Well, friend, I am going to have to say that you’re full of shit unless you can point me to one scientific cite ( you know, peer reviewed, etc…all that garbage that gets in the way of spouting anything and calling it “science”) deliniating “race” as a genetically linked characteristic (beyond the obvious skin tone-you just said that “race” is more than color. Prove it.)
Here is an interesting study named “IQ and the Wealth of Nations”
This chart was compiled by Dr. Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster and Tatu Vanhanen of the Universit of Helsinki. The chart lists the average IQ of each nation’s population, each nation’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and fitted GDP–an estimate based soley off of IQ.
Fitted GDP is needed because some nations potential GDP is artificially held back, like North Korea, and some nations GDP is artificially inflated, like Kuwait. (Oil Wealth)
See any correlation???
Hong Kong------Country
107 -------------Average IQ
20,763----------Average GDP
19,817----------Fitted GDP
Korea, South
106
13,478
19,298
Japan
105
23,257
18,779
Taiwan
104
13,000
18,260
Singapore
103
24,210
17,740
Austria
102
23,166
17,221
Germany
102
22,169
17,221
Italy
102
20,585
17,221
Netherlands
102
22,176
17,221
Sweden
101
20,659
16,702
Switzerland
101
25,512
16,702
Belgium
100
23,223
16,183
China
100
3,105
16,183
NewZealand
100
17,288
16,183
U. Kingdom
100
20,336
16,183
Hungary
99
10,232
15,664
Poland
99
7,619
15,664
Australia
98
22,452
15,145
Denmark
98
24,218
15,145
France
98
21,175
15,145
Norway
98
26,342
15,145
United States
98
29,605
15,145
Canada
97
23,582
14,626
Czech Republic
97
12,362
14,626
Finland
97
20,847
14,626
Spain
97
16,212
14,626
Argentina
96
12,013
14,107
Russia
96
6,460
14,107
Slovakia
96
9,699
14,107
Uruguay
96
8,623
14,107
Portugal
95
14,701
13,589
Slovenia
95
14,293
13,588
Israel
94
17,301
13,069
Romania
94
5,648
13,069
Bulgaria
93
4,809
12,550
Ireland
93
21,482
12,550
Greece
92
13,943
12,031
Malaysia
92
8,137
12,031
Thailand
91
5,456
11,512
Croatia
90
6,749
10,993
Peru
90
4,282
10,993
Turkey
90
6,422
10,993
Colombia
89
6,006
10,474
Indonesia
89
2,651
10,474
Suri name
89
5,161
10,474
Brazil
87
6,625
9,436
Iraq
87
3,197
9,436
Mexico
87
7,704
9,436
Samoa (Western)
87
3,832
9,436
Tonga
87
3,000
9,436
Lebanon
86
4,326
8,917
Philippines
86
3,555
8,917
Cuba
85
3,967
8,398
Morocco
85
3,305
8,398
Fiji
84
4,231
7,879
Iran
84
5,121
7,879
Marshall Islands
84
3,000
7,879
Puerto Rico
84
8,000
7,879
Egypt
83
3,041
7,360
India
81
2,077
6,322
Ecuador
80
3,003
5,803
Guatemala
79
3,505
5,284
Barbados
78
12,001
4,765
Nepal
78
1,157
4,765
Qatar
78
20,987
4,765
Zambia
77
719
4,246
Congo (Brazz)
73
995
2,170
Uganda
73
1,074
2,170
Jamaica
72
3,389
1,651
Kenya
72
980
1,651
South Africa
72
8,488
1,651
Sudan
72
1,394
1,651
Tanzania
72
480
1,651
Ghana
71
1,735
1,132
Nigeria
67
795
-944
Guinea
66
1,782
-1,463
Zimbabwe
66
2,669
-1,463
Congo (Zaire)
65
822
-1,982
Sierra Leone
64
458
-2,501
Ethiopia
63
574
-3,020
Equatorial Guinea
59
1,817
-5,096
here is a link to a book review, IQ and the Wealth of Nations.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/027597510X/002-1200994-4633665?v=glance
I am a member of Mensa and spend a fair amount of my time socializing with Mensans. As a result, I can assure you that I have not noticed any correlation between high IQ and economic success. In fact, judging from the ones I know, I’d say we’re a little below average.
Next.
CJ
But, Xenologist, you have not yet even defined “National Socialism” for us. Apparently you, like Millen88, want to establish an all-white state somewhere in North America, but that’s only a first step – it’s not a political system. How would it be run? Hitler’s “National Socialism” meant xenophobia, racism, antisemitism, militarism, and aggressive imperialism; but it also meant an authoritarian, totalitarian state where the apparatus of the ruling party took over most aspects of civil society and stamped out the rest (I believe this was called gleischaltuung – “coordination”); and where the state controlled and managed the economy – not to the thoroughgoing extent of the Soviet Union, but to exactly that degree that seemed useful to the state for its purposes at any given moment. Is that what you’re talking about? Will your “National Socialist” homeland be ruled by an absolute, arbitrary, all-powerful state that holds no free elections and tolerates no dissent?
[QUOTE=Xenologist]
It’s strange how the word, “Communist” doesn’t carry the same level of shock and fear associated with it, even though it’s holocaust was worse than the Jewish version of the “Nazi” one. As one of Ukrainian ancestry, I find it odd that hardly anybody even knows about the holocaust perpetrated against my ethnicity by the Soviet Communist party that consisted mostly of Jewish butchers.
Such is the power of propaganda.
[QUOTE]
The artificial famine and other horrors that Stalin wrought upon the Ukraine might not have achieved the mythic status of the Holocaust, Xenologist, but it’s not one of history’s great secrets either. I’m sure everyone on this board, at least, knows something of the story. As for the “Jewish butchers” of the Communist Party, it is a fact that many leading socialists and communists in Eastern Europe were Jews, from Marx to Trotsky, mainly because the Jews, being forced to the bottom of the social scale, were ready to embrace any ideology that promised social equality. But it is a lie to say that the CPSU in Stalin’s time was “mostly” Jewish, and the fact of its Jewish elements should be balanced agains the fact that Stalin himself was rather paranoid about Jews (as about practically everybody else, but more so), and by the end of his life was planning what might have amounted to the Soviet Union’s own anti-Jewish Holocaust, if he had just lived a bit longer.
Nitpick: The Khazars were a Turkic people (Central Asian, not Middle Eastern) who in the Middle Ages migrated west and settled in what is now the southern Ukraine. (Which might make them your ancestors, Xenologist.) At some point they (or at least their ruling class) dropped their old shamanic sky-worshipping religion – and converted to Judaism, rather than choosing Christianity or Islam like all their Turkic cousins were doing; perhaps they just wanted to be different. Eventually the Khazar Empire fell. And what happened to the Jewish Khazars after that, historians just arent’ sure. Perhaps they merged with the larger gene-pool of the Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe; but they would not have contributed more than a small part of it.
Arrrgghhh . . . I flubbed the quote tags in that post – but I’m sure everybody can work out what text was mine and what I was quoting from Xenologist.
[QUOTE=Salvador]
Here is an interesting study named “IQ and the Wealth of Nations”
This chart was compiled by Dr. Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster and Tatu Vanhanen of the Universit of Helsinki. The chart lists the average IQ of each nation’s population, each nation’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and fitted GDP–an estimate based soley off of IQ.
Fitted GDP is needed because some nations potential GDP is artificially held back, like North Korea, and some nations GDP is artificially inflated, like Kuwait. (Oil Wealth)
See any correlation???
[QUOTE]
Correlation is not causation. It makes at least as much sense to assume that poverty, malnutrition, poor health care and poor educational opportunities will prevent a country’s people from developing their full intellectual potential, as it does to assume that poor countries are poor because their peoples are innately, genetically stupid. The latter is what you seem to be assuming, although you don’t spell that out.
No, we weren’t. Not even close.
Ya know, time and again I’ve seen these biological arguments brought up in these discussions, and invariably it quickly becomes clear that, much like many creationists, those who make such arguments have little grasp of biology or evolution.
Can you back your claim up with a study. I provided a study so it is not unfair to ask of you Siege.
The book ‘The Bell Curve’ concluded, that no one factor will determine an individuals economic success more than an individual’s IQ.
Savador, the “study” you link to is completely fallacious in two major ways.
1.) “IQ” is no longer regarded as very useful or accurate quantifier of intelligence even for individuals and assigning an “average” IQ for mass populations is virtually meaningless.
2.) The correlation between IQ scores and “wealth” is much more easily explained by nutritional and educational differences than by an artficial distinction of “race” which has no biological meaning.
The Bell Curve is a pdeudo-scientific screed which relied almost entirely on “research” funded by a neo-nazi group called the Pioneer Fund. Much of the data in the book was cooked or completely false. It is not accepted as a legitmate thesis by real scientists.
Who has said this??
What scientist has said IQ is not a useful or accurate quantifier of intelligence??
Your experiences are quite a bit like mine. I had very positive experiences with other races (had a black girlfriend as an undergrad and we got along great!) until I chose to attend a predominantly black institution for graduate school and encountered an enormous amount of hostility. Any attempt at rational debate or discussion of issues was met with the inevitable accusation of racism if you did not agree with them 100% on every issue. Not only that, I had to put up with outright physical intimidation and insinuations that anything blacks might do to whites is justifiable due to their past treatment and slavery. I began to understand what some white friends of mine experienced in their childhoods when they grew up in predominantly minority neighborhoods (getting beaten up simply because they were white, constant hostility at school, etc.)
I am just glad I had positive earlier experiences to contrast with my negative ones in grad school!
Marley23: not only did you miss the boat, you’re standing on the completely wrong dock.
Yeah, I’m soooo priveleged I could just plotz from affluence…
I wasn’t making a complaint, I was characterizing an often commom defensive reaction from normal, decent white people who suddenly find themselves the object of animosity and ridicule from activist groups of minorities, and from a chunk of one of our two major political parties. I imagine it’s the same defensive reaction from decent, law-abiding blacks when they are confronted with the caricature or stereotype of all blacks being lazy, crack-head, welfare cheats. And I do believe that the overwhelming majority of blacks are decent, hard-working, law-abiding people who deserve an equal chance at education, housing and professional opportunity, as well as equal compensation as any other “race,” dependent upon their own native talents and drive to succeed.
Of course I realize that nobody is out to get me; thats the vary message I was trying to convey to Millen88! Nobody (outside a few hardcore radical fruitcakes) is out to kill all black people, or all white people.
And why should people who are well-off be the target of criticism? Why should they have to pay (put up with public ridicule and animosity) simply because they are affluent? Granted, if they are boneheads and deserve some form of public censure for profiting through unethical and unsavory business practices, then fine. Being affluent (if not outright rich) does not automatically make a person an unethical abuser of minorities or of the environment, or an object of scorn and public abuse. At least, not IMO.
Bill Gates gets a lot of crap for saddling the PC world with Windows and then using unethical business practices to make sure that Microsoft products monopolize the PC market. Not for just being rich.
What position? The white reactionary? The PC left? If you are confronted with it in real life, is it still a caricature? Or just a stereotype?
Like Millen88, I’ve been confronted with it; have been told that I don’t even deserve to live because of the centuries of the white man’s genocide against African-Americans. Initially, I was alarmed, until I realized that these people were extremists, and did not represent but a tiny fraction of African-Americans. Just like Neo-Nazis represent a tiny fraction of white people.
My statement was meant for Millen88 as a friendly, cautionary warning against playing to caricatures and stereotypes; since he doesn’t seem to be a goose-stepping, heil-Hitler-ing, stuff-all-the-mud-people-into-the-ovens-type, I had hoped that he might take it to heart and turn away from a racist position, and learn to accept people for what they are, regardless of what one small, particular group of them might say.
If you took offense, check the excess emotional and racial baggage at the door and don’t read too much more into people’s messages than what they write.
Stephen J. Gould (see, for example, *The Mismeasure of Man*), for one.
Where does it say Gould is a scientist. If he is a scientist, he is a social scientist.
I think you’d be very interested in reading The Journey of Man by Spencer Wells. It’s has some of the most up-to-date scientific info on when humans populated the various contitnents, and by what routes. It’s a great read.
A National Geographic summary can be found here, and a really interesting map can be found here. Check it out-- click on the map to view it in a more readable size.
The late Stephen J. Gould is a biologist, not a social scientist. Probably one of the most respected scientists in the field of evolution.
Brain Glutton and others I was discussing political definitions of race with earlier:
Notice how the author of racetraitor defines the white race politically by using economic (and social) competition?
*I think you’d be very interested in reading The Journey of Man by Spencer Wells. It’s has some of the most up-to-date scientific info on when humans populated the various contitnents, and by what routes. It’s a great read.
A National Geographic summary can be found here, and a really interesting map can be found here. Check it out-- click on the map to view it in a more readable size.*
Well’s work is interesting. Still, it’s disputed by some experts within the field. I’ve seen other geneticists make the claim that African Bushmen and Australian Aborigenes are the farthest away from each other in terms of genetics. I guess it depends on which genes you’re looking at.