Two of them simply tried to detain a moronic burglar who’d been robbing their neighbour hood and one was simply there and recorded the moron grabbing a shotgun and getting himself shot. Now they all get to spend the rest of their life in prison. The blacks are given free reign to commit every evil there is while whites are treated like subhumans by the nation they built. This nation is doomed and seems to deserve that doom.
Comments (172)
sorted by:
Going after Arbery with a gun was a terrible idea. Yes he was a criminal scumbag who attacked the chasers instead of surrendering, but I understand why they were found guilty here.
Agreed on the nation is doomed and deserves it.
Why should we have to wait for the cops to defend our communities from evil? Especially when we know that the cops are not a force for good, but simply a force for the State.
Not arguing with you because I’m sure he was up to no good but I’m just saying that I figured they would be found guilty. If I’m not mistaken they had seen him before
You're correct. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, their homes, their neighborhood, their town, their people, and their country from attack. If someone suggests otherwise, it means they want to strip you of one of your natural rights, which indicates they're either stupid or malicious, and will take your other natural rights as well.
This is going to become more common too. As our "justice" system has been corrupted, the only way for good people to attain justice is by their own hands. At this point, even though it's considered illegal, it's not immoral or illogical. In this scenario, vigilantism and revolt from the corrupt system is the only righteous path for good people. It's the people taking back power that they abdicated to the state to do for them, but when the state fails in it's obligations, or uses that power against the people, it is the only course left for us.
\an fyi if youre chasing someone miles away it seems less like 'defense'.
There is a Yahoo news article saying (paraphrased) White Women Birth White Supremacists and Black Women Birth Their Victims.
They are coming for you and your children. They clap and laugh when white women die alone, childless. I see the resentment and anger in their eyes as I go about my day. Things are going to go very bad in the economy over the next 10 years. Get out of the cities if you are able. Do it now. Move. Get a new job.
Yahoo is utter garbage
If it is paid attention to and spread about, it is not garbage, it is toxic waste.
And even if it wasn't your fault it is there, leaving toxic waste sitting around without addressing it is generally considered a bad idea.
The justice system shouldn't be assumed to take your side ever. That's just fucking stupid. The system has never been just.
No, whites are not in a foreign land, and the sooner you recognize that a shitload of whites are the primary driving force for a lot of this nonsense, the sooner you are going to realize that your dream of racial solidarity doesn't mean shit.
That's not true. The eradication of the black family, and the introduction of racial solidarity to create a dependency on a racial socialist state has basically guaranteed violence and criminality. Lots of whites profit off of that because they are Leftists. Lots of Leftist blacks do too. Both white and black Leftists are pushing racial division and animosity because that violence and tension makes blacks a controllable political block to be wielded by the Leftist in charge, regardless of the color.
White Leftists are happy to propagate revolutionary bullshit for their own purposes, just like every other Leftist.
It doesn't matter if they are black or white, because the problem is that they are still red.
Blm is black supremacist, biden preaches black supremacisg garbage. Its blacks burning looting murdering. Its blacks who destroyed everything and get privledges for their skin color like affirmative action while Whitea are dehumanized wifh crt
BLM is Black National Socialism. Biden preaches it, because it's a useful political tool. Black activists are engaging in burning, looting, and murdering because that is a strategy for their political, racial, violence.
Well said.
Yeah. Every time u/Gizortnik starts on this spiel I want to tell him he's an idiot because nobody assumes that this is solely the fault of various "minorities", and every time some retard proves me wrong before I even open the thread. It's maddening. I actually wrote three entire longposts trying to explain myself, but I'm not exactly sober so they I ended up just ranting every single time, so I deleted them. Sorry, I'm not exactly sober.
You're talking about jews and their shabbos goys.
"WAH! WAH! WAH! ... WHY CAN'T I HAVE RACE SOCIALISM YET! ... I WANNA FEELS SPECIAL! ... WAH!"
Shut up, loser.
It did though, they were investigated initially and no charges were brought.
If the video had shown the actual fight, it might have helped them in court. As is, it basically proved everything the prosecution was alleging without showing what Arbery did immediately prior to getting shot. I do get the point that it might never have been prosecuted, if not for the video.
I would also assert that shots have been fired in this occupation. A great deal of rights were lost around the Civil War, whether you lived in the South or not.
Assuming this isn’t a CIA psyop anyway. Wasn’t the father law enforcement or some kind of government employee?
I thought he was a retired cop
Yes. It’s reasonable to be skeptical of a case that reaches the mainstream. I still think we should be skeptical of this. It feels like it was done in a way that would confuse everyone. Also the way they filmed it did not help their case. I’m just skeptical if everything nowadays tbh
Was it? I mean in the current political environment, I get your meaning, but in a sane world, that's exactly what you would want. All they were trying to do is detain him for the police. It's not their fault he was stupid enough to grab a shotgun barrel.
South africa is where the usa is wifh biden. A subhuman crominal burns loots murders and his victims are who aee punished
Its only a terrible idea because the law will punish you for it. this stuff doesn't have to happen.
If the dude who got shot was white, they would have been acquited.
If Kyle had shot a black dude in self-defense, they would have voted guilty.
We no longer have equality under the law in this country.
No chance. From what seems to have been presented in court, they were completely fucked. If they needed probable cause to arrest Arbery, then they were fucked.
Instead, they had about as much reason to stop Arbery as Huber had to stop Rittenhouse: not fucking much.
But they didn't stop him. The nog attacked them as he was walking by the truck, suddenly leaping off the pavement to try to grab the gun.
As I recall, they pursued him, then the mayos got out of their truck to arrest him without probable cause. That's where the problem lies. It's felonious act to try and detain them without enough cause to do so.
If you don't like my slur, then you can take yours down, and I'll do the same.
Occam's Razor says otherwise. I don't believe that they found a jogger and assumed without justification that he was a thief and completely by coincidence it was the thief known as The Jogger. Either they are psychic, or they had probable cause.
He wuz a good boy, he dindu nuffin.
Just ignore his felony history and claiming he's just jogging.
Joggers gonna jog...
Probable Cause is a very specific thing. The police need less than that to pull you over. They need that to actually cuff you and arrest you.
That's a lot. In fact, that's so much, they could have had the police get an open warrant for the guy and had him arrested on sight. But that's not what seemed to have happened.
They were trying to detain him, not arrest. But I don't see why it matters. In fact, if everyone had survived, the guys could have gone on trial for unlawful detention, maybe assaulting with a weapon. In a case like this, you get one story: the one told by the survivor. We had a video, but it was shitty (by which I mean it didn't show the only important things that you would have wanted to see). That story was that Arbery attacked first, and nothing I read showed that story even challenged. IANAL. In my mind, if you are attacked and fight back, it's self defense. The law must be different, because all that seemed to matter was whether they had a right to be chasing the guy in the first place.
I think I'd allow them both self defense actually. There were so many points that this could have been averted that it amounts to mutual combat to me. I searched today and no one in the lame news seems to have explained the finer points of the law that the jury must have considered.
Under GA law, they lump both detention and arrest together for the purposes of false imprisonment.
Because they were committing a felony themselves (the false imprisonment), they could not assert self defense unless there had bee some sort of break in the sequence of events, which never happened.
What people aren't getting is that there's basically no right to conduct a citizen's arrest in GA, with very narrow exceptions. It doesn't matter under the law that Arbery was also a burglar because the McMichaels admitted that they didn't know that at the time.
Well, kind of tangential, but what did they change, then? Stupid media says nothing useful. Wikipedia says Georgia's citizen's arrest law was "very broad in scope" which kind of contradicts what you say, but I'm not ragging on you; just saying I can't get any good information.
It went from you could conduct a citizen's arrest if you witnessed a felony or became aware of a felony by someone who immediately witnessed it to no citizen's arrest at all.
This might be pedantic, but I think detaining him would qualify as a "citizen's arrest".
That's the problem. The unlawful detention is a felony. Hence, Arbery's death is Felony Murder.
I actually agree with this. This was basically Colin Noir's position. Which could be reduced to: "If two guys in a truck drive past me, set up a road block, and jump out with guns: I'm dumping rounds on them."
From what the McMichaels were saying, it sounds like they pointed guns at Arbery, and then Arbery attacked them. That attack could absolutely be taken as self-defense... which is where my unease in the situation gets pretty bad. That's a horrifically stupid decision for Arbery that cost him his life, but the attack would have legal. If it were me, and some dude started yelling for me to stop, and pointed a shotgun at me? Then I'd pull a Colin Noir and just start blasting.
Yep I would have declared Arbery innocent if he had dumped rounds.
The citizen's arrest thing is odd. There was every evidence that it was and apparently no one challenged that except to say that the McMichaels didn't announce themselves. Yet the court apparently ruled it was not such an arrest. I've yet to see an explanation for that and I looked.
Yeah, I'm not really clear on it either. The state doesn't want people policing their own communities for the most part, so this kind of stuff gets left purposely vague.
To play devils advocate: Arbery was unarmed. So while it very much would have been legally self defense trying to do something to the McMichaels, it seems extremely reckless to throw yourself at an armed individual trying to steal their weapon in an attempt to defend yourself. Because unless you have reason to believe they are just going to kill you anyway, the better option would be to surrender and live until you see a time to escape.
That said though, I dont have particular beef with either side here. Everything I had heard at the time made it sound like a situation where no one was in the right, so I more or less declared "a pox on both your houses!" months ago, and from what I have heard of the trial that did little to clear up that issue.
Oh no, it's retarded. Especially when the other guy has a fucking shotgun.
That's one of the things that kinda convinces me that Arbery was a genuine bad guy: he had a predator drive. He could have run into the woods at any time, but instead, he decided that he was gonna take the risk to (very likely) kill both of the McMichaels. By aggressing on them, he was starting an entangled gunfight that he could only win if he killed both of them. And he made that decision while he was 30-50 feet from the truck. He saw a threat, and instead of avoiding it, he engaged it. That's not normal human behavior unless you're a cop, military, or a first responded. You have to be trained to do that. Since he wasn't any of those things, he was not a regular civilian. He was a criminal who's probably bluffed people with force before.
I was on the McMichaels' side more until I heard them talking, and it I can't help but think, "wow, you were basically asking for shit to go wrong."
Well, someone has to teach the storm fags to chill. I have to make it simple for them.
Comment Reported for: Rule 15 - Slurs
Comment Approved: I distinctly remember being explicitly told that slurs in general were not against the rules, but that they couldn't be directed at specific people. He seems to be returning the favor.
Heres some probable cause:
The blmer was going around looting constructiin sites and then tried to assualt his victims and steal their gun
The toilet-bowl-fleshed ones didn't have any evidence of any evidence of any active criminal behavior, they just had suspicion that he was engaged in crime. That's not probable cause, certainly not enough to actually stop him at the time.
Go suck off a blm riot you black supremacist trash
Black National Socialism must be destroyed.
If the guy they shot was white, they'd have never been on trial. Remember, this whole thing was going to be swept under the rug because the shooters were friends with the DA or whatever and everyone in town. I mean, I guess you could argue it depends on which white guy they in theory shot. If the guy were rich or famous, perhaps something would have been done. If it was a methhead criminal, I think it would have gone away.
The only reason it went on trial was because of a viral video. The only reason people cared about that video was because it was an interracial crime.
They wouldn't have swept it under the rug because they were white. They would have swept it under the rugs because they were cops.
I said it was because they were cop friends of the DA. The only thing being white has to do with it is being white and cops made this into a civil rights case in the eyes of the public and the Federal jewdicial system. Which got it more attention. Contrary to popular belief white people in Georgia are not immune to policing.
I was actually agreeing with you.
until...
Sigh
I'm just gonna leave it. Close enough.
I didn't watch any of this trial. If what you say is true, and you add the Kyle Rittenhouse acquittal into the mix, our justice system is working basically perfectly. Although i would argue Kyle even being charged at all was a broken system. The politics at the top, and of course the fraudulent lying (((media))), are what needs to be fixed. Seems doable, though I am still not too optimistic.
The system is obviously broken because the Left, particularly Soros and friends, have now become so desperate as to wield prosecutors themselves as a bludgeon.
The only way to inoculate a society from Leftism is to expose it to Leftism, as you would any other disease. Each red pill pushes each person a single step further away from the slave mentality they previously had. Every time you see another injustice, a lie, an act of barbarism rationalized, it only keeps feeding the animosity towards the Left. Until eventually, the whole Leftwing system becomes unpopular, it turns against itself, and it suffers a collapse & preference cascade. They do it all the time.
And enough with the echo-posting. Your enemies aren't jews, they are leftists. You might as well be blaming leagues of white executives for the financial, tech, PR, and HR industries from pushing Leftism and claiming it's a white conspiracy. It's not. The tie between everyone on the Left... is their lust for power through the rationalization of Leftism.
You call conservatives being arrested for wrong thought and self defense while subhuman black supremackst blm/antifa terrorists walk free as "working"? Gtfo to cuba you subhuman communjst scum
Quit being fat. I spoke out against Leftism.
Instead of being black-pilled, understand that a culture war takes time and exposure to a population that has been indoctrinated for at least 2-3 generations.
No, I just know that Judeo-Bolshevism is bullshit. And I'm not going to cry for Palestine.
I'm not so sure about the first, and the 2nd one is absolutely not the case. A lot of the purposes of PR is not to reflect public perception, but to mold and shape it as propaganda.
And yes, I'm following it all the way up to George Soros and Klaus Schwab. A Nazi Collaborator, and what I believe to be the son of a genuine Nazi.
I'll definitely watch Branca's interpretation. The issue is that Tim, Poso & Branca do not seem to be people who are willing to let others talk over them, on a show where everyone talks over each other.
If Branca's got his own vid, that would be better.
That being said, if he's right about the law supporting reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause, that's a huge problem.
However, he's also the one I've heard pooh-pooh the appeals court, so IDK.
Have you noticed that everyone involved in courts is 'higher than thou' females. Even limp wristed males aren't this evil.
Let the society crumble fuck this insanity. Def clown world
It's the natural result of handing out rights without demanding responsibility.
Rights are privilege + responsibility.
Women are privileged. Full stop.
In fact, every group that isn't white + male + heterosexual is privileged, because all of them lack the full responsibility of citizenship in every western country.
I didn't really pay attention to the trial proceedings since I figured they were doomed to presumed guilt, but if I remember correctly:
seems like their biggest mistake was calling the cops afterwards
There were no witnesses?
Its hindsight of course but seems like a plea to fleeing the scene is easier time than murder.
I don't even understand how it was determined to be murder, since the shotgun was not fired until he grabbed it.
it was murder because they are white and the dead guy is black, no other circumstances matter
Yeah that's what it seems. I mean even for recording it? Crazy. And this happened in Brunswick too. I figured it would be closer to Atlanta. White people (meaning the jury) aren't this crazy in SC.
Cry end game
7 blacks on the jury, 5 White people.
source
Because in clown world there's no scenario in which a white man is justified in killing a black man.
*chasing a robber down is not your green light to murdr him
*felony murde, in committing a crime they led to a murdr.
What crime? A citizen's arrest is legal.
Not in Georgia. The only way that the citizen's arrest would have been legal is if they had know that Arbery had just burglarized the house, which they admitted on the stand that they did not.
The law says they need a reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
or - chasing a robber miles doesnt give you the right to execute them.
Don't try to grab a gun while being a dindu felon and you probably won't get shot.
An older Vietnamese immigrant told me awhile back, "Blacks are going to be the downfall of America" and it's looking like he was Nostradamus with that prediction.
Thomas Jefferson knew that, it is why he was against slavery
I haven't really followed this case and only have a general overview of what happened. But why did the guy who just recorded it get in trouble? Can anyone explain like I'm five/retarded/redditor?
Because Whites dared to defend themselves from black supremacisf vermin
He admitted on the stand that he helped in stopping Arbery. That admission made him a party to the false imprisonment. Add in Arbery fucking around and finding out and the felony murder statute and he's screwed.
Felony murder not having a clause of exception for intent is horseshit.
contributing to a crime, like aaccompices in heists.
I am sick of all the "right wing" morons falling over themselves to extol how amazingly just it is to imprison 3 people for life for icing an obvious degenerate deviant criminal, because they feel existential dread after kyle got off. Like lusty whores they scour the internet for any black person to uplift and venerate, to prove how non-racist they are.
If you live in a retarded leftoid state you deserve what you get
How in the fuck do two people get charged with murder who didn't commit a murder? The mental gymnastics of these foul cretins in the criminal injustice system never ceases to amaze me. And the guy who did the killing did so when he was attacked, hardly a thing of malice.
Then charged with five counts of murder?! Double jeopardy laws and the exorbitant amount of laws are the main causes of mass incarceration, which is what the United States of Tyranny intended with malicious purpose. The more laws, the less justice. If it were three black guys and one white in this scenario, BLM and the left would riot for sure.
Of course the leftist police want to charge all three with a hate thought crime. Lmao.
The sooner the US is Coup d'état'd, the better. It is far too gone and utterly corrupt. Especially that evil fucking "justice' system. Disgusting evil treacherous dastardly country.
because they commited a crime that led to the murdr
McMichael's Jr is the reason they were found guilty, go watch his testimony and you'll realize how much of an retard he is....Recap with what actually fucked them and it was majority him. DON'T PUT LOW IQ CLIENTS ON THE STAND.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwZE-8DxT0k
This is what I said. The retard fucked himself on the stand when he couldn't articulate what crime arbery had committed to justify his citizens arrest.
He fucked himself and the appeal.
At the very least they had a strong appeal case considering the judges ridiculous interpretation of the citizens arrest law, and the fact the judge allowed the jury to deliberate among themselves what the law means.
Stop taking the stand as the defendant holy shit.
South africa in the usa is here
Any chance of a protest about this at all?
Aside from the blacks rioting and killing in celebration no.
I suppose you didn't watch the trial.
Well, if you're just going to be black-pilled about the country, go crawl into your hole and leave the rest of us out of it.
In case you hadn't noticed from the progressive rhetoric, blacks are absolutely going to prison and shooting each other, so the idea that they have free reign is obviously stupid, even with popular anti-white sentiment in the establishment Left.
Also, the McMichaels really fucked the dog on this. If they were supposed to have probable cause, they really should have not tried to stop him, let alone pull over and get out of the car. They got hit by the felony murder charge, and I can't really deny that for at least one of them.
As for the cammer, that guy got fucked. He shouldn't have been facing a felony murder charge for not having participated in the stop.
They have affirmative action, are able to burn loot murder without punishment, dehumanize Whites, etc.
I wish i had these gibs and privledges that blacks get
Honestly, no you don't. Look what it's done.
Affirmative Action not only doesn't help, it actually promotes failure and people give up more because they didn't develop the human capital skills to succeed in the space they were placed. Look at the destruction of black communities, the cycle of violence, and the entitlement that they've been taught to have without punishments. Look at how a culture of resentment against whites has colored every aspect of their perspective so that they never take a single step to improve their lives.
You don't want that shit. It's a poison pill.
They're underperforming because they have low IQs, anything else like 'entitlement' or 'they're failing because we help them too much', or whatever else you invent is just cope, rationalization, and post hoc garbage.
There is no reality in which a demographic with a 85 IQ average could do well or compete in modern societies where high information processing skills are required to function.
Besides just the ability to retain and manipulate information IQ correlates extremely well with long term orientation, the ability to delay gratification, crime, low impulse control, violence, success, tolerance of ambiguity, knowledge aquisition, ability for deliberate action, self control, risk managment, ability to learn, and a whole other list of abilities that modern societies expect.
You can collect a group of whites with a 85 IQ average in a neighbourhood and within a couple of generations they will have perfectly recreated for you the inner city life.
Imagine thinking that affirmative action is what's causing violence....
No resentment caused by being made to compete in societies where they can feel they can't possibley succeed is what's causing violence.
Crime being the only viable path to material wealth unless you're artistically or athlethically gifted is what's causing violence.
Then you seem to not understand how genuinely low IQ autistic people are able to still live on their own and function independently and successfully in society. The idea that someone under 85 IQ can't function in society is laughable. We take people who get 32 on the ASVAB in the infantry. We let them use guns, big ones. That 32 basically means they can't even do fractions.
That's precisely where you're wrong. High IQ isn't just a measure of how well you can succeed in society, it's measurement of abstraction and adaptability means that you are also more likely to be selected for breeding rights in societies not already plagued with violence. It's one of the reasons that Jews and Asian immigrants were seen to have very low IQ's and their IQ's grew over the century, just like everyone in the west had their IQ's grow on average. Women are going to sex select for higher IQ due to societal success and adaptation. Women don't marry down, particularly in regards to education and intelligence.
You put a group of any kind of 85 IQ average population in a neighborhood and leave them alone, and you will likely see a 100 IQ average population in a few generations. You will collapse their IQ if you promote protectionism and dependency, along with significant amounts of malnutrition and social violence.
It doesn't cause violence, it causes failure. Typically, AA recipients end up going to educational programs that are far too difficult for them, they tend to drop out of the school, drop out of the entire industry, and never retry at a lesser school which would have done them better. AA promotes impostor syndrome to a degree that people self-destruct their own ambitions because they were never ready to take them on and got burned.
That could eventually lead to significant amounts of resentment, low initiative, and social violence.
Mostly, the violence is being caused by the protection from consequences, lack of investment in their own communities, and zero ownership of goods, and resentment mongering while being the vassals of the state.
That's exactly the thing that Affirmative Action does.
Note that when Trump deported illegal immigrants, poor white and poor black unemployment in the areas he raided soared, because of course it did. You don't need a 175 IQ to pluck chicken feathers for Koch Foods Inc. 85 is more than enough. If low IQ populations couldn't compete, and you're sure that blacks are just too low of IQ to compete in society, why were their wages going up due to their competitiveness. Unless you're going to tell me that all those illegal immigrants from Guatemala were just doctors and lawyers.
I agree, and Socialist policies are major part of that. A low IQ person can sell hotdogs as a hotdog vendor. They can drive uber. Hell, I know dudes who sold water at stadiums for $1 a bottle. They can get low paying jobs and save money. Our entire political, economic, and financial system is designed to disincentivize that as much as humanly possible, particularly in Democratically supported areas.
You changed the goalposts here from 'compete' and 'succeed' to 'function'.
Can a 70 IQ person function in society? Only with help. Unless we're talking about a village where he can stare into the sky all day and lift things when asked and generally just exist in the open and eat with the community.
Can a 85 IQ person function in society? Sure, they can be productive in many different ways.
Can they compete? Can a group with a 85 IQ average achieve parity in terms of salary, or positions of power in corporate or government sectors, or education, or innovation? No. No they can not.
Can they ever be expected to commit crime at a similar rate to 100 IQ groups? No.
You conveniently skipped my paragraph about how IQ correlates with so many other traits than just information processing.
Just having lower impulse control and lower ability to delay gratification means the group will be higher represented in crime statistics. Just those two things alone mean they're much less likely to finish an education, that they will be less reliable workers.
The US military doesn't take anyone with an IQ under about 83. They've done experiments with admitting people with IQs of 80 and high 70s, but concluded that it's not worth the cost, damage, and effort. That is to say that people in the lowest 10th percentile are not only not useful, they actually harm the organization.
This paragraph is not really relevant. Do women sex select for higher IQ? Sure why not. Do they sex select for percieved IQ which is not real IQ but just some adaptability metric / success / how well an individual fits into society? Sure why not.
But we're not talking about how other people see you. We're talking about how well you can score on a standardized test. Go back 200 years and a random ashkenazi jew would probably outscore a random englishman, it doesn't matter that he was percieved to be lower IQ.
If you leave people with 85 IQ alone, they will become smarter? They will have smarter children? You must be joking.
IQ is highly heritable. Its heritability quotient is about 80, that's the same heritability quotient as height.
Now you can critisize the analogy and claim that IQ is determined by several other factors like epigenetics, environment, and passive genes. Ok, it's not the greatest analogy. Maybe that community would become smarter, maybe not. But we know blacks aren't becoming smarter, so whatever epigenetic or passive gene effects are at play, are clearly not affecting that particular demographic.
An 85 IQ society will only become a 100 IQ society if you recalibrate the tests to reflect their normal distribution. Then they will be 100 IQ by definition. However compared to outside groups they will always be 85 IQ.
Sure, maybe, probably. But the alternative to AA is to just accept that blacks will not be able to compete, will be poorer, will have shittier jobs, etc.
Blacks not being as intelligent as other races isn't in itself a black pill. That's a solvable problem, to make sure that they all have some purchasing power and vested interest in society means some structuring is necessary. As a species we're not more hostile or less empathetic to people with lower IQs. Quite the opposite. There are ways of dealing with the fact that some people do worse in society. If you want to keep the multicultural society and solve for lower crime and more stability, that probably means UBI, socialized housing, and legalized drugs.
But as long as the woke cling to blank slate theory, the fact that blacks are underperforming will be a motovator to keep tearing down society. That's the real black pill.
It's why education is being dismantled - equity thrhough tearing down the intelligent to appease the dumb. It's why heroes in popular media are being destroyed - equity through tearing down the brave to appease the anxious.
Accross the board, everything that is good will be torn down to cuddle the feelings of those who can't hit the standard. The lowering of all standards is something you can observe, and while wokeism is a cancer on any society it's clearly much more damaging in societies where lage portions are low IQ, than in more homogenous ones like e.g. China.
No, I haven't. People can 'succeed' at life without becoming a manager of a hedgefund or an aeronautical engineer.
Success can be a simple as raising a well developed family, a stable financial situation, good health, and good morale. You can still be quite poor and have all of those things. You're calling that 'functional'. I'm saying many elites don't have that. You don't need high IQ for such a thing, it helps, but it's no guarantee.
You want a perfectly equal distribution between all IQ groups. That's not reality. They don't need to have perfectly equal distribution. Pay parity is not relevant beyond what they are competing at, and they are competing at low to medium level positions. That is competitive with their peers.
"White collar crime and fraud doesn't real"
Yeah? When they test IQ?
Bad news: they don't. Best they can do is the ASVAB. I can garuntee you that the military has been using people with IQ's under 80 for decades. "You get smart, or you get strong". Those guys got strong.
You're completely wrong, and the IQ results of the time utterly reject that. Ashkenazi jews had some of the lowest scores in America, in some cases, under blacks. That's what happens when immigrant populations come from specific categories of people that were not high in IQ, and then have a culture which emphasizes literacy, meritocracy, success, and strong family/social bonds. Especially if women are sex selecting for IQ.
Except it absolutely is. Women sex selecting for more intelligent men are the driver for a populations gain in intelligence. If you make an attribute a key qualifier for social success in a society, you will see women sex select for that attribute. If women need strong men to survive the dangers of predators, within very little time, you will find a population of men that are significantly stronger than previous generations. You said I ignored all the other corollaries to IQ. I didn't, I'm emphasizing them. If western societies confer social status and success to high IQ individuals, then that's exactly what's going to be selected for. Not to mention women explicitly sex select for higher intelligence anyway.
Women do not need you to show your test results, all those corollaries you're saying I ignored are how women are selecting: educational attainment, earning power, problem solving, emotional stoicism, long term time preference, etc. This is one of the things that will naturally cause a rise in IQ in populations over time, like with immigrant jews.
If a woman with an 75 IQ can select between a man of 70 IQ, 80 IQ, 90 IQ, and 120 IQ; she will likely choose 80 or 90. Meaning the 70 IQ man is left alone, and the 120 IQ man probably finds a woman with higher IQ elsewhere. Their offspring will probably be closer to 80 IQ. An 80 IQ woman can select between a man of 80 IQ, 90 IQ, 100 IQ, and 120 IQ. She will pick 90 or 100. Repeat this process forever. You will watch the general population's average IQ increase over generations.
You're hoping that the "Passing of The Great Race" genetic argument that the low IQ peoples will just wildly outbreed high IQ individuals and a net drain on IQ is inevitable. That is false. That sex selection happens at every single level. It doesn't NOT happen. Women marry up.
Again, this isn't true. Over the past century we've watched lots of groups in America, and Americans themselves have increasing IQ, and that IQ has had to be re-calibrated as the IQ has inflated. It also actually helps with the population is less young, because that is where the majority of the low IQ population lies.
No, that will amplify the exact problem we currently have by guaranteeing that no one is invested in their own development, and is the exact "coddling" that you are talking about. Socialism, lo and behold, is still not the answer.
That IQ correlates with social status doesn't mean that it's the only way, or even the best / most effective way, to achieve social status.
That women select for IQ doesn't mean that women only select for IQ.
Otherwise we'd all be geniouses by now.
Clearly there is an equilibrium. Populations stay around the same IQ level, and while we saw gains accross all gorups throughout the last century those gains were mainly due to nutrition and education. These gains were significant over time but anyway they have slowed down now or and are even reversing.
What you can't account for is that blacks have a 85 IQ as a maximum anywhere in the world if you correct for poverty. Places with no AA. Places where they are disenfranchised. Places where they are the dominating group. Places with strong welfare states. From the US, to Japan, to Denmark, to Italy, to I'm sure Morocco, etc.
If what you are saying was true, we'd see large variations in IQ's in populations based on their culture, not ethnicity.
But we are observing the exact opposite of that. Regardless of culture, ethnicity determines IQ. Chinese people in Norway, in the US, in China, in Africa, if we correct for socioeconomic status have similar average IQs.
In most African countrues the average is much lower than 85. Most are in the 60s, with at least a couple of countries in the 40s. However, it's likely that low because of cultural and economic reasons, bc when they emigrate they stabilize around 85 in the west where the conditions are best.
What it looks like is that there is a upper potential for IQ in various ethnicities, and that the group stabilizes around that IQ when they have access to ample nutrition and education.
For blacks, that's about one standard deviation below Europeans. Koreans are about half a standard deviation above Europeans. Regardless of any Flynn effect, these ratios are staying the same.
I currently am demonized for the color of my skin via crt and affirmative action.
I wish I had the same privledge blacks get from democrats. i would get free scholarships and any high paying job i want due to my skin color, (affirmstive action is black privledge) and then be worshiped by democrats, and never charged with any crime.
You would be a scam artist dependent on your loyalty to race hustlers.
You would get scholarships to schools you couldn't pass tests in. You could get high paying jobs you wouldn't qualify for and would fail out of due to incompetence. You would be worshiped for being a failure. You would be charged with crimes when you weren't the cock sleeve for a politician.
You want to be a living failure and a slave, have at it, but I'd rather you just be better.
Sounds better than being demonized for having White skin
Slavery is not better than demonization.
If they are demonizing you, you can call them a faggot.
If they are enslaving you, you will have little other choice than to call them master.
Honestly if you hate black people, voting Democrat has to be a consideration. Tons of black babies aborted, murders rampant in the community, nothing done to try to make it better. They do give lots of freebies to the blacks, but so what, to live in horrid conditions and a culture of death and despair, no thanks. To vote for these conditions willingly truly means the IQ tests are accurate.
Democrats love blacks. Look at affirmstive action, crt, gibs, and how crt demonizes Whites.
I wish i would get the same privledges democrsts give blacks.
There are alt-righters who will tell you Richard Spencer is a fed because he voted Biden and sounds progressive.
I'm telling you he's ahead of the fucking curve. White Racial Affinity is the next step of "White Supremacy with a Guilty Conscience" and Spencer is putting himself in a prime spot to take all the Bernie Bros and Cortez fans who have heard the banging of the racial drum of racial solidarity, and are going to start asking: why not me?
At the same time, I can only imagine how hard he laughed when BLM raked in $100 million dollars and some of their leadership took the money and fucking ran after the left continued to celebrate black abortions and the burning of black cities.
INteresting post, he had downvoted.
I think it's Doritos freaking out because I used an anti-white racial slur. I don't like it, but sometimes it has to be done.
I do think Richard Spencer really is positioning himself for some part of the White Left to go full Woodrow Wilson.
This is the 2nd time I mentioned this, and it was specifically because of the conversation. I don't know why you think I'm making a big deal about it. Doritos is.
Has there been irrevocable proof that he was robbing? Or two good ol bois just 'THOUGHT' he was robbing?
Thoughts /= actions, tho shitlibs really want silence to be violence.
If you can’t kill someone for having dirty toenails, might as well move to a free county like Belarus.
good because dems would call every conservative a retard, dumbass
Dont you have a footlocker to looy blm vermin?
Comment Reported for:
Comment Removed: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Mostly peaceful spontaneous one-sided sparring matches
Blm is openly embraced by democrat traitors
BLM/Antifa are the military wing of the Democratic Party. Of course they'd be embraced and protected.
The right should embrace and protect our own foot soldiers but we don't. Look at how the January 6 protestors and the Proud Boys are treated.
“Aaaaewww sheeeeit fam! No u stepppin’ foo! I dun beat ur ass nigga! OOO OOOO AAHH AHHH OOGA BOOGA!” 🍌
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech (x3)
Comment Removed: Rule 2 - Violent Speech