No other race even tries racialism. Racialism is an Progressive invention and makes no sense outside of a Leftwing meta-narrative. At best you're thinking of religious and ethnic preference. White isn't an ethnicity.
Moreover, you don't need the planet to adopt anti-racialist values (again, they typically already don't have them, but institutional preference to ethnic and religious groups isn't necessary either). This is the point, you need Americans to have American values.
Unless I co-opt your argument and you accept the supremacy of the American Race which is distinct from Black, White, or Other.
Well, there's nothing to suggest that black people are a different species. The fact that blacks and whites can have fertile children makes that a pretty straight-forward answer.
More than anything, I feel like looking at why black IQ's are low would show very clear cultural results that they would need to hide under racialism. Leftism causes lower IQ's in populations due to a large number of environmental factors, not least among them is a major effort to remove meritocracy as a social filter. Several decades of social deconstruction, anti-meritocracy, anti-family policy, random violence, low quality food, high crime, magical thinking, vice addiction, rampant corruption, predation culture, and low information clearly cause major IQ collapse in a society.
Black communities in America may never have been worse since the Left began revolutionizing them. The success of the Civil Rights movement may have successfully done more damage to black populations in the US than slavery, Jim Crow, and mandatory illiteracy ever did. Indians on reservations seem to be going the same thing, and even White communities are destroyed through similar efforts with de-industrialization in the midwest, or the Progressive hell-hole of the Pacific North West.
Leftism is an anti-civilization death cult that seems to kill everything it touches. It is no wonder the bloodiest era in human history takes place immediately after the Progressive Era... unless we admit that we are still in it.
Stripe is owned by MasterCard. MasterCard is using DIE initiatives to purge it's competition, link up with the EU, and effectively displace the local currencies of Africa. MasterCard needs DIE as a weapon. Stripe controls digital transactions. It was Stripe, via MasterCard, that ordered the Patreon Purge from several years ago. They were directly responsible for ordering the removal of Carl Benjamin from the site.
They didn't sell out. They are an enemy faction.
I'm applying the Coulter rule, and the fact that it's been a couple of days and no poor missile tech has been publicly named and shamed tells me it was probably a DEI hire.
No reason to jump to that. The navy does NOT want to explain that they just caught a case of the retard and did a blue-on-blue.
The Captain at that exact moment: "OHFUCKOHFUCKOHFUCK... HOW DO WE COVER THIS UP?!!"
Alimony is a paleo-con concept.
It's literally: She's a divorced woman, she spent her life being a home-maker, and now she doesn't have a husband to care for and because she's a divorcee no man will have her. Therefore, since you agreed to the divorce, she's a ward of your estate.
Instead the Left said, "what if we use it like weaponized welfare against demographics we hate?"
But I don't think the equivalent to losing your fingers means your arm muscles are also now less capable, only that you can no longer manage to reach that capacity yourself. Its a pedantic difference in how it manifests in reality, but the difference is huge in the scientific details.
Yeah, I'm focusing that because, using your analogy, IQ is like measuring your grip strength. Yes, grip strength at relative age will be determined by genetics in a large part, but there will be an environmental impacts that can effect grip strength. Sure, we can infer that there will be a trend that stronger gripped children may be pre-disposed to being stronger gripped adults, but this isn't a certainty because of environmental factors.
That's not a race based policy. I don't want anyone discriminated against racially.
The baseline reality is acknowledging that humans are capable of living in the US as Americans so long as they are willing to do so.
That should be your standard position. Never buy things from people who hate you.
Now, here's hard mode:
- Don't use MasterCard
- Don't use Visa
- Don't use Bank of America
- Don't use Chase Bank
- Don't use Amazon
- Don't use Stripe
- Don't use Google
It's never perfect, but you should damn sure try.
None of us judge 'an entire race based on... their elite'.
None?
None of the reasonable ones. Most of the people screeching about jews are not reasonable ones.
under jewish rule, nothing can possibly be good again. Hopefully the decline will be slow, b/c I have a few decades left.
You are not one of the reasonable ones.
Your IQ is a capability. Its there with you from the moment you are born and we literally select for age because the guys who made it weren't so retarded they thought a 150 IQ 4 year old could do the same feats as a 150 IQ 50 year old.
Your intelligence capacity is that, but I've seen nothing to show that IQ demonstrates what your achieved intellectual capacity will end up actually being. Just where you are from a relative position. It really seems like it makes more sense to use it as a way of seeing on whether or not your cognitive abilities are developing as expected by testing every year.
And some of the early tests sound like they were made by retards if "genetic intelligence" is what they were going for. Asking questions about the names of baseball teams in early tests is pretty dumb. Especially when you hand the tests to people who can't read, or don't speak English (especially if all the questions are in English).
Even with genetic brain capabilities in mind, the IQ test can't eliminate environmental factors, because the subject is living in an environment. Starvation and head trauma will inevitably change the outcome even if we assume the early tests to be accurate.
And to go back to my original point, I think that the difference is whether we are testing by group, by age, or by group and age. My example is by group exclusively, not by age cohort.
You keep asserting that "everyone else has", but that's not an argument I agree with, and more importantly it's still a self-asserting argument: you want race-based policies so you embrace a race-based world view.
I want no race based policies, which is why I don't want a race based world view. We're not playing the same game, in fact, I'm not playing the game at all. Mostly because I know it's just a con for someone else to claim authority over a group and steal my shit for "what's best for me".
Afterall, it's what BLM already did.
Luckily for you I'm not dishonest.
When I looked in your link and found basically nothing about what you were talking about. You also didn't highlight a sentence, so it makes me question whether or not you just wanted to get me to waste time because you hadn't looked anything up.
Also, your comment about the SAT's doesn't really mean anything either as that's not really an effective scientific measurement of intelligence. I'm not really convinced you know what you're talking about.
I remember seeing an average IQ score chart that changed with age, but I couldn't find from where. So I started looking up source material to see what I could find. As best as I can find at the moment, I have seen some statements about 5 year olds scoring higher than 16 year olds, which suggests that there is, at least, an age cohort comparison. So, I'll accept that perhaps a baby can get a 100 on an IQ test. So long as the test where the IQ test is only testing babies.
However, this still doesn't the idea that younger populations can effect the IQ tests. Again, if we set the cohort to race and not by age, significantly younger populations will have lower average IQ's because they will still be compared to the average IQ individual of all of the races. Again, children do not have the same IQ capacity as adults, this is not a debatable point. To get the results you are talking about, you would have to have cohorts by race and age. However, I never really hear you, or anyone else, argue this. It doesn't make sense to claim that a white baby has an IQ of 100 and a black man has an IQ of 98, therefore the baby is smarter; it objectively isn't because, again, it doesn't have Object Permanence. Compared to all people within a demographic, of any age, the children will always have some of the lowest average IQ, by definition.
I think this is might be why you brought up the SAT's because you think that IQ is predictive. That does not seem to be the case either. From what I've seen in the literature so far, it's not clear that higher IQ children (among their age group) grow up into higher IQ adults (among their new age group), and that multiple studies looking into race & IQ noted that the average IQ of black children reduced with age, and were attempting to find the source of that.
The point of IQ tests is about understanding the ability of the ability of the mind to process difficult and abstract cognitive tasks. It seems fairly obvious that using IQ tests for prediction of later age IQ is a problem since the brains of children are clearly not finished developing, so the tests actually can't be the same kind of tests that adults can take. The children will obviously fail at more difficult questions / tasks (again, children who don't have Theory Of Mind can't abstract to any significant degree). If these children are starved or concussed before they reach adulthood, what they could have achieved in IQ may be lost. It's not possible to control for those variables, so any sort of developmental changes will alter it's predictive quality.
The point for an IQ test is not to administer it as early as possible, but to keep doing it to keep track of how the subject is developing mentally.
And again, most of the research rejects your claim about 'wasting money teaching niggers'. It in fact explicitly states that the ability to learn and IQ are different issues, and that even low IQ individuals have the ability to learn, thus different teaching methods between lower & higher IQ individuals would be successful.
I guess to sum it up: you're conflating IQ by race and IQ by age, intentionally.
No.
Also, that would make the whole measurement effort completely nonsensical. With a moving average that moves over time because it's a relative measurement, it would also be relative in all cohorts. By the point I just made about a younger population, you could never claim that blacks were 1 SD less in intelligence than whites because if that population was younger, then _each age group in that population would also be 100, in comparison to white adults.
You can not selectively exclude different categories like that, because the results don't mean anything. Maybe black accountants have 100 IQ among accountants, because we're comparing by profession instead of race or age. But white babies also have 100 IQ compared to white black babies. But then, Asian women have an IQ of 100, but only in Canada. So who's 100 means that they are smarter, the black accountant, the white baby, the Asian woman in Canada? No one knows because the score doesn't mean anything when you have no consistent measurement.
You're actually trying to prove that IQ has no basis in science, let alone biology.
Like I said, you can't claim that a white baby that literally doesn't understand where you go when you leave the room is of higher intelligence than Thomas Sowell. There's too many ways to divide those cohorts up. By age, race, profession, height, sex, etc.
You completely fucked this. Baby's do not have 100 point IQ's. Any baby. Ever.
Even then, not good enough. I've never accepted the idea that you have a right to your socio-economic class and lifestyle.