IGX

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:I'm gonna guess that for every 'cop shooting an unarmed black man' video that's out there, there are two of cops shooting unarmed white guys. There's just not as much sizzle in chatting about that.

In these videos, what I typically see is a scenario in which a white kid doesn't get shot in the same situation. That 12-year-old that got shot 2 seconds after the cops arrive? I don't think that kid dies if he looks Swedish.

Black Lives Matter is a FARSE. Disgusting that anyone even entertains that movement given they don't recognize all of the black lives that die at the hands of other blacks (which as you know, far outweighs death by whitey or badge). They prey on weak minds and are fucking douchebags on par with Sharpton, period.

I think you are conflating two distinct issues: police-on-civilian shootings with black-on-black shootings. They're different, and they're addressed differently.

The black on black crime stuff tends to get addressed locally by churches and what not. When I was in Rogers Park there were "take back the streets" rallies and community members occupying drug corners all the time. This doesn't get much media coverage, but that shit happens all the time. And there are all the related problems. When people, especially innocent people, get murdered, and nobody says anything to the cops, that's some shit that is on the community. They're going to have to stand up.

OTOH, when the government is shooting people, that's a different story. That's a civil rights issue, and your'e going to get different people involved. This is why I never really cared for the "Why isn't Jesse/Sharpton spending protesting this black on white crime or problems the community faces?" I dislike those two, but asking civil rights advocates why they aren't also working on non-civil-rights issues is like asking why isn't the NRA also working on international landmine injuries? Because it's a totally different job.

BLM is not primarily concerned with crime in black communities. It's concerned with the inequity in how society treats the murders of black vs. white people. That one came up when Trayvon Martin got shot. Now, maybe if a white blonde kid with family in the neighborhood got shot by George Zimmerman, the cops wouldn't have arrested him either. But a lot of people have doubts about that, and videos of cops killing black people where a white guy probably wouldn't get shot sees to back that up.

Spells, you lived in St. Louie as did I for 6 months. Know what? Fuck those unemployed assholes running around those streets in Ferguson. For every liquor store looting asshole Wolf Blitzer shows you on CNN there are probably 5-6 good, decent, (black) people who are absolutely ashamed of those mopes. But you'll hear nothing of those folks on the news.

Fucking St. Louis.

St. Louis has a history of pretty terrible treatment of its black citizenry. It's possible the guys I went to school with who were all "nigger this" and "nigger that" are now 40 and are perfectly willing to hire a black candidate, and I've seen some people on FB grow up to be exactly that, though they're not the majority. That sort of undercuts the "It's all on their problem." There's a history of black moving to a neighborhood (East St. Louis) racist whites moving out, and then blaming the black for the economic collapse. Whites and blacks in St. Louis don't get along, and there's a whole lot of conforming to stereotype there, on both sides.

Frankly, for the black people there, their only option is to move or deal with it. And if they deal with it by fucking up their communities, then they're going to be shit out of luck indefinitely.

That is a different problem than it being OK for shitheels like the Ferguson police department to abuse the shit out of those people, which is exactly what they were doing, Michael Brown completely aside (as that was ruled justified with forensic evidence backing it up).

And it's not just happening in Ferguson. That cop that murdered the motorist got fired and charged, but the other two cops on the scene backed up his version of events, and AFAIK haven't been charged or fired as accomplices. That makes it look like a systemic problem that warrants protesting.

tl/dr I don't think the legitimate complaint they have is de-legitimized because they aren't as loudly also addressing black-on-black crime, stop snitching, single-parent families, teen pregnancy, calling high achievers "acting white" or whatever else plagues the urban black poor (and FFS this gets talked about a lot, but doesn't make good TV) simultaneously and on television. Getting murdered by your government is a legitimate thing to complain loudly about.

I'll get back to you on all of this horseshit, but there's a lot of muck in this stall.

I'll step in before another left leaner fucks it up...Stephan Molineaux is a very compelling nutjob. He takes libertarian to somewhere slightly left of David Koresh and has cult tendencies of his own.

That said, I can't refute him..he's not wrong. ...but he's really wallowing in the trough and doing what he does best. discarding nuance that does't fit his narrative.

Molyneux puts out some good stuff, and that is one of the better ones. He is hitting his usual riffs but he is also fucking various liberal tropes in the ass with data provided by every liberals beloved Federal overlords. Take this one and combine it with race based data on IQ and achievement scores, and you have to start relying on uber levels of denial and Marxist brainwashing to keep ones left coast canards rolling off the tongue as it pertains to WHITEY DID IT.

Kazuya Mishima wrote:Molyneux puts out some good stuff, and that is one of the better ones. He is hitting his usual riffs but he is also fucking various liberal tropes in the ass with data provided by every liberals beloved Federal overlords. Take this one and combine it with race based data on IQ and achievement scores, and you have to start relying on uber levels of denial and Marxist brainwashing to keep ones left coast canards rolling off the tongue as it pertains to WHITEY DID IT.

No disagreement...but if used the same condescending slight of hand he uses with statistics on say...gun violence, or some other issue close to my own heart, I'd be correctly eviscerated. Again, he's not wrong in general (it's the culture stupid) but the degree to which he's compelling is influenced greatly by it being a one way conversation in which he can pick and choose. His bit about driving stats and arrest rates is super strong..as is his assertion that you need to control for education, IQ, income and other non-racial metrics. OTOH, the comparison of blacks to Asians is tone deaf and patently stupid. The only racial group in the US that may be remotely culturally analogous are Indians living on the rez.

Much like your own love the the IQ stats...some of his make weight arguments carry very little weight because people refuse to go there...if it were vetted more thoroughly, we might get radically different answers. I don't know what those are and neither do you.

I thought he was being intentionally simplistic vs. trying to spin anything; but again, this was the first time I had ever heard of the guy. I'm also unabashed about my RL experiences outweighing statistics, regardless of what you college boys say.

Well, since you took it there...

I think the comparison of Native Americans to the descendants of sub-Saharan Africans is both valid and compelling. Both of their "civilizations" had much in common...before their exposure to Western Europeans they had no written language, little to no agricultural tradition, little artifact manipulation beyond simple tools and religious totems, NO mechanical devices, NO extensive architectural technology or tradition, no metallurgy/chemistry, scientific method...ummmmmmm, what else...they didn't have wheels...fucking...WHEELS. In their defense, they figured out how to get out of the rain, and could make fire. Anyone would be hard pressed to show any historical evidence to make the case that I'm intentionally being an asshole with exaggeration.

We can argue all day as to whether or not comparing blacks to Asian is valid or fair. What fascinates me is how is how when you start breaking up IQ and achievement score data along the Asian/White/Hispanic/Black spectrum, they line up pretty close in both order and magnitude of difference as compared to unemployment, household income, labor participation, etc. My mind tells me that biology explains a whole lot more than the average person who is grounded in the "we are all equal" narrative is willing to accept, and even fewer are willing to take a long hard look at the very real data that has been collected (and suppressed) to support those very real biological markers.

These comparisons become much more compelling when you start to expand the timeline beyond the end of the US Civil War (which is evidently the starting point of all world history in the minds of most liberals, and explains everything you need to know about objective reality since the Big Bang). Haiti was the next nation in the Western Hemisphere behind the US to gain its independence. Since that time, it has been unaffected by white colonialism and the lovely black population has been free to run the whole show as they saw fit without my raping and marauding ancestors putting them to the lash or stealing their shit while the CIA sells crack cocaine in their neighborhoods and white devil preachers poison their minds with "Jeebus gone save ya" fairy tales. What has been the result? Well, the result is sewage running down the middle of the goddamn street, and houses made out of whatever post consumer corrugated waste they can cobble together. Unfortunately, history does not give us enough data points to prove these things without a shadow of a doubt, but my gut tells me that Africa has repeated itself time and time again in Haiti, Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, St. Louis, Atlanta, and Ferguson.

When you look at the state of the world along color lines, it's an undeniable reality that some populations have put up some big numbers and others are still stuck in the locker room because the door says "pull" and they are stacked a billion deep pushing on the goddamned thing. Violence, war, exploitation, slavery, conspiracy...none of these things explain the disparate outcomes. In the long run, the playing field IS level, and there's not a race of people on Earth who does not have some historical grievance that could be used to argue away their dogshit culture and lack of objectively measurable achievement. There is evidence to suggest that the delta between West Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans is about 30 IQ points. The delta in the US is about 15 points, and I suspect that gap has been bridged by the fact that any group will fare better in the world's most advanced industrial economy, and most US blacks have some Southern rednecks and Northern dandies climbing around in their family tree (that biology shit works both ways).

So, what does all this mean? It means the white man's burden will persist until he breathes his last gasp, and the "problem of the negro" is just as much an issue as it was when we brought them here to pick cotton and then got the brilliant idea to set them free to run feral in a socio-economic landscape that (on average) they are just not equipped to cope with or find success, therein.

For the TL/DR crowd...niggers are fucking stupid and I believe whites should have the freedom to build nations and communities that are devoid of their noxious presence and out of reach from their corrupting influence.

You're cute. Consistent like toddler but good with words.

You're also woefully wrong as fuck about cultures of the western hemisphere....but I understand you're central point and in the end it doesn't matter, it's still the culture.....am saddened we don't have the balls to study the biology question and I suspect the science would break you over its knee but it's still a worthy line of inquiry.

Culture is nothing but the intersection where DNA interacts with environment.

Kazuya Mishima wrote:Culture is nothing but the intersection where DNA interacts with environment.

True...yet not even you would be so simple as to leverage a minuscule number of markers in the human genome as determinative of all human culture, especially when we have ample evidence of shitbird behavior across racial phenotypes.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Kazuya Mishima wrote:Culture is nothing but the intersection where DNA interacts with environment.

True...yet not even you would be so simple as to leverage a minuscule number of markers in the human genome as determinative of all human culture, especially when we have ample evidence of shitbird behavior across racial phenotypes.

Not sure if the ad hominems are really for me, or if something in life has got you down...and surly...anyway...

Yes, I think a minuscule number of markers in the human genome (and all genomes) explains quite a bit. Men and women are genetically identical save for that pesky little critter at the 23rd pair, and the overall demarcation is quite abrupt. Humans and chimps share the vast majority of their DNA save for a small chunk of differences. Tiny little differences within humans can have abrupt effects on brain size, neuron transmission, hormone levels, susceptibility to certain diseases, height and weight, body topology, and on and on and on. The latte sipping crowd would have us believe that we're all alike, that skin tone is the only major difference between broad groups, and nothing has changed since whites, blacks, and Asians split off from a common ancestor well over 50,000 years ago.

So, if small differences in the genome don't account for disparate outcomes (good, bad, and neutral) across the broad spectrum of human expression and activity, then what does? God? Chance? The evil demon that is fucking with us? Global resource distribution by geographic area? There is a "retard virus" in the biosphere that blacks are more susceptible to contract?

I get the fact that shitbird behavior can be attributed to all cultures, all the time, and at all levels. My argument is nested more in broad patterns and what we've seen repeated time and time again. As a quick example, large architectural development can be seen wherever whites have gone, and you can write numerous books as to the mathematical and structural engineering required to pull off those smart human tricks. Where is the African version of Venice? Where is the black Cistine Chapel? Why doesn't Haiti have at least have a mini version of New York City with high rise towers, clean water and sewage, public subway and transportation system, etc., if all that stuff that Whites and Asians do is common across all racial groups? Are economic factors beyond their control keeping a brother down? Are the Bilderbergers fucking with them?

Kaz,

That's an incredibly interesting commentary and I am not being snarky.

Kazuya Mishima wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Kazuya Mishima wrote:Culture is nothing but the intersection where DNA interacts with environment.

True...yet not even you would be so simple as to leverage a minuscule number of markers in the human genome as determinative of all human culture, especially when we have ample evidence of shitbird behavior across racial phenotypes.

Not sure if the ad hominems are really for me, or if something in life has got you down...and surly...anyway...

Yes, I think a minuscule number of markers in the human genome (and all genomes) explains quite a bit. Men and women are genetically identical save for that pesky little critter at the 23rd pair, and the overall demarcation is quite abrupt. Humans and chimps share the vast majority of their DNA save for a small chunk of differences. Tiny little differences within humans can have abrupt effects on brain size, neuron transmission, hormone levels, susceptibility to certain diseases, height and weight, body topology, and on and on and on. The latte sipping crowd would have us believe that we're all alike, that skin tone is the only major difference between broad groups, and nothing has changed since whites, blacks, and Asians split off from a common ancestor well over 50,000 years ago.

So, if small differences in the genome don't account for disparate outcomes (good, bad, and neutral) across the broad spectrum of human expression and activity, then what does? God? Chance? The evil demon that is fucking with us? Global resource distribution by geographic area? There is a "retard virus" in the biosphere that blacks are more susceptible to contract?

I get the fact that shitbird behavior can be attributed to all cultures, all the time, and at all levels. My argument is nested more in broad patterns and what we've seen repeated time and time again. As a quick example, large architectural development can be seen wherever whites have gone, and you can write numerous books as to the mathematical and structural engineering required to pull off those smart human tricks. Where is the African version of Venice? Where is the black Cistine Chapel? Why doesn't Haiti have at least have a mini version of New York City with high rise towers, clean water and sewage, public subway and transportation system, etc., if all that stuff that Whites and Asians do is common across all racial groups? Are economic factors beyond their control keeping a brother down? Are the Bilderbergers fucking with them?

Those native Americans down in Central America had written language and kick-ass architecture.


Google on Greater Zimbabwe also. Massive city in Zimbabwe that was later abandoned when the reason to be there went away.

I'll agree that the idea that differences between folks stops at skin color, basic body makeup, susceptibility to disease, hair texture, etc. ,seems unlikely. But also, there has been way-out-there crackpot science created to bolster basic racist stereotypes over the millennium, from ancient times to recent.

As for DNA and environment, I think you are left explaining the difference between Nevada and Utah by culture. Hard to believe they are next to each other. Also, North and South Korea. A huge percentage of what you "know" is belief instilled by your culture.

Guns, Germs, and Steel is a super-interesting read. Wikipedia synopsizes most of it. An example interesting argument from it is on the importance of domestic beasts of burden. Very few species ever domesticated, and they are all Eurasian except for Llamas down in South America. They've tried to domesticate Zebras for forever, for example, but the Zebras say "fuck that shit". No big beasts, nothing to pull carts if you made them, no wheel. Until the spaniards brought horses to the future US of A, everybody walked or floated everywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

Pyramids and ziggurats...really? Yeah, whites and Asians did that shit too...and kept going.

To be fair, there are blacks who are absolute geniuses, and somehow rise above the stamp that society would put on them (Thomas Sowell anyone?). Contrast that with the dim witted whites that I encounter on a daily basis...sigh.

My arguments stem from statistical distributions. For every 30 white people that you find with IQs over 125, you find about 1 black. For every white with an IQ under 70, you find about 4 blacks. This is not a guess or race mongering on my part...this is based on peer reviewed data analysis by respected academics. Assuming these numbers are true, and assuming you see similar distributions in the IQ strata between those polar opposites (and you do, btw)...what would these numbers suggest as it pertains to achievement for groups in highly industrialized societies as well as the performance of racial groups across a broad span of history as it pertains to levels of civilizations achieved, explorations, technological advancement, social justice and rhetoric, academic institutions, written language, architecture, blah blah blah? What does it also say about groups differing ability to wage war on a global scale...yes, higher cerebral function comes at a price..."better" is relative?

Kazuya Mishima wrote:For the TL/DR crowd...niggers are fucking stupid and I believe whites should have the freedom to build nations and communities that are devoid of their noxious presence and out of reach from their corrupting influence.

Yeah, entirely reasonable.

Makes me think of the Spanish taking back their own country after the Moorish occupation. They had to fight the Moslems and expel the Jew.

:ponder