You want racism? I'll give you racism

[popinjay]

This is racism. Not the bullshit from BillB, this is REAL racism. Make sure the sound is on and listen to this man. Can you picture BillB sitting among this crowd? I don't think so. His asshole would be puckered, I'll tellya that. This would scare the fuck out of BillB. Gives a whole new meaning to the word racism.

Make sure you turn the audio on.

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/970369282562494464

[BillB]

It's pretty hard to classify what's happening in South Africa as just "racism". I see it more as retaliation. Seriously, what did white people *think* would happen if they ever lost their illegitimate grip on power and could no longer control black people through their brutal reign of oppression and abuse? You know what they say...payback is a bitch.

[BillB]

By the way, the type is "bullshit" racism I talk about is pure, unadulterated, unjustified racism. It's the type of racism where you call the person with the inferior resume in for a job interview, simply because his name didn't sound black like the other guy.

The fact that you call that "bullshit" is the very best example of real racism in this thread.

[Mossingen]

"BillB" wrote in message
news:baf3b375-c818-4de6...@googlegroups.com...

____________________



You don't think the black guy in the video posted by paul, standing before
an audience with a microphone, urging them to kill and injure white people
because they are white, qualifies as racism?

You can argue that the guy has a good reason to feel the way that he does,
but that's not really an excuse to mischaracterize his message as being
non-racist. If you can justify that, then on what basis do you condemn the
white government for instituting apartheid?

[BillB]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 12:03:57 PM UTC-8, Mossingen wrote:

> You don't think the black guy in the video posted by paul, standing before
> an audience with a microphone, urging them to kill and injure white people
> because they are white, qualifies as racism?

I'm sorry, I didn't watch the video. I clicked play and nothing happened. Is he saying that stuff simply because they are white, or is it something they did as unified political group? I think it's probably more the latter. Of course, at this point it's probably hard to separate the two.

> You can argue that the guy has a good reason to feel the way that he does,
> but that's not really an excuse to mischaracterize his message as being
> non-racist.

I just don't think it is race-based hate per se. I think it is much more a case revenge-based hate against people who happen to be white. When a group of people who happen to be white oppress, brutalize and steal from your people for generations, how do you attribute reciprocal hatred to "racism"? It just doesn't seem like a very realistic characterization to me. I think it's more a case of hatred against a political group for (justified) political reasons.

> If you can justify that, then on what basis do you condemn the
> white government for instituting apartheid?

Apartheid was racism. It was motivated by an irrational hatred of people based solely on skin color. What did black people do to deserve that? What was the justification? There was none, that I know of. Can you think of a valid justification for what occurred during apartheid?

[fffurken]

On Monday, 5 March 2018 20:29:44 UTC, BillB wrote:

> I just don't think it is race-based hate per se. I think it is much more a case revenge-based hate against people who happen to be white.

lol That's because you're a filthy fucking racist, yourself. How long is it going to take you to understand this?

And of course, you spew all your racist hatred from a place with no blacks. Like Clam, you've only ever seen black people (or Moslems) in pictures. But even Clam isn't really anywhere near as racist as you are.

[popinjay]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 10:04:46 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:



>

> It's pretty hard to classify what's happening in South Africa as just "racism". I see it more as retaliation. Seriously, what did white people *think* would happen if they ever lost their illegitimate grip on power and could no longer control black people through their brutal reign of oppression and abuse? You know what they say...payback is a bitch.

White people were there FIRST, you fucking asshole. They built their home out of nothing, nothing but hard work. It's THEIR land, their home, for GENERATIONS. The Bantus came LATER. You jerk.

Yeah the blacks were so oppressed that they swarmed INTO South Africa by the millions. Figure that one out, idiot. The whites brought with them European-style farming ideas and turned the land into their own paradise. The blacks, whose average IQ is between 70-80, didn't know how to do shit, except literally throw spears at people. Maybe hence the name spearchucker. Stupid fucks still don't know how to farm the land. In their own areas where whites are NOT ALLOWED, the blacks ruin the land. They don't know about rotating crops. Ah, fuck you.

[popinjay]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 12:29:44 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:



>
> Apartheid was racism. It was motivated by an irrational hatred of people based solely on skin color. What did black people do to deserve that? What was the justification? There was none, that I know of. Can you think of a valid justification for what occurred during apartheid?

It's not slavery, it's not hate, you asshat, it's separate development. The whites came FIRST, built a modern paradise, and the blacks came later, with IQs between 70-80, knowing nothing about how to form a modern government or modern farming technique. There was nothing taken from the blacks. It's been the whites' land from the beginning, at the same time our own Pilgrims were establishing this country. Now there have been hundreds of whites attacked and murdered in the last two months. And they voted last Tuesday to TAKE their land, without compensation. A fate that only someone like you deserve.

[BillB]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 12:50:09 PM UTC-8, popinjay wrote:

> It's not slavery, it's not hate, you asshat, it's separate development.

You obviously know VERY LITTLE (i.e. nothing) about Apartheid, which is forgivable considering your education level.

> The whites came FIRST...[snip remainder based on this false premise]

Absolute lie. Lies are UNforgivable.

"Both the San (hunter-gatherers) and the Khoi Khoi (pastoralists) are believed to have lived in southern Africa for 2 000 years. But with the arrival of European settlers they not only rapidly lost many of their people (smallpox and war) but they lost claims to any and all of their land; land that not even the Land Restitution Act of 1994 made provision for them to reclaim. They lost land long before the cut-off date of 1913."

[fffurken]

On Monday, 5 March 2018 20:50:09 UTC, popinjay wrote:

> And they voted last Tuesday to TAKE their land, without compensation. A fate that only someone like you deserve.

Hear, hear

[popinjay]

The San and Khoi Khoi did not swarm into South Africa by the millions after white people built a paradise, it was Bantus, you stupid fuck, you just helped my argument, dumb ass. It's not San and Khoi Khoi who are murdering white farmers and trying to turn the country into a communist wasteland.

Thank you for showing your true ignorance. Shapeshifter asshole.

[popinjay]

And by the way, if you didn't just look up on google about the khoi khoi only minutes ago then I will kiss your lying ass in front of Surrey City Hall. You don't know shit about South Africa and its history. I only wish you were stuck there now to find out all about it.

[risky biz]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 12:03:57 PM UTC-8, Mossingen wrote:

He didn't in that video urge anyone to kill and injure white people. That's a pure fabrication on your part. It seems you have some kind of issue in how you deal with factual information.

> You can argue that the guy has a good reason to feel the way that he does,
> but that's not really an excuse to mischaracterize his message as being
> non-racist. If you can justify that, then on what basis do you condemn the
> white government for instituting apartheid?

First of all, Julius Malema is not the South African government. Just to clarify what we're talking about here. The current South African government includes whites. Did the apartheid South African government include blacks? In

Additionally, South African authorities have charged and convicted him for violating 'hate speech' laws. So, maybe he is a racist. And the Wikipedia description of him sounds a lot like Donald Trump right down to the stinky financial dealings.

`````````````
'Less favourable portraits paint him as a "reckless populist" with the potential to destabilise South Africa and to spark racial conflict.[5]

Malema was convicted of hate speech in March 2010[6][7][8] and again in September 2011.[9] In November 2011 he was found guilty of sowing divisions within the ANC and, in conjunction with his two-year suspended sentence in May 2010, was suspended from the party for five years.[10] In 2011, he was also convicted of hate speech after singing "Dubula iBunu" ("Shoot the Boer"). On 4 February 2012 the appeal committee of the African National Congress announced that it found no reason to "vary" a decision of the disciplinary committee taken in 2011,[11] but did find evidence in aggravation of circumstances, leading them to impose the harsher sentence of expulsion from the ANC.

On 25 April 2012 Malema lost an appeal to have his expulsion from the ANC overturned; as this exhausted his final appeal, his expulsion took immediate effect. In September 2012 he was charged with fraud and money-laundering.[12]'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Malema


```````````````

Here's some input about land expropriation in South Africa:

Codrington advised his “white South African friends” that that this would not be “the first time the South African government has taken land without paying for it”.

“In fact, it’s at least the fifteenth time the government of South Africa has passed laws to take land.

“Please do us a favour: if your ancestors did not comment about the previous fifteen times the government took land (and I am guessing that, like mine, they did not), then right now would be a good time to be quiet for a bit and listen.

“Not forever. Just for a bit. And then calmly contribute to the conversation over the next few weeks and months in an attempt to find a solution that helps everyone.”

Here is the list of laws he details as having taken land from non-white people in recent history:

The Glen Grey act of 1894 (Under Cecil John Rhodes)
The Native Land Act of 1913 (Act 27)
The Transvaal Asiatic Land Tenure of 1930
The Riotous Assemblies Act 19 – 1930
The Asiatic Immigration Amendment Act of 1931
The Native Service Contracts Act of 1932
The Native Trust and Land Act of 1936 (Act 18)
The Slums Act of 1934
The Development Trust and Land Act of 1936 (Act 18)
The Rural Dealers Licensing Act of 1935.
The Representation of Blacks Act 12 of 1936.
The Black (Native) Laws Amendment Act 46 of 1937
The Pegging Act of 1946
The Group Areas Act of 1950 (Act. 41)

He concluded by writing that none of these laws went “back too far” as “the first of these Acts were passed in my grandmother’s lifetime”, so it would not be valid to “moan about ‘how far back do we have to go'”.
https://citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/1843617/graeme-codrington-goes-viral-for-comments-on-land-expropriation/

[risky biz]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 12:29:44 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:

> On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 12:03:57 PM UTC-8, Mossingen wrote:
>
> > You don't think the black guy in the video posted by paul, standing before
> > an audience with a microphone, urging them to kill and injure white people
> > because they are white, qualifies as racism?
>
> I'm sorry, I didn't watch the video. I clicked play and nothing happened. Is he saying that stuff simply because they are white, or is it something they did as unified political group? I think it's probably more the latter. Of course, at this point it's probably hard to separate the two.

He never said in that clip what Hankins claims he did. Hankins just fabricated it.

[popinjay]

And what do you think Bantu peoples did to Khoi?

[fffurken]

Now you should know how it feels Paul when this guy endlessly lies/defends Moslems and Islam.

--
"I just don't think it is race-based hate per se. I think it is much more a case revenge-based hate against people who happen to be white." - The Canadian racist

[popinjay]

Savage animals, including the president, singing about killing white people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHLTKZ05zM4


Mandella singing about killing the whites.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKiePbTcAfY

[popinjay]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 1:47:25 PM UTC-8, fffurken wrote:
> Now you should know how it feels Paul when this guy endlessly lies/defends Moslems and Islam.
>

Here is a video of Mandella and Fidel Castro, bffs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Abqg7iNab8

One of the biggest injustices in history is that these two vicious murderers died a peaceful death of old age. No justice.

[BillB]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 1:22:28 PM UTC-8, popinjay wrote:

> The San and Khoi Khoi did not swarm into South Africa by the millions after white people built a paradise, it was Bantus, you stupid fuck, you just helped >my argument, dumb ass.

lol...I didn't help your argument; I demolished it. Your "argument" (i.e false claim) was that "White people were there FIRST." That is an absolute lie, and you know it.

It doesn't matter if you build the biggest, most beautiful mansion in architectural history when you build it on stolen land. If law and justice catch up with you, it's all going to be taken away.

In any event, whites encountered and initiated war with Bantu-speaking people at least as early as the mid-18th century. There can be no question by any person with a sense of justice that the Bantu claim to African land than a bunch of cruel Dutch invaders that arrived by ship and took over by force.

>It's not San and Khoi Khoi who are murdering white farmers and trying to turn >the country into a communist wasteland.
>
> Thank you for showing your true ignorance. Shapeshifter asshole.

You were the one showing astonishing ignorance by claiming that white people were in South Africa before black people. LOLOL!

[BillB]

I was studying African anthropology in one of the world's greatest universities while you were cooling your 8th grade educated heels in a California prison cell.

[popinjay]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 2:47:17 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:



>
> In any event, whites encountered and initiated war with Bantu-speaking people at least as early as the mid-18th century.

LOL, shapeshifting dope, the Dutch were there in the 1600s. Dumbass.

[Bill Vanek]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 13:49:42 -0800 (PST), popinjay
<paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Mandella singing about killing the whites.

Uh, that's *Saint* Mandela to you, mister. Show some fucking respect,
or some Hollywood types might hunt *you* down and maybe teach you
something about alternative uses for tires.

[Popzilla]

On Mon, 05 Mar 2018 14:49:14 -0800, BillB wrote:


>
> I was studying African anthropology in one of the world's greatest
> universities while you were cooling your 8th grade educated heels in a
> California prison cell.

You were buying weed in a bad area of Vancouver only two weeks ago. So
much for that alleged higher education, you're just another lowlife
druggie now. You should have paid attention to this message.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYXh7Wwl7bE

[BillB]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 2:56:44 PM UTC-8, popinjay wrote:
> > In any event, whites encountered and initiated war with Bantu-speaking people at least as early as the mid-18th century.
>

> LOL, shapeshifting dope, the Dutch were there in the 1600s. Dumbass.

So? Please stop pretending you have anything to teach about this subject. You don't. The white people were not in Africa first. Stop being a moron.

The whites stole the land. There is no historical dispute about that. Then they committed crimes against humanity to maintain their wealth and power. The only complication is the so-called "paradise" they built on the stolen land (through violence and oppression) and what entitlement that should provide them. I say none.

Actually, it's ironic that Malema takes a softer line than I do. Despite being in favor of redistribution without compensation, he does seem willing to consider leasing some of the farmland back to the white farmers under 50 and 100 year leases in cases where failure to do so could raise serious economic or food security issues. It seems like he is bending over backwards to be fair.

[Bill Vanek]

It seems like he is admitting that the blacks cannot be trusted to
safely produce food, and that the whites are needed to do that right.
Ironic, eh?

[Popzilla]

The whites didn't steal nothing from no one. It was open land. No
blacks, no nobody on the land they settled. You are a disgrace to white
people, you are a disgrace to all people. You are essentially supporting
the use of a blow torch to torture and kill a 70-year old white woman,
because that is what's happening right now over there, by the hundreds,
and it's happening every day. Fuck you.

[BillB]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 3:34:28 PM UTC-8, Bill Vanek wrote:


> It seems like he is admitting that the blacks cannot be trusted to
> safely produce food, and that the whites are needed to do that right.
> Ironic, eh?

Not really "ironic". He is just acknowledging the fact that whites didn't only steal land and brutally and violently oppress blacks, but they also deprived them of hundreds of years worth of social development, education and institutional knowledge. That is why affirmative action exists in the US.

[BillB]

No, I don't support using blowtorches on 70-year-old women. Stop being silly.

I think all social reform should all be accomplished through constitutional amendment and the existing rule of law. Perhaps the best solution would be to allow the white farmers stay on as paid field hands, so they can gradually impart their agricultural knowledge on the new class of black landowners. They could be paid the same wage as they paid their black farm laborers, plus a 10% premium. I'm sure they'd be happy with that.

[Popzilla]

On Mon, 05 Mar 2018 15:52:27 -0800, BillB wrote:



>
> I think all social reform should all be accomplished through
> constitutional amendment and the existing rule of law. Perhaps the best
> solution would be to allow the white farmers stay on as paid field
> hands, so they can gradually impart their agricultural knowledge on the
> new class of black landowners. They could be paid the same wage as they
> paid their black farm laborers, plus a 10% premium. I'm sure they'd be
> happy with that.

But there already are black land owners, black farmers. And they can't
cut it. It is a well documented fact that the average black IQ there is
between 70-80. Look it up. It's true. And Zimbabwe kicked the whites
out 30 years ago, the blacks have had all that land to themselves since
then. How's that working out? Huh, college graduate? Tell me.
Zimbabwe must be very prosperous now with all those blacks running things
by themselves. Answer that, dickface.

[BillB]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 4:28:22 PM UTC-8, popinjay wrote:

> But there already are black land owners, black farmers. And they can't
> cut it. It is a well documented fact that the average black IQ there is
> between 70-80. Look it up. It's true.

It can't be much higher for the Trump voters in flyover red states, and they seem to be able to grow stuff.

They'll figure it out. It might take a few decades, but they'll get there.

There's a fundamental flaw in your argument. You seem to be suggesting that just because you can utilize a asset better than I can, that gives you the right to steal it from me. That's not a tenable position.

[risky biz]

The videos translate 'bhulu (Boer)' as 'whites', which is incorrect. In the one with Mandela there's a WHITE guy standing next to him singing the song.

[boredto...@rock.com]

> the average black IQ there is between 70-80.

If that average is correct, wouldn't there have to be a 'world record' number of retards in that region? I just looked it up, and an IQ of 69 in considered 'mild' retardation.

[popinjay]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 5:19:56 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:



> In the one with Mandela there's a WHITE guy standing next to him singing the song.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Slovo

[popinjay]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 5:51:32 PM UTC-8, boredto...@rock.com wrote:





>
> If that average is correct, wouldn't there have to be a 'world record' number of retards in that region?

No, that would be the second highest, Vancouver, British Columbia holds the record.

[BillB]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 5:51:32 PM UTC-8, boredto...@rock.com wrote:

> > the average black IQ there is between 70-80.
>
> If that average is correct, wouldn't there have to be a 'world record' number of retards in that region? I just looked it up, and an IQ of 69 in considered 'mild' retardation.

Right. Only about 2% of white Americans have an IQ of 70 or less. So he's literally saying the the *average* sub-Saharan African is almost as dumb as someone like a vanek or a furkin. It's not even remotely possible. If that were the case all of Africa would be a shithole.

These cross continental IQ studies have been shown to be completely bogus. When sub-Saharan Africans integrate into a Western society (and enjoy all the benefits that go along with that) the IQ scores rocket upward within one generation. All the low IQs prove is that the testing is heavily culturally biased.

[popinjay]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 6:06:24 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:




> If that were the case all of Africa would be a shithole.
>

And your point?

[Mossingen]

"BillB" wrote in message
news:476836d9-097d-4b26...@googlegroups.com...

>Apartheid was racism. It was motivated by an irrational hatred of people
>based solely on skin color. What did black people do to deserve that? What
>was the justification? There was none, that >I know of. Can you think of a
>valid justification for what occurred during apartheid?

No. Which is why your statements in this thread are so odd. The guy in the
video is simply the flip-side of it, same rationale, same hate, same agenda
against a peoples based solely on skin color; yet, you seem to justify it or
view it as non-racist.

[BillB]

It's not the same. The black guy hates the whites because they organized around that whiteness to inflict horror on the local black population for hundreds of years. I think the skin color is incidental; he'd hate them if they were yellow, purple or blue. He hates them for what they've done, not for what the color of their skin. I don't ever recommend hate (I think it is self-destructive), but hating a group of people because they have brutalized your people for hundreds of years isn't quite the same as hating a group of people because they don't look like you.

If you walked down the same busy street every day, and every time any black person passed you, he punched you in the head, pretty soon you're going to have a strong aversion to black people. I don't think that's racism. Do you?

[popinjay]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 8:00:05 PM UTC-8, Mossingen wrote:

False premise. There WAS a valid justification for apartheid. And it had nothing to do with hate. Whites did not hate blacks, but the blacks were not qualified to live on an equal plane with the whites. The whites were sophisticated, in form of government, farming methods, engineering, manufacturing, etc. And the blacks? They knew how to throw spears, dig worms out of the ground, kill other blacks, etc. There are VAST differences, and despite what Bill the Racist says, the whites DID come first, they seized the land from NO ONE, they developed the land and built a modern nation. They established areas FOR the blacks. Blacks had their own government, the freedom to do what they wanted, in their own homelands. Apartheid was about separate development, not "hate". BillB is totally full of shit.

What would you do if you and your ancestors had established your OWN home, worked hard to modernize it and run things the way your people liked, and then because of your success millions of people from other lands started flocking to your land by the millions, with their differences, their lower IQ, their backwards ways, what would YOU do? Would you give them all the same privileges that you worked to enjoy? Would you give these people the right to vote? C'mon, be reasonable.

[Bill Vanek]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:21:26 -0800 (PST), BillB
<williamb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>If you walked down the same busy street every day, and every time any black person passed you, he punched you in the head, pretty soon you're going to have a strong aversion to black people. I don't think that's racism. Do you?

You mean like the knockout game? Good point! I'll bet a lot (more) of
people did develop an aversion to black people over that one!

Finally we agree on something.

[BillB]

I said every one, not one in a million.

[Bill Vanek]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:48:49 -0800 (PST), popinjay
<paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>What would you do if you and your ancestors had established your OWN home, worked hard to modernize it and run things the way your people liked, and then because of your success millions of people from other lands started flocking to your land by the millions, with their differences, their lower IQ, their backwards ways, what would YOU do? Would you give them all the same privileges that you worked to enjoy?

If I were a Progressive, I'd give them even more. Welfare, a place to
live, free food, free indoctrination (commonly referred to as
"schooling"), the list goes on. If you're "undocumented", you win!

> Would you give these people the right to vote? C'mon, be reasonable.

They're trying.

[popinjay]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 8:21:36 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:



>
because they organized around that whiteness to inflict horror on the local black population for hundreds of years.

That's why MILLIONS of blacks came INTO South Africa at the peak of Apartheid. They did not flee apartheid, they JOINED apartheid. You couldn't keep them out. Blacks WANTED TO LIVE IN SOUTH AFRICA'S APARTHEID, you dumb mutherfucker.

Explain that, fucknose.

YOU'RE JUST A FUCKING LIAR. STOP LYING.

EAT ZULU SHIT AND DIE, MUTHERFUCKER.

[Bill Vanek]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:56:14 -0800 (PST), BillB

<williamb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 8:51:59 PM UTC-8, Bill Vanek wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:21:26 -0800 (PST), BillB
>> <williamb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If you walked down the same busy street every day, and every time any black person passed you, he punched you in the head, pretty soon you're going to have a strong aversion to black people. I don't think that's racism. Do you?
>>
>> You mean like the knockout game? Good point! I'll bet a lot (more) of
>> people did develop an aversion to black people over that one!
>>
>> Finally we agree on something.
>
>I said every one, not one in a million.

I know what you said. Every last word you write makes you look more
childish. Soon you'll be back to pre-school.

[BillB]

Yes, I must seem very childish to you for being against Apartheid. After all, it was just "separate development". Nothing wrong with that, right? lol What a coupla idiots.

[Bill Vanek]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 21:10:01 -0800 (PST), BillB

I am wondering one thing - why would anyone keep walking down that
same street, if he knew he'd get punched in the head every time? You'd
have to be kinda dumb, dontcha think?

[popinjay]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 9:10:14 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:



>
> Yes, I must seem very childish to you for being against Apartheid. After all, it was just "separate development". Nothing wrong with that, right? lol What a coupla idiots.

In 1904 1 million whites, 3 million blacks.

IN 1969. Census figures from wiki. 4 million whites, 10 million Bantus!

In 2011, Still only 4 million whites. And 40 fucking million blacks.

Apartheid must have been horrible, and blacks must have been stupid, because millions of blacks WANTED to come to Apartheid. You have nothing to say. If you don't know, then don't post.

[risky biz]

Jews aren't white? And it says he had 'a fierce non-racialism stance'.

[risky biz]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 6:06:24 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:

'A growing share of blacks are completing high school and college. For the first time in U.S. history, 90% of Americans ages 25 and older have completed high school, according to the U.S. Census Bureau – and the share of blacks who have done so is also at the highest level on record. In 2017, 87% of blacks ages 25 and older had a high school diploma or equivalent.'
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/02/22/5-facts-about-blacks-in-the-u-s/

[BillB]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 9:26:21 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:

>In 2017, 87% of blacks ages 25 and older had a high school diploma or equivalent.'

Vanek also has a diploma. He was bragging about that the other day. lol

[Clave]

You mean if it was like one of only a few roads (or maybe the only road)
to the grocery store? Or school? Or church? Or polling booth?

You are *SUCH* an asshole.

[Clave]

I'll bet it's a GED. I mean, good on him if he got it, I just highly
doubt he got it in one try.

[popinjay]

I didn't link that because he is Jewish. I didn't even know he was Jewish. I don't give a fuck whether he is Jewish. They're all stinking communists. Communism transcends race.

This is not a white-black issue. It is a red versus everyone issue. All the blacks in power now are communists. That was the goal from way back, before I even heard of Nelson Mandela. That's why the "world community" was having fits about apartheid when I first learned of it in the late 70s - early 80s. Even though at that time apartheid was already being dismantled, and human rights in the communist countries was quite low, but the world community was silent on that. At the time, blacks in South Africa had a higher standard of living than whites in the Soviet Union, and more automobiles.

It was the same thing with Rhodesia. The world community was having fits about the whites there, and calling for an end to white rule, and calling for "one-man-one-vote". Every day it was in the news. Then the country fell to the communists. Suddenly it was not in the news anymore.

[Clave]

On 3/5/2018 9:48 PM, Clave wrote:

> You mean if it was like one of only a few roads (or maybe the only road)
> to the grocery store?  Or school?  Or church?  Or polling booth?
>
> You are *SUCH* an asshole.

See, by Vanek's "reasoning", black people are *asking* to get punched in
the head for walking down streets where violent low-IQ white criminals
think they can just get away with things like that.

The blacks are the real offenders, being "kinda dumb" for not knowing
their place, amirite?

Those white "fine folks" are the real victims, their sense of peace and
superiority threatened by blacks...well, *EXISTING* right there in front
of them on THEIR WHITE STREETS, leaving them NO CHOICE but to punch
those uppity blacks in the head and maybe kick them to death.

You want racism? There it fucking is.

And Vanek is grinning ear-to-ear proud of it.

And some of you talk to him seriously.

[fffurken]

On Tuesday, 6 March 2018 05:47:06 UTC, Clave wrote:

https://tinyurl.com/y8kxtz93

[popinjay]

Fffurken, I saw on Alex Jones that he was being accused of wrongly saying Soros had been a Nazi collaborator, so I went to google to find the actual video of the 60 Minutes interview where Soros admits that he escaped the gas showers by claiming to be Christian when he was 14 and then he helped his mentor collect valuables from the Jews that did go to the box cars. When I googled it, the very first thing that came up was a Snopes article that referred to the same claim about Soros, and, are you ready for this, Snopes said FALSE. What the fuck, Soros actually admitted it, and it's on video.

SNOPES IS FOR DOPES!

[Bill Vanek]

On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 00:05:48 -0800 (PST), fffurken <fffu...@mail.com>
wrote:

I bet Clave used to get beat up on the way to school. 5 year-old
hippies just weren't welcome there.

[Clave]

On 3/6/2018 8:37 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 00:05:48 -0800 (PST), fffurken <fffu...@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 6 March 2018 05:47:06 UTC, Clave wrote:
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/y8kxtz93
>>
>>> You mean if it was like one of only a few roads (or maybe the only road)
>>> to the grocery store? Or school? Or church? Or polling booth?
>>>
>>> You are *SUCH* an asshole.
>
> I bet Clave

Interesting that you don't have a rational reply.

[Mossingen]

"BillB" wrote in message
news:939dd99d-39d1-4ad6...@googlegroups.com...

>If you walked down the same busy street every day, and every time any black
>person passed you, he punched you in the head, pretty soon you're going to
>have a strong aversion to black >people. I don't think that's racism. Do
>you?

Well, that's a good question, isn't it? Your rationale would seem to
support racial profiling, something that you've condemned here in the past.
You're getting tied up in knots here, Bill.

I would probably have a strong aversion to people who punched me in the head
and try to figure out why they are doing it. It probably has nothing to do
with skin pigmentation and a lot to do with cultural or other factors. It's
easy to fall into that trap of just ascribing evil to every black person,
which is what racists do, Bill. And you seem to suggest that there is
nothing wrong with that. It's so odd.

[Mossingen]

"BillB" wrote in message
news:4179b193-fffe-4a7e...@googlegroups.com...

>Yes, I must seem very childish to you for being against Apartheid. After
>all, it was just "separate development". Nothing wrong with that, right?
>lol What a coupla idiots.

No one is arguing in favor of apartheid. We're pointing out to you that
oppressed blacks who lash out with violence against white people, on the
basis that they are white and nothing more, are themselves advocating a
virulent form of racism.

This is actually interesting. Your liberal brain is so wracked with white
guilt and you are so paranoid about being labeled a racist yourself, you
actually seem to condone oppressed minorities reacting with violence on the
basis of skin color. This is the type of political correctness that is
paralyzing otherwise rational people.

In your example of me walking down the street and being punched by every
black person who walked by, would I be justified in punching the next black
person that I saw, solely because that person was black and I'm angry; or
would I be justified in calling a meeting of my friends and organizing a
lynch party of the first blacks we saw to get even? You seem to suggest
that those actions would be acceptable to you.

[Seymore4Head]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 17:51:21 -0800 (PST), boredto...@rock.com

wrote:

>> the average black IQ there is between 70-80.
>
>If that average is correct, wouldn't there have to be a 'world record' number of retards in that region? I just looked it up, and an IQ of 69 in considered 'mild' retardation.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/07/02/black-children-denied-iq-tests-in-california.html

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 9:10:22 AM UTC-8, Mossingen wrote:
> "BillB" wrote in message
> news:4179b193-fffe-4a7e...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
> >Yes, I must seem very childish to you for being against Apartheid. After
> >all, it was just "separate development". Nothing wrong with that, right?
> >lol What a coupla idiots.
>
>
> No one is arguing in favor of apartheid. We're pointing out to you that
> oppressed blacks who lash out with violence against white people, on the
> basis that they are white and nothing more, are themselves advocating a
> virulent form of racism.

No one in that video advocated lashing out with violence against white people. You're lying about that.

[BillB]

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 9:04:21 AM UTC-8, Mossingen wrote:
> "BillB" wrote in message
> news:939dd99d-39d1-4ad6...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
> >If you walked down the same busy street every day, and every time any black
> >person passed you, he punched you in the head, pretty soon you're going to
> >have a strong aversion to black >people. I don't think that's racism. Do
> >you?
>
>
> Well, that's a good question, isn't it? Your rationale would seem to
> support racial profiling, something that you've condemned here in the past.
> You're getting tied up in knots here, Bill.

I'm not getting tied up in knots. You are just lacking in the logic skills to follow along. Obviously, I would be for racial profiling if 100% of people of a certain race committed a certain act. That's not "profiling". Racial profiling is where you single out a certain race because 2% of the people of that race commit a certain act rather than 1% of the general population. See the difference? In the first case you aren't singling out any innocent people, whereas in the second case 98% of the people you single out are innocent.

Now stop trying to divert by pretending I would ever say anything inconsistent or illogical. it has never happened, and it never will.

> I would probably have a strong aversion to people who punched me in the head
> and try to figure out why they are doing it. It probably has nothing to do
> with skin pigmentation and a lot to do with cultural or other factors. It's
> easy to fall into that trap of just ascribing evil to every black person,
> which is what racists do, Bill. And you seem to suggest that there is
> nothing wrong with that. It's so odd.

You aren't answering the question directly. I'll answer it for you. Yes, after a while you would notice that every black person (or red-headed person, or persons wearing blue scarves...the identifier does not matter to the hypothetical) punches you, and you would develop a strong dislike of those people. No, that would not be racism. It would be common sense.

[BillB]

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 9:10:22 AM UTC-8, Mossingen wrote:

> No one is arguing in favor of apartheid.

Uh, have you not read Paul's post? He's justifying it all the way.

We're pointing out to you that
> oppressed blacks who lash out with violence against white people, on the
> basis that they are white and nothing more, are themselves advocating a
> virulent form of racism.

I am telling you it not because they are "white". That is incidental. They are lashing out at a political group that violently abused them that happens to be white. It is the whites that organized politically around their whiteness.

> This is actually interesting. Your liberal brain is so wracked with white
> guilt and you are so paranoid about being labeled a racist yourself, you
> actually seem to condone oppressed minorities reacting with violence on the
> basis of skin color. This is the type of political correctness that is
> paralyzing otherwise rational people.
>
> In your example of me walking down the street and being punched by every
> black person who walked by, would I be justified in punching the next black
> person that I saw, solely because that person was black and I'm angry;

Yes, you would. After a while you would realize with 99.999% certainty that that next black person you see coming toward you is part of an army that wants to harm you. I would say you are justified in proactively defending yourself.

or
> would I be justified in calling a meeting of my friends and organizing a
> lynch party of the first blacks we saw to get even? You seem to suggest
> that those actions would be acceptable to you.

Yes, in my HYPOTHETICAL, where 100% of blacks physically attacked you, it would be a state of war. You would be justified in seeking help to defend yourself, and proactively doing so.

[Tim Norfolk]

Didn't you get the memo? Racism is only by white people, as it has been re-defined as discrimination plus power, as has sexism.

I don't feel particularly powerful with regard to either African-Americans or women, but I must be so entrenched that I don't notice.

[Clave]

Maybe that's why they call it "institutionalized".

[BillB]

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 10:56:42 AM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:

> Didn't you get the memo? Racism is only by white people, as it has been re->defined as discrimination plus power, as has sexism.

Not really. Racism is racism, but some kinds of racism are very important and consequential (ex. groups with power ==> groups with no power), and some kinds just aren't as important (individual with no power ===> groups with overwhelming power).

It's not a redefinition of racism; it's just an acknowledgment that some forms are far more toxic than others.

[popinjay]

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 9:10:22 AM UTC-8, Mossingen wrote:
>
> > No one is arguing in favor of apartheid.
>
> Uh, have you not read Paul's post? He's justifying it all the way.
>

Fucking-A right. And in our own country, I recommend doing away with the 14th Amendment, especially since it was never ratified. Following that, reverse the discriminatory 1964 Civil Rights Act. And it's not because I hate black people. I do not hate black people. In fact, I still have one black friend. But just one.

[fffurken]

Yes, I saw the 60 Minutes video. Let's face it, 'Snopes' is just another far left propaganda outlet but tell a libtard that it's a "fact checker" and they believe it.

Matteo Salvini, "hardcore racist" and potential next PM of Italy on Soros - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jt9MLdg3JQ

Soros is of course a wanted man in his home country of Hungary and the recently elected Austrian leader has also given him the boot - http://yournewswire.com/youngest-leader-george-soros/amp/

Yet the libtards believe that one of the most evil men in all of human history is an "altruist" lofl smh

[fffurken]

On Tuesday, 6 March 2018 18:56:42 UTC, Tim Norfolk wrote:

> Didn't you get the memo? Racism is only by white people, as it has been re-defined as discrimination plus power, as has sexism.

Only by members of the loony liberal left, such as the Canadian dhimmi.

Sane people know what racism is. Which isn't, by the way, the belief that not all races are equal, as Dutch recently stated.

[popinjay]

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 12:02:12 PM UTC-8, fffurken wrote:



>
> Matteo Salvini, "hardcore racist" and potential next PM of Italy on Soros - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jt9MLdg3JQ
>

thank you

[Bill Vanek]

Would MS-13 tattoos be just another identifier that doesn't matter?

> punches you, and you would develop a strong dislike of those people. No, that would not be racism. It would be common sense.

I think you're coming around now. Obviously, your 100% is just for
purposes of discussion, but you would admit that there is some number
lower than that that would still justify concern, right?

So how about this statistic: the incidence of black on white violent
crime is about 10x that of white on black crime. It sounds like you
would agree that one is justified in being concerned about blacks. Am
I right?

[Bill Vanek]

On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 10:34:50 -0800 (PST), BillB
<williamb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 9:10:22 AM UTC-8, Mossingen wrote:
>
>> No one is arguing in favor of apartheid.
>
>Uh, have you not read Paul's post? He's justifying it all the way.
>
> We're pointing out to you that
>> oppressed blacks who lash out with violence against white people, on the
>> basis that they are white and nothing more, are themselves advocating a
>> virulent form of racism.
>
>I am telling you it not because they are "white". That is incidental. They are lashing out at a political group that violently abused them that happens to be white. It is the whites that organized politically around their whiteness.
>
>> This is actually interesting. Your liberal brain is so wracked with white
>> guilt and you are so paranoid about being labeled a racist yourself, you
>> actually seem to condone oppressed minorities reacting with violence on the
>> basis of skin color. This is the type of political correctness that is
>> paralyzing otherwise rational people.
>>
>> In your example of me walking down the street and being punched by every
>> black person who walked by, would I be justified in punching the next black
>> person that I saw, solely because that person was black and I'm angry;
>
>Yes, you would. After a while you would realize with 99.999%
> certainty that that next black person you see coming toward you is part of an army that wants to harm you. I would say you are justified in proactively defending yourself.

What exactly is the very *minimum* percentage? Or is it really nothing
less?

> or
>> would I be justified in calling a meeting of my friends and organizing a
>> lynch party of the first blacks we saw to get even? You seem to suggest
>> that those actions would be acceptable to you.
>
>Yes, in my HYPOTHETICAL, where 100% of blacks physically attacked you, it would be a state of war. You would be justified in seeking help to defend yourself, and proactively doing so.

So the reaction, and treatment of all blacks by you would be based on
their behavior, not their skin color, correct? Let me ask you this:
You always say things like "payback is a bitch" to justify certain
behaviors of blacks, but why do you stop there? Why do you never ask
what started the negative attitude of whites towards blacks? You like
to think you're smart, but you seem to have no curiosity at all about
that. Is it just your simple mind, or is there more to it? It would
seem by everything you've said that you know it's not just skin color,
so what is it?

[Mossingen]

"BillB" wrote in message
news:eefc010a-f37b-456d...@googlegroups.com...

>You aren't answering the question directly. I'll answer it for you. Yes,
>after a while you would notice that every black person (or red-headed
>person, or persons wearing blue scarves...the >identifier does not matter
>to the hypothetical) punches you, and you would develop a strong dislike of
>those people. No, that would not be racism. It would be common sense.

I have answered it directly. Blacks targeting whites based on skin color in
South Africa is racist.

Your example above is pure racism. Skin color doesn't make people punch me
in the face. Something else does that. Your logic directly supports racism
and it's kind of odd that you don't see it.

[Mossingen]

"BillB" wrote in message
news:80ba96ce-4873-492e...@googlegroups.com...

___________________________


Even if I accept that some forms of racism are more toxic than others,
that's not what you're saying. You are saying that the blacks under
apartheid are NOT racists for attacking whites based on skin color.

[BillB]

You keep saying they are attacking them "because of skin color". You know that is not true.

Do you think black people are more offended by their enemies for being brutalized and marginalized by them for hundreds of years, or because they lack melanin in sufficient quantities? For the umpteenth time, the skin color coincidence is only because white people organized politically around their whiteness. Black people are fighting back against a political group that brutalized and oppressed them for generations, who happen to be white (through THEIR OWN organization). That is not racism. Racism is irrational.

[BillB]

Oh brother. It's NOT racism. You aren't reacting to race (except coincidentally)...you are reacting to behavior. It wouldn't matter if the identifier was a blue hat or purple shoes. The identifier JUST HAPPENS to be race in this hypothetical. It could be anything. When 100% of people that clearly exhibit a certain identifier attack you, then those people bearing that identifier become your enemy. It's common sense. Racism is irrational. What I am describing in my hypothetical is not irrationality.

[Dutch]

Let's do a thought experiment. Say a white couple decides to adopt a
family and they adopt one infant of each race. Assume that the children
all receive the same upbringing and education and none is subjected to
any more bullying or discrimination during childhood than the others.

Let's further assume that once they are adults none of them are
subjected to discrimination in hiring or in any other realm.

What would predict would be the likely outcome of this scenario for
these children, if the experiment was repeated thousands of times?

[Tim Norfolk]

Too broad a question. You can see what is called p-hacking in such an experiment - finding something which is statistically significant by measuring enough variables.

So, do you want to measure IQ by the standard tests at some pre-determined age? If so, you would be opening a huge can of worms on the old nature versus nurture. I know that it is well-established that it is both, but in what percentages?

I have my own feelings on behaviour, having done some stock breeding. I also have anecdotal evidence in the form of two male friends, both of whom were abandoned by their substance-abusing fathers at a very early age.

In one case, there was an adoption by a very liberal and caring single mother, and the person was raised in relative suburban prosperity with a stepfather.

In the other, the birth mother remarried, also to a hard-working decent family man.

On died at age 46 of liver failure brought on by heavy drinking and overuse of oxycodone. The other is about 40, and on heroin.

[fffurken]

What, no eh, positive discrimination for blacks? Can't imagine that would be good (for them).

In fact, I'd like to know how many blacks have educational credentials that they didn't merit. I think Seymore posted an article earlier about how they won't even allow blacks to be tested for IQ in schools (blacks only).

[Dutch]

On 3/6/2018 6:48 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 9:25:48 PM UTC-5, Dutch wrote:
>> On 3/6/2018 12:28 PM, fffurken wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 6 March 2018 18:56:42 UTC, Tim Norfolk wrote:
>>>
>>>> Didn't you get the memo? Racism is only by white people, as it has been re-defined as discrimination plus power, as has sexism.
>>>
>>> Only by members of the loony liberal left, such as the Canadian dhimmi.
>>>
>>> Sane people know what racism is. Which isn't, by the way, the belief that not all races are equal, as Dutch recently stated.
>>>
>>
>> Let's do a thought experiment. Say a white couple decides to adopt a
>> family and they adopt one infant of each race. Assume that the children
>> all receive the same upbringing and education and none is subjected to
>> any more bullying or discrimination during childhood than the others.
>>
>> Let's further assume that once they are adults none of them are
>> subjected to discrimination in hiring or in any other realm.
>>
>> What would predict would be the likely outcome of this scenario for
>> these children, if the experiment was repeated thousands of times?
>
> Too broad a question. You can see what is called p-hacking in such an experiment - finding something which is statistically significant by measuring enough variables.

There's no need to get all technical, just make a reasonable assumption
or two and hazard a guess.

>
> So, do you want to measure IQ by the standard tests at some pre-determined age? If so, you would be opening a huge can of worms on the old nature versus nurture. I know that it is well-established that it is both, but in what percentages?

Using an IQ test with what sort of cultural bias? If you test someone
raised in a technologically advanced society using a test designed by
academics raised in that same society then it's obvious they will have
an advantage over someone raised in a poor part of the world who has
developed a completely different set of skills.

>
> I have my own feelings on behaviour, having done some stock breeding. I also have anecdotal evidence in the form of two male friends, both of whom were abandoned by their substance-abusing fathers at a very early age.
>
> In one case, there was an adoption by a very liberal and caring single mother, and the person was raised in relative suburban prosperity with a stepfather.
>
> In the other, the birth mother remarried, also to a hard-working decent family man.
>
> On died at age 46 of liver failure brought on by heavy drinking and overuse of oxycodone. The other is about 40, and on heroin.

That's interesting but not really relevant to race or IQ.

[Dutch]

So, not willing to venture a guess? Would the white and Asian kids do
better in school and other aspects of life or would it all even out?

I guess my question is, are saying that there is a biological
intelligence difference between the races if you eliminate all cultural
factors?

[fffurken]

I'm not sure why you think I didn't give you a responsive enough answer but AFAIK the evidence suggests that the (racial) IQ hierarchy does not change dependent on other factors, such as class, geographical location, etc.

[Bill Vanek]

We already know what you, like all liberals, think. That's because you
won't accept that human nature exists, and if you do, you believe you
can change it. This is your utopia, where everyone is treated
properly, so every outcome is great. But I tell you what would happen
in your scenario - some of them are likely to turn into virulent
racists, some of them will hate, some of them will fail in life. You
know why? Because they are fucking human, that's why. There isn't a
fucking thing you can do about it.

Something you folks always forget is that these experiments have been
tried. In fact, pretty much any experiment you can think of has been
tried, but they all fall into obscurity because they don't produce the
wanted results.

While you think about all this, why don't you explain black slaves
owned by blacks? How about white slaves of black owners? After you
educate yourself we can go back to skin color considerations.

[Dutch]

That doesn't answer my question exactly, but I get the drift.

[Dutch]

I can't be bothered to wade through all that. Could you please just give
me a direct answer to my hypothetical?

[Bill Vanek]

I did, about halfway down in the first paragraph I wrote.

[Dutch]

I see, OK. But my actual question is, all things being equal, as they
are in my hypothetical scenario, do you believe there would be a
significant difference in outcomes among the children that you can
attribute to race?

And I do not believe the exact scenario I described has ever been tried,
because it's not possible in the real world. There is no prejudice-free
environment.

[da pickle]

First, you must define and differentiate biological "races" ... no
races, no difference (by definition).



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[da pickle]

So, the "black" people you are referring to are a "race" ... correct?

Are there any members of the black race that are NOT hitting you as you
walk by?

[BillB]

On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 5:12:46 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

> So, the "black" people you are referring to are a "race" ... correct?

Go away you old fool.

> Are there any members of the black race that are NOT hitting you as you
> walk by?

This is what we call Louisiana reading comprehension. lol

[Bill Vanek]

Of course. There is a genetic component to IQ. If your experiment were
tried thousands of times, there would be a pattern. I don't think
there is any agreement on how "significant" the variance would be,
though. The other problem is what Pickle mentions, that there is
significant blurring among the races after so many years of human
life. Where do you find the subjects of your experiment?

>And I do not believe the exact scenario I described has ever been tried,
>because it's not possible in the real world. There is no prejudice-free
>environment.

And that is at least part of my point. Once you understand why there
is no such environment, and never will be, you will move closer to the
smart (conservative) understanding of real life.

[da pickle]

Deeper and deeper into your racist (blackist?) fantasyland, eh?

[Mossingen]

"BillB" wrote in message
news:c82ff86e-9b49-4fa9...@googlegroups.com...

>You keep saying they are attacking them "because of skin color". You know
>that is not true.

It's what the guy says in the video that you didn't watch. We have to take
him at his word, do we not?

You feel sorry for him and think he's justified in retaliating against
whites, so you ignore what he actually says and ascribe a motive for his
statements that makes you feel better.

>Do you think black people are more offended by their enemies for being
>brutalized and marginalized by them for hundreds of years, or because they
>lack melanin in sufficient quantities? For >the umpteenth time, the skin
>color coincidence is only because white people organized politically around
>their whiteness. Black people are fighting back against a political group
>that >brutalized and oppressed them for generations, who happen to be white
>(through THEIR OWN organization). That is not racism. Racism is irrational.

All true...but that's not what the guys said, which is the topic under
discussion. It's entirely rational to retaliate against an oppressive
regime. It's not rational to attack any random white person, because they
are white, which is what the guy said, and it is racist.

I know you have that 1960s mentality of social justice and Damn The Man, but
retaliating against a white racist regime using the same philosophy of that
regime, only the obverse of it, isn't any more moral.

[fffurken]

Well the point I was making is that the belief that not all races are equal does not a racist make, as you stated.

If someone believed that *all* members of a race are inferior or indeed if someone was to discriminate against (or in Billb parlance - rape, torture, murder) an individual because of their race, then that would be racism.

Btw, have you listened to anything Sam Harris has to say on race and IQ - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGp06vMPERE

Or here's a shorter video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0H2PUOrHDA in which I presume his hypothetical is to illustrate that it's not racism, or bigotry I think is the word he used.

[fffurken]

On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 13:12:46 UTC, da pickle wrote:

> Are there any members of the black race that are NOT hitting you as you
> walk by?

AFAIAA every white a black encountered in Billb's "hypothetical" (or digital diarrhoea) hit the black. Ostensibly this is what he uses to justify (/project his) racial hatred against whites (of the most egregious kind).

[BillB]

On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 9:46:49 AM UTC-8, Mossingen wrote:
> "BillB" wrote in message
> news:c82ff86e-9b49-4fa9...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >You keep saying they are attacking them "because of skin color". You know
> >that is not true.

I don't know what he said. You have already been accused of misrepresenting his words, so I don't know who to believe. I would say risky is more credible than you, because you keep accusing him of thinking the world is 5000 years old when you know that is not true. I don't understand such behavior or the point behind it. Credibility is my most important asset.

If he is attacking people only/just because they are white, you must think he'd be saying the same things about Canadian whites if he immigrated to Canada. I don't, because in Canada he and his people would be treated with respect, and his land would not be stolen. I think he is attacking "whites" because THEY chose to organize around their own whiteness. In this case, the color is incidental and only a convenient identifier. It's the behavior that is motivating the violent thoughts.

[BillB]

On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 10:50:13 AM UTC-8, fffurken wrote:

> Well the point I was making is that the belief that not all races are equal does not a racist make, as you stated.
>

Uh, dumb fuck, that is literally the #1 dictionary definition of racist.


> Btw, have you listened to anything Sam Harris...

LOL

[Tim Norfolk]

The US started developing IQ tests around WWI, because of the low quality of many of the recruits.

They were used in lots of school systems through the 1950's, and White students averaged much higher than African-Americans. Then someone noticed that Asian students scored even higher, and the tests gradually went away.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 10:01:25 PM UTC-5, Dutch wrote:
> On 3/6/2018 6:48 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:

<snip>

> >
> > So, do you want to measure IQ by the standard tests at some pre-determined age? If so, you would be opening a huge can of worms on the old nature versus nurture. I know that it is well-established that it is both, but in what percentages?
>
> Using an IQ test with what sort of cultural bias? If you test someone
> raised in a technologically advanced society using a test designed by
> academics raised in that same society then it's obvious they will have
> an advantage over someone raised in a poor part of the world who has
> developed a completely different set of skills.

<snip>


Umm, you were the one with this thought experiment, in which there is no cultural difference.