Anonymous ID: 5083c3 May 27, 2022, 7:54 a.m. No.16350760   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>0781

>>16350741

when "they" did the landmark study on Africa (late 1980s) to find out why Africans have not advanced in the midst of tons of natural resources, etc… "they" thought they'd uncover some racism by whites somewhere….yet "they" found out it was IQ related (where all those average IQs originally came from)…it was science, but they decided yo muffle the research (i guess "they" felt bad?)

Anonymous ID: 5083c3 May 27, 2022, 7:58 a.m. No.16350773   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>0912

>>16350744

was listening to baltimore radio and this person called in to explain that black-on-black gun crimes are their way of doing justice; it is 'white privilege' to have cops arresting blacks and subjecting them to the courts, etc….so they should get to settle their grievances on the cheap (if you don't want to be a racist)…and that is why those events do not count; the person was very sober sounding (the jing it was some DC bureaucrat)

Anonymous ID: 5083c3 May 27, 2022, 8:09 a.m. No.16350826   🗄️.is đź”—kun

>>16350781

the 'researchers' were do-gooders trying to push the answer one way, and when it was going in the opposite direction, well…it became "nothing to see here" and "it must have been flawed" ; why can no one accept the fact that IQ could be affected by populations seperated from each other, like skin color or any other trait deemed to be evolutionary? if africans had an easy time surviving, IQ would not be 'selected' by the females; in a brutal climate, the female will pick the smart guy who can get through the winter; after thousands of years of this pressure, why wouldn't IQ be markedly different?