Redpill me on race and intelligence pol/

Redpill me on race and intelligence pol/

My question is, if I.q is dependant on race I.e.. whites are smarter than blacks and Asians are smarter than whites, then why do you have certain group of ethnicities in each race only succeeding and building superior civilizations e.g.. amongst europeans the latins, greeks, english and Germans did a must better job than the Scandinavians or Slavs at building, running and maintaining civilization, amongst the middle eastern races, Assyrians, Phenocians, Babylonians, Persians etc.. did a much better job than Bedouin Arabs and hebrews (semites, the same race like the assyrians, phenocians, babylonians etc..), or the example of Japanese and Chinese doing a better job at building civilization than Mongolians and asian turkics, despite being practically the same race, ethiopians doing a better job than sub-saharan africans and so on and so forth.

If you study history extensively, you can't help but to think that environment and culture plays a much bigger role than race at civilization building. Am I missing something?

Other urls found in this thread:

wonderslist.com/10-historical-persian-queens-empresses/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Turks_and_Black_Turks
pastebin.com/C7jaAniM
anthropology.net/2008/01/22/genetic-relationships-of-semitic-and-indo-aryan-speaking-groups-in-iran/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

You have to account for the fact that in the ancient rome/greek times, the climate was different. For example, north africa had elephants/tigers and it was almost entirely green. The climate back then favoured a great civilization to arise in these regions. There is a reason why romans were so successful - they lived in the lowlands, not in the mountains, meaning they were well-connected geographically, unlike the greeks.

Germans, franks, italians and anglos later flourished since they were conquered by the romans, and when the empire collapsed, they adopted the knowledge of the romans, along with their religion and culture. So-called "dark medieval times" were actually a period where monks were translating and rewriting old roman-greek books and storing all the knowledge, making renaissance possible later on. Slavs and scandis on other hand existed outside of roman borders, thus had no access to roman heritage besides just adopting it later through cultural exchange with the germans.

As climate gradually changed and mediterrean areas became more desert and less green, the cultural centre of the west shifted to northern and eastern areas, until the turks conquered the byzantine and only roman heritage left was in the northern areas like british isles, german areas, netherlands, franks, and to some extent, spanish areas.

The reason why asians have higher IQ these days is that they have always been industrious and clever people, but also very rigid and stubborn in their following of authority figures and rules, which held back their progress. Once they gained access to western knowledge, they rigorously started adopting this too, which allowed them to reach success.

Not all people are like this. Western heritage never made some people more advanced, like africans, arabs, hindus etc. who continued their own cultures and merely contributed to the world by working for the westerners, but never truly trying to apply the western model for their societies.

Didn't you just answer your own question?

A group in a resource rich environment will do better than one that is in a scarce one.

Also culture is a huge factor, many don't realize that it is actually a selector for genetic traits. Culture as well as environment will limit the success of a race or subrace.

It's all related. You can't build something without materials(environment), knowledge (culture), and the strength(iq) to do so.

>ITT: Nordcucks use ''but the environment senpai" as an argument despite boasting a "higher IQ" than nations listed in OP
Reminder that even sub-saharan Africa was more advanced pre-1500AD.

I do think that there is a certain perfect mix of climate where life is not too hard and not too easy, where you have winters so that people have to prepare for it and think in advance (=have more IQ than a dog)
With that theory, it makes sense that slavs do worse because they came from mongolians / siberia with too harsh winters.
idk why romans were doing so exceptionally well, I honestly think it's just the fact that they were on their own isolated but still connected giant peninsula. Think about it, they are connected to the rest of the world and asia perfectly but they were likewise almost completely protected from simple raids by the facts that they have an ocean all around them.

As soon as good ships became more common place, real islands like Britain and I guess the US became much more powerful too
I think there must be a reason why Germany wasnt even a real country until like the 1850s or something, I dont remember. Being smack in the middle of all major powers doesnt help

>implying that vikings societies weren't more advanced than african societies
haven't seen any african tribes making the trips to america unless in slave ships desu

africa is the most resource rich continent by far, and africans never did shit but pick up fermented fruit that ripened and fell from the tree. scarcity and threatening climate seems to produce intelligence, but there's a limit. polar ice caps just make polar gooks for example.

Pointless if you're going to go to travel to resourceful America just to starve to death. Equivalent to suffocating to death in a 100% O2 sufficient environment.

The Vikings did great in the new world during the medieval warming period. They were too far north to handle the mini-ice age that followed.

>it makes sense that slavs do worse because they came from mongolians / siberia with too harsh winters
Slavs came from indo-europeans like the germans did, only finno-ugric tribes descended from Uralic mountains in Siberia. Slavs didn't do as well as the rest of whites mainly because they never had big united empires and they often were divided and conquered by their neighbors. They never developed a sense of unity for this reason, unlike the italians, anglos, germans and to smaller extent, scandis who largely maintained and developed their social structures to a great extent without minimal interruptions from their neighbors.

Think of the slavs who were often conquered by turks, tatar-mongols, germans etc. and then look at for example french, who lived in relative stability for a long time

>idk why romans were doing so exceptionally well
this is easy, they had a mare nostrum, which meant easy transfer of resources across the empire, and most of italy was a lowland, meaning they were well-connected within their peninsula without much geographical separation

What's western heritage in the first place though? I'm pretty sure if you're speaking of the romans and greeks then they were highly influenced by middle eastern civilizations.

That's not the point, you retarded shill. Point is that their ships were advanced enough to sail across an ocean. Vikings were even trading with arabs back then (arabic dinars have been found in viking graves). Viking societies were surprisingly advanced if you actually bother to read about them and you aren't a shitskin shill trying to derail this thread.

Africans have very little in comparison to this. From what I've read, only Mali empire and Nubian empire have been quite impressive, and to some extent Christian Ethiopia, but the rest has been just a bunch of backwards sub-saharan tribes or north-african muslims who had nothing too impressive or advanced going on.

Middle-eastern civilizations back then were genetically different (it was the whiter variety of middle easterners who developed high culture, the darker ones were mostly slaves), as well as their climate (which was greener). For example, think abour Bashar al Assad, who looks relatively white. It's largely people like him who were in the forefront of building the ancient civilizations. They were the kings, archidects, writers etc.

Important to note is that these middle-eastern civilizations didn't last for long, while ancient greece and rome adopted what they learned and developed their own culture with a magnificent speed and technological achievements, as well as cultural, organizational and military fields.

In short, greeks took a bit from middle-eastern cultures, and transformed the knowledge in something different and bigger. It's like a small loan of million dollars and turning it into 20 billion dollars.

slavs have never actually been completely conquered afaik unless you think of counting every far east slav enclave, I dont see your point at all. They had to make a deal with the mongols at one point: I'm not aware of much else.

>what is pic related

>it was the whiter variety of middle easterners who developed high culture, the darker ones were mostly slaves
provide evidence.

wonderslist.com/10-historical-persian-queens-empresses/
All of them look whiter to me than your average sandnog

Just google that shit. Arabs were first mentioned as a people in historical texts 600 BCE (?), which is relatively late for a grouping of a bunch of tribes whose descendants reach the 400 millions today. They were mentioned in texts by contemporary civilizations who were largely organized kingdoms such as the Assyrians etc.

so what can you derive from this? for one the kingdoms that existed today were at least not arabs since arabs hadn't spread from the southern part of the arabian peninsula yet.

There existed Persians at this time, but Persians were already an established empire with a pinpointed ethnic group who have remained largely unchanged over the millenias.

So they weren't Arabs nor were they Persians as we already know who and what they were.

The egyptians already had their form of racial biology, where humans were 7 different races ranging from white to black with different shades. The egyptian aristocracy were the "red race" who we still can't pinpoint to any descendants this day, as their culture were assimilated by other peoples and formed new peoples.

But what we know from the Egyptians is that the kingdoms around the eastern shores of the mediterranean were often portrayed as the "second lightest" shade of human. The lightest referred obviously to those who lived on the northern shores of the medi (white race).

So tl;dr the ancient civilizations that are geographically today Syria and Lebanon etc... were not exactly white, but were something close to that. Many people often make the connection with Greeks before they became turkic rapebabies (ancient greece) and the geographical position would certainly suit these theory.

>wonderslist.com/10-historical-persian-queens-empresses/
Great source friend, you might as well reference buzzfeed as well. Replies like these are the reason I browse Sup Forums :^)

>failing to disapprove the article and instead shooting the messanger
literally not an argument, you fucking leaf

>blogpost
>proof
>All of them look whiter to me than your average sandnog
Yes because those look like actual paintings from 1400 years ago kek
Persians and Arabs were the same people. Iranian genetics have not changed that much in the last 1,400 years, and Iranians today genetically test within the same proximity to other middle easterners as they do to each other.
>medi (white race)
>meds
>white

Good summary. People seem to forget that genetics have changed over time a lot. Greeks of today for example are less white than greeks 2000 years ago, since today's greeks gene pool has been polluted a bit by the centuries of turkish rule. Now Ottoman Empire was a very vast empire with many shades of skin color. People in the western anatolia for example could be quite close to white, such as how Anzujaamu looks (pic related) but people from the inlands and kurdish areas look much more darker and could be migrating into Greece at one point.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Turks_and_Black_Turks

Persians are definetly not genetically the same as Arabs.

You're stupid if you can't tell a Persian from an arab at heinsight.

Oh and I think you're confused with the years. If you want to debate that modern day medis are not white, that's fine. I'd disagree but fine. But 2500 years ago medis were whiter as their cultures have been assimilated with other peoples.

Don't buy the IQ meme. It's stupid.

pic related

WE
>Persians are definetly not genetically the same as Arabs.
Right, I'm sure the dna evidence that says otherwise is wrong and your opinion is right :^)
>You're stupid if you can't tell a Persian from an arab at heinsight.
Pic related is the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Look at all the places like Africa with very little change in climate and resource rich like the Asian islands, South America, all those islands with pygmys. Winter acted as a killing mechanism for the stupid. Ultimately whatever humans could survive winter were smarter than those who couldn't. Basic Darwinism IMO

>Right, I'm sure the dna evidence that says otherwise is wrong and your opinion is right :^)

there's your genetical evidence that you have clearly researched extensively about instead of cherrypicking on google a picture of persians who look somewhat arab-ish.

Persians look somewhat similar to arabs, however their skin have a wider range, but are typically either more pale or a more reddish shade of light brown.

Arabs generally have curly hair whilst Persians generally have straight hair.

pastebin.com/C7jaAniM

Here you go, you dumb fucking burger. You get a free pass today but I am done spoonfeeding retards who know nothing about history.

>cherrypicking a picture from the internet to disprove statistical evidence that the finn provides
American education at it's finest.

I can do this too, you know, find a random picture of a stereotypical american and tell you that most americans look like this without the shadow of a doubt.

The red pill is that inequality of groups is naturally occurring and it is just.
The blue pill is that all groups are magically equal and when it is undeniable that they are not then it is the result of unjust oppression.

>posting a pie chart with no labels
>but look I edited the file name so its legit!
>Persians look somewhat similar to arabs, however their skin have a wider range, but are typically either more pale or a more reddish shade of light brown.
Syrians are typically pale too, while some are straight up brown. Same thing with spaniards, italians, etc.
Middle easterners are all mixed with one another.
>Arabs generally have curly hair whilst Persians generally have straight hair.
Confirmed for retard
>persepolis.nu
>iranianpoliticsclub.net
>persiansarenotarabs.com
Such accredited and reputable websites!
What reputable website will you link me to next, jidf.org?
>statistical evidence that the finn provides
What evidence did he provide?
may not have a link, but it is still fa more reputable than a pie chart that I can make myself in paint right now and try passing it as evidence.
But here pic related comes with a source this time.
>American education at it's finest.
>I can do this too, you know, find a random picture of a stereotypical american and tell you that most americans look like this without the shadow of a doubt.
I'm Iranian myself you white retard.

Interesting.

I read the article, it's the reason I replied to you.

Iranian politics club is a group based in Iran that focuses on iranian history, how much more reputable can you get? Do you want me to source you to a book or something?

anthropology.net/2008/01/22/genetic-relationships-of-semitic-and-indo-aryan-speaking-groups-in-iran/

>What evidence did he provide?
Hablogroups map.

You are not being specific in your response. What exactly do you disagree with? What sources do you find lacking? If you are here to shitpost, I really don't have time.

IQ means nothing, it's literally just a number made up by psychologists so they have something to do.

Civilizations occur where the environment was favourable enough to let them, that's true, and it's the same with greedy sexual selection. Greedy sexual selection lead to the differences between races as you see them today.

Iranians are iranid, which is one of the most heavily and greedily selected racial type that exists. They are not "white" by stormweenie standards because they are not "blonde and pale skinned".

Every ounce of technology we use today was invented and created by Faustian cultures ("Germanics" and Indic mainly). Ancient greeks and romans had nothing to do with what we are using today.

genetics don't matter, only the sexual selection that occurred or DIDN't matters

compare these two girls to understand why eastern europe is fucked from the ground up (i.e. reduced and infantilized to the max) while higher racial types ony exist in warm and temperate climates

The idea that the Vikings and Slavs had no civilization is simply not true. They just built less with stone than the Greeks did so not as many ruins are left behind.

>cherry picking an example
I can cherrypick too. Pic related, an estonian, in other words, east baltid or whatever.

Real Iranians are white, there just aren't that many left who aren't mongrels.

TRADE

The main problem here is that you are comparing alien tier technology (indic faustian culture in its infancy and still yet to fully bloom + nordic/germanic culture that has already fully bloomed in 1900s) with a technology that was only at the top of its time and has no long lasting effects in todays life.


The woman you posted is infantilized as well, I hope you understand that.

Well you are right the eastern baltid one is ugly, eastern baltids, eastern europeans in general and everybody living in (extremely) cold climates is always reduced cromagnoid and heavily infantilized.


pic related is a better example, a cuter "ukrainian" , she's not ugly, but she lacks every kind of progressive racial trait that comes from a heavy/greedy sexual selection repeated over a long period of time

They are not "white skinned" , but they are 100% fully morphologically white in the sense that you can't differ between a dead iranid skull and a mediterranid/nordid skull , because they only differ metrically in soft parts (lips, nose ).

Then again not every Iranian is iranid just like not every European is nordid.

Non-mongrelized Iranians are white. Iran literally means land of the aryans.

Iranid = Iranid racial type = part of the greater aurignacoid races that dominate every region they exist in


Iranian = nationality and/or ethnicity (not really tohugh since they differentiate between Persians etc.)


pic related is a comparison of all the living subraces

>posts another pie chart that looks like a 5 year old made in paint
>still no source
>oh but this time I quickly added a legend in paint to fool you!
Also you seem to be under the false idea that aryan = white. It's not. White's are not aryans. Aryan is a word that means "noble". It is not a race or an ethnicity, but white people love trying to leech onto us because they envy us and want a claim to the superior middle eastern culture and heritage.
>modern day Iranians
>knowing or caring about pre islamic history
>implying a website like that wouldn't be banned in Iran and anyone visiting it wouldn't get a visit from the basij.
Also even if what you say is true, how are a bunch of nonmuslim larpers a reputable source? It's like saying Sup Forums is a reputable source.
I didn't know that the children of white slaves are real Iranians.
Whites aren't aryan. It's not even a word found in any white language.
Almost all Iranian tribes genetically test the same. In Iran an "ethnicity" depends on what dialect you speak.

Same goes for the Egyptians, Romans, Greeks and Sumerians

Also the whiteness of the skin and generally skin complexion is probably one of the most unimportant factors when determining race, becase it changes extremely quickly (think niggers mixing with whites).

You can't change your race in less than tens of thousands of years, because it requires repeated sexual selection for certain (greedy) traits.


Genetic tests are meaningless for racial classification.

WE

...

IQ Differences between ethnic groups

Why would germanics (Faustian cultures) care about meds? You realize that the former have managed to fucking control natural forces and bend them to their will , while Romans were regularly fucked by nature in all kind of scenarios.

IQ is a meaningless measure, which has no value until somebody has achieved something (and is then retroactively measured with a high IQ (surprisingly)).

>post 900 ad pictures

This man is Italian

Who cares about these stupid little details when greek/romans flourished long before germans did, and on top of that, it was the anglos who built the greatest empire out of all europeans. Germans merely adopted and built upon roman heritage, who in turn adopted greek heritage, who in turn adopted cretan culture, whose minoan culture was adopted from eastern mediterranean coastal areas, which were all culturally influenced by ancient egyptian empire.

Germans on their own had nothing other than some barbar societies similar to viking societies. Stop trying to divide and conquer white nationalism by putting one group of whites above the others just because HURRDURR SLAVS ARE NOT PERFECT WHITES. If your germans are so perfect and breed so selectively, why are they letting in millions of economic migrants to forever alter their gene pool and eastern europeans don't?

>according to Sup Forums, these two men are the same race
kek

More than one factor is involved.

You don't understand. Greek and Romans are IRRELEVANT today.

Greeks could barely understand 3d , they didn't even have a functioning number system. Romans haven't produced anything in mathematics, only in engineering (and only as an extension of what the greeks already gave them as a foundation) .


Again: Greeks and Romans only knew NATURAL numbers (1,2,3....) and they were restricted by euclidean geometry to 2 dimensions (proper geometry in 3 dimensions is NON-Euclidean) , they didn't know and understand the concept of the number 0, for a greek person in ancient time 2*2 only exists as a product of 2 sides (not on paper as a calculation)


Today we use Indian/Germanic (Faustian) culture exclusively: we think in N-dimensions, we use Functions.


Faustian culture does not descend from Roman/Greek culture, it ASCENDS it and completely shadows it in every way.

>implying I said that

And I don't care about "white nationalism" , slavs are irrelevant, always have been and always will be.

They are irrelevant as a race (because they don't have anything worthwhile to offer) and as a culture (because they haven't produced anything of value in the last 3000 years).

Human history is a story of aurignacoid races fighting amongst each other, cromagnoids are merely the pawns and placeholders for them.

Aurignacoid races includes: Nordid/Atlantid/Mediterranid/Iranid/North-indide


The rest are irrelevant .

I didn't say you said that, I said that is what Sup Forums in general says.

You're an idiot. If aryans aren't white then why is there an indo-European language group? The white aryans brought the indo-European languages to India and Persia. The middle eastern shitskins are all semites and the brown-skinned Indians are dravidians who didn't write Sanskrit. Persians were white until the Arabs and Jews polluted their gene-pool.

Nobody wrote Sanskrit, because Indo-Europeans didn't use a writing system until much later on in history.

The aryans were like pic related a bunch of nomadic mediterranid aurignacoids , and not "blonde blue eyed invaders" like you would like to think. Blondism is a very recent development and the lightness of complexion has mostly to do with Vitamin D production and cancer prevention - nothing to do with heat management.

The original aryan has more in common with a modern North-Indian Brahmin than with a blonde blue eyed German.

You didn't answer my question. Why is the word "aryan" only in the Persian language but not in any European languages?
>Persians were white until the Arabs and Jews polluted their gene-pool.
There were indigenous people in the Persian/Indian lands before a small tribe of caucasians came along. How does a small tribe of caucasians magically transform the genepool of those brown indigenous people into a white one, and completely replace their pre existing language and culture?
Also if the ancient Persians were white, why were they monotheists while Europeans were pagans, and why is was their culture nothing like Europes?
I have already posted dna evidence that Iranian genetics hasn't changed that much in the last 1600 years. So Iranians today are genetically the same as they were back then. And I have also posted dna evidence showing that Iranians today are genetically middle eastern, and are not even close to being related to whites.

WE

pic related is what a gracile iranid woman looks like, this is the greediest selected racial type to dominate the middle eastern region

pic related side view

iranids are to the middle east what nordids are to northern Europe

pic related a fully unreduced nordid woman

side view

well Iran does perform the most nosejobs per year than anywhere else in the world. I'd say 95% if not more of Iranians with normal looking noses have had a nosejob.

I know this picture is a troll, but the Italy was pretty mixed in the 4th/5th centuries and many people living there had lighter features. Octavian had light hair and that was before Germanics were being integrated into Roman society.

Of course the majority was swarthy however.

WE WUZ ROMANS N SHIEEET

You're retarded. They are relevant because without their accomplishments you cannot say that anyone would have achieved what they currently have.

So, what piece of roman/Greek technology do you use in your every day life? Apart from latin alphabet that is.


We use indic numbers , we use the indic concept of number 0 , we use NON EUCLIDEAN geometry to calculate distances on the globe etc.

Name one thing that is a Greek invention without which todays modern world could not work.

Why is there a nigger in the Egypt side?

Because if persians were white, then egyptians were black :^)

If greek/roman heritage is so irrelevant, how do you explain Renaissance taking place, and the fact that germans adopted classic roman/greek literature with all the science, philosophy, medicinal knowledge and stories it contained? How do you explain that germans after the roman conquests of germania became christians, which is a religion coming from roman lands, and became roman state religion during the last periods of roman empire?

I could make the same argument that romans developed aqueducts, huge waterwheels, straight roads, grid-based cities, sewers, newspapers and concrete, none of which greeks ever knew, so therefore greek heritage is irrelevant to romans, while it's obvious that none of these developments wouldn't have been possible without roman archidects and philosophers carefully studying the knowledge of the greeks.

Same with germans. They were nothing like the lithuanian empire, which was truly a pagan empire that was culturally quite independent for quite a long time. Germans just adopted ancient classical knowledge and expanded upon it. This is nothing to feel bad about, in fact, we should pride ourselves for the fact that our western world is built upon the foundation of magnificent classical civilizations.

This is the reason why russians are slightly different in their culture, albeit still part of the western world - they chose their foundation to be the byzantium empire, not the western rome like western europe did. Now byzantine was still part of the roman empire, but just with a different flavour.

This chart that you provided is back from Nazi racial biology which has been largely discredited and accepted as pseudoscience, not for it being Nazi "racism" but because it's not factual and is based on a scale of how close you come to physical germanic traits on a scale.

In fact for like 6 years they defined superiority in intelligence by the count of bump and lumbs in the skull, up until they realized that Fenno-ugrics had on average 1.4 times as many bumps in the skull as germanics had. They then redined superior intelligence and how to measure it to fit their own race.

So you're saying whites never built any part of their culture or civilization themselves, but rather stole it from other people? Not really surprised desu.
>russians
>part of the western world
WE WUZ RUSSIANS N SHIEEET

:^)

Persians were white, Egyptians were not black.

jews are the smartest. biology and education.

WE WUZ, WE WUZ

Persians were never white. They were always brown. Their pre Islamic artwork depicts brown skin there are still Persian zoroastrian communities in Iran that speak the old dialect and never mixed with outsiders. And they are brown.

Arabs have far more Iranian blood in them than Iranians have arab blood. The Iranians were colonizing Arabia and sending settlers there for a long time.

Democracy.

Just google sassanid artwork you can see Persians always depicted themselves as tanned with dark hair and aquiline features. They've always looks like this even before the arab conquests.

>So you're saying whites never built any part of their culture or civilization themselves, but rather stole it from other people? Not really surprised desu.
Bad reading comrehension there. What I am saying is we took a small loan of million dollars and turned it into 20 billion dollar. Niggers in south africa received a small loan of 20 million dollars and run this into debt.
Also, everything in human society is a theft. What matters is how much can you create with what you have, not where the idea comes from. Matter of the fact is that romans took what they largely had from greeks and little bit what they had from etruscans and turned it into something really great. Germans took what they managed to gather from the romans, rewrote and stored the knowledge, taught it to themselves and expanded their base of knowledge greatly, as a result.

>were
are*

Yes they ARE white, you aussie fuck can go die.

>Genetic testing from the 80s

Intothetrashitgoes.jpg

>from the 80s
uw0tmate?

>jamal is not ammused
oh no! scientific facts that I don't like!

Captcha agrees

They're not. Greeks are closer southwest asians (arabs) than they are to Italians according to his very outdated image

>le butthurt arab
kek

Post science from this decade pls

no u. I posted science, all you did was "haha I don't like those facts".

post science that refutes the one I posted.

Why didn't you accept the scientific facts this guy posted? It's not as outdated as the shit you posted :)

mine is not outdated. it's just unbiased.

:^)))))))))))))))))))