Either the violence is genetic and they would have done it to everyone, or the violence is purely ideological and they discriminate on their victims. It can't be both. (It's actually neither, but you all are the people who set up the false dichotomy anyway)
Huh? It definitely can be. Without necessarily talking about any particular groups, it’s easy to see how that could work: Imagine a hypothetical genetic effect that makes someone more prone to any combination of things like anger, paranoia, violence, and/or impulsive actions, and then imagine they adopt an ideology that tells them a certain group of people are bad and responsible for bad things in that person’s life. The genetic component gives them the wherewithal, the ideology gives the target.
Alternatively, imagine someone prone to violence who adopts an ideology that tells them a certain group of people are their kinsmen/friends/allies. Would they not be more likely to control themselves around that group of people?
Alternatively, imagine someone prone to violence who adopts an ideology that tells them a certain group of people are their kinsmen/friends/allies. Would they not be more likely to control themselves around that group of people?
This seems to be the origin story of David Wood. Dude is a genuine psychopath who attacked his father with a hammer but then found Jesus and became a devout Christian who warns others about the evils of Islam. I still think there's a really important component of religion that gets overlooked in that it imposes an authority figure onto the population that is beyond their reach. It's one thing to overthrow a king, that can be done, it's something else entirely to overthrow the divine.
If it's genetic, they're not going to be able to control themselves around any group of people. That means that even if a target demographic receives much of the fury, it won't change the fact that a well-placed slight will incur similar wrath even from an in-group, even from family.
It's pretty much directly proportional to how much pro-White sentiment is expressed. He got set off because someone suggested that Africans are hazardous to the well being of Europeans.
"Black on black crime doesn't real"
Either the violence is genetic and they would have done it to everyone, or the violence is purely ideological and they discriminate on their victims. It can't be both. (It's actually neither, but you all are the people who set up the false dichotomy anyway)
Huh? It definitely can be. Without necessarily talking about any particular groups, it’s easy to see how that could work: Imagine a hypothetical genetic effect that makes someone more prone to any combination of things like anger, paranoia, violence, and/or impulsive actions, and then imagine they adopt an ideology that tells them a certain group of people are bad and responsible for bad things in that person’s life. The genetic component gives them the wherewithal, the ideology gives the target.
Alternatively, imagine someone prone to violence who adopts an ideology that tells them a certain group of people are their kinsmen/friends/allies. Would they not be more likely to control themselves around that group of people?
This seems to be the origin story of David Wood. Dude is a genuine psychopath who attacked his father with a hammer but then found Jesus and became a devout Christian who warns others about the evils of Islam. I still think there's a really important component of religion that gets overlooked in that it imposes an authority figure onto the population that is beyond their reach. It's one thing to overthrow a king, that can be done, it's something else entirely to overthrow the divine.
If it's genetic, they're not going to be able to control themselves around any group of people. That means that even if a target demographic receives much of the fury, it won't change the fact that a well-placed slight will incur similar wrath even from an in-group, even from family.
It's worse, he's a midwit.
Sit down faggot, the general lack of self-control is your own personal problem. The rest of us are trying to talk about something important.
This comment is terrible. Yes two things can be true at once. Blacks are violent, and they direct it at whites on purpose.
Welcome to Spergery with Gizortnik. Is this your first time attending one of these?
It's pretty much directly proportional to how much pro-White sentiment is expressed. He got set off because someone suggested that Africans are hazardous to the well being of Europeans.
"Blacks are so uncontrollably violent that they would literally never direct it at the people they live next to every day."
Shushy