Prognathism leads to an underdeveloped frontal lobe, which basically explains Blacks IQ & behavior.
R
View attachment 962562
So far, over 500 billion US dollars has been donated to Africa in the form of aid, so that Africa can develop but it has failed. Why?
Answer (1 of 17): I'd keep it very simple for you 1. Lack of Vision on the part of African leaders to utilize the resources given 2. Africans are given the fish and not taught to fish every damn time. Africans are literally waiting for handouts from everyone 3. Neocolonialism at its finest. I ha...www.quora.com
the average IQ of a nigger is lower than the average person, retards will say "its because they don't have education".
the abbos niggers in Australia are also black and are in a developed country, they even get certain education benefits for being indigenous, BUT THEY'RE STILL FUCKING STUPID, NIGGERS ARE BEYOND RETARDED.
I think there has been a miscommunication.
This is talking about three populations.
1) Western European Hunter Gatherers
2) Ancient North Euroasians
3) Early Near East/European Farmers (Caucasians)
I was referring to the second one, not the third one. Although specifically I was referring to this:
Eastern Hunter-Gatherer - Wikipedia
But technically I was mixing it with these
Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer - Wikipedia
These original whites were a mutt race between light skinned people with dark hair and dark eyes (north eurasian) and some light eyed and light haired dark skinned people (western hunter gatherers).
A study by Günther et al. (2018) found that SHGs "show a combination of eye color varying from blue to light brown and light skin pigmentation. This is strikingly different from the WHGs—who have been suggested to have the specific combination of blue eyes and dark skin and EHGs—who have been suggested to be brown-eyed and light-skinned".
R
BUT WHEN I SAY IT IM A LOW IQ NIGGER
I’m just going by JBW logic. If you look white, you’re white. If you don’t, you’re not white. That’s all there is to it.
R
Attachments
We’re talking race realism here, not SMV
Cope.
This.
R
It’s not benefiting me in any way but it’s simply the truth . Hell im black so it’s not like my opinion matters but that’s the way I view things
What is tropical anthropology? Is it the theory that environment causes civilization?
Very true
This is cited in the book Guns, Germs and Steel. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel
Hardly in-human. Just a little dumber than the average white/asian. 80-85 is enough to be a respectable member of society. I’m way above that though if that shows anything, there are going to be a lot of blacks that are going to be around the 100-120 range.
I am interested in this also: First I am hearing of it.
Again, location alone can not be blamed for the shortcomings as a whole. It may have played some case, but genetics matters overall much more.
"a little dumber"
According to many, 90 is the minimum threshold to maintain a civilization.
Have you been tested?
They weren't dark skin. Pure propaganda. Light skin is a range of genes most of which were present in the "Early European Modern Human" ancestors shared by WHG, EHG, and Yamnaya/Indo-European (EG Gravettian).
For reference, average IQ in India is 76. You wouldn’t say the average Indian is retarded right?
Yes, it’s not enough to be a higher member of society if you are the average black man. That’s left to the ones who are way above average. But it’s enough to have a stable job and be a productive member of society.
Not formally, I just took that Mensa online test a couple times and got over 100. And I did very well in education if that counts for anything.
Trash jew book. Literally makes the argument that new guineans are the "smartest people on Earth" because they use animal sinew to tie rafts, which he, a (((white))) person, wouldn't have thought of. Meanwhile Europeans were using sinew as cord 50,000 years ago and probably longer.
Why are you shitting on Sadat? He reformed the Egyptian army and managed to actually score some victories against the Israelis during the Yom Kippur war. One of the few competent Egyptian leaders.
Other way around. Ancient middle easterners (Phoenicians) set up colonies all over southern europe and their language alphabet became the basis for Greek and other European scripts:
History of the Greek alphabet - Wikipedia
Phoenician language - Wikipedia
Technically, yes they are if that's the case.
Like I said, 90IQ is the minimum threshold, meaning that the society will not advance any further.
Modern "education" does not mean much tbh; it is just state indoctrination. For the IQ tests, it may be accurate but many online are not even close at all.
Ok, thanks for agreeing with me.
I’m not disagreeing that’s probably correct. The average probably needs to be that.
SAT and ACT (US college entrance exams) are heavily correlated with IQ. You can of course study for them, but it won’t do anything drastic.
Last edited:
I wasn't shitting on him at all, I barely even know who the guy is. I simply was just sharing that image to prove my point as to how Egypt was once a homogenous society that was ruined by racemixing.
Didn't know he scored victories against Israel though, good on him for that ig.
Not sure about this, I was told that Phoenicians clashed with Greeks many times & if anything, they borrowed their language, civilization, etc. from them.Other way around. Ancient middle easterners (Phoenicians) set up colonies all over southern europe and their language alphabet became the basis for Greek and other European scripts:
History of the Greek alphabet - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Phoenician language - Wikipedia
B
Yes, this is the absolute minimum IQ that would barely qualify you for a breeding licence in my eugenics program.
Source for this?
Again, this sort of proves my point since it is (((State Education))) which is defining these. Education in the past objectively speaking, was much better & taught actual real world problems; modern education teaches you to be a slave.
Why would I take the time to give you sources when you would reject them saying it’s coming from ((them)). I seriously question your IQ man.
I think you go way too deep into conspiracies to have a productive debate.
Because, I want to actually observe different information & see who is behind them?
.The reason I want to check the source is so I can:
1. See how it was conducted
2. See who is behind it: It is obvious Kikes want to push an agenda, so anyone who is one or financed by one should be taken lightly. The same goes for any sort of study or research, you should see who is behind it & the agenda they might have.
Because most conspiracies turn out to have truth & evidence in them in someway: Also, I have cited many sources & actually type out more than a sentence or two, which is more than can be said about 90% of the site.
No, the Phoenicians got their script from borrowing from the Egyptians (back when they were still Canaanites living in Palestine).
The original Greek script was lost after the Bronze age collapse. The Canaanites turned into the Phoenicians and began spreading throughout the Mediterranean, founding colonies in southern europe (and north africa as well, where they founded carthage and came into conflict with the italians and greeks).
Typing a lot and saying nothing is also a theme I’ve seen from a lot of users. Brevity is a virtue.
I think that's the part you got mixed up.
Greeks and Italians had their own colonies later on, but the ancient middle easterners were the first to actually implement them as a way of controlling a region.
Also, I think the "black & white" thinking on this forum hurts discussion a lot: What I mean by this, is that people only think in these simplistic, absolutist ways which is basically what IT/Reddit does more or less.
You created a thread titled “Black Are Not Human” retard shitalian guinea.
Chimps are violent pricks at times they are far from blacks but they are niggers what are they? Can you spot the difference?
1. No need to chimp out cause we disagree
2. What I meant by “black & white” thinking was stuff along the lines of “all whites are fakecel” “all blacks are fakecel” “all tallcels are fakecel” etc.
>cherry-picked image
>still better than a black
dnr + cope
Based & blackpilled
Numerous flaws, if not outright lies in this book.
Examples:
Diamond: "Papua New Guineans had a pig on the Island, but this pig was not native to the island so this is why they did not tame it."
He fails to mention that not only was this pig a domesticated pig from China, that somehow found its way to the Island, but this pig has existed on the island for at least 6,000 years and maybe as long as 10,000 years.
So the Papua New Guineans were too stupid to domesticate a feral pig that had been on their island for over 6,000 years! Diamond fails to mentions that this pig, though not native to the island, has existed there for millenniums!
He also claims that Europeans had a more diverse animal and plant life than Papua New Guineans, so this is why they found more plants to farm and animals to domesticate.
True! But he is purposely comparing the diversity of an island with the diversity of a continent. Switch that to Africa and how does he explain that Africans with a much larger diversity of animal and plant life failed to have farming and production anywhere close to that of Europeans?
He states that almost all of the domestic animals came from Europe and stupidly assumes this is because that somehow these animals were more easy to tame than other animals from other places...this is idiotic.
The American Grey wolf and the European wolf are almost identical. Europeans took the wolf and created numerous dog breeds, the Amerindians did nothing with the wolf.
Europeans now raise buffalo and some people claim they are easier to raise than tame cattle because they eat almost anything that grows. So why didn't the Amerindians do this?
Diamond's whole book is riddled with ridiculous flaws and lies.
By the way, Diamond is a Jew, no surprise there.
Very good way of debunking it, I also was sus about the books author as well.
I pity them somewhat. Having to steal the history of other peoples because they failed to produce a rich history of their own.
Ok at least you engage with the material. I appreciate that. I would say Africa’s animals are not comparable to Europeans. They only have gazelles and zebras..as a suitable alternative to goats and cattle?
He @verybasedindeed pointed out how Africans a very diverse livestock, just like its resources. How are these all somehow non-domesticable?
I wasn’t talking to you guinea. And you really think a tropical jungle/savannah is a suitable place for domesticating animals compared to a European or Asian village? Are you that retarded?
Places like Ghana and Nigeria were considered intense malaria-endemic areas but the Europeans didn't have the sickle-cell gene mutation like Africans did which provided some protection against it. They still had their own collection of dangerous pathogens from all the epidemics they survived like The Bubonic Plague but they couldn't get into heartlands and kIll all the Africans. It was the dry-humid climate that allowed the mosquitoes carrying malaria and spreading yellow-fever to act as a deterrence and prevent them from progressing any further inland as you mentioned so they mostly established their trading/plundering posts along the coasts. They also had dense forests and rivers with obstacles like rapids and waterfalls that limited their navigability. They were not able to map Central & East Africa until mid 19th century anyway.
I got them mixed up with the South Americans. They were nearly wiped out by those diseases but the Europeans had developed immunity because they were in constant circulation from their close-proximity to animals & them being sustained in largely dense village/ city-centers where they developed genetic variations.
Africans had some organized militaries that resisted European incursions and prolonged warfare , but European attempts to genocide them in 19th and 20th centuries were always half-assed. The Belgians killed half of the Congolese and kept the rest as slaves, while the Ethiopians were able to fend off an Italian invasion and retain their independence. I believe that Germany chimping out and the onset of World War I in 1914 was what ultimately prevented them from exterminating blacks or driving them to the brink of annihilation. The Germans did try to kill off the Herero and Nama people of Namibia but eradicating them completely would be impracticable because of the logistical challenges and the vastness of the territory. They would also face international outrage and activism from missionaries and humanitarians,
The few settler-colonies they had established, like South Africa were not as extensive as the ones they had in the Americas or Australia and their colonization strategy was to govern through local rulers and power structures rather than replace the population.
So it was a combination of disease resistance, logistical challenges, international scrutiny and pressure that prevented them from totally eradicating the indigenous populations IMO.
Tropical people would be Sub-Saharan Africans, Southern Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Afghans), Australian Aboriginals, and Mestizos. White-supremacists would argue that they're all lazy, stupid, and violent because they lived through milder Ice-Ages closer to the equator where they didn't have to construct shelters out of wood. mud or stone to survive winters. They also had easy access to food like wild fruits, berries,vegetables and leaves that were collected from bushes, trees, ground plants and were abetted by sunlight. Whereas Europeans and other arctic people had to coordinate in large hunting parties to take down native European megafauna like mammoths, bisons, bears, elks etc.
They believe that the evolutionary-pressures associated with a cold environment caused the emergence of natural selection among Artic peoples that selected for higher intelligence. They also think that because there was a substantial amount of infighting & civil wars among people who lived in Eurasia, you had to be clever and think quickly on your feet to not get yourself killed by a war-mongering local warlord or a rival tribe.
The catch is that the average African-American genome has a quarter of European ancestry from being sexually assaulted by their slave-masters during the Atlantic slave-trade & other acts of miscegenation once they were assimilated into white-American societies. Racial realists would propose that this is what differentiates them from the Sub-Saharan African average IQ of 75.
Holy shit 6 pages long. It's deserved though, glad to see an actual quality post getting this kind of attention instead of the nth "Just Be *x*" thread of the day
I’m interested to see data on African immigrant IQ I bet it’s a lot higher even though they are pure negro.
Similar threads
- Rabbi Schneerson
- The Lounge
Rabbi Schneerson
FrenchcelNeverbegan
Users who are viewing this thread
