let's settle this once and for all
which has historically been the more important factor when assigning entire groups of people within society - wealth or race?

>>17872979 (OP)
Wealth
As wealth goes up, so do things like IQ

>>17872979 (OP)
Race. Intelligence is highly heritable, even within a race we see social darwinism take place and the wealthy ruling classes as well as other groups like "middlemen minorities" (jews) having high IQ.

In modern media you often see a trope where some underdog sticks it to the preppy rich kids, but in reality, even with all the revolutions, welfare and socialism, people generally stay within their prescribed tribe.

Similarly in politics people vote by race. The Vietnam war wasn't about achieving utopian communism, it was about Vietnamese nationalism, as was the great patriotic war. Even in the "diverse" individualistic west, about the only group that does not vote by race are the white leftists. Even minorities who screech all day about "racism" will vote for their race because "he look like me!"

Blood is thicker than war, a race prefers exploitation by the ruling class of their own race than equality if it means someone outside their race gets elected.

Contrary to belief on certain communities on this website, IQ and race are in fact not directly correlated, at least not to the degree they often suggest, and instead of random unsourced tables, we can actually see why through real world data, as if IQ and race were intrinsically linked then IQ would not go up over time regardless of race being tested

Indeed, brilliant engineers such as Jerry Lawson suggest the biggest limiting factor when determining the performnce of a group of people within a given race is not genetics so much as it is opportunity. Naysayers of this idea will often use the relative time between the end of oppressive laws during the Jim Crow era to today as an argument against this idea, but they simply lack the ability to understand the actual scale of time or the gravity that generational systemic oppression can haveon a given group of people. Scholars such as Thomas Sowell have even suggested that blacks in America may have even adopted a Crab Mentality from lower class southern whites, where much of their culture stems from

Another tactic often employed by race realists is the "evolution" argument, which seeks to suggest that blacks must have lower IQ do to evolutionary factors.
The basic premise of this argument is that blacks are the examples of humans that did not have the willpower or intuition to migrate out of Africa, and thus were selected for lower IQ
There are several key issues with this theory.
Firstly, it suggests that humans left Africa in one massive migration 100,000 years ago, which is not accurate. Humans left Africa over the course of tens of thousands of years in multiple migrations. The Sahara was also far greener during these migrations, and there were even migrations back through the green sahara during this time. The result is that humans are highly transient species, and differences in race can be generalized as simply differences in morphology do to superficial adaptation to varying enviornments rather than any evidence of evolutionary divergence. We know morphology is easily malleable, as if it weren't, we would not be able to observe it in real time through generational differences. It's also not entirely clear whether or not 50,000 to 100,000 years is long enough time for significant evolutionary divergence to happen.
Race realists will also often use differences in haplogroups to suggest a race-realist worldview, this is misapropriating data, and the genetic distances between given haplogroups is often exaggerated to promote this idea.

>>17872979 (OP)
Wealth is cope.

>>17873005
Why do blacks have smaller brains?

>>17873130
They don't, but let's pretend that they do. Why do people with smaller brains accomplish more in their lives than you do?

>>17873097
elaborate