to go on so long. I'm pretty sure you have gotten a shitton of notifications from us going back and forth on something as trivial as IQ disparity. So once again I apologize for that. :)
@Starrk I did, but you keep coming back and harassing me.
@Starrk No problem, it was an interesting read (I don't use the app, so it's just a big number on the web page).I don't think anybody answered my point that if society treats everybody the same, it doesn't matter if your group is in the majority or a minority.
Society does treat everyone the same, individuals will not. This means you'll be able to go on until the end of time making excuses for shitty behavior at the expense of others.If you believe genes aren't the reason they act in a shitty way, then that means the people act to chose this way and the only way forward is genocide and their extermination rather than their containment.
@znouj "If you believe genes aren't the reason they act in a shitty way, then that means the people act to chose this way and the only way forward is genocide and their extermination rather than their containment."Firstly, that's completely the wrong way around; you can't stop, say, bears from eating people, so the only thing you can do is keep them away from people. If you could convince them not to (if it were a choice they make), there would be no need.Secondly, people react more positively to their environment if it reacts positively to them; if someone's experience of western society is constantly being blamed for the acts of terrorists, or being told they're sub-human, how do you expect them to feel about it?
You can't convince them to act in a shitty way, especially when they're being encouraged by people like you. Throughout history bears have always been exterminated when they ate livestock, that's the natural and most logical reaction. It makes no sense to try and waste your time to try and teach bears to not eat livestock, they're going to no matter what you try to "teach" them to do. Yeah, and because of people like you pushing their racial revenge narratives then I'm forced into this position. You two have convinced me that mass extermination of black and Indio people is the only way forward. There is no reasoning with them or their sympathizers, and there's no reason to engage in politics over it.
to not act in a shitty way*, I haven't slept.
@znouj "You can't convince them to not act in a shitty way..."Who's them, again? "black and Indio [sic] people"?Are they talking about extermination? Because that's what you're doing, which makes you the shitty one.
I hear them talking about their hatred for white people in real life, not just online. I have seen plenty of calls for the extermination online. I obviously can't transfer my memories to your mind though. If you have them all think that their "disadvantages" is because of white people (but for some reason poverty doesn't affect the intelligence of Appalachians and other poor whites like Udmurts?) then their only option is to seek revenge. Much like the Hutus did against the Tutis, what the Oromo are doing against the Tigrayans currently, and what the Nazis did to the Jews. After all, If Jews had just treated Germans equally then there would have been no intelligence gap between the two. This means the socioeconomic gap was caused by the Jews.Their greed is a monster that can't be satisfied, it's either the slow annihilation of white people or fighting back.
@znouj I was wondering if you'd ever met a non-white person, because all the ones I've met have been pretty much normal people, some good, some bad. The shittiest person I know is very white and thinks a lot like you; foreigners are freeloaders and don't deserve to be here, while he lives in my property without paying rent for over half a year, leaving the place full of shit when he finally moved out."I have seen plenty of calls for the extermination online."OK, show me some examples. You don't have to transfer your memories.You're very confused in the part where you seem to be suggesting that the Nazis were standing up to tyrannical Jews in WWII, or something? And white people have made Black people stupid (as opposed to locking them up at disproportionate rates)? What?If you want to post something that's not crazy, I'll engage, but otherwise you can just have the last word.
I was comparing you're view point to the Nazis, because they're identical in the victim and rape and revenge narrative. I'd also imagine you don't consider brown people to be shitty, judging how you're a really shitty human being yourself, you must get along great Nazi.
@znouj Like I said, say something that makes sense, and I'll engage again.By coincidence, I came across a video explaining why herediability has nothing to do with differences between groups, which I doubt either of you, @Physics-Man, @znouj, will follow, but I wanted to leave it here.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FcpNZ2BEgYSpoiler alert, even the author of The Bell Curve (on page 298) makes the point that hereditability has no influence on traits of groups of people.Repeated in an interview:"Mr. Murray: Let's get this one out on the table. The fact that IQ has a substantial heritable component for individuals, which we've said, and the fact that there is a mean difference between whites and blacks, does not mean that that difference between the two races is genetic"
@znouj I wrote a Take about Why I might call someone a Nazi. ↗You've hit 2 and 6, and I'm thinking you probably go for several of the others.
@znjou These guys are full of shit and science deniers, I mean, like this guy said he literally has shit about why he calls people Nazis. It's obvious his view of science is blind sighted and he's lying through his teeth for political purposes. I found a good article on the Medium about Nisbett actually if you want to look into it. Like you also said, Turkheimer's results were not replicated and they keep cherry-picking niche academics because, as the polls you showed, most experts on this agree with you. The more you look into, the more him and Turkheimer look like lying hacks. But yeah, don't waste your time and energy with these people.
@StarrkThank you for those study links. Indeed, it seems that there are a variety of studies which support both our views, so I think it'll remain inconclusive due to them proving and contradicting our points. I wasn't able to find the link to the study relating to the SAT scores. But if I find it I'll post it here. It was something about poor white kids scoring higher on the SAT who come from families making less than $20,000 a year, and black kids from wealthy families making over $160,000 a year scoring less than the poor white kids on the SAT. If I'm able to find it I'll post it.
@StarrkHere's the reference to the study of poor white students scoring better than wealthy black students on the SAT.The Persisting Racial Chasm in Scores on the SAT College Entrance Examination," Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, Autumn, 2009, p. 85
It doesn't say any such thing. There is nothing about poverty in the report, other than more children got to take the test because it was on a school day, rather than a weekend.reports.collegeboard.org/.../class-2019-resultswww.jbhe.com/.../
@goadedPlease pay more attention. The reference states 2009, not 2019. It states page 85; it's part of a PDF. It also states it's from the Autumn season. The link you provided is utterly incorrect.
Then provide a correct one!
That is the correct one! I had it in my collection of references from a few years back.The Persisting Racial Chasm in Scores on the SAT College Entrance Examination," Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, Autumn, 2009, p. 85You need to find the actual document since it's from 2009. It's older, so you're going to have to do some lurking on the internet. If I find the PDF, I'll post it. But the reference to the data is there.
Like white people in red states?
Every country has been colonized or conquered at some point in its history. Most land in the world has belonged to different groups of people in the history of the world. Human history is a long story of conquest and colonization. Why are only white people blamed? It's nothing more than an anti-white double standard. It only applies to us and no one else.
Cry me a river, do something productive instead of feeling sorry for yourself and by the way white men are the most privileged demo on earth
I'm not feeling sorry for myself at all Sir. I was merely giving a rebuttal to what you said. And I'm an extremely productive member of society. You know nothing about me.
Carry on mr white
I do know that white people have some sort of privilege, but I doubt that they have the most in every single regard. Many people can give you different examples indicating the opposite of privilege for whites. So it's not as simple and straightforward as you think. Blacks, for example, have to score an average of 450 points less on the SAT for admission to prestigious institutions such as Harvard and Princeton, than Asian students do. Asian students have to score an average of 140 more points than whites, 270 more points than Hispanics, and 450 points more than blacks. I think that admission should be based strictly on merit, and not race. Affirmative action policies also affect whites and Asians in various other ways such as giving preferential treatment to blacks and Hispanics in the hiring process of many companies for instance. These are just some examples.
Couldn’t care less, enjoy that white privilege
And whites make the vast majority of admissions at ivy schools
Indeed they do, but that's simply because we're still the majority. In Universities in Africa, Blacks are the most accepted group because they're the majority, not because there's some bias. Nevertheless, I gave examples of policies which target Hispanics and Blacks in the hiring process of jobs and acceptance into schools. Meaning that they have a substantial impact.
If Morrocans and Turks come to my country Belgium, then Belgium is Turkified and Morroconized, but Morroco and Turkey are not Belgianized. Therefore the diversity of the world is decreasing.In 100 years Turkey and Morroco will be Turkish and Morrocan homelands, but Belgium will not be a Belgian homeland. Our birthrates are below replacement rate. We make less children than the migrants because open borders. The host country, Belgium, is victim as much as the migrants, because in 1968 leftists wanted cheap labour, now its time to recognize that the world is not a cheap labour recruitment place for exploiting workers.
Seems like he's see what's going on. That why you call him an idiot. Cause he can see through the bullshit? You dont like when people see your lies huh?
Or maybe we have friends who are minorities and aren’t afraid of them.
@OddBeMe It doesn't change the fact that our countries get destroyed you liberal cuck.Talk to me about minorities, when Whites are the world's minority. Get blocked now and get your left wing, self-hating, self-destructive marxist ideas with you.
What makes you say that?
Then again, them becoming a minority is pretty unlikely to happen considering that birthrates decrease in developed countries
Because it is something people just get used to, especially new generations.
Why should white people accept this, and not everyone else? Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, but white countries for everybody? Jewish people have their own Homeland too, and nobody is shoving multiculturalism and diversity down their throats? Why can't white people have a Homeland away from 3rd worlders?
Considering Israel has about 20% Muslims by the virtue of being established in the Middle East, has taken in almost a million of jews from the Islamic world (which are culturally quite different), and in the 90s has taken in a million Russians, that argument for Israel doesn’t hold up.It is a pretty multicultural country. People talk of an invasion in Europe when 6% is Muslim, over 20% is in Israel. Anyway, European nations have democratic elections. So that means people have the chance to vote against immigration. Plus, a lot of people in Europe support the existence of the multicultural society (especially here in the Netherlands).That white people are oppressed into taking in immigrants and just cannot be 100% white is just nonsense. Their populations are seemingly perfectly fine with it, generally do not vote massively for parties who want to stop immigration completely. And for very logical reasons, citizens are not discriminated on based on ethnicity, so that already eliminates action after immigrant has obtained citizenship. On that matter, it’s called being a civilized state to not discriminate based on ethnicity
He is a Jew, that's why he doesn't care.
@znouj just fuck off
It's true, it's why everyone throughout history has hated your people.
Ah the stupidity is astonishing
The only stupid people are those who trust Jews.
Nah, you - along with grnerally most antisemites - tend to base their beliefs on idiocy
Almost every country throughout history that's interacted you has tried to expel you or kick you out, and today probably around a third or even more people worldwide hate Jews (Most people on the planet don't interact with Jews!)... Who's more likely to right.. you and 11 million others Jews or the rest of the planet? hmmm
This is too stupid for me.Then again, shouldn't have expected anything else from an anti-semite.Just so you don’t whine about me avoiding it;1. Whether something is correct is not defined by a democratic vote. Especially not when public opinion is very much skewed by propaganda (think of the Catholic church for a very long time), books like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and a lot more.2. Uninformed people are irrelevant in polls
Is that you Soteris?The founding fathers of the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and all of Europe were white Caucasian Europeans, not blacks, Muslims, or mestizos.
Bro doesn't dislike I'm willing to have a civil conversation with u. You must mean the Mexicans crossing the border and having anchor babies and having an open border will leave u open to attacks. Plus white birth rates are declining? Did I miss anything?I'm not the same race as you or the Mexicans but have a similar issue to u which is why the president and certain republicans are partnering towards my camp
I thought the USA was native Americans or do I have that wrong?
I'm pro-segregation I don't like white people at all. I think you should go back to Europe or whatever and stay think. Blacks go back to Africa and mestizos stay where they are Asian stay in Asia.Middle eastern stay middle east
Lol blacks fought for this and the first person to die for this country was a black man. White people, on the other hand, fought to succeed from the united states of America.
Well the Native Americans were the first people to have come here, but they didn't build this country. They weren't the founders. This country was founded by white people. I recall reading that the native Americans would've still been living in the stone age and in the wilderness if Europeans never came to the New world. It's not like the natives had already built the America we see today and Europeans just took it from them. Maybe the natives enjoyed living the way they did, but would you? Probably not. I know I wouldn't.
I agree. I'm a segregationist as well. Can you send me a link showing that the first person to die for this country was a black man?
Bantus aren't native to anywhere, your people slaughtered the Khoisan, Pygmys, Nilotes, and Malagasy. Your entire history is slaughtering people violently, and that was without disease.80% of Natives died from disease, and even more died from conflict with other Natives.
@znoujExcellent point. I recall reading that the Bantus killed off the indigenous peoples of South Africa who were the Khoikhoi people. So that means that isn't their land. Funny how libtards don't protect the White farmers and people living there. After all, it's stolen land right? Doesn't that make it a nation of immigrants?