A Zionist, in the American context, will promote the shedding of American blood for Israel.
I also believe Israel has a right to exist and defend itself. I just believe it must stand on its own merit, and any "American" who would promote the shedding of American blood for Israel's benefit has a traitor's heart.
No one can serve two masters.
If you do that you'll see that a "disproportionate" number of our leading lights and most important creators
Disagree. I'm not a zionist or a neocon. Many of those who support the right aren't really on my side, even if they have some agreeable positions to entice support of their less desirable positions.
Not all with influence are bad, but how many support strong border control and non-interventionist policy? It's a pretty tiny group.
I've known a few, and a lot of them changed their ways (I'm referring to myself and my own circle of friends, here. We did crap, but we moved forward). There are certainly some hopeless cases, but this is a cultural argument, and people are capable of finding flaws within cultural influence if they have marginal intelligence.
I have a strong problem with transhumansim. It's utopian. It demands the same inhumanity of communism, libertarianism, or nazism. People are fucked. We need to focus on the foundation to minimalize the fuckage.
That's why I come to the genetic conclusion. You're not wrong. There is a whole pyramid of human behavior that we really only understand in the vaguest of senses.
Here's the thing. I have no desire to eliminate any group of people. If Western civilization annihilates itself in nuclear fire, Africa is that little place of hope. A lot of the population isn't fit for Western civilization, but that's okay. As long as that preserve persists, new civilizations should spawn from it. It might take thousands or tens of thousands of years, but I'm hopeful that it can spawn humanity again, even without Denisovan or Neanderthal influence.
Science gets overturned a fair bit, but we're in an age where it's overturned for non-scientific reasons. It's hard to take that seriously. James Watson is a non-persona in the scientific community, even though he's one of the most important people of the 20th century.
I understand that science finds new conclusions. My issue is that moralism overrrides science in modern academia.
And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that Jews participate disproportionately in this new fucked up moralism.
Unfortunately, it's getting harder to find research papers free on the web.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/heritable/2013-beaver.pdf
Behavioral genetics aren't quantified very well, because we don't fully understand what genes contributes to behaviors, what epigenetic factors manifest them, and frankly, an academic fear of what my be found. MAOA is a bit unique, in that it's mechanical function of the MAO-A enzyme would ostensibly explain some of the observations.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11126-013-9287-x#page-1
I'd like to find the full paper on this again, but it seems to have been paywalled everywhere I look.
Distributions of low functioning variants vary greatly between "races", though most studies are on African American's, not Africans. It's prevalence is far less among American Caucasians, though. It's so rare in Asian populations, a large enough sample can't be found to study it.
That's just one area of genetic behavioral difference though. We're slowly learning of the genes that play key roles in IQ, but we're still a ways off.
I said it can be compensated for, not that it's natural. Aristotle observed the problem with ethnicity and faction over two millennia ago. Having very different haplogroups exacerbates what was already an issue between similar haplogroups.
If 1:1000 people in a population are shit, they can still build a great deal of social trust. If 1:100 (or 3:10 where you put it, though it's probably more like 1:5) are shit, trust is going to be much more difficult to build and maintain. Further, any non-homogeneous society experiences faction, though that can be compensated for if they're ethnically very similar and assimilate over time.
interracial
intraracial
For the second part, I'd say lets stay away from Jews for now, since those practices aren't technically criminal, there aren't good sources of statistical information, and all we can do is look at incomplete secondary information that just correlates to their occupation and compensation.
When they allow them to come over, black africans are treated like they are the source of anything bad that happens.
That's just their national immune response kicking in. Still, if crime in Guangdong isn't disproportionately coming from their African population, it would be a fucking unicorn.
OK, wait.. let me make these complex statisitical inferences about your character based on a diverse array of inputs and qualities I have determined are related to life outcomes which I feed into this algorithm I walk around with in my head and then I'll decide if you're a decent person or not....
More about having a stable, high trust society than any individual judgements.
IQ isn't really a single measurement. The high Jewish IQ is verbal. They're a bit above average at non-verbal, and below average with spatial reasoning. Good at talking in circles, but practical application of theory to the real world isn't a strong suit. On average.
A rule not backed by violence is merely a suggestion.
World's in a weird place right now. At least in the West, necessity has become immoral. Somehow, it's better to fade away than to exist. It's a social aspect that needs adjustment if society is to continue.
Do not go gently into that good night.
The day's name is a combination of "June" and "nineteenth" in honor of the date of Granger's announcement and first appeared around 1903. It is also known as African American Freedom Day or Emancipation Day.
The ebonics explanation seems more likely.
Can't wait to shoot some fire crackas on Julourth.
Gotta disagree here. The 1A was to allow people to continue establishing their own little local theocracies in the Protestant tradition, free of central government mandates. Remember, the constitution is a limit on government authority(well, the first 10A, at least), not on people. They weren't trying to get away from theocratic rule. They just wanted freedom to have their own version.
I don't think individualizing is the correct word, but it's the right track. It was about decentralizing theocracy. Either way, you can't pretend moral authoritarianism wasn't a mainstay of Colonial America. It was just limited in scope. The church was the center of the community, and the line between local government and the church was often blurry. It just didn't have a centrally mandated denomination.
We don't disagree here.
Tell me, do you think Christian morality could have ever been instilled in the population without theocratic or theocratic adjacent institutions, authoritarian in nature? Could Christian America have ever came about without first Papal, then Anglican, then Protestant dominance?
I think a lot of it comes from his absolute refusal to acknowledge Jewish origins in much of feminist ideology, combined with his hatred for half the population, and a logical conclusion of human extinction.
I like him, and generally don't downvote unless it's really dumb, but he rails against women and promotes Jewish CRISPR wombs as some sort of alternative. It's a bit strange. The robowaifu thing is a fun idea, but so is wizard magic.
Family, community, country, in that order. A country that doesn't serve the community, and a community that doesn't serve the family, is worthless.
If there's a god, it's just a spectator. But morality (self-discipline) is key to liberty, and religion often serves that function well.