The Genetics Behind Unequal Societies 👉

Around squares, stay aware

I'm a circle who doesn't find triangles especially attractive even though I get along with them fine otherwise. But female circles are seemingly evil and crazy, woe is me. Plus female circles seem to have a strange habit of liking dogs. What's the fixation index of dog/circles?

i am grad Asmongold found you good info in a funny way

Why are you using the official Brazilian map? PS: Yes, some retarded leftist in power did it

Amazing video! I love them all, thank you for your effort in explaining everything normal people think in a compacted clear view.

This is an interesting presentation. I first saw it on Asmondgold's youtube video.

Circle-Triangle's unified environment being League of Legends is diabolical, lmao.

Puts "Be there or be square" in a whole new light

When are you going to do: "Getting a job, all arguements ranked and debunked?

@Asmongold 's reaction was an absolute gem

Long time i see something about "politics" that change my world view I never tought the division of west and east is not only politic, but genetic too As they are more collectivists, i would assume a libertarian society would create conflicts there i am not aware of

Can you post the full resolution image of the DNA ethnic map from the beginning of the video please? :)

Huh, I never knew you were from Portugal... BASED

Interesting.

Dogs and wolves are the same species? Right @grok

Just found out you have X. Love your content on You tube man. Keep doing what you do. We're Circles, they want to stop you from exposing the truth.

Love the upside down world map.

lol asmongold just posted adding his $0.02 Basic Logic ..... wow this is a good one !!!!!

If genes caused current power dynamics then how did china became so powerful now when during cold war it was shit? Why India and China were more economically powerful then Europe for most of history upto 1600?

Also on the Black fatigue video, his claim that far less than 1% of Black men are murderers isn’t even remotely true. Let’s look at violent crime: 1/3 of Black men have a felony conviction; 49-50% arrested by age 23 (2010). Source for that 1/3rd stat: It comes the 2017 study “The Growth, Scope, and Spatial Distribution of People With Felony Records in the United States, 1948-2010” by Sarah K. S. Shannon, Christopher Uggen, Jason Schnittker, and Melissa Thompson, published in Demography (Vol. 54, No. 5). The source for the 49-50% figure for Black males arrested by age 23: It comes from the 2014 study “Demographic Patterns of Cumulative Arrest Prevalence by Ages 18 and 23” by Robert Brame, Michael G. Turner, Raymond Paternoster, and Shawn D. Bushway, published in Crime & Delinquency (Vol. 60, No. 3). The new claim is it’s 1/5 Black men projected that will serve time in their lifetime. That’s based on one year (2019) and one study. So, take that with a grain of salt (why? Because it’s one study, often by left-leaning researchers, focused on one year to make that projection, and doesn’t differentiate between actual crime rates and refusing to prosecute crime). Source for 1/5 stat: “One in Five: Ending Racial Inequity in Incarceration” by Nazgol Ghandnoosh and Ashley Nellis. A 2011 study estimated 33% of Black men have a felony conviction by adulthood. Source for the 33% stat above: “The Growth, Scope, and Spatial Distribution of People With Felony Records in the United States, 1948–2010” by Sarah K. S. Shannon, Christopher Uggen, Jason Schnittker, and Melissa Thompson, published in Demography (Volume 54, Issue 5, pages 1769–1792) in October 2017 (online first September 11, 2017). A 2018 study found 49% of black males were arrested by age 23. Source for that 49% stat: “Demographic Patterns of Cumulative Arrest Prevalence by Ages 18 and 23” by Robert Brame, Shawn D. Bushway, Raymond Paternoster, and Michael G. Turner, published in Crime & Delinquency (Volume 60, Issue 3, pages 471–486) in 2014 (online first in 2013, print 2014). Note: Most serve time for violent offenses. The number one charge is drugs but that’s usually the secondary charge to some kind of violent charge. So while it’s the number one overall charge, it’s usually found while investigating a violent crime (like rape, murder, assault, etc…). In state prisons (where most serve time and about 87% of all prisoners serve time), 63% of admissions in 2022 were for violent crimes (e.g., murder, rape, assault), per the Sentencing Project’s “Mass Incarceration Trends” report using BJS National Corrections Reporting Program data.

Triangles are the best angles

OMG. The youtube posted couple days ago, streamed by asmongold yesterday, and I see a new article by @williameijer. Are group statistics like "The Bell Curve" no longer outside the Overton Window?

The poverty and crime argument, here is something everyone should know. Activists (and the left) love to blame crime on poverty, even violent crime. The thing is poverty doesn’t turn someone into a violent criminal (rapist, murderer, etc…). Being an evil human being does. And yes, I’ve researched and posted this before, but it’s worth posting again. In fact, there are many places throughout the world that are poor and still completely safe to visit. Take parts of Asia, such as Laos, Nepal, and Bhutan (just to name a few). Even though people there are extremely poor, those countries are very safe, and even the poorest areas are still safe (you can visit or live there with no problems). Many activists often point to studies claiming that poverty increases crime. What those studies actually show is that, when you separate by race or culture, poverty does amplify crime within each group… but only as far as their cultural norms allow. For example: 🔸 “Race A” might have very low violent crime but some petty theft. If you add poverty, petty crime may increase, but violent crime remains low because violence is not part of the culture. (A could be Asians, for example.) 🔸 In contrast, “Race B” already has high rates of all types of crime, including violent crime. Add poverty, and all crime rises. (Take a wild guess what race B is) 🔸 The key is that the increases are within each group, and the type of crime that increases depends on what the culture itself is willing to tolerate. To restate: 🔹 Most mainstream reporting and nearly every activist tries to claim “poverty causes crime” as a universal truth (but that’s simply not true). 🔹 Petty crime might increase in cultures where it’s normalized (like pickpocketing, especially in some tourist cities), but violent crime remains rare. 🔹 In contrast, cultures where violent retaliation, gang activity, or predatory behavior are normalized (perhaps even celebrated) poverty increases both petty and violent crime. 👉 P.S. Don’t fall for the universal “poverty = crime” narrative myth. The type and amount of crime that increases always reflect what the culture itself allows and the increases aren’t universal across all cultures/races. There are a number of studies that support what I just stated. Sources: This analysis of Columbia University data shows that while poverty correlates with crime overall, cultural factors explain why it doesn’t lead to uniform spikes. Here is another: This review synthesizes research showing poverty doesn’t cause crime de novo but interacts with existing community networks and norms. And another: This one outlines how poverty exacerbates crimes rooted in local norms (e.g., property theft in economically strained but non-violent subcultures, vs. violence in “reaction formation” groups where retaliation is culturally valorized). Still want more? These studies collectively back what I stated: Poverty acts like fertilizer on a garden, it grows what’s already seeded there (via cultural norms). It’s not some generic facilitator of violence across all cultures (unless violence is already normalized).

Under Soviet communism avoiding the censors was somewhat of an art. This video is exactly that. Bravo sir.

Hey, Basic Bitch! How about you look into the "square's" contributions to the society of Portugal. What's that? Squares didn't build any comparable civilization? Ancient Egypt. Nubia/Kush. Aksum. Medieval Ethiopia. Mali and Songhai empires. Great Zimbabwe. Kingdom of Benin.

Your Black Fatigue video, his exonerations argument ignore that: They use population sizes to make that argument that Black pelple are exonerated more and not rates at which Black people commit crimes. The key points: 👉 National Registry of Exonerations has tracked about 3,700 cases since 1989. That’s around 102 per year out of more than a million felony convictions annually. 👉 Less than 0.01% of convictions are overturned. 👉 The 7.5× claim is propaganda; it’s dishonest and built on “creative” math. 👉 Black defendants make up roughly 50% or more of murder convictions year after year (not 13% which is the number they claim to make their claim). 👉 Wrongful convictions happen at about the same rate across races once you use conviction rates instead of population tricks. The longer explanation: For years, groups like the Innocence Project have pushed the claim that Black Americans are 7.5× more likely to be wrongfully convicted of murder than whites. Sounds shocking, right? But here’s the actual truth: that number is nothing more than a statistical sleight of hand. They get “7.5×” by comparing exonerations to population share (Black Americans ~13.5%) while ignoring the fact that Black defendants make up roughly 50% or more of murder convictions year after year. That’s a textbook base-rate fallacy. When the correct denominator is used (convictions), the disparity collapses to about 1×. In other words, wrongful convictions happen at about the SAME RATE across races once you account for conviction base rates. Now, let’s go over the scale so we can understand how often this actually happens (spoiler: it’s not as often as you may think). The National Registry of Exonerations has tracked about 3,700 cases since 1989. That’s around 102 per year out of more than a million felony convictions annually. Now, let that sink in, and do the math: that’s less than 0.01% of convictions overturned. An astonishingly small number. What this means is exonerations are vanishingly rare and not evidence of systemic bias. Yes, I acknowledge that wrongful convictions matter deeply for the families affected. However, as “proof of systemic racism,” that activists repeatedly claim, the exoneration narrative completely falls apart. It’s just false framing: they start with the conclusion they want to reach, then cherry-pick data, use the wrong denominators, inflate ratios, and package spin as fact. Bottom line: 👉Less than 0.01% of convictions are overturned. 👉The 7.5× claim is propaganda; it’s dishonest and built on “creative” math. 👉Wrongful convictions happen at about the same rate across races once you use conviction rates instead of population tricks. Note: Based on the National Registry of Exonerations (NRE) data, misdemeanor exonerations make up less than 1%. So the focus here is on felony exonerations. Also, The Innocence Project and NRE aren’t neutral stats houses—they’re advocacy groups. Their mission is to highlight injustice, so they lean into metrics (like per capita) that scream disparity while sidelining conviction rates that muddy the story.

It's fascinating who are the most genetically different than others.

As a square circle, I'd agree race mixing is evil

Most beautiful and logical thinking video you ever did!

Thoughts on lolicon?

You are an absolute pure legend.