This Negro replied to my previous thread and I felt motivated to explain why our aversion to the Black race is justified.
Firstly, what @AfricanIncel fails to understand is that race is not skin color. Race is an inheritable set of physical and mental characteristics. Race is a subspecies. Blacks and Whites do not cluster in genetic tests. You can distinguish the races on a genetic level by analyzing sperm, blood, and saliva. There is a huge gap between women and men of the same race. Imagine between the races.
We move on.
You're taking this sentence out of context and using it as ammunition for the rest of your arguments . It was not my intention to claim that the concept of race does not exist, but rather make the assertion that someone belonging to X race doesn't provide enough immediate grounds to denounce them. It is a major leap of logic to insist that someone is of bad moral standing because they are a member of X race just because you read an article online espousing that they are "statistically" more likely to commit X crime or engage in said unwanted behavior. A careful assessment of their character should be carried out before jumping to any hasty conclusions.
For example, I don't go around saying that all Rottweilers should be euthanized because they're biologically predisposed to aggression in comparison to other dog breeds. I acknowledge they are well-behaved when properly trained and socialized despite their inclination towards violence due to selective breeding for protection and other irreducible biological/genetic factors.
I don't insist that whites are genetically more likely to molest children, or start world-wars, or become serial-killers because a small deranged subsection of their population disproportionately makes up those offenses.
Ignoring the fact that
promiscuity has a genetic basis, it is true that the mentioned groups are not fated to act in a certain way.
However, neither are Blacks. Unless you want to admit that Blacks are more violent than Whites and East Asians, there is no reason for 13% of the United States population to produce individuals that are responsible for more than 50% of the violent crimes, yet this is what happens.
This 13/50 argument is a misrepresented conservative talking point. Statistics do not paint a full picture and are not meant to be taken at face-value. It doesn't take into account acquittals and wrongful imprisonments
There's disproportionate poverty, over-policing & higher police presence, institutional biases, generational wealth inequities, single-parent households, unfairness in the judicial system, lack of school-funding and other socio-economic conditions that contribute to crime.
Do you think I walk around thinking that every male around me is a ticking time-bomb because men comprise 80 percent of arrests for all violent crime? Of course not. I take things like social class, urban/rural residence, age and other extenuating circumstances into account before forming an opinion.
Secondly, there are forty million blacks in the US. Let's assume that the statistic you cited is unequivocally true and there are no discrepancies in the reporting. If I pull up the FBI crime stats it will report that an estimated 1.2 million violent crimes are committed every year, and if half of them are blacks it would be around 600,000.
(42,000,000/600,000) * 100 = 1.42% of the black population. This includes burglary, theft, assault, and manslaughter. We don't know how many of these cases are done by habitual offenders. Even if certain populations are prone to crime, the percentage of people committing those crimes
within those populations are still small. Moreover, most of the violence is contained within their own communities and almost entirely intraracial. I recall there was a study conducted in a European country several years ago where they found that 1% of the population committed 63% of the crimes, and I can imagine a similar distribution where a small subset of any given demographic is commiting the crimes while the rest are law-abiding citizens.
The claim that 13% of the population is responsible for 50% of the crimes is an extrapolation of data and not meant to be taken seriously.
And you chose to pretend that race is just skin color. Tough luck. No one is buying it.
The Black race is archaic and thus genetically incapable of measuring up to the standards of White civilization.
I concede that recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in IQ test results, political institutions and economic development, but let's backpedal to the first part of your sentence about the black race being archaic.
You as a racial realist would categorize me as being a member of the Negro race when I am an East African Somali with significant West-Eurasian ancestry. I do not look phenotypically-black and have often been confused as being Arab or Southern-European. Why do you think I am a member of the Negroid race when my skull, jaw, and nose resemble that of a caucasian? Why are there no consistent biological characteristics that defines any one race?
Secondly, the first modern Homo-Sapien skull was found in the Omo Valley of Ethiopia. The mountains and highlands of Ethiopia and Somalia would act geographical barrier to prevent mixing between archaic humans and modern homo sapiens.
Present-day West Africans trace a 2-19% of their DNA to ghost-ancestors from an extinct human species, but are still predominantly homo-sapien. Calling them archaic is a misrepresentation of facts. There was enough introgression for them to be physically indisgustinable from a modern H.Sapien.
Wrong. The statistical reality is that avoiding a Black person at night is safer than avoiding a White person or an East Asian person.
Since Blacks are responsible for most crimes in America—Hispanics manage a second place, mind you—an individual that belongs to this violent group should be approached with caution.
Nearly 40% of white males in the US are arrested by the age of twenty-three, does that mean I should exercise precaution and assume that every white male I speak to is a violent criminal that poses a threat to my safety? I already disproved the 13/50 argument in the previous paragraphs.
Not every woman that walks on this planet is promiscuous. Not every Black that walks on this planet is violent. Still, the statistical reality is that non-Whites are more violent than Whites, excepting the East Asians.
Then explain why a black country like Senegal has a homicide rate of 0.27 per 100,000 inhabitants and is much lower than that of White-European countries like Liechtenstein, Ireland, and Australia. Or Ghana for instance. Ghana has a homicide rate of 2.09 per 100,000 and is lower than that of white countries like Albania, Georgia, and Liechtenstein.
Context matters. Social cohesion, shared cultural values, stable governance, and effective law enforcement are all essential to a peaceful and prosperous society rather than the reductionist explanation attributed to race.
Blacks' frontal lobes are smaller than Whites'. Frontal lobes are the brain region that is responsible for impulse control, planning, articulation of language, problem-solving, judgment, and so on.
That Blacks' frontal lobes are smaller is proof of their lack of impulse control and inclination to violence.
View attachment 981476
The image you provided is a very weak argument for arguing that the brains of blacks are inferior to those of whites. The only noticeable differences I see between the two females in the image above is that one has a protruding jaw while the other has a mild form of macrocephaly, which doesn't necessarily correlate to being more intelligent.
You can find studies where they measure brain volume with MRI imaging among caucasians and african-americans in total cerebrum, gray matter, white matter and the differences are small and negligible, certainly not enough to classify blacks as a different sub-species. There are going to be wide variations depending on the individual along with their age and gender.
Feel free to link any peer-reviewed scientific journal that has indisputably proven that blacks have smaller frontal-lobes than whites.
Plenty is not most. There are plenty of women that rape, murder, and rob. Nonetheless, the statistical reality is that men are more likely to be criminals.
Your chances of dying in a car crash are 1 in 101, but I'm certain that you operate or ride inside an automobile anyway despite knowing the inherent risks
Just because something is statistically more likely to occur doesn't mean
it is going to happen, and you're clearly using the misinterpreted 13/50 statistic to reaffirm your flawed subconscious biases.
