are they entirely irrelevant superficial differences which do nothing to explain away the disparity in outcomes between whites and blacks, or do they include differences in aptitude for some of the traits which 21st century American society finds economically valuable?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096213)

In your OP, you pretend that race realists are indistinguishable from white nationalists, and only want to live among their own kind (omitting that many races are race realist, particularly Asians).

And now, when confronted with contrary information, you seek to pigeonhole any differences as entirely irrelevant and superficial. Why?

The truth is any intellectually honest person with an IQ above 100 is aware of the differences in races on average, and they do a lot to explain black bad outcomes. These differences include blacks having the lowest average IQ of any race along with the highest propensity towards violence, on average. This, combined with actual institutional racism which used to exist, is why blacks are at the bottom of the economic totem pole here. And these differences are why blacks are at the bottom economically in every country in the world, and have never produced an advanced civilization since the beginning of time.

Of course, there are many races apart from black and white. And race realists understand the differences between individuals and averages. Namely, the average is made up of individuals but the reverse is NOT true, and a given individual has NO part of the average in him. This is why we can judge individuals on their own merits but at the same time do not want to continue failed policies (such as spending lots of $$$$ to reduce the black white academic achievement gap) that seek to address uneven outcomes caused by uneven ability.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096258)

my problem here is that i don't see how you can acknowledge that (i) there is a real and significant IQ gap between blacks and whites on average and (ii) IQ is a good (though not perfect) measure of a person's ability to succeed in the jobs that our society finds most valuable while still pretending like you think races are just different from each other but not necessarily better or worse. it's rather disingenuous to tell blacks that they're worse at all the jobs that are well-paid but that they aren't actually "inferior" but just "different."

you have to come out and deal explicitly with the ethical ramifications of having some races be genuinely better than others at succeeding in a 21st century economy. if you're cynical and nihilistic enough to say "well, that's why the lesser races have to be eliminated" or "that's why we need extensive genetic engineering programs to eliminate the flaws of the lesser races" then i can respect that in some ways-- at least you realize the scope of the problem, even if i'm really uncomfortable with the proposed solutions (neither of which is compatible with mainstream liberalism).

i'd much prefer more humane solutions, but it's not easy to figure out what those are.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096310)

Suck on this xo. smartest goddam thing you'll read tonight

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096326)

I fucking love it.

Cant address it well now because im busy smoking my Very Last Nugget.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096335)

Fucking geniuses dont let shit go once it gets under their skin. they keep at it and keep at it like its some pestilence they've got to get managed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096387)

Second, I think you are being unnecessarily dramatic. I don't think race realists do pretend that blacks, along with every other race, are just "different" from each other. Rather, each race, on average, is superior and inferior in various categories, which makes them different (on average) overall.

Your concerns deal with the categories that happen to be valued by a given society at any given point in time. Here, in the 21st century, IQ is indeed at a premium. That is unfortunate for races with a lower IQ on average, worst of all blacks. It's most favorable for Asians, who have the highest IQ on average.

That's just the state of things, like the sky is blue. I don't see why you feel the need to offer solutions. Do people offer short men solutions because contemporary women place height at a premium and therefore short men are generally placed at a massive disadvantage in the dating market? No. People shrug and say oh well, part of life, and move on. It is the same for blacks, and every other race.

Third, as I've mentioned, race realists recognize that individuals are wholly unconnected to the average. This is why we can judge an individual on his merits, and have no problem working with or living with well behaved (good with merit) members of any race. So again, I don't see the need to offer some kind of solution like in a Communist utopia where everyone is equal.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096427)

What IS proper solution for racial differences in abilities valued in this marketplace and apparently for the last several hundred years in most of the world?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096474)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096519)

the reason to try to offer solutions is because under-represented minorities like blacks are MAF about their place in modern society and are causing lots of trouble in order to protest it. if they keep winding up on the bottom they're going to keep being angry and fucking things up, especially if they only ever hear retarded cuckservative excuses for why they keep failing despite having the same innate potential as whites. i'd like to see their problems addressed to at least some extent, so that the number of angry malcontents is lowered to the point where they are unable to have any real influence on the political system.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096503)

I believe that under-represented minorities like blacks are MAF primarily as a result of liberals agitating them so their anger can be harnessed to further liberals' own political ends. This is best evidenced by the fact that blacks are undoubtedly more MAF today than they were 30, 20, and even 10 years ago, despite being MUCH better off today in their place in modern society as opposed to back then.

Liberals offer a worldview premised on victimhood, while conservatives offer a worldview based on individual empowerment and ability to change his circumstances. As the liberal message gets absorbed and parroted by more and more institutions, it's no wonder blacks are getting MAF. They are not getting MAF about their place in modern society as you assume. They are getting MAF because they continue to hear about what victims they are. Everyone who thinks he is a victim gets MAF and there is no reason to expect blacks to be the only people upset by this liberal agitation. When this rhetoric is applied to other groups of society they start getting upset too.

So if your criteria for why we need to offer solutions is to prevent people from being MAF and cause lots of trouble, the easy answer is to reduce or eliminate liberal agitation of blacks.

And do you know what else would tremendously help blacks? Candidly addressing the cultural problems they have in their community. The #1 thing keeping blacks down is other blacks. They tend to have crab mentality, which is a shame.

So if your true concern is to lower the number of angry malcontents, the solution is twofold: (1) continually project the correct message that in contemporary society, blacks or any other race have all the opportunity available to them in order to succeed and (2) frankly address the problems within the black community that help deprive other blacks of said opportunity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096638)

Blacks do it to themselves, man. its not a media conscpiracy, and then level two not a media conspiracy funded by nefarious libtards for their own ends. last sentence i wrote is why you are starting from the wrong place.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096696)

I know that because you voted for Hillary, you don't want to accept what the liberals are doing, but they are also why blacks are MAF, as evidenced by the fact that they are so much madder today (after all the liberal agitation) than 20 or 30 years ago, despite being much better off overall now than then.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096747)

Aside from that basic point you seem to be missing, why do you think that eliminating the bottom 10% (or 25%, or 50%, or whatever) of society based on economic value/success is some sort of obviously desirable thing? The bottom percentage would still exist in a racially/ethnically homogenous society.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096514)

You can have shitty societies w social stability

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096628)

I suppose i was asking more particularly to push you or anyone along those lines into saying or thinking as clearly as possible what the ideal endpoint would be. I thought i felt a little bit of a dodge there in your emphasis on stability over something more specific and wanted to push it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096675)

wgwag is increasingly common because the power of BAC is undeniable.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096289)

seems like a little bit of both

and i don't think necessarily saying that blacks are dumb and violent and that's why you want to be around whites makes you a white supremacist.

different groups are going to tolerate a certain level of criminality or whatever. most white race realists would also admit that whites are on average dumber and more criminal than asian people and are fine with that added level of criminality within their communities because they sort of expect it and are fine with it because they're white and not asian.

and isn't the level of dumbness and criminality a small part of what plays into developing a different culture?

the underlying point is that in general people are going to behave differently and have different expectations for what counts as decency based off of their race/culture and would prefer living in communities where the general standard of behavior matches the standard of decency, not to mention the million other things that play into it like the food people eat, the smells, how people dress, types of humor, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096385)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096413)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096415)

my poast was simply meant to answer OPs retarded loaded questions I don't fully subscribe to any of this shit

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096469)

But enough w the navel gazing

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096456)

1. I don't necessarily want to live in a "racially homogeneous" community; hell, I don't live in one right now. What I would like is to live in a safe community with a common culture and similar values compatible with my own. If pursuing that results in my neighborhood not being "diverse," I don't consider that a bad thing.

2. I don't view "diversity" as some great good that must be imposed where it isn't present. I think the benefits of diversity are quite limited and lack much evidence, while the harms are greater and have more evidence. If things naturally become diverse, that's fine, but if things naturally are more segregated, it's not a great crisis.

3. I think a lot of policies implemented in the name of overcoming racism are actively harmful and encourage racial division, in particular stuff in education like affirmative action, banning school suspensions, etc. I think that policies which treat all people as individuals are the only ones that will be healthy for society in the long run.

4. I think Islam as it currently exists is a toxic ideology that hurts every country it has a major presence in. I don't want a large number of Muslims in my country. On the flipside, I'm a Christian and regard the U.S. as historically Christian, and want the country to remain oriented in that direction. Not really a "race" thing but it's lumped in a lot.

5. I think pride in American history and a shared American identity is critical to the country's long-term well-being. I think the active creation of a "multicultural" society goes against this and encourages division. At its most extreme, this could result in civil war. So, I'd like to not push multiculturalism, and instead promote a common identity which, yes, involves embracing America's primarily European heritage. I think this can be done simply be focusing on culture; it doesn't have to be about race. I'm ethnically northern European but can still draw culturally on Rome, Greece, and the Near East.

6. I think our immigration system is absurd and enables the importation of a large underclass to the detriment of society. Illegal immigrants should be deported, and further immigration should focus on maintaining cultural cohesion as well as bringing in essential skills. Nobody should have the right to live here simply because they hail from shitty countries.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34096663)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34097697)

do you think there's a substantial gap between races in aptitude for the jobs which employers find most worthy of high compensation? if so, we're going to have to find a humane way of dealing with this given that minorities will not be OK with being heavily underrepresented in these jobs. if not, it's a bit tricky to argue against all of the demands of the social justice movement while still insisting there's no reason the disparity in outcomes demands any sort of extra compensation to disadvantaged groups.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34097745)

For the record, they are: (1) excessive consumption of the liberal victim mentality and the narrative the media likes to promote so heavily and (2) blacks keeping each other down/a shitty culture.

NOT where they stand in society, since as a whole blacks are much better off today than 30, 20, or even 10 years ago, yet weren't nearly as MAF.

So I thank you for the discussion, even if you were just trolling.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34098070)

Probably. Whether it's biological or just deeply socially ingrained doesn't particularly matter, because trying to do social engineering on racial lines seems to do more harm than good. Better to uplift the lower classes collectively than try setting racial quotas.

"if so, we're going to have to find a humane way of dealing with this given that minorities will not be OK with being heavily underrepresented in these jobs."

I don't think this is a given. People look out for themselves first. Racial consciousness is innately strong in a diverse society but we also egg it on by actively racializing everything via AA, multiculturalism, etc. Shift focus to actual nationalism and an emphasis on individuals and this temptation will be downplayed.

Creating a more egalitarian society would help, too. I'm all for that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34097929)

How do you figure? If anything, it might cause that. Western countries are almost uniformly becoming more authoritarian as they become more diverse. Singapore is often cited as multicultural success story and is...a right-wing authoritarian state.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34102182)

The pushback will detract from the underlying issues and questions baizou presented.

If I may be so bold, we don't need so much in this thread to hear how about each individual poaster feels about blacks or racial minorities or living with them or the legitimacy of actual racial differences. That's interesting but it is sort of off the point of this particular thread.

Instead, what is being asked, it seems to me, is what is the best and fairest solution to the dilemma of blacks and other minorities never really being able to be economically equal with whites because they are intrinsically different and their skill sets aren't highly rewarded in modern society.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34102350)

Do you think its a net positive as it is then, or is trump right and there's just too much of it?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34102992)

Is this the immigration department's stated goal, though? Policies in effect may incidentally have this effect, but is it actually a expressly identified goal?

I'm not trying to be difficult or obtuse--I'm just thinking what the answer would be if you asked an upper echelon immigration official. Would they say the policy is to create more racial heterogeneity? Or would they say they want to let people in consistent with humanitarian concerns and is terms of securing the best brainpower and workers to fill jobs. Or something else. I don't know--I just don't know that we should take sentence one there as a statement of actual intent on the part of immigration and naturalization services.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34102556)

(I mean I know what you are trying to say but I just want to do the steps that get us there. I don't know that you can.)

So, citizens in manhattan are telling INS what to do? And they are telling INS to make things more diverse? And INS does what these people who live in Manhattan tell it to do?

You were doing so well and now we come back to the same ((())) conspiracy talk that just undermines any sane analysis. Show me I'm wrong.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34102706)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34102871)

"INS acts according to laws, regulations and courts designed to enhance racial diversity."

Designed how? You mean the 1965 Act was designed to enhance racial diversity? It looks like the 1965 Act abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States.

Looks like the act wasn't designed to enhance racial diversity but was to attract skilled labor and preserve family structure. Now the net effect might be different, yes, but it wasn't Designed to Increase Diversity per se, as far as I can tell.

I just resist the idea that a lot of people have that negative effects were DESIGNED and INTENDED and there is a nefarious plot somewhere. Just because something has a particular effect doesn't mean that it was Designed to have that effect, as you know.

We make the same mistake w religion, fwiw. We say, "Look around, who created all this?" but the question itself starts from a false premise.

Here's an interesting article. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5391395

Maybe its time to revisit this Act?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34102981)

Of course it wouldn't work it wouldn't be allowed and there's no way to do it -- I know that, but what other proposals can people come up with.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34102600)

Yeah, I'd agree with that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3715754&forum_id=2#34121494)