Trump sends the wrong message on New Zealand. World leaders must denounce the attack.

I read further into your link and edited my post.
The link was an investigation into possible injustices in Canada towards Aboriginals and blacks in Canada.

They cite social conditions and racial discrimination as possible reasons for the over representation.

From your link.

Evidence indicates that racial bias
exists in the administration of Canadian criminal justice. At times, this discrimination has been supported by court decisions.
Discrimination and disparity are at times acknowledged by government, but they are seldom wholeheartedly addressed

 

EVERY group gets discriminated against.

Heck white people today are ACTIVELY and explicitly discriminated against by our own government policies and programs.

That doesn't justify ridiculous amounts of violents.

 

The "messenger" should not be preaching to world leaders. A media outlet should report the news and otherwise keep their yapper shut.

 

But when whites control most every aspect of the country, including LEO and the criminal justice system, don't you think numbers get distorted due to discrimination?
Or social qualities get effected and perhaps those discriminated against are also being socially kept on a lower rung and that social rung is a driving force in crimes? Afterall, people will do what is needed to get the basics of life, food, water, and shelter.

You have yet to prove that skin color is the driving factor in rates of crime. All you can prove is that skin color has higher rates of crime. But to say it is 100% because of skin color is dishonest at the very least.

Even the study you linked to was set up to prove there are racial discrimination going on as well as social issues keeping those of non white on a lower rung.

I don't think you can ever convince anyone with a modicrum of brains cells that the reason for crime rates is strictly because of the color of one's skin.
Now racists? Sure, but then, you don't need to convince racists, they already agree with you.
But can you put up enough evidence to convince those not blinded by color to come over to your side. DOUBTFUL.

 

You're going to have a difficult time explaining how being poor and socially disadvantaged means that your rate of rape is so grossly disproportionate.

But it's clearly not the skin color. It's the attributes that evolved along with that skin color. Consider this...

For thousands of years the races evolved in different environments completely separate from one another. They evolved so much so that their physical attributes changed. Hair is different, existence of varied eye color, skull structure, brow size, different musculoskeletal structure, immunity and susceptibility to different diseases, brain size, etc etc. To believe that physical characteristics could change so drastically and yet our brains, the way we think, our traits of aggressiveness, intelligence, and the like would not also evolve differently is simply illogical. It's far less possible for a genetic variation to manifest itself physically than it is to manifest itself mentally. So we should be able to assume that if we see genetic variation manifest itself physically then logic dictates it MUST have manifested itself mentally.

Now lets look at the difference in the society and cultures in early human history for a moment. Mongoloids (Asians) developed agriculture first. Within a few hundred years, caucasoids had developed agriculture. However the negroid population didn't develop agriculture until 3000 years after the caucasoids did and didn't become widespread for 4000 years. This means that for 3,000-4,000 years mongoloids and caucasoids were developing society, creating cities, building culture, etc. The caucasoids and mongoloids were moving towards a more intellectual society and away from hunter-gatherer. The traits which made them successful as hunter-gathers were no longer the traits which made them successful in an agrarian society.

As hunter-gatherers you value physical characteristics. You need people with a good constitution, who are hardy, strong, fast and able to run for days. But you also need aggression. You need to be able to defend your people against threats. You need to be able to physically take down your prey. So in a hunter-gatherer society, aggression is a trait which is valued and beneficial. So these are the traits which the black culture valued and passed on for THOUSANDS of years after the white and Asians had abandoned those traits as being highly valuable.

So based upon that fact alone, blacks are more likely to pass along traits of aggressiveness and physicality than their white or Asian counterparts. This is why we see them so prominent in athletics. But when you combine those truths with the fact that the negroid population in Africa has been engaging in slavery since the beginnings of human history that we have record of, it only exasperated the problem. And yes we even engaged in the problem here in the USA when we engaged in slavery.

But consider what slaves you want if you're a slaver... black or white. Do you want a smart slave who is capable of learning to read and teach others and possibly be someone who could stir up trouble? No. You want a big, strong, stupid slave who will do what you say without questioning you. So as a slaveowner you breed out the ones who are smart and you allow the strong, stupid slaves to reproduce and pass along their genes.

After 10,000+ years of slavery in Africa (which btw still occurs today), combined with the late start they had with agriculture and a stable society that wasn't required to move every few weeks, I'm not sure how anyone could come to the conclusion that genetics doesn't play a factor in their grossly aggressive and violent behavior.

Now does this mean EVERY black person is aggressive and violent and EVERY white and Asian person is smart and passive? Of course not. But it DOES mean that those attributes are passed along more frequently in their genetic code.

 

White House dismisses praise of Trump by New Zealand shooter

The accused gunman’s manifesto praised the U.S. president as "a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose," even though he did not support his policies. The reference revived criticism that Trump has not been strong enough in condemning hate speech and has fomented anti-Muslim sentiment.

Trump drew strong criticism in the days after a deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 when he equated white supremacists with counter-protesters and saying "both sides" were to blame.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...ise-of-trump-by-new-zealand-shooter/23694289/

 

Not at all. But I won't convince you.
Education, jobs, etc, are the keys to a strong society.
Those with the least of those, are the higher crime areas.

It is a common line among hardcore White racists such as Whitenationalists that Black Africans were Stone Age people who had nometalworking, no agriculture and no civilization of any sort by the timethe Europeans contacted them
...
"he White racist line is that African Blacks, even over (&,&&& yearsago, were too stupid to figure out how to grow stuff on their own, sothey had to learn it 'aucasian 6orth Africans "his theory is humorousbecause in general, White 6ationalists refer to 6orth African'aucasians )Berbers and Egyptians+ as non7Whites
https://www.academia.edu/4168162/The_Development_of_Agriculture_in_Africa

 

There was good agriculture that supported the cultures of Mali, Ghana, Nok, Ife and Benin. These cultures grew cereals, oil crops and vegetables. They also cultivated stimulants and medical plants used in their religions. (3F)

From this area coffee, sorghum, millet, and watermelon were domesticated. (3F)

Findings from 12,500 to 10,500 suggest that villagers grew grains since grinding wheels were found. Blades, which are similar to a modern sickle, had also been found. (3F)
http://historylink101.com/lessons/farm-city/africa1.htm

 

No actually I'm pretty sure they developed agriculture on their own. But their land wasn't particularly suited for agriculture. I mean there are certainly some very fertile places but these places within Africa aren't amenable to farming as there's quite a bit of jungle, but there's also a lot of dry land that's not arable.

It's not that they were stupid and needed help to develop it. It just wasn't the best option for them.

 

You're going to have to provide a better source than that. It's essentially a blog and he notates 3F like there's a list of sources but I don't see one. And I'd really like to read his 3F before I made a comment.

 

Each time Trump down plays the danger of white supremacy....he gives a wink and a nod to his racist supporters.

 

If one is curious enough, they will look for Agriculture history in Africa.
As I said, I'm never going to convince you, that you think skin color is the reason for committing crimes. Never. So it is a waste of time.
I gave a couple of quick links to show that agriculture did develop in Africa 10000 yrs ago.
For you try to claim they are prone to crime because they had no agriculture. I'll leave it at that.

 

President Trump's response to the NZ nutcase was quite appropriately dismissive.
The less affect that nutcase has on anyone, or anything, the better.
Some people are better forgotten.

 

Ain't what he did Dude talking about toughness not violence, Yes I realize the leftness' pajama boys and whiney women can't tell the difference. But that is their problem.

 

It's a threat against his fellow Americans.

'I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don't play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad,' Trump continued.

Says the whiner. LOL. Why are so many tRUMPers snowflakes?
Remember, we have more equality today than 60 yrs ago. And that has you upset.

 

60 years ago ? You have equality that you did three years ago thanks to President Trump.

 

LOL

 

You gave one link I saw. But it's contradictory to everything I've seen which says agriculture didn't develop in Africa until 5000-5200 years ago.

And I've already explained and you're fully aware the color of their skin is not the point.

 

OOh, wow...what an empty post.....as usual....

 

Each reply had a different link in it.

If the color of skin is not the point, then what is this thread all about?
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...n-problem-america-has-a-black-problem.552592/

 

What do you expect of a big fan of Sponge Bob?

 

It's exactly what we're talking about in this thread. It's not the color of their skin, its the attributes of aggressiveness that has been passed along for thousands of years ALONG WITH that change in skin pigmentation that is the issue.

Well that and about 100 years of brainwashing victimhood into their culture by the left.

 

Increase in what? This is one event in some backwater nowhere, it is not a trend in right-wing anything. You folks are really sad to blame a president of another country for an isolated incident halfway around the globe. Truly disgusting how trashy so many liberals are becoming...

 

sure. I doubt even you believe what you type.
I believe the right to fight for ownership of blacks was fought by the conservative south.

 

Well.. no? If they wanted to preserve slavery all they needed to do was sign the Corwin amendment. They had no need to go to war.