Hibou <vpaereru-u...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Le 10/12/2023 à 02:03, D. Ray a écrit :
>> Hibou wrote:
>>> Le 08/12/2023 à 16:36, D. Ray a écrit :
>>>> Hibou wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be reasonable to suggest that large waves of immigration could
>>>>> affect pupils' collective results. If the immigrants don't speak the
>>>>> local language, that would affect reading, writing, and comprehension,
>>>>> and have a secondary effect on other subjects, such as mathematics.
>>>>> There's also culture. I understand that education is highly prized in
>>>>> parts of the Orient, for example, so Asians often outperform Whites.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is about the programming of the brain, not about colour.
>>>>
>>>> If it’s not “about colour” how come average IQ map is almost perfectly
>>>> aligning with skin tone map?
>>>>
>>>> <
https://assets.ourworldindata.org/uploads/2015/07/ourworldindata_average-iq-by-country-v2.png>
>>>>
>>>> <
https://web.archive.org/web/20160301135953/http://ourworldindata.org/data/education-knowledge/intelligence/>
>>>
>>> That map aligns with state of development, too - with nutrition, medical
>>> care, and education.
>>
>> Yes, and for the same reason. You’re trying to imply that Africans have
>> lower IQs because they live in undeveloped third world shitholes.
>
> I think it's reasonable to suggest that people who are hungry, in poor
> health, and uneducated will perform poorly in IQ tests.
I politely disagree because I think it’s reasonable to suggest that people
with low IQ inevitably will be hungry, in poor health, and uneducated,
unless they live in a welfare state where those things are given to them by
the government.
>> However,
>> anyone with half a brain understand that those countries are undeveloped
>> third world shitholes specifically because they’re full of stupid violent
>> niggers.
>
> That's a bold statement. Do you have a solid chain of evidence and
> reasoning to support it?
In my opinion, it should be enough to compare history and civilisations of
Europe, Asia, and Africa, where they didn’t even invent a wheel. And no,
Ancient Egypt was not Black country.
One of the really good examples should be Liberia. Country was basically
created by Whites for freed American slaves, after that Whites left and
yesterday’s slaves became the ruling class. They should have been Africa’s
best country, basically, second United States, since they had education,
support in US, and even their constitution was based on US constitution…
right?
<
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia>
“The Americo-Liberian settlers did not relate well to the indigenous
peoples they encountered. Colonial settlements were raided by the Kru and
Grebo from their inland chiefdoms. Americo-Liberians formed into a small
elite that held disproportionate political power; indigenous Africans were
excluded from birthright citizenship in their own land until 1904.”
“In 1927, the country's elections again showed the power of the True Whig
Party, with electoral proceedings that have been called some of the most
rigged ever; the winning candidate was declared to have received votes
amounting to more than 15 times the number of eligible voters. (The loser
actually received around 60% of the eligible vote.)”
“Soon after, allegations of modern slavery in Liberia led the League of
Nations to establish the Christy Commission. Findings included government
involvement in widespread "Forced or compulsory labour". Minority ethnic
groups especially were exploited in a system that enriched well-connected
elites. As a result of the report, President Charles D. B. King and Vice
President Allen N. Yancy resigned.”
<
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Liberia>
“Emigrants to Liberia suffered the highest mortality rate of any country
since modern record-keeping began.”
“Between 1847 and 1980, the state of Liberia was dominated by the small
minority of African-American colonists and their descendants, known
collectively as Americo-Liberians. The Americo-Liberian minority, many of
whom were mixed-race African Americans, viewed the native majority as
"racially" inferior to themselves and treated them much the same as white
Americans had treated them. To avoid "racial" contamination, the
Americo-Liberians practiced endogamous marriage. For over a century the
indigenous population of the country was denied the right to vote or
participate significantly in the running of the country. The
Americo-Liberians consolidated power amongst themselves. They, but not the
natives, received financial support from supporters in the United States.
They established plantations and businesses, and were generally richer than
the indigenous people of Liberia, exercising overwhelming political power.”
Et cetera, et cetera. Basically, hilarious history of this country was
exactly what (((some people))) are saying about Whites. Predictably, they
ended up having two bloody civil wars, went bankrupt several times, had
absolutely African levels of corruption. I suspect they didn’t go to
cannibalism only because of foreign aid (most of which went to pockets of
“officials” anyway).
I recommend reading those Wiki articles, at least just for amusement. You
might disagree, but I think it was absolutely predictable that it became
what it is now (third world shithole).
>> Not that long ago pretty much whole Asia had issues with “nutrition,
>> medical care, and education.” Not a case anymore. I suspect it’s because
>> Asian countries are populated by Asians, not by niggers.
>>
>>> <
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-development-index>
>>>
>>> How have you excluded those factors?
>>
>> Those “factors” were non-existing in Africa until Whites (for good or for
>> bad) brought there medical care, education, and everything else.
>
> The most developed countries were White, which explains the direction of
> flow.
>
> I suppose development as we know it really took off with the Industrial
> Revolution. I have sometimes wondered why the IR occurred in Britain -
> manageable temperate climate, trading nation, the security and stability
> of living on an island, availability of coal and ores...?
Before Industrial Revolution there was a long history of European
civilization, dating back to Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, and further to
Egyptians and Sumers. I think it played much bigger role than geographical
location and features of Britain.
> The prevailing
> spirit must have played its part, but it would never occur to me to moot
> skin colour.
Skin color is secondary, of course.
But Lynn Effect graph is linear, and there’s no reason to not extrapolate
further back, unless you think something very important happened in 1947,
right? I’m joking, of course, I do not think that Lynn Effect was as
dramatic as it portrayed, and even Lynn himself didn’t think so.
This is the article where that graph came from:
<
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31556802>
“If Americans today took the tests from a century ago, Flynn says, they
would have an extraordinarily high average IQ of 130. And if the Americans
of 100 years ago took today's tests, they would have an average IQ of 70 -
the recognised cut-off for people with intellectual disabilities. To put it
another way, IQ has been rising at roughly three points per decade.
This is a puzzle not just for the US, but for all countries demonstrating
the Flynn Effect. "Does it make sense," Flynn wrote in one paper, "to
assume that at one time almost 40% of Dutch men lacked the capacity to
understand soccer, their most favoured national sport?"”
His question is understandable. If you assume the data shown on the graph
is correct, it means that 100 years ago half of the Americans were retards,
and 200 years ago most of the people were basically imbeciles, barely able
to wipe their own ass. None of it is true, of course.
Anyway, it make sense to look at Lynn Effect graph in regards to our
conversation only if it showed data for different races. But it doesn’t.
>>> What conclusion might you draw from that?
>>
>> Less Black equals more IQ points?..
>>
>> Seriously though, are you trying to say that race differences don’t exist?
>
> Well, there are visible variations in colour, physiognomy, stature, and
> so on, and known internal differences, such as susceptibility to
> sickle-cell disease. Perhaps there are mental differences too, but it's
> impossible to tell, since, if they exist, they are masked by far more
> important cultural differences. It's not only nations that differ, but
> also our own ancestors. If the past is a foreign country, it's because
> the people who lived in it were really quite foreign.
>
> My own view is that the human brain is very plastic. People's beliefs
> are extraordinarily varied, and - as Orwell remarked - even those who
> would not score well in IQ tests are capable of exceptional mental feats
> if their interest is engaged. In short, individual history is far more
> important than 'race'.
I’ll reply to this part later, if you don’t mind.