/lit/ - Literature

doesn't even talk about bells

>>13202531
I think fundamentally that anyone who goes through such lengths to tout their own intellectual superiority especially through the callous “observations” of lesser peoples does not deserve to be taken seriously.

>>13202531
is this a bot post? every couple of days i see the same post with the same image asking the same stupid question, inciting the same bullshit pol discussion. for what?

>>13202531
charisma is the most valued human quality for all societies

>>13202579
did not read the book

Garbage and even factually incorrect :3

OH NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

>>13202742
Do you people just not know how to draw a graph?

>>13202638
Because the retards on this board would rather accept the whole inferior race bullshit thing than oppose capitalism. Ask the idiot how he explains asian IQ levels and he'll just try to change the subject. We all know it's directly linked to GDP but they'll never acknowledge it.

>>13202531
I remember the "racist" stuff being literally one page where he says there are IQ differences with a million qualifiers. There are valid criticisms for the book, but racist is not one of them.

Murray suggests that the state should get rid of the welfare safety nets and let the poor blacks and hispanics die out of poverty.

Fuck. This is bad.

Why does /pol/ keep BTFOing us?

>>13202531
I was impressed, but just read it for yrself. Unless you are just trolling...

>>13202531
racist is a moral argument; not even an argument really just an attack on the person or the point they're making

TBC doesn't seek to incite racial hatred, nor does it make any overtly political points, all it does it to state the data collect on IQ and discuss it in terms of how it is stratified along racial and class lines, the same stratification pattern we see time and again no matter what test is administered, who administers it, what country it's done in and accounting for socioeconomic background as well

any conclusions you draw from it are your own, but at least try to make arguments against it on academic and scholarly grounds rather than just 'it's means to minorities'

same with The Culture of Critique - it's a pretty detached and sterile piece of academic writing, but due to the subject matter it's verboten

>>13202766
Arab states include some of the richest and poorest countries in the world, yet the money hasn't shifted their abilities much. They just import all the intellect they need to run their economies, design their buildings etc.

>>13202766
IQ is proven to be race related, and speaking as a huwhite man I am not in the least disturbed by Asians as a group having an average IQ higher than my group. As an individual I judge each person individually as I meet them and expect to be treated the same. IQ has nothing to do with being a happy, good person.

>>13202766
You do realise that the dissident right, while being race realists, are also very much not free market fundamentalists, right?

every argument ive seen against this book is never about the book itself

>>13202766
I can tell you've never read the book and are generally confused.

Firstly, race realists acknowledge that Asians have an average mean IQ higher than whites, in fact that's one of their main reasons for saying that race is a compendium of multiple phenotypic/genotypic distinctions rather than being a variation in one trait like skin color.

Secondly, dissident right wingers tend to be very critical of capitalism, especially when it comes to the tendency towards international universalism and the destruction of communities that capitalism engages in. Also, you're very much so putting the cart before the horse with your GDP -> IQ line of thinking. It's obvious that not starving to death increases your nations average IQ, but having a higher IQ on a macro scale tends to produce higher social complexity, not the other way around.

>>13202823


Statistical correlations aren't concrete proof but a foundation for inductive reasoning. The reality of the situation is very obviously more nuanced than "race decides iq and it's proven". Theres several factors to account for such as cultural, psychological, environmental, and historical influences etc. Its not to say that there isnt a potential for even more influences such as race, but to make it the definitive one is just lazy reasoning.

>>13202969
Race realists don't say that race is the ONLY determining factor. However, ceteris paribus the races naturally stratify into different IQ bands, and given that IQ is hugely deterministic of factors that are generally associated with success and the prosperity of individuals and nations.

>>13202766
Shut the fuck up you retarded commie. kys

>>13202822
But it has, hasn't it? The gulf states (the richer states in gdp) have IQ levels far above that of many African countries, and at levels comparable to western countries. Turkey's average IQ level is at the same as most of Eastern Europe

Plus your not even factoring median income as opposed to average income.
>>13202847
Every time I ask them what they want instead of capitalism, they just describe a more radical version of capitalism.

>>13202883
Something you can't prove.

Oil states see a dramatic increase in GDP average, this proving the connection between GDP and Intelligence. I'd go as far as say it's not really GDP but good healthcare and quality education, the sort of things associated with wealthier countries.

If race and GDP were really correlated, how do you explain Argentina?

>>13202823
Doesn't really hold up when you have countries like Sierra Leone beating out Albania in IQ scoring, does it?

>>13203223
>Every time I ask them what they want instead of capitalism, they just describe a more radical version of capitalism.
Sounds like you're talking with libertarians/ancaps

>>13203212
I'd rather be a commie then a racist

>facts are like literally totally racest

>>13203263
Why not both

>>13202742
What the fuck's with these huge margins ?

>>13203263
Its not a dichotomy

>>13203276
based nazbol

>>13203223
>But it has, hasn't it? The gulf states (the richer states in gdp) have IQ levels far above that of many African countries,
Your very own map shows gulf states that have massive oil revenues have similar IQs to gulfs states/north african countries which are poor as shit.
>If race and GDP were really correlated, how do you explain Argentina?
Race and GDP are not correlated. IQ and GDP are. Other than IQ there are two big factors you can use to boost your GDP - natural resources (dig them up and flog em) and becoming a tax haven. There are numerous examples of low IQ countries doing each - e.g. Botswana, Panama, Saudi Arabia etc. You can also handicap yourself by going full communism: North Korea, Cuba, China, Russia, the rest of Eastern Europe.

Argentina started out pretty well, it had a GDP per capita in 1900 near equal to that of America. But a few coups, some socialism, mass migration of its intelligentsia and it's fucked up. IQ is not a static thing in a population. It can change. Being a white country does not guarantee an IQ of 100, nor does it guarantee you won't go full communism. Prime example is West Virginia. Little economic opportunity for high IQ people, they all leave to work else where leaving behind a residual population that has an average IQ of around 95, the dumbest whites in America. This is happening in a lot of post industrial areas, which is why it's so hard to restore them.

Ignoring intelligence means you will be forever expecting Papua New Guinea to suddenly take off in an economic explosion like South Korea, or for the next Einstein to emerge from some hill tribe in Kenya. The world must be a perpetually confusing place.

>>13202822
>They just import all the intellect they need to run their economies, design their buildings etc.
This is true for some Gulf States like the UAE but even then is a gross over simplification of things.

I read it a few months ago. My observations:
1- clearly makes the same point over and over again - IQ matters in life outcomes
2- he didn't report R square for any of his models. later analysis on the same data showed that less than 4% of the variation in crime was associated with IQ. Seems fishy.
3- Most "very dull" people didn't commit crime even if they had higher bivariate likelihood

Overall, not worth an 800 page read

>>13202531
I don't think the debate relies on whether or not race has an impact on IQ but whether genetics or environment have the bigger impact.

>>13203413
>>13203223
To illustrate my point about migration altering a populations IQ, look at this graph. It's from the UK biobank (n=500,000), using one of the new polygenic scores for intelligence. They check where the person was born and where they currently live. People who were born in coal field areas of the UK and move away are substantially genetically smarter than people who remained. This has a permanent effect on the population that remains.
You also see this in African migrants, at least the ones that have to jump through the hoops of migrating legally (i.e. not refugees/illegal immigrants). They are often from the smartest fraction in Africa and do extremely well in the US or Europe. Top American universities are stuffing themselves with them to fulfill the affirmative action diversity quota, which is ironic as they are more likely the ancestors of slave traders rather than slaves.

haven't read it. don't intend to. its conclusions are probably true in a broad sense albeit exaggerated, but i don't think they have any bearing on how we should run society.

>>13202544
Fpbp

>>13202531
iq is pseudoscience. it's been known for a long time already.

>>13202766
>would rather accept the whole inferior race bullshit thing than oppose capitalism
The delusion of tankies on /lit/ is beyond me sometimes. Capitalism bad and everything bad be bad because of capitalism.

>>13202822
Arabs are turbomutts tho.

>>13203223
>Doesn't really hold up when you have countries like Sierra Leone beating out Albania in IQ scoring, does it?

Debunked
https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateAltRight/comments/awnsez/sierra_leone_iq91_wakanda_rising/

>>13203610
Not any more or less mutts than brits or americans

>>13202742
>old.plebbit
>r/DebateAltRight
Do really you expect anyone to open that link? Also, revealing yourself as a redditor doesn't bode well for your imageboard e-peen, I'm afraid.

>>13203943
>muh guilt by association
Sierry Leone IQ isn't 91. No amount of your whinig will change that.

>>13202766
This website is the product of two hyper capitalist nation's just think about that for a second.

>>13202579
not a single page

It's not racist, but it's just not very good. Murray is a typical neo-con and the book is just a bunch of statistics. There's better books on race like race, evolution, and behavior.

>>13202766
the high iq people make the country like that. theres obvious exceptions with resource rich countries tho

>>13202823
race realism hurts social cohesion, dropped

>>13204203
In the long run the opposite appears to be true.

>hurr race doesn't exist, we're all the same because God made us all the same

Why are Christians like this? Why can't they accept scientific facts?

>>13202766
Or you can be nazi, oppose capitalism and understand the realities of race

>>13204543
Charles Murray has explicitly stated that you should not treat anyone differently based on race because there are high IQ blacks and low IQ whites. All his stats are just that: stats; and they don't inform you about how you should treat people.

As you see in pic related, immigrants from Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, and Ethopia -- all of whom you would derisively refer to as 'LOW IQ NIGGERS WHO NEED TO GO BACK' -- actually have higher rates of educated people than the native population. This is why it is retarded to base your judgements of people on skin colour.

>>13203447
I appreciate the post, even thought nobody else has really given you the props for it. Do you mind sharing the study?

>>13204583
>you should not treat anyone differently based on race
That's ridiculous. There are many cases where one might want to do that, for his own benefit or for the benefit of his community.

>As you see in pic related, immigrants...
Nobody said that ALL blacks are lower IQ, just that ON AVERAGE they're lower IQ.

>>13204592
Thanks.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/10/30/457515.full.pdf
There are some neat maps of UK's principle component analysis as well.

>>13204185
Murray is libertarian

Unlike most people that talk about this book, I’ve actually read it and I would say it’s worth reading. The book essentially opens with a long explanation as to why this kind of discussion is necessary and goes over all the sociological implications. It’s well written and makes sense. The “racist” chapter, so to speak, is unfortunately based on the work of Lynn which has been regarded by many as faulty by now (he’s praised in the book, but keep in mind this book is very old). It also doesn’t help that the author is old as fuck now and jaded due to all the leftoids harassing him so his appearances now are all more provocative than educational. I would recommend reading it; it’s an easy read and pretty interesting for the most part. Him and the other author are smart people and were very careful with their words. It’s a good piece of literature

>>13204791
>leftoid boogeyman
And yet iq is still not science. iq is pseudoscience.

>>13204890
>IQ is one of the most studied and used measures in social science.
>IQ is pseudoscience
It's sad that both are true.

>>13205165
>claims to measure intelligence
>cannot even define it
Social "sciences" heh

>>13205671
>https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/10/30/457515.full.pdf

definition of almost anything can be prove quite difficult, yet, we don't always undermine that thing's existence.

I'm gonna read it.

>>13202531
it's not correct, but it got a lot of actual IQ researchers to spend time refuting it, so net neutral i guess

>>13202742
i can't engage with such a terrible graph but it does bear repeating that race realists literally do not know what "heritability" means, at all.

>>13202822
the flynn effect takes place over a period of a few generations so it's too early to assess the effects of arab states' wealth on IQ, the wealth in question has not been distributed throughout those societies, and secondary requirements like education and urbanization have often been hindered by conflict. Too early to even assess an impact.

>>13202823
setting aside the lack of source, when studies in this field should be scrutinized carefully, it's still telling that the effects of class stratification are larger than the race gap

>>13203413
social darwinism is a flimsy bandage for your entire worldview

>>13205754
You should read the minnesota twin studies and try to weasel your way out of that one

>>13205762
>minnesota twin studies
you do realize that the nature vs. nurture argument has more facets than are even considered within them, and that psychological traits are useless for discussion of IQ, mental health, or really any other aspect of psychology or neuroscience, right? you wouldn't just let this trigger your confirmation bias and go "LOL the left BTFO" upon reading it once, would you, faggot?

>>13205674
>definition of almost anything can be prove quite difficult, yet, we don't always undermine that thing's existence.
And iq is still not science. Anything else?

>>13205787
No in fact I would suggest that we do a bunch more studies like the Minnesota ones to add further evidence for or against, Im sure you'd agree.

>>13205864
separated twin studies are already the gold standard in psychological research so idk who you're preaching to

Its barely racist, like a liberal boomer. Its also not good.

>>13205915
Do any of those studies show outcomes between whites and blacks disappearing?

>>13205940
There has been a lot more research on this than you think. It's not something that universities are 'afraid' to look into. It's just that the results are inconclusive, and the outcome so far is that a minor IQ gap could exist, but even if so, it's not something significant enough to inform policy. There are, as there have always been, some semi-prominent psychologists who have a dissenting opinion and believe the race IQ gap is more ironclad or significant than the general consensus, but they haven't backed up their arguments well enough to alter consensus, and lately they've been more likely to say "this study which goes against our hypothesis really should have been done slightly better", which of course could be said about almost all psychological studies, and it's not as if the ones these guys champion are better.

>>13202544
>doesn't even talk about bells
fpbp

>>13205976
you can't name a study that shows the gap becoming even small

>>13206000
Read a book

>>13206012
you can't name a single study that shows that, every single one shows the gap.

>>13206015
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1127540?origin=crossref&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

>>13206026
Not a twin study is it? It also has 85 sample size. It is also about 'language comprehension' which does not have decades of research linking it to life outcomes like IQ. So very much less rigorous than the minnesota study which you just said was problematic. I am SHOCKED that your standards for studies supporting your beliefs are lower than for those which contradict them.

>>13206044
I think I know what your mistake is. You're mixing up the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study and the Minnesota Twin Family Studies. The sample size of the former isn't very large either, nor was it a twin study. The latter discussed only personality traits and is not used in discussions of IQ or of race, it's only used to discuss nature vs. nurture in other contexts.

>>13206026
What the hell? "Environmental Effects on Language Development: A Study of Young Children in Long-Stay Residential Nurseries"
What does that have to do with anything?

>>13206066
Both those studies show the same set of conclusions that you don't like: heritability of IQ and differences in races. the twin studies found about 70% of IQ to be heritable

>>13206076
It's just a different test.

>>13206092
>70% of IQ to be heritable
Do you even know what this means? It means that even in situations where the environmental factors are entirely controlled out, one would expect 30% variation. If that's your argument for a genetic basis for the race gap it's a horribly flimsy one. Even the authors of the study that Bell Curve uses for its most significant citation didn't think it lend support to either the environmental view or the hereditary view of the racial IQ gap. And the MTFS still doesn't even involve race or IQ at all, even a little bit.

>>13206114
>If that's your argument for a genetic basis for the race gap it's a horribly flimsy one
No it's an extremely significant one as compared to your complete lack of evidence for the contrary position.

>>13206121
If you're just going to ignore evidence and say it wasn't provided, I can't help you.

>>13206143
Yes, your study about language comprehension which said there was a correlation. Such evidence. How about a study about IQ or something that's proven to be related to life outcomes?

>>13206151
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-24139-001 comes in from a different direction and its result covers the gap. Eyferth (1961) isn't available online, it seems, and it's in german. The main two supporters of the hereditarian view in psychology only say that these didn't retest at 17, but that isn't enough to refute either. In every case, the results are inconclusive, including in Minnesota. The only way to interpret it otherwise is by ignoring confounding factors in an attempt to obscure the facts.

>>13206194
The results are inconclusive meaning it's up in the air whether racists or antiracists are closer to the truth, and racism is therefore not less reasonable than antiracism? Im not talking about whether it's socially desirable that people be racist, but whether one position is more or less founded than the other.

>https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-24139-001
This is significant but it does still need be verified for adult scores

Lmao how does anyone take psychology seriously

I read it and I wouldn't even call it psuedoscience. It often just blatantly misuses data and information.

>>13206225
>racism is therefore not less reasonable than antiracism
Racism takes the burden of proof for obvious reasons. If nothing can be proven, it is a position that must be considered unsupported, not "neither yes nor no".

>>13206253
>Racism takes the burden of proof for obvious reasons.
Racism and antiracism both take the burden of proof. before any evidence is accumulated the position is 'we don't know whether the races are the same'.

>>13203675
>reddit

the absolute state of stormniggers

>>13206259
Racism makes the claim that a population is different, which would require proof. Antiracism is not a claim in itself, it is a response to the hypothesis of racism, which in itself doesn't require itself to be 'proven', because you can't prove a negative. At this point it's not even about psychology, it's just basic logic.

>>13206284
Antiracism makes the claim that two populations are the same for some metric.

>>13206294
It refutes the claim that they're different. You don't assume that populations diverge in a systemic fashion unless you have the evidence to back that up.

>>13206302
No it makes a positive claim that two populations are the same in cognitive abiltiies.
>ou don't assume that populations diverge in a systemic fashion
You also don't assume that they have remained the same

>>13202579

What about people that form judgements about books they didn't read?

>>13206324
faced with the understanding that the research consensus is actually correct, you ignore the basic rules of what an assertion is in order to protect your ability to make prejudiced statements
brilliant cope desu

>>13206348
1. The research shows more evidence for race differences than equality
2. It is a positive claim to say that two populations are the same. You really should not be talking about inability to grasp logic here.

>>13205671

intelligence is an organisms ability to solve problems in it's environment. This is most easily tested with puzzles.

>>13203397
It is. Once you take the metaphorical redpill you'll realize how stupid nationalism/racism is.

>>13203413
Why is it that communist national like China and indochona tend to have higher iq scores then?

But other then that... So we're in agreement then? Race IQ correlation is largely bullshit?

>>13203675
>Reddit as a source
Basically the argument is that the one guy who made that book was an outlier?

I mean my point about iq and GDP still stands. IMO though GDP doesn't matter as much as quality of life.

>>13206500
Wasn't your claim that GDP differences to lead to differences in IQ?
What that guy's saying is that it's the other way around (aside from those exceptions which affect only GDP), which is pretty clear to me.

>>13206738
desu the main thing is that I find it hard to believe that today, for the first time in human history, IQ has resulted in the proper economic sorting of nations, whereas these same nationalities were ordered much differently before, which would require either the nationality's IQ to be different or the correlation to have only begun existing recently-- neither example being conducive to a just-world understanding of the current geopolitical order

>>13202766
IQ is bound to race.

>>13202531
it's racist garbage.

>>13206754
A stable implementation of capitalism will result in the proper economic sorting of nations based on IQ after a few generations. For some countries, like China, it is the "first time in history"

Obvs the correlation is not perfect, and there are other variables like resources, geography, emigration, etc But this is pretty common sense stuff

ITT: Reddit trannies sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling LA LA LA LA LA

i despise poltards more than anyone but this stuff is legit. i only wish that physical anthropology and IQ research didn't have to be associated with neo-nazi edgelords.

>>13202531
Historically important racist garbage; worth reading due to the historically important aspect.

>>13206754
>IQ has resulted in the proper economic sorting of nations
Prior to the industrial revolution and the demographic transition, improvements in technology primarily caused increases in population. That is, wealth of the average individual stayed the same (very low), but the total amount of wealth in an area increased - there was differentiation in ancient times as evident by the various civilisations that arose.

Now, you could increase the individuals average wealth by maintaining the level of technology but reducing the population - this happened after plagues, wars etc. Suddenly there aren't so many mouths to feed, more food to go around, and labourers are in higher demand from the elite. You can also reduce the population by cultural practices - infanticide, human sacrifice, delayed marriage/chastity etc. Elites can also alter the distribution of wealth, directing some of it from increasing the population to working on mega projects or enriching themselves.

When the industrial revolution happened efficiencies increased at rate faster than the rise in population (Britain went from 15 million to 50 million in a century), and then for some reason people stopped having so many babies. Population stabilised and now the whole of society became better off as it increased in wealth.

>which would require either the nationality's IQ to be different
As I posted before, IQ can change. >>13203447
If a population is stratified, i.e. there is an elite that has better fertility than the lower classes, and if that elite is to some degree based on intelligence, then IQ will increase. There will be downward mobility of people - the not so smart children of the elite will become the new middle class, the not so smart children of the middle class will become labourers. The not so smart labourers will die childless. Downward mobility is good! If on the other hand the elite aren't replacing themselves because having children is a drag, and there is mostly upward mobility instead, then IQ will decrease in a society. This process is probably long and slow, i.e. over a 1000 years for substantial changes. However, give me unlimited funds, 200 years and no moral restraints and I will breed you a black population of super geniuses. We could be doing this in a soft way right now: Every sperm bank should be desperately encouraging the smartest scientists and greatest artists to contribute. It's an incredibly easy thing to do - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repository_for_Germinal_Choice

>>13202531
There are differences between the races, and IQ seems to be one of them. As for genders, to my understanding gender matters less in average IQ than race. Average IQ between men and women of the same race seem to be roughly the same but men's bell curve is shorter and broader while women's are more tall and thin. This means that on the extremes; the extremely intelligent and extremely unintelligent, men make up the bulk of those two groups. Suddenly it makes sense why the bulk of technological advancements came from men. Most geniuses are male. Even in the past 50 years in which in the West women have had ready access to post-secondary education; the vast majority of scientific and technological advancements have come from men. Also from primarily White/Jewish/Asian men because those races have an average IQ of 100-115. Black/Arab IQ, to my understanding, is lower. Down around 80-90, and 80 is such a low IQ that the US Military will not accept anyone that low because there's no duty that they can be given which they will not perform in a counter-productive fashion.

i despise poltards more than anyone but this is legit. the only reason to deny race differences in IQ is either deep ignorance or an emotional or ideological bias that acts as a mental block. even a priori, the idea that all populations would end up identical in all traits except skin pigmentation and physical characteristics after thousands to tens of thousands of years of divergent evolution is patently absurd, a belief on par with creationism.

>>13207661
>i despise poltards more than anyone but this is legit.
You have to go back.

>>13206260
cope

>>13202531
This is basic bitch, 2014 shit. Any white guy of above average intelligence is already reading Culture of Critique and way past these Steve Sailer tier facts.

>>13205754
>i can't engage with such a terrible graph but it does bear repeating that race realists literally do not know what "heritability" means, at all.
What is terrible about it? Just because you can't read it doesn't make it terrible. And why do you think they don't know what heritability is?

>>13207761
no u. everyone hates you faggots.

>>13207824
the real enlightened intellectuals are reading the cofnas critique.

>>13207906
lol. shit was the fail of fails.

>>13207892
How often do you listen to Chapo? Be honest.

>>13207906
>Jordan Peterson is an intellectual
big yikes

There might be differences between races, but it's our religious moral duty to not talk about them.

>>13202544
/thread

>>13202766
Because we don't think someone's worth is equal to their IQ. It's generally better to be more intelligent rather than less, but nowadays people with high IQs often use it to engage in mental gymnastics to defend sex changes for 3 year olds or their favorite brand of communism.

>>13202969
Wrong. Intelligence, as measured by IQ, along with most other psychometrics, are determined mostly by genetics. This has been proven time and again, however the leftists always misses the memo.

u can tell which two shapes look this same this means u smart

>>13202531
It's highly discredited

>>13209195
Genetics are indeed a part of it, it would seem. That's why I'd prefer a White or Asian wife rather than a Black, Arab, or Hispanic one. Though to be fair the idea of having a harem of one of each sounds quite pleasant... a shame that monogamy seems to be the best option for long-term life satisfaction and success.

>>13206302
Like decades worth of research in genetics maybe

>>13202579
Nig lover

>genetics plays the most important part in what determines your intelligence!

Naziboos litterally sifted though thousands of books to find the one that conforms to their worldview. It's cherry picking as usual.

Also, any book that sells itself by being controversial is guaranteed to be shit.

these threads would be so radically different if people read 1 chapter of the book. literally one. really fucking annoying that discussion of this book is ruined eitherby retard race realists who disregard nearly everything murray says except blacks r bad and some chapo shitting himself cuz his retarded thoughts are novmatch for the lad himself

>>13210036
just be rich then u can do what u want. getting rich is easy if ur like me

>>13202823
Blacks with a college degree are dumber than blacks with some college?

>tfw actual discussion about race&IQ
wow this board is not so bad after all

>>13212620
Wouldn't be surprised. Rich blacks still commit more crime than the lowest classes of whites. They're generally just a dysfunctional people.

>>13212989
No lack of jews and their goy pets itt trying shut it down, as usual.

>>13213433
>African-Americans
>Doing anything good

They're the scum of the earth. I cannot think of a single demographic I hate more than the nigger. And when I say nigger I mean AA not actual Africans. Niggers had literally everything handed to them down to their very freedom as they were freed by their very captors. They lived through every age of opportunity in the best possible place to be and simply COULD NOT escape each other's grasp as they pulled each other down trying to climb out of the bucket of poverty and misery. The truth is niggers are weak. So weak that they still live in slavedom they need a white master to be the cause of all their pain. That's why they just can't integrate. That's why they made up their own isolated subculture instead of integrating it into the American culture at large. That's why every time a black shine through he's dragged down. They are afraid that once they become equal with their "masters" all their faults will be painfully apparent. They're black first, American second. That's the barrier that keeps both the nigger safe and enslaved.
An American probably wouldn't understand but try putting yourself in the shoes of some Somalian rotting away in his village with no name. Now imagine that your neighbor was somehow allowed into the USA. He could have gotten a job he could have lived a happy life free of crime. And then you learned that he squandered it all. How do you feel about him ? You would hate him of course. That's how Africans feel about niggers.

>>13207635
This is an absolutely based and informative post.

>>13213691
They also never give back to their community if they leave. Niggers don't even like niggers.