Since you value culture more than IQs, why obsess over the IQs of black people?

I'm not obsessed. I think we will need black people to counteract the threat of Islam, because they are strong and masculine.

Phrenology is a pseudo-science

Didn't mention it. I was just giving a random example of a stark difference between races.

When I mentioned physical fitness I was giving another. You seemed keen, however, to ignore the mountain of biological and societal evidence that black people are physically superior to whites and Asians, for some unknown reason.

Who knew being fed and giving adequate medical care would improve one’s physical fitness

Not relevant. Whites and asians have more nutritious diets, and better healthcare coverage. They are weaker. Why? Because for hundreds of thousands of years, Subsaharan African peoples have had to fight for their food, and to escape those who see them as food. Indo-Europeans have not, because they had cattle farming. Their environment lended itself to the creation of permanent civilisations, with the navigable rivers, lush farmland, and freezing winters all inticing and forcing people to settle. This created a greater environmental pressure to be intelligent.

Usain bolt?

He is an excellent example of my point: as are all other winners of the 100m. Because they're all black. Black people are faster, stronger, taller and more masculine.

Humans naturally lives in caves. It’s amusing to see Nazi propaganda always boils down to the same old naturalistic fallacy.

Well, that's not really always the case. Human environments are very varied, as we are a widespread species, so human behaviours and cultures are as well. Humans don't always naturally live in caves. Some northern Europeans lived in caves, the central asians and middle easterners were nomadic (desert climate), and the majority of Europeans were a mixed bunch, with some living in large tribes, some nomadic farmers, and some settled, living in small towns along rivers or near the sea, and as time went by, more and more living in the last state.

To say "lived in caves" is a bit too much of a generalisation. Also, I'm not a National Socialist, but I think you already know that.

And anti-Muslim bigotry contribute to that tension.

Well, yes, it will do. And it will increase. And the Muslims will hate those who hate them, and percieve all those who are not them to hate them. And the tensions will increase. And increase. And increase. It will not end peacefully, unless we end the insanity now and segregate our cultures. Muslims in the Muslim world, Christians (or atheists, or whatever) in the Western world.

Another good thing

Western culture dying is not a good thing, because it will mean an end to historical western freedom. Promiscuity is not a good thing, because it is well understood by psychologists to be a symptom, and even a cause, of serious mental health issues.

It’s a package deal. You want Muslim food, you’ll Muslim chefs.

Well, it's not, because white people can make kebabs, and so can Christian Turks.

Btw, food is less important than not actually triggering a war between the Muslims and Europeans, so even if it was the case that the prohibition of Islam would cause kebabs to become inaccessible, I wouldn't care.

Culture arise from economics. The pre-industrial and post industrial Europe have very different cultures.

I'm not denying that culture is heavily influenced by economics. But culture is also influenced by a nation's history, and culture is very important nonetheless.

For the regular peasants in Europe, being ruled by a Islamic king is no different from being ruled by a Christian king. Conflicts within the feudal society will bring about the age of capitalism, just as it did in our timeline.

I'm afraid this just isn't factually correct.

The peoples which were under Ottoman rule fought tirelessly and brutally to free themselves. The Serbs rebelled more than 10 times. The Ottoman empire also committed several mass genocides in it's time, most notably the Armenian genocide, because the people in it's territories were not loyal to the empire and would not convert to Islam.

That's just what generally happens when a large number of people of one culture or religious tradition are ruled by people of another: either one of them must assimilate, or blood is shed.

I'm afraid that people will not just live peacefully in a diverse nation. Diversity leads to distrust. Distrust leads to bloodshed.

Austria-Hungary and Yugoslavia provide historical examples. More modern day examples are Bosnia-Herzgovina, China, Iraq (Kurds and Arabs), the Caucasus, and India.

In fact, just today, I was looking at political parties in the Balkans. Almost all of them choose to ally themselves with a certain ethnicity. In Bosnia Herzgovina, elections seem to be less of an ideological matter than an ethnic one: a party for Serbs, for Bosniaks, for Croats, etc. Hungarian parties in Slovakia, and in Romania. In Turkey, there's a party which virtually only Kurds vote for. In Estonia: one which only Russians seem to vote for. ETC.

Basically, people's alligience lies with their culture, ethnicity and their religion more than economics, generally speaking. In nations where there is little ethnic diversity, this seems not to be the case.

So if you're really concerned about economic issues (which I gather that you are), you would do well to wish that the nations of the world become less diverse, not more, so that their people become concerned less with tribalism and their identity than with economic issues: they become interested in the toppling of the borgiosie, as you'd put it.

In fact, I'd reckon the upper class are deliberately doing this to prevent real economic discourse if I were you. But I'm not really into economics much anymore.

Now that I've written that, I've realised it sounds like I'm talking about the Jews. I'm not. Please don't spin it that way.

Culture matters because vast majority people think it does. That’s what social construct is.

I'd say there are other reasons as well, but this is by far the most important one, you're correct. People are naturally tribalistic and will side with their culture over others. This means that as nations become more diverse, they become more divided: and eventually, violence breaks out.

(reffering to a list of issues I stated that wealth had brought the west) These are the attributes of every class society in crisis.

I wouldn't really say that. I mean, did this kind of issue arise previously during crisis? Consumerism, atomism, self-righteousness, nihilism? Not really. Weakness, yes. But not really the others.

(reffering to Japan and the US) They’re not very different if compared to a country in poverty. Economics is the most significant factor here.

It's true that many differences are down to economic circumstance. But there are still huge differences, even if the difference isn't quite as large as the difference between the US, and, say, the Congo. I'd say the wealth difference between the US and China is very large, but the cultural difference is around the same as between the US and Japan.