That would surely put Scots and Irish top of the pile which can't be right. Surely the main thing is the quality of education and nutrition, health etc available.
That can was duly opened already Sir I have a primeval fear of people of Arabic ethnicity. My intellect may say different but when I see someone whom Britons describe as "Asian", my instinct cries at me to remove myself from their vicinity because they wish to do me harm. When such people are being nice to me I suspect its just a ruse to lull me into a fall sense of security. Their real intentions being my destruction. If there was such a thing as a Bogeyman he would be a bearded Muslim from the middle east, dressed in robes and with a menacing smile saying "As-Salaam-Alaikum". That is not the case with Africans. I actually have an inferiority complex regarding black people. That came to a head when I stayed in a black neighbourhood in Chicago for the Summer once. By the end of my stay I wanted to purge myself of my sterile honkyness and I've always since feared my girlfriends were just biding time before running off with a well endowed dark guy. COL knows what I'm talking about...
Given that race is more of a social construct than a biological one, and that 'whites' have only existed for less than 8,000 years, a blink of the eye in evolutionary terms (3 genes mutated to allow us to absorb more vitamin D in climates with less sunshine), Wats is undoubtedly right that the environment that different populations grow up in - geographical and/or social, relative wealth etc etc must be more important than genetic differences in how well individuals score in tests designed by and for educated western Europeans. As for prof. Lynn, he wrote an entire book on the IQ superiority of Northern Italians to Southern Italians, neglecting to notice that large swathes of the population of Northern Italy have migrated from the south, and omitting to include any actual IQ data.
I would like to see those with the highest IQs survive in the Kalahari desert, Australia's Great Western Desert or the tropical rainforest of the equatorial pygmies, as those with (apparently) the lowest 'intelligence' do. Eugenics is a political/social 'science', not real science. This bloke's views are, as the intro to your clip says 'far to the right'. He thinks an aborigine with an average IQ of allegedly 60, is only fit to empty bins. In fact aborigines have created an amazing and completely unique culture and art, as well as being able to survive in the harshest of conditions. As have the pygmies and Kalahari bushmen. To put it briefly, and politely, he is talking bollocks. Western measures of IQ are simply irrelevant to these cultures. And it's about culture, not race. Presumably his stuff on ashkenazi Jews has some bent to show that their European heritage plays a role in their 'intelligence'. In fact, like most other Jewish populations, they share the majority of their DNA with other Middle Eastern populations. I.e. Arabs, including Palestinians. And I'm pretty sure you agree with me Swordsie, you old arsonist you.
Lynn must have a separate section for you well below the Pygmies, Forrest please log in to view this image
You can't help yourself can you Swords? As you have been told Durbar is not the alter ego of the poster you think he is..... Stick on topic and cut out the personal abuse....
It seems Jeremy Corbyn could be on course to become the next Labour leader. http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...yn-course-come-top-labour-leadership-election Of course the Tories would be delighted with this, as by recent standards he would be an electoral liability, but, should he become leader, it could be a forward step for democracy in this country. A Labour party moving further to the right would become an irrelevance - why have two major parties competing for the same right-of-centre ground? A Corbyn-led Labour party could offer true alternatives to Tory policies, not just paler versions of the same thing. Yes, it would probably guarantee another 5 years of Tory government, but if Labour are not going to oppose the Osborne raid on tax credits what's the difference? It only costs £3 - vote Corbyn.
Could also lead to a split in the Labour Party, very few of the last shadow cabinet could seriously go along with a Corbyn agenda. Caesarian rebirth for the Lib Dems?
Farron will have more in common with Corbyn than the other Labour leadership candidates. Let the Blairites **** off and a new Lib-Lab alliance could be formed. Add the SNP and Greens and we have a left-of-centre coalition.
The Sun is getting it in the neck for its rather tasteless headline the yesterday http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...TE-Edward-VIII-secret-1933-film-Balmoral.html
And, sadly, doomed to permanent opposition, especially after boundary changes and Scottish independence...
If corbyn wins along with farron being leader of the liberals, I could see a tory government for the next.......what......30 years or so, give or take a decade!
