Ste wrote:
On 4 Nov, 17:23, Uncle Dave <davidco... at (no spam) t-online.de> wrote:
Why can't you just say "I don't like black people"?

One does wonder.

Because, from an individual POV, it isn't true.

Ste wrote:
On 3 Nov, 12:06, White Spirit <wspi... at (no spam) homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
Would you deny that pattern recognition, mathematics, geometry and logic
play a large part in Western civilisation?  Would you deny that one's
abilities in these realms have an impact on one's ability to succeed and
contribute?
I would not deny that these skills are useful in Western societies,
but every race on earth has these skills.

Some more than others.

As I say, the degree of
difference in inherent ability (if indeed there is any - I have by no
means accepted that evidence supports such a contention) is negligible
in the larger scheme of things, and negligible relative to many other
factors like formal education.

I'd say that the entirety of human history says otherwise.

Also, these statistics do not justify
racial discrimination - for we accept that we are speaking of average
IQ, and an inference can be drawn therefore that there are still many
smart black men, and many stupid white men (as determined by IQ
tests).

Of course.  But opening the floodgates opens us up to all sorts, and the
reason I bring IQ up is because the argument for economic migration
doesn't hold water.

Honesty is not really a fixed personality trait. It's more to do with
how much a reputation for honesty is valued by others and to what
degree it aids productive mutual cooperation with others.
It's a cultural trait, one that I submit has arisen due to innate
differences between the various subspecies.
But where is your rigourous evidence for this highly contentious
conclusion?

I made a submission based on the evidence of all that I have seen.  Our
culture is different to that of countries were corruption is rife.  For
example, it is well known that in African countries, it is expected that
the president of a nation will take care of his own tribe above all...

That's sort of my point: mutual cooperation does not play a large part
in African and Caribbean societies.
Yes it does. Even in the most war-torn societies, mutual cooperation
plays a very large part, except that they tend to have an in-group
that is not based on national borders.

It seems to me that the mutual cooperation that exists is not as
altruistic as our own, or aimed towards a common goal.  It seems to be
more along the lines of 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'.

 Caucasians, on the other hand,
could not have survived without cooperation.
It depends what you mean.

Harsh environmental conditions precluded the survival of people who did
not cooperate within close-knit communities.

 While the West is handing
over large sums of money to African countries to feed them beyond the
land's ability to sustain the burgeoning population, they will not face
the pressures that will give rise to better selection of genes and the
burden to the West will increase, both in terms of financial
'obligation' and immigration.
The problem in Africa is, as I say, lack of an established social
order. The cause of that in turn is that those societies have been
repeatedly decimated by Western powers.

I'd say the problem is that their natural social orders are not what we
would deem to be 'established'.  They'll either evolve better social
orders in their own time or continue as they have been.  Either way, we
shouldn't interfere.

Coincidentally I hear Simon
Mann has just been released - you know the one who, with Mark
Thatcher, intended to overthrow an African government and thereby
enjoy its oil wealth.

Well, there's an example of close cooperation ;)

And truth be told, I don't think that foreign aid is particularly
helpful, but neither are loans given to dictators at sky-high interest
rates, which the whole country must then repay.

I agree.

 That doesn't constitute
violent or aggressive behaviour in my view.
Then what, in your view, do the words "aggressive" and "violent" mean?
Certainly when I went to school those words implied actions involving
bodily harm or the threat thereof, and that's exactly the kind of
action that Prescott took.

I consider that there's a difference between violence - which is
unwarranted - and use of reasonable force.  Similarly, there is a
difference between being aggressive - which is likewise unwarranted -
and being assertive.

Look at Rhodesia: a rich country when it was handed back to the Negroes.
By "rich country", do I infer correctly that you mean there was a
small class of very rich men present in the country, while the general
population lived in squalor?

Rhodesia had a very good standard of living as I understand, and the
squalor exists now that Mugabe has taken over.

  Their social orders are tribal and when they revert to them, we get
the blame for their violence.
But earlier you said that "Negroes" don't cooperate. Now you say that
they do cooperate, but at a tribal level?

It's a matter of mutual gain - as I said, you scratch my back...
Historically, they don't have social orders that share common goals or
ideals.

 And let's not forget their own role in
the slave trade.
Indeed, let's not forget. But that hardly justifies it.

I'm not justifying it.  I bring it up to provide some balance.

There can be short-term benefits from criminal behaviour but, weighed up
against the long term costs, the criminal lifestyle is not a logical or
rational choice.
It depends how you frame the matter. The criminal lifestyle often has
poor financial returns over the long-term, but it is often high on
social status, and high on intrinsic satisfaction, and tends to bind
people together. It also requires little prior sustained investment
(which is appropriate to groups from socially and economically
deprived backgrounds), and it carries with it the chance of making
genuinely huge profits.
A further point is that the way in which the justice system responds
to criminality often perpetuates and aggravates the social conditions
that cause it.

I won't dispute the last point.  However, the criminal lifestyle does
not create strong, lasting bonds but merely bonds borne of necessity.
Those who chose the criminal lifestyle give up on other options, which
is not an informed choice.

 I am referring to a sound judgement made
after evaluating the options and all evidence to hand.
Yes, and so by what measure is criminality irrational for these
groups? By financial measures? Perhaps. But what if monetary gain is
not the sole aim?

You have to weigh in the costs against the short-term benefits.

 Choosing
criminal behaviour over hard work is the lazy option borne from baser
instincts.
Criminality rarely involves less work when objectively measured, and
often carries with it the risk of death, permanent injuries, jail time
etc.

Hardly a logical choice, then.

As for baser instincts, what are these instincts, and how do they
differ from the more enlightened instincts of western peoples?

The baser instincts are a desire for material goods, success and social
status without having truly earned them.

Nick 'my dad (correction) didnt fly spitfires' Griffin wrote:

On Nov 3, 5:13 pm, White Spirit <wspi... at (no spam) homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
Nick 'my dad (correction) didnt fly spitfires' Griffin wrote:
a black person with a much higher IQ than you
Prove it.
disprove it.

The burden of proof is upon you.

Why can't you just say "I don't like black people"?

On 3 Nov, 12:06, White Spirit <wspi... at (no spam) homechoice.co.uk> wrote:

Would you deny that pattern recognition, mathematics, geometry and logic
play a large part in Western civilisation? Would you deny that one's
abilities in these realms have an impact on one's ability to succeed and
contribute?

I would not deny that these skills are useful in Western societies,
but every race on earth has these skills.

As I say, the degree of
difference in inherent ability (if indeed there is any - I have by no
means accepted that evidence supports such a contention) is negligible
in the larger scheme of things, and negligible relative to many other
factors like formal education.

Also, these statistics do not justify
racial discrimination - for we accept that we are speaking of average
IQ, and an inference can be drawn therefore that there are still many
smart black men, and many stupid white men (as determined by IQ
tests).

Honesty is not really a fixed personality trait. It's more to do with
how much a reputation for honesty is valued by others and to what
degree it aids productive mutual cooperation with others.

It's a cultural trait, one that I submit has arisen due to innate
differences between the various subspecies.

But where is your rigourous evidence for this highly contentious
conclusion?

That's sort of my point: mutual cooperation does not play a large part
in African and Caribbean societies.

Yes it does. Even in the most war-torn societies, mutual cooperation
plays a very large part, except that they tend to have an in-group
that is not based on national borders.

Caucasians, on the other hand,
could not have survived without cooperation.

It depends what you mean.

While the West is handing
over large sums of money to African countries to feed them beyond the
land's ability to sustain the burgeoning population, they will not face
the pressures that will give rise to better selection of genes and the
burden to the West will increase, both in terms of financial
'obligation' and immigration.

The problem in Africa is, as I say, lack of an established social
order. The cause of that in turn is that those societies have been
repeatedly decimated by Western powers.

Coincidentally I hear Simon
Mann has just been released - you know the one who, with Mark
Thatcher, intended to overthrow an African government and thereby
enjoy its oil wealth.

And truth be told, I don't think that foreign aid is particularly
helpful, but neither are loans given to dictators at sky-high interest
rates, which the whole country must then repay.

That doesn't constitute
violent or aggressive behaviour in my view.

Then what, in your view, do the words "aggressive" and "violent" mean?
Certainly when I went to school those words implied actions involving
bodily harm or the threat thereof, and that's exactly the kind of
action that Prescott took.

Look at Rhodesia: a rich country when it was handed back to the Negroes.

By "rich country", do I infer correctly that you mean there was a
small class of very rich men present in the country, while the general
population lived in squalor?

Their social orders are tribal and when they revert to them, we get
the blame for their violence.

But earlier you said that "Negroes" don't cooperate. Now you say that
they do cooperate, but at a tribal level?

And let's not forget their own role in
the slave trade.

Indeed, let's not forget. But that hardly justifies it.

There can be short-term benefits from criminal behaviour but, weighed up
against the long term costs, the criminal lifestyle is not a logical or
rational choice.

It depends how you frame the matter. The criminal lifestyle often has
poor financial returns over the long-term, but it is often high on
social status, and high on intrinsic satisfaction, and tends to bind
people together. It also requires little prior sustained investment
(which is appropriate to groups from socially and economically
deprived backgrounds), and it carries with it the chance of making
genuinely huge profits.

A further point is that the way in which the justice system responds
to criminality often perpetuates and aggravates the social conditions
that cause it.

I am referring to a sound judgement made
after evaluating the options and all evidence to hand.

Yes, and so by what measure is criminality irrational for these
groups? By financial measures? Perhaps. But what if monetary gain is
not the sole aim?

Choosing
criminal behaviour over hard work is the lazy option borne from baser
instincts.

Criminality rarely involves less work when objectively measured, and
often carries with it the risk of death, permanent injuries, jail time
etc.

As for baser instincts, what are these instincts, and how do they
differ from the more enlightened instincts of western peoples?

On Nov 4, 12:10 am, White Spirit <wspi... at (no spam) homechoice.co.uk> wrote:

Nick 'my dad (correction) didnt fly spitfires' Griffin wrote:

On Nov 3, 5:13 pm, White Spirit <wspi... at (no spam) homechoice.co.uk> wrote:

Nick 'my dad (correction) didnt fly spitfires' Griffin wrote:

a black person with a much higher IQ than you

Prove it.

disprove it.

The burden of proof is upon you.

its your thread fuckwit

Also, these statistics do not justify
racial discrimination - for we accept that we are speaking of average
IQ, and an inference can be drawn therefore that there are still many
smart black men, and many stupid white men (as determined by IQ
tests).

Of course.  But opening the floodgates opens us up to all sorts, and the
reason I bring IQ up is because the argument for economic migration
doesn't hold water.

Honesty is not really a fixed personality trait. It's more to do with
how much a reputation for honesty is valued by others and to what
degree it aids productive mutual cooperation with others.
It's a cultural trait, one that I submit has arisen due to innate
differences between the various subspecies.
But where is your rigourous evidence for this highly contentious
conclusion?

I made a submission based on the evidence of all that I have seen.

Our
culture is different to that of countries were corruption is rife.  For
example, it is well known that in African countries, it is expected that
the president of a nation will take care of his own tribe above all...

That's sort of my point: mutual cooperation does not play a large part
in African and Caribbean societies.
Yes it does. Even in the most war-torn societies, mutual cooperation
plays a very large part, except that they tend to have an in-group
that is not based on national borders.

It seems to me that the mutual cooperation that exists is not as
altruistic as our own, or aimed towards a common goal.  It seems to be
more along the lines of 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'.

 Caucasians, on the other hand,
could not have survived without cooperation.
It depends what you mean.

Harsh environmental conditions precluded the survival of people who did
not cooperate within close-knit communities.

 While the West is handing
over large sums of money to African countries to feed them beyond the
land's ability to sustain the burgeoning population, they will not face
the pressures that will give rise to better selection of genes and the
burden to the West will increase, both in terms of financial
'obligation' and immigration.
The problem in Africa is, as I say, lack of an established social
order. The cause of that in turn is that those societies have been
repeatedly decimated by Western powers.

I'd say the problem is that their natural social orders are not what we
would deem to be 'established'.  They'll either evolve better social
orders in their own time or continue as they have been.  Either way, we
shouldn't interfere.

Coincidentally I hear Simon
Mann has just been released - you know the one who, with Mark
Thatcher, intended to overthrow an African government and thereby
enjoy its oil wealth.

Well, there's an example of close cooperation

 That doesn't constitute
violent or aggressive behaviour in my view.
Then what, in your view, do the words "aggressive" and "violent" mean?
Certainly when I went to school those words implied actions involving
bodily harm or the threat thereof, and that's exactly the kind of
action that Prescott took.

I consider that there's a difference between violence - which is
unwarranted - and use of reasonable force.  Similarly, there is a
difference between being aggressive - which is likewise unwarranted -
and being assertive.

Look at Rhodesia: a rich country when it was handed back to the Negroes.
By "rich country", do I infer correctly that you mean there was a
small class of very rich men present in the country, while the general
population lived in squalor?

Rhodesia had a very good standard of living as I understand, and the
squalor exists now that Mugabe has taken over.

  Their social orders are tribal and when they revert to them, we get
the blame for their violence.
But earlier you said that "Negroes" don't cooperate. Now you say that
they do cooperate, but at a tribal level?

It's a matter of mutual gain - as I said, you scratch my back...

Historically, they don't have social orders that share common goals or
ideals.

 And let's not forget their own role in
the slave trade.
Indeed, let's not forget. But that hardly justifies it.

I'm not justifying it.  I bring it up to provide some balance.

There can be short-term benefits from criminal behaviour but, weighed up
against the long term costs, the criminal lifestyle is not a logical or
rational choice.
It depends how you frame the matter. The criminal lifestyle often has
poor financial returns over the long-term, but it is often high on
social status, and high on intrinsic satisfaction, and tends to bind
people together. It also requires little prior sustained investment
(which is appropriate to groups from socially and economically
deprived backgrounds), and it carries with it the chance of making
genuinely huge profits.
A further point is that the way in which the justice system responds
to criminality often perpetuates and aggravates the social conditions
that cause it.

I won't dispute the last point.  However, the criminal lifestyle does
not create strong, lasting bonds but merely bonds borne of necessity.

Those who chose the criminal lifestyle give up on other options, which
is not an informed choice.

 I am referring to a sound judgement made
after evaluating the options and all evidence to hand.
Yes, and so by what measure is criminality irrational for these
groups? By financial measures? Perhaps. But what if monetary gain is
not the sole aim?

You have to weigh in the costs against the short-term benefits.

 Choosing
criminal behaviour over hard work is the lazy option borne from baser
instincts.
Criminality rarely involves less work when objectively measured, and
often carries with it the risk of death, permanent injuries, jail time
etc.

Hardly a logical choice, then.

As for baser instincts, what are these instincts, and how do they
differ from the more enlightened instincts of western peoples?

The baser instincts are a desire for material goods, success and social
status without having truly earned them.

Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If
IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
framework considered normal in Western culture.  Why then should we wish
to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
required by our civilisation?

It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and professionally
in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro
country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest,
aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.  These are are negative
traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures.
Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries
all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic
and rationale.

That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response
is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to
succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat.  It has
nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything
to do with compassion.

AndrewJH wrote:
On Nov 2, 9:55 am, White Spirit <wspi... at (no spam) homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If
IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
framework considered normal in Western culture.  Why then should we wish
to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
required by our civilisation?

It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and professionally
in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro
country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest,
aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.  These are are negative
traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures.
Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries
all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic
and rationale.

That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response
is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to
succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat.  It has
nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything
to do with compassion.

Too bad your white IQ is much less than that of Arabs, Jews and
Asians.   You just proved that everybody wants somebody lower than
himself.

Arabs are less than European average, Israelis the same and non-Israeli
Jews much higher. After Jews come Mongoloids with Korea having the
highest average. Indians are somewhat lower than Europeans and Negroids
far down the scale. Of course, much of this is complicated by factors
such as childhood nutrition and the Flynn Effect.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Black people have a lower average intelligence than white people.

There is no doubt of this, ask any student of psychology.

The black
white IQ gap of between 15 and 30 points has been verified repeatedly
over very many years.

The gap cannot be cultural, as Orientals score
higher than whites,

and no one has been able to devise a test where
blacks score equally to whites.

Indeed, nobody has ever been able to
devise a QUESTION where blacks do as well as whites! Furthermore, it
is
precisely those questions that are more culturally loaded where
blacks do better, and it is in the most abstract questions that
blacks
do worst.

The black white IQ gap easily explains what we see in the world
today.

The hypothesis that blacks are less intelligent than whites is
a hypothesis that fits all the available data.

The real question is
not "Why should anyone think that the races have a different average
IQ?", but rather "Why should anyone think that the races have the same
average IQ?"

Blacks do very badly when left to themselves in their own countries,
as one would expect from  people with low IQ.

There are millions starving in Africa, and Africans are constantly
begging the West for aid.

The African states were better off when white people ran things,
since then they have either stagnated or declined.

Blacks don't look after themselves very well, just as one would
expect
from people with a low IQ. This is why they don't practice safe sex
and thus have very high rates of Aids and other venereal diseases.

Again, as we would expect from people with a low average IQ, blacks
are
vastly over represented in all the negative social indices: crime
statistics, ilegitimacy, unemployment,
etc. This happens all over the world, not just in the USA. So slavery
can't be blamed (blacks in Canada and the UK were never enslaved).

The reason that white people are leaving the inner cities (this
phenomena is so well documented that demographers have called it
"white
flight") is because they can no longer tolerate the high levels of
crime and disorder that is associated with large numbers of low IQ
blacks. The future for our inner cities is bleak indeed. Liberals and
socialists who pretend to believe race equality nonsense don't send
their own children to schools with large numbers of blacks.

AndrewJH wrote:
On Nov 5, 5:58 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
AndrewJH wrote:
On Nov 2, 9:55 am, White Spirit <wspi... at (no spam) homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
clinical retardation.  The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence.  If
IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
framework considered normal in Western culture.  Why then should we wish
to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
required by our civilisation?
It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and professionally
in Western countries.  By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro
country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest,
aggressive and violent in the face of adversity.  These are are negative
traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures.
Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries
all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic
and rationale.
That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response
is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to
succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat.  It has
nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything
to do with compassion.
Too bad your white IQ is much less than that of Arabs, Jews and
Asians.   You just proved that everybody wants somebody lower than
himself.
Arabs are less than European average, Israelis the same and non-Israeli
Jews much higher. After Jews come Mongoloids with Korea having the
highest average. Indians are somewhat lower than Europeans and Negroids
far down the scale. Of course, much of this is complicated by factors
such as childhood nutrition and the Flynn Effect.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/-Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus..org/-A UK political partyhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe-Occult Talk Show- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh excuse me.  You must be refering to some psychobabble tests.    I
was thinking of the scores of PhD scientists, Doctors and
entrepreneurs.

I was referring to the point made, which I quote: "Too bad your white IQ
is much less than that of Arabs, Jews and Asians." The statement is
largely incorrect.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Nov 2, 9:55 am, White Spirit <wspi... at (no spam) homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
clinical retardation. The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence. If
IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
framework considered normal in Western culture. Why then should we wish
to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
required by our civilisation?

It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and professionally
in Western countries. By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro
country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest,
aggressive and violent in the face of adversity. These are are negative
traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures.
Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries
all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic
and rationale.

That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response
is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to
succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat. It has
nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything
to do with compassion.

Too bad your white IQ is much less than that of Arabs, Jews and
Asians. You just proved that everybody wants somebody lower than
himself.

On Nov 5, 5:58 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
AndrewJH wrote:
On Nov 2, 9:55 am, White Spirit <wspi... at (no spam) homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
Given that the average IQ of a Negro is 85, this means that almost fifty
percent of them have an IQ score that fulfils the IQ requirement for
clinical retardation. The liberal view, however, is that IQ tests are
culturally biased and therefore not a fair measure of intelligence. If
IQ tests are culturally biased then it stands to reason that they are a
measure of a person's ability to apply logic and rationale within a
framework considered normal in Western culture. Why then should we wish
to accept immigrants who are demonstrably poor in the mental abilities
required by our civilisation?
It's no wonder that Negroes underachieve academically and professionally
in Western countries. By the same token, I would not thrive in a Negro
country because I do not demonstrate the same ability to be dishonest,
aggressive and violent in the face of adversity. These are are negative
traits to the Western mind that are valued in Negro cultures.
Unfortunately, the culture clash being played out in Western countries
all too often involves violence and aggression winning out over logic
and rationale.
That being said, the logical, rational and - above all - kind response
is to remove the Negro from a country in which he is less likely to
succeed and let him live naturally in his native habitat. It has
nothing to do with hate that I wish to seem them removed and everything
to do with compassion.
Too bad your white IQ is much less than that of Arabs, Jews and
Asians. You just proved that everybody wants somebody lower than
himself.
Arabs are less than European average, Israelis the same and non-Israeli
Jews much higher. After Jews come Mongoloids with Korea having the
highest average. Indians are somewhat lower than Europeans and Negroids
far down the scale. Of course, much of this is complicated by factors
such as childhood nutrition and the Flynn Effect.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh excuse me. You must be refering to some psychobabble tests. I
was thinking of the scores of PhD scientists, Doctors and
entrepreneurs.

Nick 'my dad (correction) didnt fly spitfires' Griffin wrote:

On Nov 4, 12:10 am, White Spirit <wspi... at (no spam) homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
Nick 'my dad (correction) didnt fly spitfires' Griffin wrote:
On Nov 3, 5:13 pm, White Spirit <wspi... at (no spam) homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
Nick 'my dad (correction) didnt fly spitfires' Griffin wrote:
a black person with a much higher IQ than you
Prove it.
disprove it.
The burden of proof is upon you.
its your thread fuckwit

You're the one who made the assertion, knob head.