blacks as a group contributed nothing of value to the the world, what little contributions some talented individuals did were not worth the over represented violence, crimes and welfare usage the rest of the race committed.
You seem to think the value of a person is directly related to their net-income over a lifetime... an absolutely terrible metric that would put movie stars and politicians near the top of the value pyramid despite contributing the most to cultural and political corruption and decay.
As with all groups, the vast majority of crimes are committed by a relatively small percentage of the population. That doesn't seem to enter into your consideration at all. You concede there have been contributions by black people to our society but you disregard them because of the actions of a minority of violent blacks today.
Prior to the 1930's, blacks were on average as successful as whites and even exceeded (as well as dropped below) them in some areas. This was even with segregation and legalized racism being commonplace in certain parts of the country. In the 1930's Democrats conspired to exploit blacks just as they do with all minority groups and since then blacks have been on a steady decline. The Democrat Party at the time was entirely white, by the way, and continues to be majority white even up to today.
Name one country that "became better" by having more Irish? Italians? Germans? Russians? How are you even defining "better"? You still won't answer that question, or any of my other questions.
better? lower crime rates at least, if you remove 13% of the population you instantly remove over half the crimes. small numbers of people committing crimes? so what, only small numbers of Muslims are terrorists, should we welcome them with open arms? blacks over represent in crime stats by 3 to 4 times their population every where they are, regardless of whether the country had historical black slavery or democrat policies or soviet communism or any other muh socioeconomic factors. Japan accepted less than 20 "refugees" and within days two of them were arrested for rape. 1930s? they had moderate success because they knew they had to follow white cultural norms and laws because the whites were not going to tolerate their shits if they stepped out the line and act like uncivilized apes.
there's no rational reason to keep a population that is consistently being net drain on society and commit most of the crimes at the same time, especially when it's 3 to 4 times the rates compared to the other populations. "you might be excluded based on your own arbitrary criteria" is fucking nonsense.
I don't care. I have had enough of the apes and the problems they caused. I don't want to see them, hear them, live near them. I won't hate them if I don't have to live with them and pay for them, they can go be whatever contributors or none contributors where they belong. Africa.
Oh well, I give up. It's clear you have a one-track mind. This exchange has been a good example of how this type of thinking is irrational, so you're more or less making my point anyways.
You didn't answer any of my questions.
blacks as a group contributed nothing of value to the the world, what little contributions some talented individuals did were not worth the over represented violence, crimes and welfare usage the rest of the race committed.
You still aren't answering any of my questions.
You seem to think the value of a person is directly related to their net-income over a lifetime... an absolutely terrible metric that would put movie stars and politicians near the top of the value pyramid despite contributing the most to cultural and political corruption and decay.
As with all groups, the vast majority of crimes are committed by a relatively small percentage of the population. That doesn't seem to enter into your consideration at all. You concede there have been contributions by black people to our society but you disregard them because of the actions of a minority of violent blacks today.
Prior to the 1930's, blacks were on average as successful as whites and even exceeded (as well as dropped below) them in some areas. This was even with segregation and legalized racism being commonplace in certain parts of the country. In the 1930's Democrats conspired to exploit blacks just as they do with all minority groups and since then blacks have been on a steady decline. The Democrat Party at the time was entirely white, by the way, and continues to be majority white even up to today.
Name one country that "became better" by having more Irish? Italians? Germans? Russians? How are you even defining "better"? You still won't answer that question, or any of my other questions.
better? lower crime rates at least, if you remove 13% of the population you instantly remove over half the crimes. small numbers of people committing crimes? so what, only small numbers of Muslims are terrorists, should we welcome them with open arms? blacks over represent in crime stats by 3 to 4 times their population every where they are, regardless of whether the country had historical black slavery or democrat policies or soviet communism or any other muh socioeconomic factors. Japan accepted less than 20 "refugees" and within days two of them were arrested for rape. 1930s? they had moderate success because they knew they had to follow white cultural norms and laws because the whites were not going to tolerate their shits if they stepped out the line and act like uncivilized apes.
there's no rational reason to keep a population that is consistently being net drain on society and commit most of the crimes at the same time, especially when it's 3 to 4 times the rates compared to the other populations. "you might be excluded based on your own arbitrary criteria" is fucking nonsense.
I don't care. I have had enough of the apes and the problems they caused. I don't want to see them, hear them, live near them. I won't hate them if I don't have to live with them and pay for them, they can go be whatever contributors or none contributors where they belong. Africa.
You're still not answering any of my questions.
Oh well, I give up. It's clear you have a one-track mind. This exchange has been a good example of how this type of thinking is irrational, so you're more or less making my point anyways.