Black Gangs Vented Hatred For Whites In Downtown Denver

Post Reply New Topic

Yes. Multiple times. The actual wording was that '100%' of rapes of black women were by black offenders, and 0% were by black men.



White men marrying black women isn't as common as black men marrying white women, either. White women, in general, fit the 'female' gender stereotype of this culture better than black women, in general, and therefore interracial, gendered behavior is more likely to occur with black men and white women.



or any other type of criminal - but not with white victims, as has been the claim on this thread.

Last edited by LKL on 15 Jan 2010, 10:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wait, we're talking about race and the propensity for violence. How is poverty not on topic? It's the greatest predictor of violent behavior.



This is a social experiment that is already taking place. The proportion of blacks in the population has been increasing steadily, and yet crime of pretty much every type has been going down. It must mean that whites are more likely to commit crime than blacks...!



That socioeconomic descriptors tell far more about a person's propensity for violence than their race.



Dude, a proportion is a type of statisic. What the hell do you think 'statistic' means?

No. It just means that blacks are starting to commit less crimes.
Crime and violence are decreasing overall.
Arrests are increasing though, but this is due to victimless crimes and the like.



Of course, but we were talking about statistics and the example you gave me of walking on the black guy's side or the white guy's side, and, I was saying that the black guy is most likely to be a rapist because of the rapist-nonrapist ratio among blacks.



By "proportion" I meant the ratio of rapist-nonrapist males.
I used statistics to point out which race had a higher rapist ratio.
The statistics of white female victim offenders' race is what you used in your example and I have been trying to show you how these statistics does not make you safer of rape when you take the choice to walk on the black man's side.

irrelevant. What evidence do they provide to contradict the fact that Hitler's economic policies lead to war, that a line can be drawn from his initial policies (which brought down unemployment and increased porductivity) to the later results and policy options, that is the choice between decreasing arms production (resulting in a rise in unemployment and social instability), or a further reduction of food availability pushing prices beyond their distinctly high levels (along with a drop in real wage value) - toward astronomical levels and leading to social instability -- both conditions under which Hitler would likely have been removed from power, by election or by force. Having run down their gold reserves on arms spending the Nazi government faced a choice for the expenditure of what remained - food or arms material imports, either one of which would still result in social instability - unless that is they manufactured a conflict that would give them access to the necessary resources. The Nazis begin by manufacturing diplomatic conflict with their neighbours, Danzig, the Sudetenland, etc etc. Then they manufacture Polish aggression to justify their invasion thereof - Operation Himmler. Economic policies in 1936 lead to war in 1939 and perhaps the most crushing defeat of any nation in 1945, not to mention the horrors and barbarity visited on the people of Germany and Eastern Europe particularly (last I heard researchers stopped counting Soviet casualties after about the 20 million mark, and German losses at about 6million, then of course there's he matter of the 6million out of approx. 7-7.5 mill Jewish individuals) and the world in general.



you don't reject the interpretation that his racism skews his research then?
all i had to do was go to the wikipedia page to find an article which tears Richard Lynn to pieces - here taken from the Scientific American

I don't have a problem with examining the possible political biases of different scientists - the true test arrives in the examination of the methodology and evidence they use - Lynn.....falls a little short in this regard. I fail to see what the Gould quotes you gave have to do with questioning his validity either.



You seem to be reading something into that which isn't there.



I'm fairly close to insulting your intelligence also. I hope you can explain to me what Lewis Carroll has to do with Gould.

This thread is losing its touch and ironically tommorow's Martin Luther King day!!

How bout we hold hands and sing We Shall Overcome?

^^

Making a choice topic

As long as humans find political and economic advantages for being racists, they will continue as such. Humans will continue in the habits they are comfortable with. It takes a strong human to find advantages to not being racist, as this is the more difficult and nobler path.

But I am not here to convince anyone. I have already made my choice.

QFT

Sue quoted for nonsense topic

When Whites pursue their own ethnic or racial interests, Western society calls it “racism”. When non-Whites pursue their own ethnic or racial interests, Western society calls it “anti-racism”. Ethnocentrism is loyaty to ones own kind, and its roots lie in sociobiology, not economics. Western society offers Whites practically no financial incentives and plenty of financial disincetives for ethnocentrism. There are also plenty of Whites who make a good living betraying their own kind, and there’s nothing especially ‘noble’ about that.

What exactly is an "ethnic or racial interest", if I may ask?

I've not known many colored folk who were quick to call me racist if I shared my background as being of german, Irish, indian and english descent. In fact I'll meet people whom I thought were colored but claim to also have white ancenstry somewhere in their line.

As for white pride, I never understood the term. I met a guy who was a former kkk member and said that it originated in the south after the civil war. Has been confederates and the likes were afraid colored folks would take over their economy and government.

If you watch D.W. Griffith's A Birth of a Nation, you'll get a glimpse of how the director felt toward the colored and mixed. The only loveable blacks are the ones that know their place in servitude. You'll even be more shocked in how he felt about mullatos, you know the guys who have a drop of white in them. The fear of them thinking themselves just as white as the next white guy. Thus they would win and eventually run the government.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjlvv0xu2k8[/youtube]


And so D.W. Griffith's fear soon came to be.....

here we go, this should be good - my money is on something like "blah, blah, muslims, blah, blah IQ scores, blah blah blacks, blah blah blah taking our jobs blah blah far left marxist liberals betraying their own race blah blah Obama's a Jew you know, and a freemason, and a member of opus dei blah blah blah world jewish communist conspiracy blah blah (retreats into corner sucking thumb mumbling something about crime statistics and the rosy past of England, our England, with the green fields and small villages, Cricket, Sunday afternoons, tea and crumpets, cricket all lost, lost I tell you!)

Sociobiology is just the latest in a long line of pseudosciences that use poor questions, poor experimental technique, and poor data analysis in order to justify the extant power structure.

Truth in Codarac topic

"Racial interests... betraying their own kind... ethnocentrism..."

I hardly even need to discuss the details of sociobiology to demonstrate how wrong you are. If the extant power structure wants to use sociobiology to justify itself, then why is it so difficult to find works by people like JP Rushton, Frank Salter and Richard Lynn in bookshops, yet so easy to find works by people like Stephen Jay Gould? Why are Western politicians allowing millions of Third Worlders into Western nations while instructing us to celebrate “diversity” when sociobiology tells us that diversity leads to conflict and unhappiness? The implications of sociobiology are exactly what the extant power structure doesn’t want us to know about.

If there’s one thing that amazes me about liberals and Marxists more than their unfounded belief in human equality, it’s the fact that some of them still cannot see that their racial egalitarianism supports the extant power structure rather than threatens it.

@ WhoAmI, instead of “pursuing their ethnic interests” I could have said “working for the interests of their ethnic group”. The ultimate interest for any ethnic or racial group is securing their own continued physical existence. An ethnic or racial group also has interests in enhancing that existence, such as attaining peace, power, prosperity etc. When the Greeks fought for independence from the Turks, they were pursuing their ethnic interests. When people like Jesse Jackson ask for more handouts for blacks, they are pursuing their own ethnic (or rather racial) interests. When La Raza march through California saying they’re going to take it back, they are (somewhat aggressively) pursuing their own ethnic interests. And so on.

@ Titus, sorry to disappoint you. You do realise you haven’t said anything of any substance there, don’t you? Anyone can do what you’ve just done. I could just as easily characterise your posts as blah blah blah racist! blah blah blah fascist! blah blah blah colonialism! blah blah blah workers revolution! blah blah blah communism’s really gonna work this time, I know it!!

Btw Titus, do you understand that Whites as a subset of humanity will be driven to near extinction if they do not keep some part of this earth for themselves and if they do not stop the continual process of Third world immigration and assimilation? Do you think it’s so wrong for Whites to want to secure their own continued existence? If so, please explain why Whites should go extinct.



Sue, your post is oddly similar to Titus’s. Do you realise that simply selecting a few words from someone else’s post, repeating them and then rolling your eyes is not an argument?

Maybe you could try answering the questions I posed to Titus.
You've made your pro-Zionist sympathies obvious before (and I understand you're not even Jewish), so you clearly think ethnonationalism is fine for Jews. Do you think it’s ok for non-Jews too, or not?