This forum is full of it, but it's all true. The facts are there. Maybe there is a little hyperbole, sure black people can become doctors, fly planes etc... I'm a reasonable human being, I was raised in a liberal environment. I have bullied before, but never been racist and I see bigotry as immature, however I can't escape the fact that they are indeed very unusual looking.
"golly, niggers are hideous with their buck teeth, black skin and brillo heads. Egads."
Just do a google search for skull shapes of different races and albino black people... CAucasian and mongoloid skulls are about the same and both these races have obviously exceeded negrito races in culture and civilisation. Even the obscure native americans constructed early civilisations. Their hunter gatherers tribes only existed due to their isolation, deprived of the circumstnaces that allow for agrarian civilisation. Given another 1000 years after the SPanish arrived, and the Gulf of Mexico would be like the Mediteranean circa 1000 B.C..
Though I can't say the same for black civilisations, they were not isolated, theywere exposed to the Egyptians, who were arabic, im not one of these nuts who thinks they are white. I really am not a racist or even a far right conservative...
I can't contain what i think anymore and I shouldn't be afraid of expressing my thoughts. They do look so animal like, it is as if they are a relic from evolution before human civilisation. In fact that's what they are, the only tribal systems outside of sub-saharran africa left by around 1300 were in areas which didn't have much food. Yet in the rich jungles of africa they still lived in the stone age, never utilising the wide range of plants there.
I think the out of africa theory is correct and that blacks haven't evolved much whilst caucasians and mongoloids have had to deal with the ice age.
How should I approach these facts rationally? Liberals say I should just ignore them, conservatives say I should become a whtie supremacist nut. Surely there is another way? Surely there is a way to get society to accept these facts without sinking into depths of paranoia and stupidity.
Being smart enough to tamp out LOL on the computer, can you honestly say you wouldn't be better off in america or FINLAND than say, Nicaragua?
What about those rape gates and shit?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 0:09
WTF M8!!!!
Dude, have I not been arguing genetic descent and NOT SKIN COLOR were important for the past 50 posts or so?
The "Moors" weren't really negroid. They were semitic, descended from the same stock as the europeans, the jews, and the arabs.
And all of the civilizations (That I could find) that you listed there were nile-based, too far north for their time to have had very much contact negroids.
Yeah, we won history. But there's a reason why.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 0:57
Yeah, we won history.
It ain't over yet.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 3:25
I've heard of these civilizations you speak of, and so far my impression of them has been that either their significance has been played up in a desperate attempt to make the negroids seem important, or the data was fuzzy enough that nobody could tell whether they were negroid or not.
If it is true that the historical significance of ancient black civilization is covered up in some sort of massive aryan conspiracy, why then do we know of the many advanced and successful during their time civilizations of the native americas? (mayas, incas ETC...) Wouldn't it stand to reason that they would simply be covered up as well?
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-06 6:53
The immediate slant with your lot is always towards some aryan conspiracy. Could it be possible that it was just too fucking long ago? Obviously negroids were the "master race" and like it or not- you still have so called "negroid" genes inside of you and humankind ALWAYS will. The arguement for genetics in the case of "failed civilizations" will always run into this wall. Neverminding the fact that you have ZERO, NONE, ABSOLUTELY NO DATA that backs up your claims.
And why is it implausible to believe that one civilization would cover up another? The Catholics did it with Christianity and the story of Jesus. The Greeks did it, so did the Romans, even America wants people to culturally assimilate to the ideas of the west.
I think you really do lack a knowledge of the context of history with your claims. Particularly the discoveries of these "black civilizations". Why would a white european person in the 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 hundreds believe that the black savages they've been subjegating were capable of any advanced civilization? You are expressing the same method of reason used by those who swore up and down the Earth was flat. Back then, they didn't even KNOW that all of mankind came from Africa. This is now common knowledge.
What's irratating most of all is that your definition of negroids is superficial. But when you're shown superficial evidences that some of the oldest civilizations were "Black". You say: "Oh well they weren't black." - That shows me, a purely racist slant in your arguement. Sure, you might not *believe* you're racist- but you are expressing a purposefully leaning towards whites by implying that negroids alone fall outside of the standard genetic caste of the modern homosapien.
How can you look at the Olmec statues and say: "They weren't black"? They certainly don't look like no fucking John Redcorn. How can you sit there and say "The Moors weren't black"? clearly Shakespeare thought so, clearly whomever termed them "Moors" thought so.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 9:11
you still have so called "negroid" genes inside of you and humankind ALWAYS will
we still have monkey genes it us. we still have fish genes in us (apparently fetues have fins first before they have hands or something, don't know much about it). big deal.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 9:16
>>325
you said something concrete about Olmec statues
Some writers have pointed to the full lips and broad noses of these monuments as evidence that the Olmec were actually from Africa or (in a more recent variation on the suggestion) that they represent supposed evidence of some Mesoamerican-African intermarriages. Mainstream scholars have remained unconvinced by this suggestion. They have pointed out that not all people with broad noses and full lips are African; some Native Americans of this region still display these traits today without any other evidence of African ancestry. Full lips and short, broad noses are the norm among Mesoamericans and tropical Mongoloids. It is also noted that the colossal heads show eye folds found in the local Mesoamericans, but not in most Africans. Some of these features are also present among the Khoisan and San Bushmen, suggesting a possible connection to the once widely spread Negrito peoples. These are thought to represent an early migratory group, and are still present in parts of Southeast Asia. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmec#Olmec_colossal_heads]
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 9:34
>>327
read the discussion page on Olmec. it's pretty lol. afrocentrim etc
It's a very big deal in this argument. It throws the entire idea of "genetic failure" right out of the fucking window. "But only the negroids and their faulty genes failed." - Guess what? Whites, Japanese, Chinese, Wap, Dago, Polish, Nigger, Chink, Spic, Kike = *Same fucking caste of genes*
I have wikipedia, too, you know. Obviously there is alot of debate on the subject of the Olmecs- the part that eurocentrics like yourself continuously leave out of just debate regarding the Olmecs is the fact that the modern human developed different physical traits *after* they left Africa. Answer this: Why is it implausable that negroids made it these world destinations first? If humans entered the Americas (or anywhere else) between 30,000 years B.C. to 150,000 years B.C., they would have had to have been Negroid. What about the cultural similarity between the Olmecs and West Africa, in general?
Also: Why did you not include the google/wikipedia return on the Zingh Empire? Should I provide some other civilizations for you to look up? Maybe the Nok Culture? Who jumped from Stone Age to Iron Age *before* "whites" did? Or the Ghana?
Regardless, you failed to see what I was getting at. Why is it- that you don't apply your "black washing" to things that are obviously "black"? "Moors" means black. It doesn't mean "Berber" it doesn't mean "High Yellow/Off-white". Also anonymous... previously you sited the facial features and the bone structure as proof of differences between the "races" - so did you change your mind all of sudden? Or do you morph the relevancy of these physical traits to better fit your arguments as the debate progresses?
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-06 10:24
And another thing.
You have been proven habitually wrong about African civilization throughout this argument. But for me and many others here that's way beyond the point.
What I want to see is data that backs up the assertion that the failure of any chosen civilization is genetic. I want to see a study that says: "This civilization failed because of poor genetics."
>>329 It's a very big deal in this argument. It throws the entire idea of "genetic failure" [..]
How is the fact that I share human genes with negroids related too the fact that negroids cannot create civilization? All mammals have mouths etc. which does not mean that they can talk.
I don't know anything about Olmecs. I looked up Olmecs on wikipedia and just copied it because you seemed to be lying. There is no evidence except from Afrocentrists that Olmecs are negoid but Afrocentrist also say Egyptians were negroid. It is plausible but there is no solid evidence.
"Moors" means black
Ever seen people from Pakistan. There are Paks who are completely black with caucasoid skull structure. Same with Ethiopea, northwestern Africa, south India.
Also anonymous... previously you sited the facial features and the bone structure as proof of differences between the "races" - so did you change your mind all of sudden?
I wasn't that anonymous but... The Olmec statues showed broad noses and thick lips which tropical mongoloids and mesoamericans have. That doesn't mean that they share similar skull structure with negroids. Their skull structure can be entirely different and they could still have broad noses and thick lips.
>>330
Impossible to do a study like that. Civilization have been around for thousands of year and genetics for tens. Negroes have low IQ scores and most negroes I see are far below average intelligence. Intelligence is genetic. So negroes have bad genes for intelligence. Intelligence helps a lot in constructing a civlization.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 17:16
TLDR addendum:
Anti-chan is the biggest fucking nitwit ever.
George Bush angered greatly at being defeated by a durty lihbrul.
thread is lol but longwinded.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 17:33
>>332
Addendum addendum to 332's, if Africans arrived before the modern-day groups occured, it's plausible they could have lived in a small commune for ages before exploding out. This would have allowed them to retain their afro-centric bodily features.
Also: "Archaeologists disagree whether this was an independent development (methods of smelting may have derived form the use of kilns for firing terracotta) or whether the skill was brought south form the North African coast by traders (records suggest that Phoenician traders were crossing (what is now) the Sahara at that time."
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 18:30
The evolution of Homo sapiens occurred in Africa, where, it seems, the first anatomically modern humans developed. Our most recent common female ancestor, whom all living human beings share, probably lived roughly 100,000 to 150,000 years ago. It is thought that a part of the Homo sapiens sapiens population then migrated into the Near East, spreading east to Australasia some 60.000 years ago, northwestwards into Europe and eastwards into Asia some 40.000 years ago, and further east to the Americas ca. 30.000 years ago. Oceania was populated some 15.000 years ago. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_migration]
Early migrations took a loong time during which humans changed.
I don't know whether humans had enough technology to cross the Atlantic 30,000 years ago as implied in the theory about West African influence in Olmecs. Especially since it would have had to be a mass migration or frequent communication.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-06 20:49
--|[ "Impossible to do a study like that. Civilization have been around for thousands of year and genetics for tens. Negroes have low IQ scores and most negroes I see are far below average intelligence. Intelligence is genetic. So negroes have bad genes for intelligence. Intelligence helps a lot in constructing a civlization." ]|--
I'm going to forego the other stuff about human mirgration for now and focus primarily on your assertation about genetics. Also lets, play a game: Everytime you see a question mark- try, you know....repsonding. The very reason my responses have been so long-winded is because I don't casually leave certain concepts out of the discussion.
Ok, what continues to amaze me in this argument is your ability to recklessly declaire things that have been proven either half true or completely untrue as hard evidence or fact. It's not "impossible to do a study like that", it's actually very possible. It's impossiblity stems from the fact that there are no "negroid genes" to base an empirical study upon.
And you've obviously started your own superficial study based on "the negros you've seen". How does your observations of so called "negroid behavior" equate in any way to their genetics? You say that intelligence is genetic. Where is the data supporting that intelligence is solely genetic? Especially seeing as how the tests that guage intelligence are entirely "nuture tests"? Where is the data saying that "negroes lack intelligence" because of defective sets of genes? Do you have this data? Yes or No. Or do you expect us to believe that it's "impossible to do a study like that"?
Now, I can buy that "intelligence helps a lot in constructing a civilization". But by the defintion of civilization- how are any of the Sub-Sarahan African cultures I listed lacking in civilization? With what reasoning to do you say that Africans haven't constructed civilization? Clearly the Mali, the Zingh were civilized. When you input "Sub-Saharan Civilization" into google- what in the results imply that those civilizations weren't civilized? Especially considering that the entire scientific community terms them as civilizations.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-06 20:53
Also: Do us a big favor and answer the Yes or No questions regarding your empirical data with a simple "Yes" or "No". I didn't ask if you if the study was impossible or not, I asked you if you have the data to back up your claims. Either you do or you do not.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 23:03
holy fuck is anti-chan always here? it's friday night
something must have really struck a nerve
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-06 23:39
Huh? Is this another veiled character attack? Does my social life really come into play here? Am I required to tell you that last weekend involved me being drunk to the point sit-sleeping in some else's piss and all this week my burps have tasted vaguely of vicodin and cocaine? It's the internet- typing 4 paragraphs in a debate ain't shit.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-07 1:01
iii... amm sooooooo pisssseed off with youuu guuyys riiight noowwww
>_<'
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-07 2:13
SCIENTIFIC METHOD AKA ANTI CHAN METHOD
The "scientific method" is the ONLY way yet discovered for discovering truth amid a world of lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
a. Observe some aspect of the universe.
b. Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed.
c. Use the theory to make predictions.
d. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
e. Modify the theory in the light of your results.
__________________________________
ECONOMIST METHOD AKA ANONYMOUS METHOD
Did I ever tell you about niggers? Niggers aren't smart because of their GENES!!
I got this because I look at some marginal UNGENENTIC IQ test scores and just like, you know, looked around me at all the negroids and stuff. They have different haplotypes so it MUST BE TRUE. Hey I'm not racist and even I didn't believe it at first, but sure-enough it was true. Over the last thousands of years Africans have had failed civilizations....
People always try to blame the other races....but we won history! It had to be a reason! We've NEVER subjegated other cultures and peoples. Actually NO ONE HAS. You know what? There are some intelligent blacks out there and I don't know if that's geneitc or WHAT but generally niggers ain't all that bright. So I am beginning to think that the cat actually CAUSED the failure of thier civilizations. Genetics don't lie do they?
Now of course it's debate as to why African civilizations or any number of civilizations failed... I am sure I can find out by studying niggers with my eyes. (Although some say there are virtually an infinite number of explanations for the same observation, and only the "scientific method" can separate fact from fiction.)
What do you think? Are dumb niggers the cause or the effect? Or both? Or neither? Economists run into this problem all the time...
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 3:34
One more thing... Moor means in ancient greek, "The color of mud" I think most black africans of that time period were darker than mud... then look at south indians or even non-negroid egyptians... they're about the right shade.
anti-chan, you have repeatedly shown your ignorance or possible even willful misunderstanding of many of the posts made here. We keep talking about negroid people, and then you assert that we're talking about people with black skin.
Also the logical errors you keep making when you assume that just because we share genes with negroids means that we can't say anything about whether their genetics are good or not. A caveman's axe contains iron. Does that mean that it should have the same sharpness and durability.. of a modern galvanized steel version? Well they both contain iron so that pretty much throws your idea of industrial engineering out the window.
>>343
Yes, they do, but he acts like we are only talking about people with black skin, as if skin affects intelligence. Dark skin is favorably selected in populations of humans living in sun-irradiated and hot regions of the world.
Another thing; there are very few civilizations that exist in southern africa. I read an article once about only one that built any structure that survived to this day, while everywhere else, from the americas to australia we can find all sorts of signs of commerce etc... etc... huge routes in the middle of deserts by which people were travelling in convoys.
Now, look at modern egypt. It's mostly arabic in the north (Where the pyramids are) with more negroid genes as you move south. Genetic surveys show THEY (The negroids in the south) only arrived and began mixing within the past 2,000 years.
Two of those very minor civilizations you mentioned existed on the nile, which I and most non afro-centic archealogists have reason to believe was not populated by negroids. Yet they continue to assert this as some sort of evidence of ancient black civilization.
Seriously, Afro-centrists seem to try to find reasons to believe that any old civilizations they find must have been part of the lost black empire. I'm sorry, but it just didn't exist. As much as you'd like to believe that all men are created equal, they aren't.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 3:56
>>330
Moreso than your data says that the nile was populated by blacks. It's circumstantial I'll admit, but in the entire world I only know of about two ancient black african societies that on their own advanced enough to build a city.
And olmec statues honestly look more mongolian to me... The skull is proportionally too small to be negroid.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 5:08
stupid Racists... will you never learn that the last "different" Human Race were the Neanderthals, and they dont exist anymore...and everybody who comes up with this fucking Race-Theories should go and find a work, today! So that this dumbass dont will ever again get so bored of his self-hatred that he has to invent such a crap.
I find your convenient interpetation of what is negroid to be purposefully deceptive. What do you mean when you say negroid? Can you define them genetically? Just earlier did you not say that from what you've "seen" these so-called negroids possess an inferior intelligence? How else do you determine them to be negroid if not by their dark skin? Mere skull shapings? That's it? Well...
...they all still look pretty black to me. Even the "White Moor Boy" looks what in western culture can be easily mistaken for negroid or black. I think you may be confusing the moors that invaded spain with the moors that remained as the christians re-took spain. The moors that invaded spain were negroid or "black". It's right in the name. Furthering my point- it was the Moors who had no problem with race-mixing and willingly lived side-by-side with other cultures. Maybe if they simply wiped them all out, there would be no doubt as to what "race" they were. Regardless, your dodgy interpetitation of what is negroid clearly morphs to fit your argument.
Your iron-to-galvanized steel analogy is completel off-base in that genetically speaking humans have not changed, evolved or "upgraded" - which is what you seem to suggest. You have the exact same genes that negroids have. All of mankind operates within the same cast of genetic possibility. As far as I am concerned- you can *say* whatever you want. As to whether or not what you say is *true* however is a entirely different matter. To be convinced of your claim I'm going to need to see more than "that article your read one time" and these mystery "genetic surveys" you continously cite.
Clearly you're operating in the realm co-relative subjectivity. It seems that only eurocentrics are still trying to state that human evolution and therefore civilization goes to from elsewhere *to* Africa. All mother culture and all of modern mankind comes from Africa. And that is scientific fact. It's not the 1930's anymore, anonymous. For me- even being from the west- this issue of afrocenticity v.s eurocentricity is moot.
Because you have still not answered the "yes or no" question as to if you have absolute evidence that clearly states:
1. X-Civilization failed because of Y-grouping of genes.
2. Lower scores on nuture IQ tests are caused by X-grouping of genes.
Do you have this data?
Yes or No.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 6:54
>>349
What? Oh yeah, maybe the hunter gatherer culture descended from africa, sure. But stonehenge, the greeks and roman cultures ETC... formed after they left africa.
1. I think the point is that x-grouping of genes or whatever the fuck your talking about precluded a certain group ever FORMING a civilization. This is only verifiable by circumstantial evidence, but it's powerful nonetheless.
2. We have plenty of data to back this up. For example, we can trace intelligence between sets of identical twins separated at birth, they usually have a direct correlation regardless of upbringing. They have traced genes back through history that correlate to certain groups forming...
For example, the Ashkenazi Jews are a subset of all jews, and share an almost identical culture with jews at large. They were very inbred, coming from a small group of people during the middle. This has brought out several disorders, including cystic fibrosis, that incredibly sick harlequin fetus disorder, etc... But inbreeding also strengthened several genes that control intelligence, and as a result they were able to rise in medieval culture, creating the stereotype of jews as bankers, money-grubbers ETC...
Nowadays, 70% of jews are of the ashkenazi group. And it is the ashkenazis who are the stereotypical hollywood actors, the successful stock brokers and lawyers. One example: fully half of all chess champions are ashkenazi, while the representation for other groups of jews is proportional to their population with the rest of the country.
bzzzzz wrrrrrooooong, clearly by the very way the ancient moors were termed, this is proven to be the other way around. remember, people knew the fucking difference between white and arab back then. the moors were bix nood, so stfu
Your assertion is that certain civilizations failed or never came into being because of the lack of certain "intelligence genes" or generally poor genetics. Yet, the other civilizations you mentioned were formed using the same caste of genes that are inherant in every modern homospaien. The only differences were skin color and bone structure. Where is the proof that they were fundamentally genetically different?
Secondly, you keep repeating to yourself over and over that Sub-Sahara Africans "never had civilization" despite the overwhelming *non-circumstancial* evidence to the contrary.
Kush, Axum, Ghana, Mali, Bantu, Nok, Zingh etc.
"These Bantu immigrants would eventually found the civilization of the Mwenumatapa, or "Great Zimbabwe" civilization." (Taken from: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CIVAFRCA/IRONAGE.HTM) ---Keep in mind this is an academic resource, in case you try to call "afrocentricity" again.
Either way, you're (cleverly) dodging the question. In the scientific community circumstancial evidence lacks power until there is at least a reasonable amount of empirical data to back it up. Do you have that data which states that any one civilization failed or did not come into being because of genetics, yes or no? We've been over your so called "data" regarding the twin's IQ. IQ tests are based on *nuture* and have no way of absolutely gauging what intelligence comes from nature and what intelligence comes from nuture.
And it appears that your entire argument constantly comes back to a fringe group of people who just so happened to practice inbreeding. Why do you ignore the fact that the Ashkenazi culture was one centered around intelligence? Yes, intelligence was a highly desirable trait for mating, but only because culture *enforced* that idea. It's highly strange to me, that you've also chosen a people who technically have no "nation" or "civilization" in the traditional sense (the sense in which *you* term civilization). How, are they different from nomadic Sub-Sarahans? The difference seems to me to be completely subjective and superficial.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-07 10:26
Finally, you are never going to get around the race thing with your talk of haplotypes and allele frequencies. With your very arguement you operate under the false "if-then" assumption that: IF race is a surrogate for unknown genetic mechanisms, THEN observed racial differences in IQ and "achievement" can be explained by genetic differences. I just don't see how you can arrive to that conclusion with all of the blank spots in our understanding of human traits controlled by many genes in concert with environmental factors. I.E - INTELLIGENCE.
On top of all that, your "pan-ethinic" allele frequencies do not casually mean that there is a clear pattern of ethnic differences in allele freqencies alone. They definately can't be absolutely co-related to different phenotypes- don't know where you're getting the data that says that. Anyway, by definition ethnic groups are defined socially FIRST- not biologically (which comes SECOND). The whole thing is a poor effort on your part to biologically define race- but guess what? It doesn't exist. The very term "negroid" greatly over-generalizes and over-simplies a contenient of people who have the greatest number of haplotypes in the world. Different allele frequences only mean that a different parts of a continuum has been sampled.
Your entire argument, to me, seems like one huge illogical and insubstancial leap into retardation. We all know that genetics are involved somewhat with intelligence, but that aside do we still know of a gene that has been attributed to acedemics or IQ? Do we know for sure that any civilization failed because of lack of "IQ boosting" genes? And does race even exist? NO.
>>353
The meaning of Moors is very varied. Generally in Spain in means people from North Africa or just darker skinned people which can mean anybody. The invaders of the iberian peninsula were Semetic arabs and some berbers. There are also black moors who are generally slaves of the moors. I don't think inbreeding with slaves is forbidden in muslim culture because it happens often in Saudi Arabia.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 16:16
Anti-chan: You fucking keep reiterating the same shit over and over. If you had looked at what I said about twin studies, I said that IQ correlated regardless of upbringing (though upbringing did play a big role, by approximately ten IQ points). This is important and you dodge it.
And we can't say that a Civilization failed because you've never really given a good definition. (I am not the original guy who debated you earlier). But what I can say is that most of the great scholastic acheivements were done at the civilizations that we know of. Sure, some negroes might have built a few structures (though not of stone, because they don't even exist today) but they never did anything that warranted remembering them.
And you keep dodging the issue of central and south american civilizations; they were fricken huge, and the native americans were certainly one of the most if not THE most subjugated group in history; yet why do we know these people built big pyramids and stuff? Shouldn't white society have covered it up?
BTW, in that link you provided, "Africans were largely made up of hunter gatherer groups until 200bc" the very first sentence. It just serves to reinforce my stance that their civilization wasn't as great, especially considering that they existed much longer and should have had a drop on the greeks and romans... They were still in the IRON AGE AT THAT TIME.
You keep asking "Where's the proof that civilization xyzinfinity failed because of other variable" then continue to muddle the question into incomprehensibility. Of course we can't show that, because civilizations don't explode when a couple of bad genes get in. But what we can show is a systemic correlation, in which certain people can't get their shit together, and certain people CAN. That's what I've been saying all along, and you keep on dodging it, trying to act like a civilization exploding is the only way to prove my point. All the civilizations you mentioned, sure they existed, but they didn't do anything awesome like anyone else. I have challenge for you; show me an advancement that benefits us today that came from any black african "civilization". It's a far more reasonable request than your whole show me genes and civilization failure thing.
Anti-chan, throughout this argument you show a complete and utter disregard of the facts. Rather than address how twin studies show differences in IQ, rather than address how it only takes one or two genes to make someone's brain the size of a raddish (would they still have the natural IQ capacity then of a rhode scholar? I bet you'd say yes. BECAUSE RACE DOESN'T EXIST!!!!), rather than address the fact that advancement was made by other civilizations at an incredibly much higher rate, you keep on repeating your asenine one-liner propaganda. You keep on insisting that intelligence is some magical thing that can't be affected by genetics, when every single other aspect of humanity (blood pressure, diabetes incidence, lactose intolerance, heart disease) is demonstrated to have descendence within populations.
You aren't an idiot, rather, you're worse; an idiot at least knows when he doesn't know, you're someone who carries very well made arguments from false suppositions. In short, you're a pussy, who'd rather believe a comforting lie than face the real truth.