slug.com slug.com
11 3

Is this racism or is it science?

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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

What should we do with legitimate scientific material such as this, which seems to validate all of the views that mainstream culture deems "evil"?

View Results
Thaw 7 Aug 7
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Post a comment Author often replies/likes Reply Author often replies/likes Add Photo

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

11 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

#WhatWouldSaganDo? 🤔

also sagan was the worst kind of Leftist/globalist

@curvycom His politics don't make the statement any less valuable.

@ZuzecaSape I'll give ya that. I just can't help thinking he didn't mean it as benevolently as it sounds.

2

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.

@pbuck0145 thanks. My best friend is a process Engineer among other incomprehensibly difficult things.

@CurvyCom Social policy is group based. If social policy assumes all group differences are environmental in origin - but genetics explain a significant portion of the variance in these differences - then our society is set up for failure. The groups will never attain achievement equality and the groups that achieve less will always blame their station in life on the groups that achieve more if they're never taught the truth about variance in group differences explained by population genetic differences.

There's nothing collectivist about judging groups as groups. If social policy is going to be group-based, then an accurate understanding of the underlying cause of group differences is critical.
[jaymans.wordpress.com]

@ZuzecaSape sure. that's all true. I agree, but I was talking to the OP not you. He and I are very different people, but we do have an understanding : ) I appreciate @thaw 's input on things, and owe him thanks for a lot of understanding I have acquired about different viewpoints on things.

Perhaps, policy should not be about groups, (I feel) but they currently are, so your point is well taken.

My personal style, I guess you could say,, is that I like to reach across group boundaries and look for people that I like and relate to. and hope to encounter some reaching across to me. I realize that in order to do that, one needs 1 out of 100 level character. Perhaps that is why it's difficult (but worth it when you succeed.)

I should probably have written "Bigot" and Not "Racist" to @Flagherty 's point, which I agree with. In a sense, only a far leftist CAN be a "Racist." And they all seem to do it very well.

Suicidal as always. So when a pack of lions heads towards you, you just stand there because you once saw a tame lion at a zoo. Fucking turd brain. If you appreciate civilization, then you bettee start becoming racist because blacks as a group will destroy it as we see before our eyes right now. Lol, you're the kind of dope that focuses on the "peaceful protesters" I suppose.

@LogicalExtreme The lions argument is kind of a straw man.

These percentages in different groups of humans do not vary as much as all that : ) Although it is very clear they do vary. Right below me here, is a post by a half Vietnamese gal, @scotirishviet, that I suspect I would get along with. But we never know until we try.

There are so many red-pilled black guys and Jewish guys and gals, etc. All races. We have similar or the same values. Those of us who are alike or compliment each other's temperament or who have views or interests in common with me can be my friends. Maybe even you can, if we get to know each other better. We might find that we have more in common than we had previously thought. (or we might not)

Like just now, I took the time to look at your profile and read a few of your posts and comments. I found, to give one example, that we both like Soph. You seem like you're a likable enough guy. Good sense of humor, I'd say. Rather clever. Much like me, you sometimes like to drop bombs into chat : )

My discussion style is generally more friendly, but I do like to write screeds also, because they get the conversation going, but I hardly ever continue in a hostile tone after my first offering.

If you read some more of my comments in other threads, I'm sure you'd realize, at the very least, that I am no friend of these Communist Rioters. All the time I lived in Portland, I carried concealed (2a) and, although taking a life is always hard on a person (cops have a very hard time with it, even when it is justified) If I got myself caught up in the mayhem there accidentally--unlikely, because you have to be crazy to even LIVE in Portland now let alone go downtown--I would have had to defend myself with deadly force. It's the only way to get out of a situation alive where you are vastly outnumbered.

We all use group dynamics and individual dynamics when we evaluate risk and other elements of human interaction. Nobody sane would deny that.

Where my individualism comes into it is that I acknowledge the possibility that I could find a friend anywhere in any group.

One of the things that helped me to realize that was my own experience with live streaming. No matter how bad I am, or how boring, there are always a few people from around the world that think I am the best dude ever on the planet; (!!) that is the way temperaments can mesh.

I have all kinds of friends. Some have very extreme views that I don't agree with; some are much more like me in their views. Some are older than I am, some are much younger. Not too many are other races, IRL, because I live in a very "white" area. But many of my online friends are much more varied in race. When I stream, people happen by from Trinidad, or wherever. Always very interesting to hear about other parts of the world.

I guess I'll leave it there. Anyway, I enjoyed reading your posts and comments.

@curvycom Tldr. Also, you seem to have reading comprehension issues.

@LogicalExtreme Probably. Short version: You and I may be different, but for some reason, I like you.

@curvycom I wish I liked myself 😉 I'm quite aware of how much of an asshole I am.

@LogicalExtreme I didn't really intend my comment to be that long, but one thing leads to another, especially with me. I do go on. At least I'm not one of those cut-can-paste-entire-book-chapters guys : ) If you had read it, you would have found it's mostly complimentary, and generally in agreement.
As I said, I find myself liking you.

2

"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.

You do what your told every day by the Government .In your words I'm no going to do what you tell me

@B1967 Is this Tay's retarded npc sibling or something?

@Flagherty Cant understand what you are trying to say ?

@Flagherty Lol! Is that a Tay Zonday reference?

@curvycom actually referencing the chatbot, but that's funny

@Flagherty oh I see. Well that makes it even funnier!

@B1967 Dumbfuck, he specifically stated what he wasn't going to listen to the government about. He didn't say he didn't want a government. Ffs, at what point do you slum around your peers because nobody here likes you.

This idea of Racism being a construct of Marxism, or rather, modern day Marxists, is something that is very important to point out. I talk about it quite a bit. I like to turn it around to point out that while anyone can be bigoted, ONLY a leftist/Marxist can actually be a "racist."

@curvycom I mostly agree. Invoking racism is an attempt to make the listener "think past the sale" of believing that to express ingroup bias is morally wrong.

@LogicalExtreme I'm 50/50 that B1967 is a bot. I just blocked him and my life is better for it.

@LogicalExtreme yeah, he contributes nothing. Might as well block. he mostly posts BS random articles, or when he does comment he sounds like he doesn't really understand the thread. Probably a paid troll. I blocked him a long time ago. It's a rite of passage at this point, like blocking "Clarence Spengle" and all his sock puppets on BitChute.

@Flagherty you actually made that point above. I was actually agreeing with you : ) But this has been a theme of mine for a while. Marxism is so ingrained in the culture, that we don't even realize when we accept some of it's ideas without even meaning to.

Does the company you work for have a "Human Resources" department? If so: Marxist. If not, it has a "Personnel" department. Humans are not resources; chairs and tables and computers are.

@curvycom Good observation on the linguistic propaganda

@Flagherty It's so culturally pervasive most of us don't realize how many evil ideas we have accepted without even thinking about it. If I weren't a Lazy Streamer and made quality content. I would make videos breaking it all down in movies and TV and other media, and in pop culture. (I also suck at editing) But there are a number of things I could point out that get repeated over and over.

One of the most prevalent is this very general rule:

Plot filler is ALWAYS Marxist. If A character brings up an obscure artist or author or what have you, it will always be a Marxist or Marxist influenced one or one of which Marxists approve

@curvycom This. It can be very subtle too. I'd love to see a series on this topic, even just unedited writing with a white board for some visual cues to normies. It's not a common topic. If you end up making one let me know.

@Flagherty i will

0

Sample group (9,421) is very small for this type study lets go with it any way

B1967 Level 7 Aug 7, 2020

@Thaw B is a shill. All of of his comments are low effort and many are incomprehensible. He spends all day spamming nonsense articles from places like the ADL. His criticism is not honest.

@Flagherty nonsense articles from places like the ADL maybe you should read them and could learn some thing
what people come up with when they have no argument

@Thaw I am exactly as surprised as you are.

@Flagherty At what what people come up with when they have no argument

Do you really understand statistical power?

1

I guess I need someone to enlighten me as to why a high iq is so important. Mine is well above average but that hasn't meant squat as far as I can tell. I'm more inclined to focus on a person's value.

@Thaw Or Ashkenazi Jews even a few will bring that up to a first-world civilization
IQ at the top of the list them Asian people

@Thaw: that was a very awesome reply. I somehow missed it last time I was in this thread.

and still, I find myself more aligned with a view like yours. Good people can be found anywhere.

2

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.

@Thaw Like Israel

@Thaw Jews have highest IQ and there is no valid data that disputes or disprove it

@Thaw A high tech society with zero privacy, long work hours, placebo masks, checkpoints--yes, I see your point. Who wouldn't want that?

@ThomasinaPaine Come to Israel would be a nice change

@Thaw COME ON YOU CAN DO BETTER PLEASE
The is not valid data
Ashkenazim are only 10 million, 1/100th of other populations and control how much of the world wealth

@Thaw Are you comparing the mafia to honorable hard working Jews

@Thaw The mafia this is 2020 not 1920

@Thaw There all are hard working do you have a problem with Jews

@Thaw Please use valid and reliable data, O boy you come up with some good one what a joker your very sad

@Thaw You are sad feel bad for you

@Thaw Yes looks like you don't like Jews and that why I feel sad for you to have that hate in your heart

@Thaw The entire premise that contemporary Jews are descended from the Biblical Israelites is false.

[livescience.com]

@Thaw Not at all. You're the one who brings up technology as some sort of success benchmark. I am saying that technology does not equal success as humans. There is more to life and to being successful than the acquisition of "stuff".

Creativity, freedom of expression, abundance of food, coexistence with nature, family, friends--I put all of these higher than "stuff".

@Thaw to your point: (yes the individualist is supporting your point : ) American immigration policy prior to the 1960s Kennedy immigration bill was:

Best and brightest of any country? You get moved to the front of the line.

That all changed with Commie murderer, Ted Kennedy. It became first come first served--so lots more societal leaches--and not that long after, it became quota based, so ... even worse.

You know me somewhat. I like you. You know I also pick the people I like one at a time. But, policy-wise, I support a return to our old immigration policy. We had the best people from all around the world until the Kennedy bill Fukked us all up. We flourished under that policy. Brilliant, qualified and able people were welcome here in the first half of the 20th century. Its much better than what we have now.

@Thaw I've lived in the "third world". I used to think the first world was so much better. Then I looked at Twitter.

@Thaw regardless, my point it that when we were more concerned about brains, qualification, means, talent, and yes, compatible culture.etc. I still believe we would benefit from a best-and-brightest go to the front of the line type policy.

Kennedy was the famous front man of the bill. Famous guy from the famous family, although, it's probably true that his Marxist handlers were behind the bill--as they are behind most modern bills--even those sponsored by "the right."

He swore it would not be a quota bill, but it was, and prior to that, while it was true that anyone could come here legally, eventually, they would be waiting a long time before nuclear scientists, and mathematicians and engineers, and entrepreneurs--movers and shakers, etc.

Perhaps I don't go deep enough into the details--you may have a point there. I tend to rely on my own wits rather than google. (I feel it is healthier for the brain (in moderation ) not that I don't do research sometimes--if you can call looking up shit "research;" it's just that I'm more of a big picture guy--always have been ; )

@ThomasinaPaine truer words, Thomasina, truer words were never spoken : )

my great grandfather was a genius. he graduated school at thirteen and was a doctor at age 21. he was highly respected in his community. he studied greek and latin and wrote books. that is what a high iq means. when you have high intelligence you go down in history. einstein had a high iq and he is remembered.

@B1967 The Ashkenazim have high IQ's. The Sephardim, not so much.

@Thaw Really want to know what changed the demographics of America and will continue to do so 19th Amendment this is why the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 came about

@Thaw You need to get validated data and sources .If the Jew are only what 3% of the population in the US
And control 99% of the country why then do they let you talk bad about them

@Thaw You need validated data and sources not PR

0

The US military has minimum enlistment standards at about the IQ 85 level

B1967 Level 7 Aug 7, 2020

@Thaw Just add a little info so ?

Minimum IQ for military is 92, putting them in the 90-110 range along with half of the country's population.

0

You need to follow the data. You could increase Intelligence IQ by 20%

B1967 Level 7 Aug 7, 2020

@Thaw It could help a few . As for the data listed no change
But a increase in intelligence by 20% is good for any group

@Thaw the brain is a muscle. it can be developed just like any other muscle. people have proven it.

0

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.

@Thaw

As I have tried to explain before you do not want to live in a society where the rights of the individual are subservient to the needs of society.

@Thaw Whites would be 3rd. on the list

@Thaw IQ

@Thaw Ashkenazi Jews have highest IQ and there is no valid data that disputes or disprove it
With that said if you go with the Data of IQ Ashkenazi Jews ,Asian ,White The data don't lie
Whites still come in 2 or 3 you pick not first

@Thaw Ashkenazim.are doing way better then Whites the data shows

@Thaw Are you referring to Jews

@Thaw When you have no arguments you start name calling I thought you were better than that guess not how sad

@Thaw I thought you were better than that guess not how sad, no argument

@Thaw Please only valid and reliable this is a joke right

@Thaw

The topic of common sense is as complicated as morality. It depends on the circumstances it has more utility than intellectualism. I think you are under estimating how abstract the concepts we are discussing are. We probably need a separate discussion on not just morality but common sense as well.

@B1967 How can you make 2000 posts a day on here? Don't you have a Job or something else to do? Just curious. Is someone paying you to do all this posting? Is this your job? Or are you independently wealthy and/or a shut-in so you can just post all day and night?

2

The trick I have seen is to pretend that any scientists involved in such research have dark motives and therefore we can pretend that the science doesn't exist.

0

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."

@Thaw

"Nobody reads all your pasted-in mumbo jumbo."

Deception is an art, some are good at it, others not so much.

@Josf-Kelley

I think by your logic those that do not engage in mutually beneficial voluntary "trade" are immoral. It's actually a pretty good argument up to the point where such trade is no longer beneficial to Civilization. Who determines what is beneficial in a world where the interests of the individual conflict with the interests of society?

@wolfhnd

"I think by your logic those that do not engage in mutually beneficial voluntary "trade" are immoral."

Who is that directed at?

As to the continued effort to speak for everyone by "Thaw": Absolutes are used for what reason? The absolute statements are not true, therefore they are false if not deceptive on purpose. As to question begging, the answer you have is the one you want, so what does that have to do with anyone else, let alone me?

Write Comment