Numerous people here have chided me for my "racism," insisting that race is only skin deep. A 2019 scientific study with a large sample group (9,421) and rigorous standards has some interesting things to say on this topic.
Summary and link to the actual study here: [unz.com]
The important findings of the study are that:
Intelligence is at least 50% and as much as 80% hereditary i.e. not alterable by education or other environmental factors...so, as the saying goes, there is no way to fix stupid.
Particular racial designations correlate very highly with particular intelligence levels...so, African-Americans (a major focus of the study) objectively have a certain level of cognitive "impairment," on average, by European standards.
People's "social construct" view of race, or what race they and society assume they are, matches almost perfectly with their DNA test results...so contrary to liberal rhetoric, a "white person" actually exists, and is objectively definable as a person with largely or purely European ancestry.
Once again, this is about groups. NOT individuals. Numbers and percentages may vary between different groups. Sure, But there are, for example geniuses in any and every group. There are people like-minded to me, in every group.
I do not believe you are a racist. You are, a collectivist, though. Not Judgin' dude. You're entitled especially here at IDW. Well... I don't know about anyone else, but I pick my friends ONE AT A TIME.
"Racism" was created by communists to attack white people. It's a tool to convince whites to abandon and forsake their own heritage and weaken themselves.
I don't need IQ tests to see the fact that every race tends to protect and support its own. I'm tired of living in a society tortured by constant accusations and strife and racial bickering over the same power structure.
It doesn't matter if jews or chinese are high IQ. They want their interests to come before those of my people. I don't care if the average sub saharan barely has the IQ necessary to get away with raping swedish children. I'm not responsible for their prosperity.
I don't want to live around these people. But you know what will happen if we do that? The jew government will sue us, imprison us, take our property and dump random other races, many criminals, into our communities by force. They will destroy the lives of anyone who publicly says "White children deserve to have a future." Look what they did when they found a simple message "It's OK to be white".
The experiment was tried and white people were the only ones who could treat people as individuals. That has been our success and our deatruction. We now must look after our own interests or we will be destroyed. That doesn't mean we wish harm on any others, but it does mean they're not going to stop us.
If you have a problem with this, fuck you. I'm no going to do what you tell me.
I'm neither intimidated by these studies or impressed with them. I score extremely high on my IQ tests as does everyone in my family. This doesn't, however, make me a better human or even more capable of leading others. In fact, I find that those of higher intelligence seem to think they are more capable of not just leading others but ruling others. This creates that feeling of superiority that becomes quiet dangerous when you also pair it with a virulent ideology like Marxism or a rigid religious system.
Having a high IQ does not mean that one is emotionally intelligent, physically capable, or even charismatic enough to be successful. Some of the smartest men I know couldn't get laid unless they bought a silicon blow up doll online. Some of the smartest women I know sit around on Saturday nights complaining that even smart men want beautiful women.
What does get us far in life is being likable. There's no written test for that.
The problem is as I see it is that race as a concept hasn't been updated in a couple hundred years. I now prefer the term ethnicity because of fairly interesting differences between ethnic groups within the classical framework of race.
What this means is that all the concepts that apply between "races" apply to groups within those broad definitions. It also applies at the individual level.
Take IQ for example. Because intelligence has post industrial revolution become a more valuable commodity social mobility is closely tied to IQ. Society is now more segregated by IQ than by race. See the work by the famous "racist" Charles Murray. [en.m.wikipedia.org]
Segregation of any kind is the question. When I was growing up the various social economic classes lived, worked, and played together. Much more so in the U.S. than any other society. There were of course pockets of ethnic segregation, and the flight to the suburbs was well underway but small town life was still an important part of the U.S. paradigm. Urbanization and the shift away from manual labor has and will accelerate social disharmony.
Within this framework the focus on Black Lives seems dystopian. It is a distraction from larger issues that cut across ethnic groups. It is almost entirely a political movement and not a social progress initiative.
In the near future AI will be a major problem. When Obama said "those jobs are never coming back" he may in a few decades be right. The man however has a distorted view brought on by his miseducation in our dystopian educational system. He was focused on manufacturing jobs but AI will also replace his supporters in the professions. Low level engineers, lawyers, accountants, managers, educators, civil servants, investment advisors, clerks, programmers, architects, graphic artists, designers, and others are likely to be seriously impacted. Creating a majority of marginally employable people. China's chief res of cheap labor irrelevant. The power behind the "liberal" establishment comes primarily from these mid wit groups, displacing or replacing the deplorables will not solve the problem of angry people blaming the Democratic Party for their misfortune.
What I'm saying is we have more important things to worry about than race.
Two subjects that are separate, segregated, and apart from each other can be commingled, confused, misrepresented, and used as leverage to overpower innocent people: enslave them, and make them pay the costs associated with enslaving them.
Race, the study of, the testing, learning, knowing, race, is a subject having value to some people, so they study race.
Subsidized Slavery, the study of, the testing, learning, knowing, Subsidized Slavery, is a subject having value to some people, so they study Subsidized Slavery.
Combining the two subjects into one subject, by a process known as deception, whereby the one study is purposefully conflated with the other, separate, study, can be done so as to facilitate the overpowering of the people who are targeted for exploitation by this method of deception.
Race A according to the deceivers are inferior, and therefore in need of salvation for their own good. That may be a difficult con job when the deceivers are members of Race A, so...a fictional person is needed to represent the people claiming to be Dominant.
An old story line going back a long time as documented at least here:
Volume 1 Early America (1580-1815)
Edited by Michael Grossberg, Christopher Tomlins
"In all previous cases, and in the protracted English attempts to seize parts of northern France, conquest had been justified on the grounds of dynastic inheritance: a claim, that is, based on civil law. In America, however, this claim obviously could not be used. There would seem, therefore, to be no prima facie justification for "conquering", the Indians since they had clearly not given the English grounds for waging war against them.
Like the other European powers, therefore, the English turned to rights in natural law, or - more troubling - to justifications based on theology. The Indians were infidels, "barbarians," and English Protestants no less than Spanish Catholics had a duty before God to bring them into the fold and, in the process, to "civilize" them. The first Charter of the Virginia Company (1606) proclaimed that its purpose was to serve in "propagating of Christian religion to such people, [who] as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages living in these parts to humane civility and to a settle and quiet government." In performing this valuable and godly service, the English colonists were replicating what their Roman ancestors had once done for the ancient Britons. The American settlers, argued William Strachey in 1612, were like Roman generals in that they, too, had "reduced the conquered parts of or barbarous Island into provinces and established in them colonies of old soldiers building castles and towns in every corner, teaching us even to know the powerful discourse of divine reason."
"In exchange for these acts of civility, the conqueror acquired some measure of sovereignty over the conquered peoples and, by way of compensation for the trouble to which he had been put in conquering them, was also entitled to a substantial share of the infidels' goods. Empire was always conceived to be a matter of reciprocity at some level, and as Edward Winslow nicely phrased it in 1624, America was clearly a place where "religion and profit jump together." For the more extreme Calvinists, such as Sir Edward Coke who seems to have believed that all infidels, together presumably with all Catholics, lay so far from God's grace that no amount of civilizing would be sufficient to save them, such peoples might legitimately be conquered; in Coke's dramatic phrasing, because "A perpetual enemy (though there be no wars by fire and sword between them) cannot maintain any action or get any thing within this Realm, All infidels are in law perpetui inimici, perpetual enemies, (for the law presumes not that they will be converted, that being remota potential, a remote possibility) for between them, as with devils, whose subjects they be, and the Christians, there is perpetual hostility and can be no peace."
"Like all Calvinists, Coke adhered to the view that as infidels the Native Americans could have no share in God's grace, and because authority and rights derived from grace, not nature, they could have no standing under the law. Their properties and even their persons were therefore forfeit to the first "godly" person with the capacity to subdue them. "if a Christian King," he wrote, "should conquer a kingdom of an infidel, and bring them [sic] under his subjection, there ipso facto the laws of the infidel are abrogated, for that they be not only against Christianity, but against the law of God and nature contained in the Decalogue." Grounded as this idea was not only in the writings of Calvin himself but also in those of the fourteenth-century English theologian John Wycliffe, it enjoyed considerable support among the early colonists. As the dissenting dean of Gloucester, Josiah Tucker, wrote indignantly to Edmund Burke in 1775, "Our Emigrants to North-America, were mostly Enthusiasts of a particular Stamp. They were that set of Republicans, who believed, or pretended to believe, that Dominion was founded in Grace. Hence they conceived, that they had the best Right in the World, both to tax and to persecute the Ungoldy. And they did both, a soon as they got power in their Hands, in the most open and atrocious Manner."
By the end of the seventeenth century, however, this essentially eschatological argument had generally been dropped. If anything it was now the "papists" (because the canon lawyers shared much the same views as the Calvinists on the binding nature of grace) who were thought to derive rights of conquest from the supposed ungodliness of non-Christians. The colonists themselves, particularly when they came in the second half of the eighteenth century to raid the older discussions over the legitimacy of the colonies in search of arguments for cessation, had no wish to be associated with an argument that depended upon their standing before God. For this reason, if for no other, it was as James Otis noted in 1764, a "madness" which, at least by his day, had been "pretty generally exploded and hissed off the stage."
"Otis, however, had another more immediate reason for dismissing this account of the sources of sovereign authority. For in America had been conquered, it followed that the colonies, like all other lands of conquest, were a part not of the King's realm but of the royal demesne. This would have made them the personal territory of the monarch, to be governed at the King's "pleasure," instead of being subject to English law and to the English Parliament. It was this claim that sustained the fiction that "New England lies within England, " which would govern the Crowns' legal association with its colonies until the very end of the empire itself. As late as 1913, for instance, Justice Isaac Isaacs of the Australian High Court could be found declaring that, at the time Governor Arthur Phillip received his commission in 1786, Australia had, rightfully or wrongly, been conquered, and that "the whole of the lands of Australia were already in law the property of the King of England," a fact that made any dispute over its legality a matter of civil rather than international law."