huh. i which one?

i have been posting all over the internet lately...

The study you claimed proved heritability and immutable lower IQ of Black Americans when it actually suggested IQ malleability and the effect of upbringing when relevant to education

IQ is malleable to the extent.
but i dont see revelancy of that when starting postition is that they have way over one standard of deviaton lower IQ by genetic factors.

its not like education can magically bring their IQ level of whites.

I think you're forgetting something.

From the abstract "The socially classified Black adoptees, whose natural parents were educationally average, scored **above the IQ and the school achievement mean of the White population. **"
"The high IQ scores of the socially classified Black adoptees indicate malleability for IQ under rearing conditions that are relevant to the tests and the schools."

This is what I'm specifically asking about

Ashkenazi Jews have been tested as having some very high IQ. If IQ works like cooking then you just need to mix the right ingredients to raise the IQ.

oh that study.
you forgot "Biological children of the adoptive parents scored even higher. Genetic and environmental determinants of differences among the Black and interracial adoptees were largely confounded."

Shifted goalposts, no precise scoring used to compare the two in the abstract

Study showed that environmental factors can bring black students above the "white" mean, and the expectations from the school

Your initial argument was that the adopted black students saw no real change
"Black children raised in White households have similar IQ scores to Black children in Black households.
https://archive.fo/oNKYp"

If black children are more than one standard deviation lower than white children && black children in white households score above the white mean then != the two scores are similar

oh now i see what you miss undestood.

the one standard of deviatoin gap didint go anywhere.
those parents biological children still scored higher, even in exaxly same school and enviroment.

Right, the degree to which they scored higher is not mentioned, and I doubt we're dealing with ubermensch whiteys. I'd read through the study if it wasn't paid shit. Might hunt it down

I am having a dillema... Chuck Grassley v Lesley Graham. Who is the bigger Chad?

Been thinking about this for half a minute. Why is authoritarianism so demonised? I'm fairly liberal but isn't it just enforcing laws and that? When people talk about authoritarianism they always seem to characterise it as enslavement. Someone controlling every aspect of your life but that's just the extreme version of it. Seems kinda like people are just only considering the most extreme examples of it and making that look like the norm. Is that not similar to someone saying that libertarians are all child molesters and serial murderers?

I think it's the context of the time we live in, where power in the USA is concentrated at the federal level instead of state, or EU instead of country. And how both the extreme left and the Richard Spencer types both seem to be horseshoeing around to being anti-free speech

Authoritarianism tilts towards tryanny and that's never a good thing. It's also not so easy to identify where reasonable authoritarism begins that tilt into tryanny. Humanity has a social nature and we're pretty well aware of that. If that nature, if left unchecked, leads societies to tilt into that tyranny. We know that humanity tilts to an extreme before things get too bad and then they need to be regined in again. So it's a survival strategy to fight against the authorian tilt into tyranny but we don't know that exact tipping point. So people try and demonize authoritarianism in totality to fight against that.

That's a good point. I reckon there's a healthy amount of authoritarianism that society needs but there is a tendency, especially in recent history, for it to go too far.

Society requires authoritarianism to function, individuals require libertarianism to function. Need a good mix of the two that doesn't tip to either of the extremes

the state is only a means to an end. its end and its purpose is tp preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred. above all, it must preserve the existence of the race, there by providing the insdisenceble condition for the free development of all of the forces dormant it this race.
those states which do not serve this purpose have no justification for their existence.

as long as authoritarian state serves its purpose its not tyrannical by the definition.🤔

uhhh what

you make it sound like humans always had a "state". humans never needed any significant form of government for the vast majority of homo sapien's existence. we made do with "man with biggest hat" for the longest time

also, you don't seem to understand what tyranny means. a happy slave is still a slave.

though, that would be under the assumption that you are even happy with the ruling power.

say, do you know of anyone you would be 100% totally okay with utterly surrendering to? Someone you would obey without hesitation?

any one person

In the time before the post-enlightenment state you were subject to random spartans/visigoths/vandals/mongols/ottomans wiping out all the stuff you built

>white people

yeah most of the history we lived in tribes. which serves exact same purpose.
state is/*should* be extend of that.

`also, you don't seem to understand what tyranny means. a happy slave is still a slave.`
>there by providing the insdisenceble condition for the **free development of all of the forces dormant it this race.**

hitler was good leader.
but i admit finding one is hard.

"free development of all the forces dormant *in this race"
what does this even mean? is this some new age+altright nonesense now? you're using ">" as if I'm supposed to understand the word salad you make out to be an actual talking point

also, tribes are a poor model for large-scale human organization. you can make almost any system work with around 150 people. you could argue humans would be better off in such numbers, but that would probably make you an anprim.

it's not just finding _one_ good leader. he's one day going to expire, and you'll need a system to find another. how would you propose another _supreme leader_ be chosen?

Community leaders maybe taking on a role of what the priesthood used to. But with less kid touching.

Strong backbone of tradition allowing leaders to train the next generation.

would that work on a modern scale though? we're talking millions, if not billions of people.

we're talking about ONE man, ruling all these people. sure, in smaller communities one bad leader can be ousted in a single night, but one such a large scale, with entire mechanized military and peacekeeping (and a presumably unarmed civilian population, as is a given with authoritarian regimes). The only way you're getting rid of that guy is a "lucky accident" or a high-raking coup.

plus the church was never a nation state. at most it worked in tandem with royalty and nobility. they could govern small towns (to and extent) but not kingdoms and certainly not nations

Ah, I'm not sure about leaders on that scale yeah. Cults of personality are fragile anyway.

`the free development of all of the forces dormant it this race.`
what part you have problem of understanding?

it dont need to be absolute dictator who cant be voted out.
and its not just one person who makes all decisions.

and church is pretty good way of ruling. but current christianity is degraded to so low level that it doesnt even serve purpose anymore.

And youth programs to train and find new leaders.

first off, what do you mean by "dormant forces"?

I literally have no idea what you mean. The fact that you are oblivious as to why just shows how far gone you are

what are the "forces" dormant within me? am I secretly wizard, but da joos are holdin' me back with their damn jew hexes?

what even

Maybe he meant the matrix

state must allow us to develop to the technological and well every aspect of life and society as high level as we are capable of.

i dont understand how thats some how contriversal or anything.