Proof niggers are dumb (IQ, brain size etc)

Oriental populations in East Asia and North America typically have mean IQs falling between 101 to 111. White populations in Europe, South Africa, Australasia, and North America have mean IQs of from 85 to 115, with an overall mean of 100. Black populations living south of the Sahara, in the Caribbean, in Britain, and in North America, average IQs of from 70 to 90.

Especially contentious was Lynn's calculation of a mean IQ of only 70 for Black Africans living south of the Sahara. Many reviewers have expressed skepticism about such a low IQ, holding it impossible that, by European standards, 50 percent of Black Africa is 'mentally retarded'. But a mean African IQ of 70 has been confirmed in three studies since Lynn's review, each of which used Raven's Progressive Matrices, a test regarded as an excellent measure of the non-verbal component of general intelligence and one not bound by culturally specific information.

See liberals like to live in a dream world utopia where everyone gets along, when things don't work out, which they never do, they just blame it on racism, you can't eliminate racism its entirely natural, racism will never go away, they don't realize that their philosophy causes harm to totally innocent people, should you sacrifice so many good honest people just to give some black people a chance? No, its sick. It doesn't work.

>>79
Correct.

#79 you throw a monkey the best books in the world and pay 1,000,000 dollars for his education and hes still gonna be hoppin around eating bananas.

>>80
I would utilise practical husbandry methods.

I would pick the thickest most meatiest bulls with mothers that I recorded as producing a lot of milk regardless of fur colour. I would cross breed bulls to try and gain the positive traits of both breeds and I would inbreed those that possessed both traits and neuter those that have 2 harmful recessive genes.

>>83
What if a monkey exhibits intelligence beyond that of a normal monkey. Would you perform tests on him and publicise your findings and garner a lot of interest from various scientific fields or would you throw him back in the jungle?

Yes, some monkeys will be more intelligent than others, but on average monkeys are incredibly dull loathsome creatures.

Lets use Norway or Sweden as an example, two countries with the highest standards of living in the world, only these standards are being lowered because of massive amounts of immigrants from Africa and other 3rd world countries, Norway and Sweden's crime rates have skyrocketed, 89% of all rapes are black on white. And virtually all gangrapes are black on white (similar to USA statistics) Now of course not all of these immigrants are bad, but loads of them are. Why is it Norways or Swedens jobs to give these people a chance? What is so good about diversity??? Because thats what you're doing, youre killing and raping innocent young women all in the name of political correctness, I hope you enjoy that sense of moral superiority. Why should they be the bait to see if a nigger is good or not, its not their job to help these people, especially when you consider how detrimental to their people and culture it has become.

Its not worth it! if someone sends you a barrel of apples and says "Theres 50 apples in here but only 20 are poisoned why whould you take and eat those apples" Its unfortunate but you must make these stereotyped judgments. 

Men aren't monkeys or bulls or anything but men. When you dehumanize your fellow man, you dehumanize yourself. Crying about liberals is fail. Crying about the white race dying out is fail.

Posts >>79 thru >>86 contain the same lame ass analogies and super-failing pseudo science. >>34, >>35 and >>36 still need to be argued using hard science or you fail.

If you faggots didn't fail so fucking hard, maybe people would actually believe in your little race war and your crybaby calls to save the white race.

Right now it seem that the only problem with whites are people like you and those who think like you without valid reason.

>>87
If you were following the conversation you would realise we were using metaphors and analogies to quickly put across a logical point.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor

Also not everyone here has declared that negroes are not human, just that many of them are inept and have serious social problems that cause sufferring to whites.

In the rest if yout post you just say everything fails without providing a reason so I don't give a shit.

^nigger alert

how bout logic? is that too much for liberals to understand?
the hard science is here, jews have been the ones who promote this 'all races are the same bullshit' despite all the fucking evidence saying otherwise

>>86
There is nothing good about it, it is our right to prevent people from immigrating but human rights must be maintained since tyranny is much worse so institutionalised racism is out of the question. I am anti-immigration and anti-racist.

For all you pussy brainwashed liberals who believe race is only skin deep. Make sure you grab a tissue liberals get ready for the waterworks. OH NOES!

RACIAL GROUPINGS MATCH GENETIC PROFILES, STANFORD STUDY FINDS
STANFORD
http://mednews.stanford.edu/releases/2005/january/racial-data.htm

Scientists have published data on over one million crucial DNA variations in three racial groups,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4275695.stm

A New Look at Old Data May Discredit a Theory on Race
http://www.racesci.org/in_media/craniometrics_nyt_Oct2002.htm

Articles Highlight Different Views on Genetic Basis of Race
http://www.missouri.edu/~chemrg/current_news/Article_Genetics_Race.html

Does Race Exist?
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00055DC8-3BAA-1FA8-BBAA83414B7F0000

Gene Map Presents Race Concerns
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,41619,00.html

Gene Study Identifies 5 Main Human Populations
http://tinyurl.com/6zzb6

>>90
Are you anti-discrimination or anti-racist? I'm against discrimination (hurting someone because they are of one race) as well, as I always held that all laws must be enforced equally across the board. But I'm not going to join the lefist dogma of racial equality and be a creationist because of that. I'm also not fucking OK with affirmative action and denying that niggers commit a disproportionate number of crimes -- and should be rightfully avoided without White guilt ensued. That doesn't mean I'll choose an unqualified White for a job instead of a nigger or beat up random niggers et al., it just means I'm worried about meeting a nigger because statistics prove he's more prone to crime and expect them to be on average more stupid than humans.

>>88
I was told by the person who made the posts (I assume) that he was just trolling me. Said posts look like trolling. It is not what I claimed in any on my posts on this thread, so why should I answer to them? You didn't even fucking give the context. Before I answer to them (and they look like written by a Mongoloid) I need to be reassured that it's not a troll and that there's someone who I can discuss them with.

i

am

about

to

get

one

Hundred.

Regardless, the original poster is a racist, since he/she seems to care whether someone is black or white or asian or whatever race; generalizing is always a bad idea. Maybe you should try to broaden your horizon a bit.

>>101
Maybe you should try to broaden your horizon a bit. Status quo is in your favour, and helps you be totally ignorant of the obvious situation at hand: groups. If liberals and leftists didn't make such a big deal out of race as to totally deny it, while blaming all Whites for the lack of equality to be justified, in order to make us accept being overwhelmed by non-White immigration, and if they didn't force us into big bloated nanny states in order for (primarily) Whites to pay for minorities who perform worse, or don't want to and justify it through the imaginary racial equality and denial of differences in statistics, we wouldn't either. If we lived in a truly individualist society, we would enjoy the fruits of our labour individually.
Liberals tell us that we should judge races individually (and most of the time outright denial of racial differences) when as a group they act totally different as proven by biology and statistics, also as a justification for giving up our countries to non-White immigration, then they tell us that we should pay collectively for it. Something about this strikes me as mentally disordered to follow. Yet when they intellectualise this crap and control academia and media, people do. This is my problem. I wouldn't make a big deal out of race if liberals wouldn't make a big deal to divide Whites and keep all other races cohesively against Whites, while forcing Whites to pay for them. (Of course, except East Asians who work etc...)
(Also, I'm not OP, but felt I could answer)

>>101
Let me paste to you what a certified genius wrote in regards to modern leftism. I don't agree with everything he said, but in regards to modern leftism he is right on:

The Psychology of Modern Leftism

6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.

7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th century.

9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

[edit] Feelings of Inferiority

10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self- hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto- dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

>>101

18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

[edit] Oversocialization

24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.

25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people.[1]

26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.

27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals[2] constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment.

28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes[3]) for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.

>>101

29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black "underclass" they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers "responsible." They want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The system couldn't care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a "responsible" parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values.

30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society's most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of "liberation." In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.

31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing thumb-nail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism.

32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And today's society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.

Source: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future

It's a good read. He's right on a lot of things...

amen

>>88

You put across logical point using hard science and full-on reason. Metaphors and Analogies are tools of bullshitters and ignorants. My point still stands: Address posts >>34 thru >>36 or fail. The reason everything fails is your inability address >>34, >>35 and >>36 with hard science.

>>107
(not >>88)
You talked of trolling me. So you're saying you're willing to discuss >>34, >>35 and >>36 (very Mongoloid arguments btw) and cease your trolling in order to debate?

>>105

He was a student of W.V. Quine, which I find fascinating.

>>108

Ok, not sure what a "mongoloid argument" is, but if you're 100% correct and able to find hard science not backed by ex-nazis to refute what's said in those post then it really shouldn't matter if I'm actually trolling or actually trying to have a debate.

Just face it, if you had what was necessary to put your argument across as unadulterated truth then you would've thrust it right into the limelight of this thread. Just stop fagging it up already and get to it. You're not gaining more the converts the longer you drag this out.

>>110
Actually, I have. But if you do comments like:
it really shouldn't matter if I'm actually trolling or actually trying to have a debate.
I'm turned off by it and it's a sign you don't give a shit and that you'll stick to your politically correct teachings no matter what, and you don't seem to have the interest  Such one sided debates are useless. Since you only pasted your (or worse, someone else's) replies, I'm not interested in what others might have said and I'll take it all as yours. Reasonable since you didn't paste the context. Let's go:

34:
An indentifiable haplotype, to me, doesn't constitute the existence of a different biological "race".
D'oh. Your point being? Are you saying every haplotype should constitute a different race? What the fuck? No one has ever claimed that a haplotype = a race. LOL. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about do you? There are (to my knowledge at least) 153 haplogroups and thus much more haplotypes.
Plus, I've seen zero evidence that states these haplotypes have an absolute tie-in to intelligence.
So? Haplotypes are irrelevant to this discussion for now.
The differences in intelligence that you continue to imply would only be genetically related if these haplotypes were indications of a seprate speicies.
Aha. I don't get what you're saying, but it has no bearing in reality. Look up what 'species,' 'race,' 'haplotype,' and 'haplogroup' mean please.
That is not the case.
Of course it isn't. What separate species? LOL.

I feel like I need answer this further, together with one of your earlier comments:
That's nice. Is she 100% white? (PROTIP: She's not and neither are you.)

Ugh, you're arguing about minutiae about haplotype diversity as being a rebuttal of the existence of race? Or do you even argue that? What are you on about? Particular haplotypes (or even more sensibly haplogroups) do not separate races like you think. You seem to discard evolution and think that haplotype/haplogroup diversity proves racial mixing -- showing that you have no clue of what they are. Protip: It's supposed to be this way. Or you think that alien haplogroup variation prove significant racial mixing? But that goes against your saying that there aren't any races. You're not fooling anyone intelligent with your neo-Marxist sophistry used for the fooling of uneducated masses. Does a few percent admixture make any significant difference and is sufficient for the abolition of the racial classification? No. In fact, saying people are in the slight racially mixed just further proves races. And let's give a bigger example. Does 20% white admixture in American blacks make them indistinguishable from white Americans -- both in appearance and social statistics? No.

As I see from your other "arguments", you would accept the term "race" only if people from the same race looked 100% the same. Something like this doesn't exist in the animal world.
Moreover, you and I and other modern day human "races" exist as subsets to these haplotypes. Any variation of haplotypes is variation that was already present in ancient homosapiens. Seeing as how Africans were the first to civilize in the most basic sense...I don't see where you get the leap from haplotypes to the definition of biological race and then one race being "better" at civilization than the other. I think your understanding of what the Hap-Map implies is way off and I think you are purposely ignoring history to protect your world view.
You are obviously not replying this to me, and I fail to see the exact context but it seems you need a lesson.

All human races/subraces have unique haplogroups and usually come from a common male ancestor. Some human populations are so different that there is virtually no overlap in many physical characteristics - compare a Pygmy with a Montenegrin, or an Eskimo with a Nilote, for example.

Clines and gradients came into being as a result of a geographical isolation followed by "de-isolation" and renewed contacts with other human groups. Traits are gradually changing, because people, who left the geographically isolated areas mixed with people from other formerly isolated areas. This proves that they are races of a single species.

Race can now be genetically determined with 100% accuracy.

For example, if you take a substantial number of loci, their combinations that you will get create very unique clusters and there are no marked overlaps between single racial groups. You can find mixed populations on the racial borders, but the racial core is fairly pure and thus the right classification based on them approaches 100%. Race is a significant bareer of gene flow even if there are no geographical barriers.
http://genetics.plosjournals.org/archive/1553-7404/1/6/pdf/10.1371_journal.pgen.0010070-S.pdf
http://www.as.wvu.edu/~dray/Papers/Witherspoon_et_al_2006_-_LINEs_and_human_populations.pdf

Race is basically an extended form of a family, a group of genetically related people, who - due to long intermixing in geographical isolation - share some distinct traits in far higher frequencies than other groups. The traditional racial classification is in an agreement with this definition and we can now improve it with the help of modern genetics.

The Europoid racial stock stems from such a distinct "family" created by a man bearing Y-haplogroup F and a woman with mtDNA haplogroup N, who lived somewhere in the Middle East (perhaps in Iran or Mesopotamia) ca. 50 000 years ago. All populations traditionally classified into the Europoid race bear these haplogroups in high frequencies. Similarly, black-skinned populations of South Asia (Australoids) were created by another "founding pair" with male lineage C and female lineage M. Mongoloids are actually cold-adapted Australoids from Southern Siberia, who absorbed some Europoid groups in East Asia.

Mixtures during glacial and post-glacial times were not rare, however. American Indians are basically a variable Europoid-Mongoloid mixture, while Ainu are fundamentally Europoids with some Australoid admixture. Polynesians are not Mongoloids, but Europoids partly mixed with Australoid negritos.

Local racial sub-groups can be defined as well, although some of them came into being as late as after the Ice Age, when the homogenous and clearly genetically defined refugial groups started to mix, and hence they may be characterized by more (and more subtle) haplogroups.

Sub-Saharan Africans should be classified into four main racial groups and one mixed one, which is in agreement with the haplogroup distribution.
1) Khoisans (A + L0K/L0d)
2) Nilotes (A3b2 + L0f?)
3) Pygmies (B + L1/L2)
4) Somalis (or "Neonegrids", how I call them) (E/E3b1+L3)
5) West Africans (NeonegridxPygmy mixture) + Bantus (further mixtures of West Africans with local African groups)

Earlier points should serve as a reply to the rest.
35:
Can you tell me why the Greenland Norse civilization "failed"? Was that genetic? Ok, well, prove it. Prove that the failure of any one civilization is solely genetic. You're the one making these assertions- not me- so "the burden of proof" is on you, isn't it?

I do not claim that the failure of a civilisation is solely genetic, and I doubt the person you spoke to but didn't even have the decency to paste his original message (which I don't care about anymore) ... so I should reply to this why? Mongoloid argument too.

If you don't have the proof the percieved failure of a civilization was absolutely genetic, then you have no basis for your assertion.
Aha. What assertion? You didn't bother to paste it, retard. Also, see earlier point, I do not claim this, and I don't care what the other person said since you didn't bother to paste it yet flashed these posts as the grand rebuttal to races.

You entire argument is based on the idea that any one "white civilization" has been "successful". Why do you not tell us what makes a "successful" civilization? Why so vague?
You gotta love how leftists try to deconstruct entire terms and concepts. This is too retarded to even answer. But to answer your question: g. You can correlate it with civilizations quite well, I gather.

European "civilization" is the most unstable in history. Its entire history is made up of wars upon wars, violent upheavals and unparalleled atrocities.
Ahahaha.
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
:-)

>110
(cont)

36:
>Finally, you are never going to get around the race thing with your talk of haplotypes and allele frequencies.
... No context again. But as I clarified earlier, I can get around to race quite easily with haplogroups.
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.
Straw man. It's about heritability. At least we are getting somewhere.
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.
For the purposes of this so called debate, I will assume that you know IQ test scores correlate with things: social outcomes (unemployment, child outside of marriage, lives in poverty, ever incarcerated, chronic welfare recipient)[The Bell Curve - Herrnstein & Murray (1994) pp. 171, 158, 163, 174, 230, 180, 132, 194, 247-248, 194, 146] and income[Murray, C. (1997). IQ and economic success. Public Interest, 128, 21–35.], etc. If you are stupid enough to deny these let me know. Leftists debate over the causation. They say that IQ does not effect income, because when controlled for socio-economic factors, raw IQ ends up not mattering. Fallacious control.


IQ ------ Social
  ||
  | `---- Income
  |
   `----- Economic

This is what IQ correlates with. And we know it does. Now let's look at what leftists say:


IQ             Social
(out of the      |
   picture)     \|/
               Income
                /|\
                 |
               Economic

This is utterly retarded.
Let's have an analogy. A sprinter's time in the 200m correlates withbody composition -- less fat, more muscles tends to result in faster 200m times.

Body ------ 400m
    ||
    | `---- 200m
    |
     `----- 100m

Now let's apply the leftist thinking.

Body            400m
(out of the      |
   picture)     \|/
                200m
                /|\
                 |
                100m
So what you're now saying is that controlling for 400m times and 100m times influences 200m times, and so the body composition is out of the picture. I needn't explain why this is blatantly retarded. When you factor things out, you ignore their own causation. Likewise, you ignore that IQ influences socioeconomic factors.

Now, onto the heritability of IQ.
Family IQs tend to correlate. A good example is the correlation between monozygotic twins. Reared together, 0.84*. When reared apart, one study puts the correlation at 0.77**. The fact that it isn't close to one.
*Bouchard TJ Jr, McGue M (1981) Familial studies of intelligence: a review.
**http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/03/minnesota-study-of-twins-reared-apart.php (I'd like to add that I saw a .72 and .75 study too, but can't find it atm)

Let's do some calculus .84^2 = .7056 ... This is called the determination of the monozygotic twins' IQ. This is what it will predict.

Now, monozygotic twins reared apart IQ correlate at: .72 (you'll have to believe me for now on the .72, but I'll search more if you want) to .77 ... What does that tell us?
.7056 + E = .72 - .77
where E should fit the environmental similarities. Fits perfectly.
So, genes would make up at least more than 70.56% of the IQ score.
IQ determination > .7056 (because not even monozygotic twins have identical genes)
Thus, I'd say, genes make up about 75% of the IQ test score.
Looking at most scientific papers on this, you'll find that heritability of IQ has been correlated at 0.4-0.8 (keep in mind that most point toward the latter).
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t0844nw244473143/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2218526&dopt=AbstractPlus


Also, short of malnutrition, certain mental disorders and illiteracy, IQ tests are mostly fixed through individuals for most of their lives. (If you have those conditions, you can improve your IQ tests)

To recap, IQ correlates with higher income, more positive social incomes, is heritable, much of it is genetic (75% by my estimation), it's very difficult to change unless you have huge problems.

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.
Talked earlier about this.

You can't divide IQ among "racial lines" that don't exist.
Yes I can. I will expand on this when you will be willing to debate.
IQ isn't a good universal guage of intelligence.
Yes it is.
>You have no proof of your ancestors IQs, but considering that we're judgeing them based on the modern IQ test, we know they'd fail.
Apart from the bad English, what the fuck do you mean? Are you an idiot? Of course IQ changes, hello, evolution?
>You have no proof that leaps in civilization required a high IQ.
'g' and the things that correlate with it. There are studies. Do you want me to list them?

Enjoy.

>>111
>>112
Excellent posts; I'm impressed. I thought I was pretty knowledgable about these things.

>>112

Stop or you'll make the Frankfurt School goons cry.

Good job guys, screw these communists, ADVANTAGE WHITES!

>>111
>>112

Hey, Hal.

Anything taken from The Bell Curve is Autofail. But I'll reply to this in kind in a little bit. I've got a hot little white number over here that needs my brown seed in her.


>>113

If you're impressed by this display you need to LURK MOAR. Better arguments than this have been presently more eloquently and defeated far more soundly.

>>114
>>115

What is it with you guys and the insistence that anti-you = leftists? Whatever, I'll dissect that in a second too. 

>>116
"Anything taken from The Bell Curve is Autofail."
So if it was written "1+1=2" in the The Bell Curve, then 1+1≠2?

>>117

No, but The Bell Curve has been soundly crushed and debunked for years now and not at the hands of "Crazy Lefties". Just plain ol' run of the mill scientists.

But, I'm sure that whatever opposition is brought up in regards to your outdated and unrealistic ideals...you'll just blame lefties or Marx or whomever. Which is why my reply to you might not be exactly what you're looking for.

By the way. You're still being trolled.

>>118
Not all of the book has been debunked and what has been debunked doesn't draw the line between "there is no such thing as race" and "Aryans are the master race".

Even white nationalists like me admit that Ashkenazi jews and east asians are more intelligent than whites, we just want Europe for ourselves, stay out of our countries and give us the freedom to live independently. Europe is for Europeans only. America should be resegregated. The southeast for blacks, the southwest for mexicans, and the north for whites, with someplace in the middle for multiculteralists.