PapaBear3625 from post #47: "FR is changing.
Just a few years ago, the Mods would have pulled this thread with a 'no thanks'."
I never heard that term "cuckservative" before, and despite IChing's claims, his test does not apply to anyone posting on Free Republic that I've ever seen.
Yes, it certainly applies to the radical left -- Bernie Sanders fans -- but no serious conservative falls into such easy traps as your link lays out.
Indeed, since much of your problem revolves around relative IQ's, let's set that matter to rest.
In any population you wish to pick, and however you wish to define it -- as "race", or "culture", or "ethnicity", "nationality" or "religion" -- within that group you will find IQs spread along a Bell Curve from around 75 to 150.
You can call that range 100% since 150 is double 75.
Of course, each population will have a different average IQ, some higher others lower, but the averages only vary by 15% to 20% max.
In other words, the highest average IQs are only 20% above the lowest, while within any population, the highest IQs are 100% above the lowest.
So, what makes IQ?
The answer, in summary is: 60% nature, 40% nurture.
And we can see the effect of that 40% in the fact that over the past 100+ years, average IQ scores among all modern populations have steadily risen.
More people are smarter today than were their ancestors 100 years ago.
IChing from post #66 of that link: "I’m a paleoconservative or neoreactionary."
"Paleoconservative" means nothing more than conservative and "not a neo-con".
Nothing wrong with paleoconservative that I can see.
Neoreactionary, on the other hand, is something different, having more to do with authoritarian & racial ideals, only recognizable as something out of our racist past.
Not acceptable on Free Republic or any other conservative site.