The mystery of the cold-blooded murder of Hollywood big-shot has been found. Just look at the race of the murderer, it is really no surprise.
Blacks (12% of the US population) commit over 50% of all homicides in the US.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336961/Ronni-Chasen-murder-SOLVED-Robber-Harold-Smith-shot-Hollywood-publicist.html
Blacks = 12 percent of the US Population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_demographics_of_the_United_States
1) Over 50 percent of homicides are committed by blacks
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm
2) Over 40 percent of rapes/sexual assaults are committed by blacks (2005) (Table 42)
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus05.pdf
3) Over 40 percent of the prison population is black
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p08.pdf
4) Almost 1 in 3 (33 percent) black males in the 20-29 age group is under some form of criminal justice supervision (in jail, parole, or on trial)
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=157929
5) Almost 70 percent of Black Children are born out of wedlock
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4865449
6) Almost 10% of All Black Adults (Men and Women above the age of 18) are in prison, probation, or parole at any given time. Almost 20% of All Black Men above the age of 18 are in prison, probation, or parole at any given time.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idUKN0240756920090302
Comments
Niggers are scum. Only 2nd to Australoids, Negroids are the most worthless race EVER!
Because white criminals have the intelligence not to get caught :facepalm:
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
He stinks of shit, he's loud and annoying, and even his dumb fucking face and massive monkey lips just flood me with rage as soon as I see him.
Yet, I don't actually know why I hate him so much that I'd quite happily ram him with my car. I don't even know the guy.
He's a cunt though.
It doesn't make sense.
pix? that sounds interestin
Because thay are. It's not socially acceptable to be openly racist and express this racism.
It's actually a very valid taxanomic construct and very natural behaviour.
Have you ever heard of The Price Equation?
Evolution of altruism?
The program admits that there is mathematical proof that "Human beings are genetically programmed to take care of others even when they 'aren't directly related'."
"aren't directly related" is a very cryptic way of saying "racial group".
http://www.physorg.com/news191502142.html- more proof race is a valid taxanomic construct, I'll post more if you're interested.
Cool story, bro.
Also, this. 9 times out of 10, People are products of their environment.
I have no idea what they're called
50% less murder.
40% less rape/sexual abuse.
40% less cost to run a prison.
4% more jobs for WHITE people.
Spare the politically correct bullshit. If niggers are equal do you care to explain why Haiti is a shithole even though it was once known as the Jewell of the Caribbean for it's vast resources yet majority run Iceland is fine and always has been despite very little resources?
Seriously read race and reason. Anyway it was touched on earlier in the thread but the idea that the nigger is somehow tougher than the white is laughable. it's a myth the media loves to promote yet whites dominate every combat sport. Not to mention the fact that historically a small number of whites was always superior to even vast mud army's. The Anglo-zulu war is a great example.
Ok let's assume niggers are just victims of their environment. why is their environment always shit? They have never ran one fucking successful nation. I kind of went off topic here but the truth is niggers are truly an inferior form of human. I use the term human lightly btw when talking about the nigger savage. Most of them seem to be more ape than man.
EDIT: Just caught this tidbi from the article Already they make excuses for the savage. Not long before we hear how he was "tryin to turn his life around":facepalm:
Another Edit: Speaking of niggers I just had another thought. I'm listening to Johnny Cash right now when he performed at San Quentin. I started thinking damn a concert at San Quentin then realized why this was possible. If you look at the audience they're all white. No niggers, no spics. Even maximum security prisons while harsh were more civilized without the nigger.
Genetic differences are negligible, the situation of blacks in Haiti and the U.S. is not the doing of blacks alone, etc.
There's always another factor, fatty,
Was not trying to be politicly correct, just saying even the blackest guy you ever met might have the potential to be a decent human being if raised by whites :rolleyes:
This is true, other than the higher testosterone statement, in African-americans anyway, who have a considerable amount of white ancestry, I haven't looked at negroids such as western Africans. They do infact have higher levels of estrogen however.
I've actually been thinking about IQ.
Einstein had a high IQ, but a low tendency for organization. He couldn't keep his own papers strait without the aid of his wife. The key to Edison's success was not his IQ but his ability to understand what the market needed, and focus all his energy on it. The ability to process information is not as important as the ability to have an organized goal and tenaciously persue it, which is the main difference between Edison and Einstein.
Verbal and Spatial intelligence, which is what the IQ test measures, matter, but they aren't everything. IQ only measures the ability to take in information.
EQ tests (emotional-intelligence quotient) are said to be a better predictor of success than the IQ test(intelligence quotient). But, despite its drawbacks as a measure of cognitive ability, the IQ test is still a fairly good predictor of future academic achievement.
As for what causes them to commit crimes, it could be partly genetic, but who gives a fuck why they do it, it's the fact that they do do it the most, despite being "minorities". The fact that they make shitty criminals is testament enough. I do base it on what I see, what history tells me and what common sense tells me. The trend is a worldwide phenomenon which can be witnessed.
It's funny how shit non-whites do with affirmitive action and whites in the same or worse economic situations still perform better, without affirmitive action.
If anything blacks have been taught that they are the same in terms of intelligence with whites yet they have had no mathematical gains for 50 YEARS!
http://vdare.com/rushton/100723_nisbett.htm
Affirmitive action plays a huge role for those who do succeed in education.
http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/inventions/emeag.html
Check out #6 in particular
"According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Africa suffers more than any other region from the brain drain in science and technology. The higher the level of education, the more likely the scientist is to leave the continent."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7322365.stm
Affirmitive action info for you
http://www.bamn.com/doc/factsheet.asp
Whites with the same socio-economic status as niggers still score much higher than those shit-skins on IQ tests and on the SAT. Even Whites in the lowest SES do better than niggers in the highest SES.
• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.
• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.
• Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.
http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html
It also doesn't account for the fact that barely educated or completely uneducated Chinese peasants still do much better academically than niggers, and some times do better than whites.
Niggers are an inferior race.
And how are you so sure of this? Why is it that you will instantly accept that genetic differences will cause a completely different bone and body structure, as well as skin and hair and other appearance differences, but cannot possibly be the cause of an average IQ one standard deviation below whites?
The magic of liberalism: making genetics end where cerebral functions begin.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
Not every black person I know is the same, leading me to believe that in most cases it's something other than their genes that determines how they'll behave and what sort of person they'll become.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:GEE EACH PERSON IS DIFFERENT FROM THE NEXT? WHAT A BREAKTHROUGH:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
We're not talking about individuals, we're talking about groups. In this case, members of one group are ON AVERAGE 1 SD less intelligent than THE AVERAGE members of another group. Obviously there are some pants on head retarded white people and some brilliant Black ones. Neither I, nor Sanchez, nor even the aptly named Negrophobe will deny this. All we are saying is that their is enough of a difference to warrant separation.
I'm wondering if JAA is one of those guys who believes all humans share 99% of their DNA with each other, which was shown to be incorrect in 2006. On the contrary most anthropologists support the idea of race and are calling for an end to race denial and racial differences.
http://www.yelp.com/topic/san-francisco-new-human-gene-map-shows-surprising-differences
By Bruce Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein
Nature
8 October 2009
Science is finding evidence of genetic diversity among groups of people as well as among individuals. This discovery should be embraced, not feared, say Bruce T. Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein.
A growing body of data is revealing the nature of human genetic diversity at increasingly finer resolution. It is now recognized that despite the high degree of genetic similarities that bind humanity together as a species, considerable diversity exists at both individual and group levels (see box, page 728). The biological significance of these variations remains to be explored fully. But enough evidence has come to the fore to warrant the question: what if scientific data ultimately demonstrate that genetically based biological variation exists at non-trivial levels not only among individuals but also among groups? In our view, the scientific community and society at large are ill-prepared for such a possibility. We need a moral response to this question that is robust irrespective of what research uncovers about human diversity. Here, we argue for the moral position that genetic diversity, from within or among groups, should be embraced and celebrated as one of humanity's chief assets.
The current moral position is a sort of 'biological egalitarianism'. This dominant position emerged in recent decades largely to correct grave historical injustices, including genocide, that were committed with the support of pseudoscientific understandings of group diversity. The racial-hygiene theory promoted by German geneticists Fritz Lenz, Eugene Fischer and others during the Nazi era is one notorious example of such pseudoscience. Biological egalitarianism is the view that no or almost no meaningful genetically based biological differences exist among human groups, with the exception of a few superficial traits such as skin colour. Proponents of this view seem to hope that, by promoting biological sameness, discrimination against groups or individuals will become groundless.
We believe that this position, although well intentioned, is illogical and even dangerous, as it implies that if significant group diversity were established, discrimination might thereby be justified. We reject this position. Equality of opportunity and respect for human dignity should be humankind's common aspirations, notwithstanding human differences no matter how big or small. We also think that biological egalitarianism may not remain viable in light of the growing body of empirical data.
Many people may acknowledge the possibility of genetic diversity at the group level, but see it as a threat to social cohesion. Some scholars have even called for a halt to research into the topic or sensitive aspects of it, because of potential misuse of the information. Others will ask: if information on group diversity can be misused, why not just focus on individual differences and ignore any group variation? We strongly affirm that society must guard vigilantly against any misuse of genetic information, but we also believe that the best defence is to take a positive attitude towards diversity, including that at the group level. We argue for our position from two perspectives: first, that the understanding of group diversity can benefit research and medicine, and second, that human genetic diversity as a whole, including group diversity, greatly enriches our species.
[...]
Box 2. Emerging understanding of human genetic diversity
Genetic diversity is the differences in DNA sequence among members of a species. It is present in all species owing to the interplay of mutation, genetic drift, selection and population structure. When a species is reproductively isolated into multiple groups by geography or other means, the groups differentiate over time in their average genetic make-up.
Anatomically modern humans first appeared in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. Some members migrated out of Africa by 50,000 years ago to populate Asia, Australia, Europe and eventually the Americas. During this period, geographic barriers separated humanity into several major groups, largely along continental lines, which greatly reduced gene flow among them. Geographic and cultural barriers also existed within major groups, although to lesser degrees.
This history of human demography, along with selection, has resulted in complex patterns of genetic diversity. The basic unit of this diversity is polymorphisms — specific sites in the genome that exist in multiple variant forms (or alleles). Many polymorphisms involve just one or a few nucleotides, but some may involve large segments of genetic material. The presence of polymorphisms leads to genetic diversity at the individual level such that no two people's DNA is the same, except identical twins. The alleles of some polymorphisms are also found in significantly different frequencies among geographic groups. An extreme example is the pigmentation gene SLC24A5. An allele of SLC24A5 that contributes to light pigmentation is present in almost all Europeans but is nearly absent in east Asians and Africans.
Given these geographically differentiated polymorphisms, it is possible to group humans on the basis of their genetic make-up. Such grouping largely confirms historical separation of global populations by geography. Indeed, a person's major geographic group identity can be assigned with near certaintly on the basis of his or her DNA alone (now an accepted practice in forensics). There is growing evidence that some of the geographically differentiated polymorphisms are functional, meaning that they can lead to different biological outcomes (just how many is the subject of ongoing research). These polymorphisms can affect traits such as pigmentation, dietary adaptation and pathogen resistance (where evidence is rather convincing), and metabolism, physical development and brain biology (where evidence is more preliminary).
For most biological traits, genetically based differentiation among groups is probably negligible compared with the variation within the group. For other traits, such as pigmentation and lactose intolerance, differences among groups are so substantial that the trait displays an inter-group difference that is non-trivial compared with the variance within groups, and the extreme end of a trait may be significantly over-represented in a group.
Several studies have shown that many genes in the human genome may have undergone recent episodes of positive selection — that is, selection for advantageous biological traits. This is contrary to the position advocated by some scholars that humans effectively stopped evolving 50,000–40,000 years ago. In general, positive selection can increase the prevalence of functional polymorphisms and create geographic differentiation of allele frequencies.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7265/full/461726a.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7265/box/461726a_BX1.html
See also, this.
Just because individual variation can exceed that of the mean of a race, or breed, or subspecies, or species doesn't negate the group difference.
By the leftist reasoning, since some individuals gorillas are smarter than some individual humans, differences between humans and gorillas don't matter.
There are individual differences AND there are group differences. Evolution itself is not just individual survival but the survival of distinct gene pools.
Even though we share a big portion of our DNA with chimps, doesn't make us chimps either. But I don't see anyone debating that fact. In fact humans share 90% of their genes with mice, which is why we can use them to test drug therapies. Similarly, although men and women are almost genetically identical, it is foolish to believe that sex is just a “social construction” and there aren't differences in behaviour, attitudes, size and intelligence.
They're also poorer on average and have less education. On average they also have poorer situations in terms of family. There are a lot of things that you could say are responsible for the behavior of some blacks, but I don't think just being black is it.
u gettin trolled:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o
Uh huh, and whose fault is the shitty situation of the blacks
HERE IT COMES
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/RandRProgressIntell2003.pdf
Their smaller brain size along with their higher estradiol levels can explain their chimpout like behaviour, irrationality and the fact most of them are "on the down-low" (gay/bi-sexual) and their lower intelligence.
I have already posted statistics to refute that socio-economic argument of yours.
I wouldn't put it quite that way.
If it's not the niggers' fault, then whose is it?
Fuck, I don't know. What's with all the questions?
So we've passed excuses and hypocrisy, now comes the second to last defense in the liberal arsenal, deflection. This, of course, is followed by ad hominem in 100% of cases.
lol
This is their own fault. Take African country's for example. Instead of saying hey let's come together and make this country great you have warlords fighting and killing over small bits of land.
One big problem with the liberal mindset is the idea that personal responsibility means nothing. Generally this comes from being born pretty well off so at some point you decide that since you had it good theirs no way the nigger can succeed on his own and their failure must be the fault of others.