I don’t think there will ever be enough verified data to determine what the influence of genetics on intelligence and performance is. Therefore, we will never have a consensus of views on the topic.

Economic collapse in Nigeria? Oh, must be because they’re retarded. East Asia doing fine? Smart orientals again, nothing else.”

Yeah, it’s just like that. The Great Depression was caused by a nearly worldwide inbreeding depression. The “baby boom” was caused by some large-scale random coincidence activating black genes for hornyness that are somewhat distributed even in the white population, but usually silent due to white decency-genes; or perhaps, by some virus has copied the black gene for hornyness and it spread quicker, so there’s no need to invoke the idea of miscegenation and the genetic coincidence, which perhaps would be insufficient. Somewhat like the gay-germ-theory, or toxoplasmosis.

This idea of viruses stealing black genes and spreading black behavior outside the black population boundaries may explain all the atrocities, crimes, dumbness and indecency committed by pure white breeds. So, despite certain nose shapes revealing character or absence thereof, there’s the noise added by genes spread virally.

Perhaps the nazi holocaust was the black gene’s fault after all, aided with european high-intelligence genes. Then you get combined the genes that determine the individual invention of mass production (probably Henry Ford being the first mutant) and genes for wild, violent and indecent behavior. The sad result were the gas chambers.

This should warn us of the dangers of miscigenation. Different from short-term viral epidemics, it would have phyletically lasting effects. The first generation hybrids are not as terrible since much of the european intelligence is dilluted with african dumbness, but as genes segregate independently eventually we will face genotypes that unite the qualities of immorality and intelligence that brought us the nazis, or even worse.

And they may well look just like white people, like James Watson does, despite of a large amount of black genes, so we would not have the aid of physiognomy to help us seeing who is good and who is not (just like when there are viruses). A dark future may come if we don’t use some terminator-like techonology to induce speciation between blacks and whites.

In the other hand, besides not nearly compensating such danger, perhaps anytime a black person is doing something good, it has something to do with a vius that stole white people’s good genes. The same thing could be applied to asians, so we don’t need to invoke Galton’s idea that the asian civilization was founded by white people. Their genes could have travelled through viruses. That’s something that lends strong support to Diamond’s “guns, germs and steel” idea, make it suddenly appears much more feasible. After all, there are genes.

So the African Question puts us in a dilemma.

Perhaps a genetical aid program, with sperm donation from gifted whites to the African continent could eventually bring enough intelligence to the continent so it will prosper by itself. Just imagine how many Bill Gates, Donald Trump and other generically-gifted folks like them could do for Africa with just a daily wack-off or having sex with condoms! Of course their first generation of mixed children wouldn’t be as smart and rich as if they had children with white women, but eventually the copies of the genes will eventually meet again in single individuals, adding up intelligence. Eventually, only black skin and maybe other harmless features of african populations would remain.

The sperm donation of gifted individuals could bring to Africa such a development rate unseen in the whole history, as usually the natural rate of substitution of genes is far more slow than what would be possible with sperm donation (and viral causes for development don’t last much – probably dumbness viruses have some intrinsic advantage over intelligence viruses in the same niche, and the effect is similar to that of the decreasing virullency of epidemics with time). It’s way much cheaper than any sort of aid with infrastructure and other non-genetic meaningless things like education, and far more effective, longlasting than things like education, as the genes are passed on to the next generation, but the education goes down to zero again.

But that solution has the potential problem I foresaw earlier, multiplied ten-fold by the quality of the genes of theses white-gene donors I imagined. If Germany almost alone did all that harm even after a recession following the First War (a black dumbness virus?), the menace of a whole continent with the genes for such richness and evil is something that the world hasn’t yet seen and probably no one is capable of imagining. Such evil and intelligence combined isn’t present in anyone’s genes, so it’s literally beyond the abilities of any present day human being to grasp what could really mean. All that we can know is that it would be the worst menace whit– humankind ever faced, and possible the one that could lead us all to extinction.

So that isn’t going to be the sort of Final Solution we’d want… as we’re civilized, we can’t really suggest something like the other Final Solution – the one that was brought by the combination of black cruelty and white intelligence genes. We need something more human. The terminator-like technology to induce biological speciation would be the best solution, I think. To kill all black people would be unethical, just like extincting some monkey species. Perhaps if we let them alone in Africa, they would eventually biologically evolve in something like white people, but passing by the natural stages of intelligence development, without the dangerous simultaneity of evil and intelligence that haunts us with nonsegregation and miscegeneation.

…

Yeah, I know, Godwin’s law and all that. But I think it was funny anyway. Don’t take it too seriously. I think that it’s perfectly possible that some people consider other races genetically/inherently inferior in some abilities but at the same time aren’t nazioids. Somewhat like “biological egalitarians” (or something that sounds less strawmanesque) often acknowledge that there are real “proximal” differencies, but that these don’t imply in ultimate genetic causations or less rights for these people or anything. I don’t know in which place most “racial ‘realist’” people stand, anyway.

…

I recall one of the silliest “arguments” against the “skin deep” assertion was to show pictures of african albinos, showing that they don’t have exactly the same patterns of facial features of european people in general. As if “skin deep” was supposed to be taken so literally that we would not expect even differences that exist, say, between europeans themselves. Other argument I recall was someone in a prototype of sarcasm pointing that is odd that the epicanthic fold is a culturally determined trait.

I know that it is somewhat “ad hominem”, but come on, seems like that some people don’t spend much time seeing people in the real world and need these sort of picture to know that facial features do differ geographically.

Ironically it’s somewhat akin to showing a picture of the bush of Socrates to promote afrocentrism.

sorry ’bout my lame english, btw.

JAMES WATSON, the DNA pioneer who claimed Africans are less intelligent than whites, has been found to have 16 times more genes of black origin than the average white European.

An analysis of his genome shows that 16% of his genes are likely to have come from a black ancestor of African descent. By contrast, most people of European descent would have no more than 1%.

The study was made possible when he allowed his genome – the map of all his genes – to be published on the internet in the interests of science.

“This level is what you would expect in someone who had a great-grandparent who was African,” said Kari Stefansson of deCODE Genetics, whose company carried out the analysis. “It was very surprising to get this result for Jim.”

Watson won the Nobel prize, with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins, after working out the structure of DNA in 1953. However, he provoked an outcry earlier this year when he suggested black people were genetically less intelligent than whites.

This weekend his critics savoured the wry twist of fate. Sir John Sulston, the Nobel laureate who helped lead the consortium that decoded the human genome, said the discovery was ironic in view of Watson’s opinions on race. “I never did agree with Watson’s remarks,” he said. “We do not understand enough about intelligence to generalise about race.”

The backlash against Watson forced him to step down as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York state, after 39 years at the helm. He had said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospects for Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”.

The analysis by deCODE Genetics, an Icelandic company, also shows a further 9% of Watson’s genes are likely to have come from an ancestor of Asian descent. Watson was not available for comment.

James Watson: genetic risk to diseases compared with other people of European ancestry

- Age-related macular degeneration (blindness) – 20% less than average

- Asthma – 31% less than average

- Breast cancer – 1.45 times greater than average

- Coeliac disease – 66% less than average

- Colon (bowel) cancer – 16% greater than average

- Glaucoma – 1.42 rimes greater than average

- Inflammatory bowel disease – 31% less than average

- Multiple sclerosis – 29% greater than average

- Heart attack – 33% less than average

- Obesity – 5% greater than average

- Prostate cancer – 1.02 times greater than average

- Psoriasis – 31% less than average

- Restless leg – 29% less than average

- Rheumatoid arthritis – 20% greater than average

- Type 1 diabetes – 65% less than average

- Type 2 diabetes – 33% greater than average

Results are calculated by comparing one person’s genetic sequence to the sequences of other participants in studies published in world literature on genetic risk for disease

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3022190.ece

The research, led by Robert Plomin of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, identified six genes that were strongly associated with high or low intelligence, but even the most powerful of these accounted for just 0.4 per cent of the variation in intelligence between individuals. The six together accounted for about 1 per cent of the variation in intelligence. Dozens of previous studies on twins and adopted children have established that about half of the variation in intelligence is down to environment, but almost all of the genetic component has yet to be uncovered.