Does this have any good substance to it or is it just misguided racist nonsense like everyone says it is...

Because I thought of the concept as interesting, but i was wondering if the consensus was that it wasn't based on much and that is was racist. I was considering checking it out but I was wondering if i should take it with a grain of salt. If it was lame and i should of just done something else thats okay

>"Believe in I"
Lmao predictors of lifetime success aren't real!

Oh man god forbid it be potentially "racist". Anything but a word invented by trotsky. Oh no not "racism". God forbid I learn something "racist". I would hate to be a pejotative invented 100 years ago in the USSR.

It sheds a lot of light on modern social dynamics and speculates on the political consequences, so if that's your bag, go for it. You'll need some waders and shears though, since the authors feel the need to clarify/restate every point with autistic rigor, down to the definition of "standard deviation", since they assume their audience won't read it cover-to-cover.

Attached: 1512430258679.jpg (436x428, 34K)

There is no such thing as racism, read the book, Nietzsche’s Brain > Majority of Black, White, Mexican, Indian people’s brains

it's junk pseudoscience

You’ve read?

People who read it be like

Attached: 2E34AB18-80F7-4F7B-9A68-32151FCC9E45.jpg (1077x1246, 145K)

Awesome, thanks for enlightening me.

Read Langan instead.

Attached: Tux_ecb.jpg (196x216, 14K)

i read the wiki page and honestly have no desire to read anything further. IQ is junk science, read taleb

Jesus Christ, user, he just wants to know if the race stuff has been disproven before he commits to reading it. It's a perfectly valid concern and stop being so goddamn spooked.
>oh man
>oh god
>oh no
>anything but X
3/10 performance. I will not attend your one-man show.

The truth lays in what those try to suppress. The book is absolutely based. The author himself is a bit kooky these days due to old age unfortunately but the book itself is legitimate (albeit some questionable Lynn citations which didn’t come to fruition until much later)

Attached: 6694DA79-613A-40A9-B031-AE94B2859892.jpg (4032x3024, 2.65M)

this

>need to be proven a made up word about the obvious isn't true
there is no reason to pretend that racism is meritless on Yea Forums dude. Everyone is aware that everyone else is aware that the kang is naked.

Then tell him to read the book and then fuck off from this thread. Stop being so triggered by the fact that OP wants to apply some skepticism in his life.

>t-triggered ;_;
>just tell me if I should have agency...
sneed

Attached: thumb.png (800x450, 359K)

>t's junk pseudoscience

Attached: ..2.png (1222x3222, 924K)

based

>misguided racist nonsense like everyone says it is
Surely you understand that the sensitivity of the information involved means that those claims would be made regardless of their accuracy

It's amazing. Probably the best non-fiction book I've ever read.

Yeah, it's truly a masterpiece. IQ is highly relevant in our society

It's not misguided. But don't waste your time reading the whole bloated volume, a summary will get you 99% of what's in there.

What? You have to pour over every word in detail. Trust me there's plenty you missed

Based

>other stuff if it was already like dismissed or something
And here I thought Yea Forums was supposed to be the smart board on this retarded website.

Attached: 1430841426739.jpg (233x198, 7K)

why?

Because Yea Forums should be like /sci/ without all the ">being a mathematician/physicist/engineer" and with a bit of philosophy sprinkled on it. But I guess that just like Yea Forums SHOULD talk about video games, this isn't the case here.

it's one of the few things /pol/ gets right.

I don't even get how people can't understand this, we know that natural selection takes effect on any species or subscpecies/race behavior by looking at animals, why the fuck would that stop and simply not happen with humans? To deny such thing is to deny darwin's theory itself. It seems to me that they are under the impression that if suddenly the western nations population understood that certain races aren't evolved in the direction of partaking on the western model of society, suddenly everyone would simply decide to genocide them, but we love our dogs, cats and other pets despite how much more stupid than those said races they are.

The problem is that by not facing reality we cannot pragmatically and logically look at the possible solutions to the problem at hand.

Wouldn't it be crazy if it was racist and totally correct at the same time. Then you would have to totally change the way you view the world haha.

I'm not going to argue one way or the other, but you seem to think 'why wouldn't X be the case if Y was the case?' is a valid argument in this context, but it's not. HBD needs to actually be proven, not just assumed because it happens in animals.

Its called the world retard. Look around. Even the faggiest marxist bugman is a racist they just call white supremacy "privilege".

>but you seem to think 'why wouldn't X be the case if Y was the case?' is a valid argument in this context
Are you retarded? You are LEGITIMATELY arguing that, natural law, which we see happening to animals as close to us as the primates, just MAGICALLY doesn't work with humans. Jesus Fucking Christ.

>abridge version
Fucking pleb

It's a good foundational read if you're willing to accept that IQ is a useful measure of intelligence and that that measure of intelligence is a useful tool to predict future life outcomes. "Racist nonsense" is an interesting term worth contemplating, since the measurable difference between average black and average white IQs is either fabricated due to racism, irrelevant because there is no such thing as race and it's actually impossible to categorise white and black in any manner, or caused by past racist policies.

>is either fabricated due to racism, irrelevant because there is no such thing as race and it's actually impossible to categorise white and black in any manner, or caused by past racist policies.
i think you're missing an option there lol

>I don't even get how people can't understand this

well I'd say they do on some fundamental level understand it, they just have some emotional or ideological resistance to it that overwhelms their rationality.

>The problem is that by not facing reality we cannot pragmatically and logically look at the possible solutions to the problem at hand.

not only this, but it foments resentment by leaving people with the impression that disparities in socio-economic outcomes must be the result of some sort of oppression or unfair advantage.

I mean if he wants to continue believing that it's racist nonsense, he's going to have to explain to himself why it's racist nonsense, or just racist, or just nonsense.

I'm not arguing that HBD does not exist. I began my comment by saying as much. I am telling you that BD in animals does not prove BD in humans. Arguments out there for HBD exist, I'm sure, but I'm telling you that what you said was not one of them.
I don't believe the idea of white privilege posits genetic superiority, at least not neccesarily. To say so would be to discredit your own position by misconstruing the arguments of your opposition. At to whether some believers in white supremacy believe it to exist due to genetic superiority, I'm sure some exist although I don't believe it to be anything resembling a majority.
I will say this again, so you don't miss it in your next reply. I am not denying or arguing for genetic differences. I am trying to tell you how to differentiate proof and evidence from assumption.

He’s a typical social-scientist snake oil salesman, only a rare, non-leftist one.

now post the other parts

>they just have some emotional or ideological resistance to it that overwhelms their rationality
This is what actually pisses me off, either I have to look at the world as if one of the SMARTEST races is actually on average so fucking retarded they can't reach a simple conclusion, OR they are so morally bankrupt that they'd rather follow their religion of equality (of outcome) than actually being realistic so they could do some good to the people they claim to care so much about. In either case it shows how much humanity is fucked, when the best group is still either case so shitty.

>I am telling you that BD in animals does not prove BD in humans
So either you're saying that humans aren't animals, in which case you're retarded. Or you're saying that humans are a magical class of animals that is unaffected by the general laws of reality, in which case you're retarded. So which case are you?

I do think he has a point that proving BD in animals, while implying that BD in humans is highly likely, is still not actual proof that it occurs. It'd be like opening a hundred labelled boxes of books and finding books in them, and then insisting that the hundred and first labelled box absolutely must, without a doubt, contain books as well. It's highly likely, but it's still not certainty.

For the love of Christ, user, listen to what I am saying. I am NOT saying BD does not exist in humans. I am saying that it does not automatically become so in humans because it is so in other animals. If you want to prove BD in humans, you have to actually study human biology, not study cattle biology and then apply it to humans.

>while implying that BD in humans is highly likely
It's FUCKING LOGICAL, either you ARE admitting that natural selection happens in humans just as it happens with ANY other animal, or you are arguing against the concept of natural selection itself, in which case go back to the 1800s for fuck's sake. The logical fallacy here comes from you, because when something is considered status quo, such as "gravity affects all things, including those without mass", to make a logical argument regarding gravity affecting or not something, it's the side that's trying to disprove the status quo that has to come up with proof, NOT the other way around.
>It'd be like opening a hundred labelled boxes of books and finding books in them, and then insisting that the hundred and first labelled box absolutely must
No it's like you're stating that gravity doesn't affect the "hundred and first" box you fucking brainlet.

How do hbd advocates make the leap from between-group genetic differences and character traits? Would the methodology be accepted in a hard science?
Also, why do you guys always run away when people poast math on IQ?

>it's like you're stating that gravity doesn't affect the "hundred and first" box you fucking brainlet.
Still needs to be checked. When you're dealing with science you can't just use perfectly logical assumptions; you have to actually test everything from the ground-up (within reason) in order to ensure that you have complete knowledge of the experiment.

While gravity is a law of physics. There is no law that says intelligence in a population must deviate after being separated for X years (X being however long ago Eurasians split from Sub-Saharan Africans). If there is even ONE hypothetically possible situation where Sub-Saharan Africans could have similar IQs as Eurasians despite being separated for so long, it is not a law, and it needs to be proven.

>How do hbd advocates make the leap from between-group genetic differences and character traits? Would the methodology be accepted in a hard science?
The most advanced method currently is to try to link things to particular genes or sets of genes (like the famous "warrior gene" that supposedly means that people who have it have higher levels or aggression, or genes linked to brain size or whatever). The gene identification is certainly a hard science, but linking it to behaviour is currently not a hard science since measuring people's behaviour is usually a matter for psychologists. The neurological aspects (genes related to brain size and structure) are I think a bit primitive at the moment as well.

>Would the methodology be accepted in a hard science?
Nigga we are constantly making fucking connections between genes and character traits, because, surprise surprise, a lot of our personality comes from simple things like what releases more or less dopamine, which causes us to perceive an activity as enjoyable, and IQ, which is the most scientifically tested element of psychology, and the chinese government is currently creating a database of which genes increase the chance of a higher IQ so they can start genetically selecting embryos. You're retarded, ignorant, you couldn't even grasp the fact that I was trying to use pure logic, without scientific data, to argue that the most obvious conclusion is that due to the widely known process of natural selection, different races (haplogroups) would not only have different IQ standards, but also different behavior patterns, because all of that comes from the brain, and how your brain is structured comes from your genetic, which comes from natural selection.

If one were to look at scientific data, it would be EVEN HARDER to prove that there aren't intrinsic behavioral differences between human races.

>There is no law that says intelligence in a population must deviate after being separated for X years
Of course there is you fucking retard what do you think natural selection is? Jesus Fucking Christ.
>If there is even ONE hypothetically possible situation where Sub-Saharan Africans could have similar IQs as Eurasians
Holy shit not only you don't understand a drop of what natural selection is, you ALSO don't understand how science in general works. The natural selection LAW applies to EVERY SINGLE LIVING BEING. Including the ones that aren't even on the animalia kingdom, and it's not related to specifically intelligence or behavior, it's related TO ANY TRAIT THAT CAN AFFECT SURVIVAL RATES.

Isn’t one side of that kind of analysis inexorably bound up in impossible-to-measure behavioral science “metrics”? Is aggression even a formal measure? Doesn’t that make the analysis bogus, mathematically?
Also, don’t you have intractable dimensionality concerns as you start looking at more than one gene?

m8 you have to relax a bit, you are going to have a stroke

Natural selection says that it CAN deviate, not that it MUST or it HAS deviated.
According to natural selection, a population CAN select itself for higher or lower intelligence, or height, or skin color, or any number of things.
Your natural selection argument cannot prove that Africans HAVE selected for low intelligence, only that they CAN.

>I was trying to use pure logic, without scientific data
That's the part where I'm disagreeing with you, that's all. When you're doing science you need data. Logic is for theories.

>Isn’t one side of that kind of analysis inexorably bound up in impossible-to-measure behavioral science “metrics”?
For the time being, some of it appears to be, yes. But at the end of the day if you see average differences in behaviour, then there probably is something there that non-HBD theories don't address with any more scientific rigour.

>don’t you have intractable dimensionality concerns as you start looking at more than one gene?
Statistics is more or less sufficiently advanced for that to not be a significant problem at this level of inquiry.

Of course I am, I cannot conceive that there would be people that could not make such an easy logical conclusion. Scientific data shouldn't even be required for this, BUT THERE IS scientific data, and yet..
>Is aggression even a formal measure?
Of course it is, it's such a metric that it can be detected by body language analysts, which by the way include artificial intelligence. On top of that, any given emotion on your brain can be traced to one area or another, from pleasure to pain and fear. We are actually already starting to crack the "programming language" of the brain.

And generally speaking when scientists use behavioral metrics they use extreme examples to see if it's even possible that genetics could affect human's behavior, such as studying chronic gamblers, serial killers, and of course, IQ.

>Natural selection says that it CAN deviate, not that it MUST
You're fucking retarded, it says that any trait that any animal possesses comes from it's genes, and that any trait that affects survival rates will be naturally selected as the species adapts to the environment. It's not "CAN", it's "IT DOES".
>That's the part where I'm disagreeing with you, that's all.
And you're retarded for that. I'm arguing about how could someone, in their right mind be either so morally corrupt to ignore reality to appease their religion, or so mentally challenged to not come to a simple conclusion that's the natural result of scientific data that we ALREADY have with other animals.

>so mentally challenged to not come to a simple conclusion that's the natural result of scientific data that we ALREADY have with other animals.
Again, it's because scientific theories and laws and whatever have to be tested against actual data. Things that appear perfectly logical still need to be confirmed via experimentation.

Welp, I've never been on Yea Forums before, but thanks to you guys I know not to come back. Good bye forever, retards.

Then prove that Sub-Saharan Africa has selected for low intelligence. My only gripe was with the assumption that it has automatically selected for intelligence just because it has selected for things like skin color and height.
You can also stop beginning every comment by calling me a retard, it's starting to lose its bite and I can just assume it in your next reply.

Well they're demonstrably not very smart, so they evolved that way somehow. I think it's more likely that some Eurasians were selected for higher IQs than that Subsaharans became dumber after they split off from other humans.

Maybe the answer has something to do with the other subspecies we've bred with as well who knows

Not all of us are hyper-autists who feel like wading through nitty-gritty stats all day. Some of us just want the thesis/es and sufficient elaboration.

Attached: byoot.png (1200x900, 1.17M)

It's largely because of winter. Low IQ people died. In most of Africa you don't even need clothes and food just grows on trees all over the place.

>Again, it's because scientific theories and laws and whatever have to be tested against actual data
Or when the logic is so sound that even without testing one would have to break reality for it to be wrong. Again natural selection, traits come from genes, any trait that affects survival rate WILL be naturally selected and the species will adapt to the environment over time. To say that doesn't affect humans you'd have to either argue that humans aren't animals, that humans are magic, or that intelligence doesn't affect survival rates. Either three cases are abhorrently retarded. And I would like an actual fucking argument instead of "j-j-jut test it".
>Then prove that Sub-Saharan Africa has selected for low intelligence
That's not how it works you fucking retard, it's that ANY humanoid group closer to the tropics doesn't select for intelligence because long term planning isn't required to reproduce, furthermore that it's not that those closer to the tropics were selected for low intelligence, it's that during the period where the average IQ was similar across all humans, as they spread around the globe, those that settled on colder areas and areas with harsh winter DID get selected for intelligence while the others did not. The status quo is that "traits come from genes, any trait that affects survival rate WILL be naturally selected and the species will adapt to the environment over time", you're the one arguing against it, you come with the argument to why that wouldn't be the case.

>My only gripe was with the assumption that it has automatically selected for intelligence just because it has selected for things like skin color and height.
So, are you trying to argue that intelligence doesn't affect survival rates?
>it's starting to lose its bite and I can just assume it in your next reply
So you in the close future you'll be a retard, but at least you won't be an oversensitive little faggot at the same time? Good.

what's a zoomer?

Then you'll be easily manipulated by power hungry freaks that wouldn't even blink before killing you, your family, your race and anything or anyone you love if it meant that they could further whatever agenda they have. GO TO THE SOURCE. STUDY, the source. Make an habit to not only formulate questions but several answers to those questions and test those answers against each other. DON'T BE JUST ANOTHER USEFUL IDIOT.

The cold winter theory is a meme. Intelligence probably affects survival rates, but the question is as to whether the more intelligent males in a society were able to reproduce disproportionately or not.

The fuck is this?

>The cold winter theory is a meme
Amazing argument brainlet. You're saying that one doesn't need to plan for the winter, or that long term planning somehow isn't one of the key aspects of intelligence. Just amazing arguments.

>For the time being, some of it appears to be, yes. But at the end of the day if you see average differences in behaviour, then there probably is something there that non-HBD theories don't address with any more scientific rigour.
This is essentially reasonable, though I’d say we can’t partial out how much is genetic and how much is contingent on, well, other stuff.
It might help to know that I’m not some liberal universalist, I just don’t think our scientific-statistical toolkit is (or likely will be) capable of dealing with complex social phenomena. Why people do what they do is ultimately mysterious, as far as I can tell.

>Statistics is more or less sufficiently advanced for that to not be a significant problem at this level of inquiry.
I’m happy to be corrected, but don’t multi-gene studies tend to replicate poorly in, e.g., medicine?

I don’t believe that you really understood the question.

>I don’t believe that you really understood the question.
Then explain what the hell you mean by formal, because if hard scientific data isn't enough to be considered "formal". What the hell is?

Define “everyone”.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics)

Probability is based on this. Mistaking a number for a measure will fuck your results up.

>Then you'll be easily manipulated by power hungry freaks that wouldn't even blink before killing you, your family, your race and anything or anyone you love if it meant that they could further whatever agenda they have.

I thought Jews hated this book?

Funnily enough, I have enough inside knowledge on the whole ((())) thing to safely say that it's not jews, it's a group of elite, who happen to be jewish, and use the power and influence that they already have, to lure in other jews with the promise of putting them into positions of power, once there, whenever said elite needs something, they just exert the power they have upon the jews they "helped", and if those don't agree with them, they simply use a blackmail system.

Murray's line of reasoning would be considered obvious to most American intellectuals prior to the Holocaust. There's only like, one chapter on race.

start with the greeks

I love how cosmopolitan it is to pat oneself on the back for reading once banned books. Check out how many results you get from big corporate and academic powers embracing shit like 'banned book week' yet actual books regarded as dangerous are still ignored or treated with hostility. The irony of Amazon having a chic 'banned books' category when they actively ban books is apparently lost on them.

Attached: comic.png (625x910, 74K)

There are many people who say the classics are misguided racist nonsense. Caring about what others have to say on books is the ultimate tard-filter.

>like everyone says it is?
Who says it it?

I guarantee your main board is worse

Attached: 1556785475454.png (777x2777, 905K)

Attached: 1556785659595.png (1222x3555, 1.41M)

Attached: 1556785760046.png (777x4444, 1.23M)

it's non-misguided racist.

if you don't believe the stats... make your own tests, survey your own data on the street

>test some niggers here and there
>test some whites here and there
>MS Excel

DO IT

get your DISGUSTING FUCKING FEET OUT OF THE FRAME YOU DEGENERATE

Attached: 1548003690043.jpg (1080x950, 219K)

Jared Diamond debunks most of it

Where's part five?

this

Part 5 my dude?

Here

Attached: ..5.png (1222x4777, 1.47M)

Thanks, user

Holy shit, this redpill is gigantic
How does this relate to Spengler?

I have not read it but I have read interviews with Charles Murray. He thought he was writing a book about how our society is creating an intelligence based class system. Every one else thought he wrote a book on race realism. He isn't Jared Taylor or whoever.

If you want a real book on race realism read A Troublesome Inheritance. Some bozo who used to be a science writer for the NYT made the mistake of making what he thought was an honest inquiry into race, genetics and intelligence. Pretty funny he thought that would fly.

>if it was already like dismissed or something

I recommend taking a look at _Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns_. After the controversy of The Bell Curve, the APA set up a task force to produce a report on the consensus of the field on those matters. Knowns and Unknowns is that report. It's a bit old now, but still very much worth reading (and it's only 20 pages).

All things rise and fall..

Gnosticism is a placebo redpill, in reality a bluepill

Ok, now redpill me on will and willpower

Ok, what's the real redpill then?

Not him but the real "redpill" is Consciousness and Natural law

>Jared Diamond

>Ok, what's the real redpill then?

Attached: 15871876_237130476725919_1425477268695938009_n.jpg (601x825, 34K)

It's more of a transientpill, a necessary step between bluepill and actual redpill.

Watch Mark Passio on youtube

Jesus, what a clusterfuck. Is this the level on which all /pol/tards operate?

Post body

It's some shit written by a CIA propagandist to naturalize racist classicism.
>oh but he brings it up to assist them
That's just basic liberal interventionism, it's never actually good.

Oh dear. Just read it. Read a book for once for crying out loud. You're more than welcome to make a thread about it after. Just fucking read the god damned book.

You are the type of person that loves to say how other races are better than white people at everything.

That is fine, so you should be able to read something that might indicate that precious blacks might not be that smart on average.

What is the big fucking deal?

Haven't read this book but his book, bu have read Losing Ground which is generally considered his main work and is probably more important. It's basically about how retarded Democrat social programs don't work (except to get votes which is their main purpose).

Attached: 1528807612952.jpg (406x609, 103K)

Yeah everyone loved black people before the OSS wtf

The amount of people commenting on this book who haven't read it is the most interesting thing about this thread. It's not about race, retards. It's an overview of statistical genetics, the chapter on ethnic differences constitutes around 10% of the book. They look at the impact of IQ on life outcomes and construct a social critique of IQ stratification. 99% of the criticism here towards the concept of IQ is addressed on the first 20 pages or so. You should read it if you want to get a general knowledge of the scientifc literature, what IQ means in the context of education and career. If you want to get redpilled on race differences maybe you should read 'A Troublesome Inheritance'.

>naturalize racist classicism.

Then where is it?

I all I see is white people laying down and fading away.

Doesnt Africa have a dry season where it doesnt rain for months at a time why wouldnt that kill off low IQ people there.

>as above, so bellow
What the fuck? Where did this came from? I know this sentence ever since a year after learning english, but I have no idea where the fuck that came from.

Kabbalah/hermeticism/aliester crowley

But I NEVER read any of that. What the fuck?

zoom onto these nuts lmao

Yeah I know right

Attached: d351c3e35635d299b1c99b64ea9b8575.jpg (474x370, 26K)

memes are a hylician function
must produce more meme
must propagate meme
I see the meme I am the meme

These are delightful. Very well done. I mean, crazy pants. But this is a developed work. Good job... umm which board is this from?

Short thumbs and ugly nails are the mark of the genetic pleb, you know? Google murderer's thumb.

That comic quite conveniently ignores the fact that all those breeds are ultimately of the same species of dog and capable of interbreeding, and that "man's best friend" has been under enduring and ongoing systematic effort towards breeding specific traits (with significant boons and crippling defects arising on the side). If anything, it's arguing for the existence of a god to shape mankind into different categories, more than supporting the existence of said categories.
But, well, what should you fucking expect from your dime-a-dozen politically-charged internet comic which consists mostly of cut-and-paste?

It's the current year and you still believe in the equality of races, OP?

Based, thanks for posting this shit

>(((Jared Diamond)))

The comic does not comment on interbreeding. It notes the hypocrisy of acknowledging racial differences in outward physical appearance and athletic ability while denying that brains differ racially.

user, I

Quints confirm your modest inability to explain user's stupidity as sound

Attached: 0667_-_sEBrAmv.jpg (800x388, 61K)

>He thought he was writing a book about how our society is creating an intelligence based class system.
>Every one else thought he wrote a book on race realism.
That's what surprised me most about the book. I've heard of it before, but only by people claiming the dude wrote a manifesto about how stupid black people are.
I saw the book at a used book store and flipped through some of it out of curiosity and everything was about natural intelligence and I saw zero mentions of race.

Was I bamboozled, or are there bits about race in it?

Carl Sagan didn't say this

It's from a passage in his book Demon Haunted World.

Never should of come here.

Attached: NEVER SHOULD OF COME HERE.jpg (636x699, 188K)

>Isn't that what they say about race realism too?
Classic /pol/, using nonsense to justify nonsense.

I want to point out for anyone gullible enough to believe this that just because some infographic claims a study exists doesn't mean it does, and just because a study exists doesn't mean it's good science. There is a reason that researchers publish their methodology and not just the results of their experiment, for an experiment to be good science it has to be reproducible. Anyone can claim they did an experiment and write about it, but only truth can be reproduced by others.

>I demand PROOF that blacks are retards
imagine deluding yourself like this. imagine pretending to be confused other people don't wake up ready to deny reality every day

He is talking about magic not black people.

There have been replications for some of these studies. Leaving them about as effectively tested as the theories of implicit bias or that babies die if they sleep on their belly. Which is to say, still not very well supported. Nothing in social science or medicine is as secure as you think it is. The only hope is at least a couple of those fields have started to recognize their problems. Still,

absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Based

Racist nonsense
But it is not merely misguided
It is a very carefully and deliberately constructed series of conceits to cloak its intentions

For you see, Murray is a Koch crony
>supported during his work on this by think tanks they fund like The Heritage Foundation and The Manhattan Institute
>A fellow at the American Enterprise Institute which they fund and David Koch is on the board of
>Regularly attends their bi-annual donor summits
>his college lecture tours are sponsored by Young America's Foundation, and YAF gets Koch funding
>Charles Koch even cites Murray in his book The Science of Success
>a man who inherited his wealth wrote a book about how there is a science to being successful lol

Murrays work fits nicely into the Kochs overall intention to construct a new market enforced segregation free of any overt racist rhetoric starting first with privatising schools and replacing them with charters

Their father Fred Koch was a co-founder of the John Birch Society, Charles was a member in his youth, it opposed the Civil Rights Movement and School Integration - it sponsored billboards across the country demanding the impeachment of Earl Warren for the Brown vs Board of Education decision
Charles Koch was heavily involved in the Freedom School/Rampart College & Journal, which had Segregationists and Holocaust Deniers on its faculty
The Kochs economic guru since the early 1980s has been James McGill Buchanan who in the 1950s was involved in Virginias campaign to oppose Integration in which he came up with tax credits for private tuition as a way to construct segregated schools that would be free of racist rhetoric and which the federal government could not intervene in
They are big in the school privatisation and charter school campaign these days and schools they have supported have been caught out segregating

Murrays work fits into all of this

Wow you did it dude. Black people are smart now and mexicans, the chinese and arabs don't hate them either.

>Racist nonsense
In other words it's probably the truth and you simply don't like it.

Where do you think you are? You aren't going too convince anyone with that. This weird conspiracy doesn't even consistently support your main thesis.

Here's the important question have you even read it?

Everything prior to 1950 can be shoehorned into the "misguided racist/sexist nonsense" box