George Floyd's Death, Protests and Riots across the US

[psychegram]

No, don't hide behind the NWO now. Let's look at the entirety of your post. I'll reiterate a point about those charts as well; If you have a group of people with 1 in 5 being a minority and all members being equally violent, the 'minority vs non-minority' stat will be overstated. At the very least you cannot say that minorities are inherently more violent.

Furthermore, there is the issue of Maslow's Needs Hierarchy which basically states that you are in a state of survival before basic 'needs' are met. A person or animal that is in a chronic state of survival will make certain choices that are different than one with different circumstances. This is true regardless of culture, perceived race, or genetic potential. My point is that there are a lot of moving parts to the conclusion you're attempting to make. Not least of which the collateral damage that could result If you say something you may not mean or intend.

In the game of divide and conquer, the statements in the quoted post serve that aim perfectly. Was that your intention, @bjorn?

I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

Bjorn is arguing that the narrative that blacks are uniquely subject to racist violence, simply isn't true; and that this narrative is spread by the lying media in order to deepen the division and rancor within society, with the goal of encouraging violent chaos.

He's entirely correct on both counts.

 

[psychegram]

You are quite on spot with that I would say, the former country I was born to and my parents lived part of their lives balkanised in many small countries by the help of west and it was very easy to spur ethnic and religious violence especially when there was history of it in the past and there being many ethnicities and religions, but also through history when you look at some empires like Seleucid and Roman(prior and later in it s eastern part having many uprisings because of cultural differences with that territory) that had a promotion of tolerance and multiculturalism looking like that in an more ancient way did it only for the purpose of control because they expand and want to keep the order of newly conquered lands, then it was more in line of brute force and bribing then psychological warfare that was in it s infant stage compered to today s elite non interrupted multi century experience in ruling the masses.

They were very aware of it from ancient times from even Assyrian empire when they migrated one rebelious etnicity from their land to other lands and cuting resistance in half in that way, especially if the land that they were migrated to was also rebellious and in that way those native populace would be distracted fighting newly arrived migrants and not their overlords, and those migrants also becoming enforcers and allies of overlords for whose protections they needed in new hostile enviroment. Today it is not so much different with migrations to EU even if there is more economic factor underlaying it from their perspective.

But looking on microscale you also would not keep much company with someone who has tottaly different look on life then you have wich does not has to be always but people often group based on that and especially other materialistic characteristics, so maybe that is where that law like attracts like comes into place.



Maybe having to do more with that hormone that is making them more agressive and other enviroment factors like poverty, ghetto culture, history, etc...

Ah indeed, the Balkans are obviously another good example of this dynamic. To outsiders, the differences between the various groups in the former Yugoslavia are minor; but to Yugoslavs, life and death matters. Which made it extremely easy for TPTB to exploit those divisions dnd incite a brutal and catastrophic war.

And you're entirely correct that imperialists have understood these dynamics since ancient times.

 

[trendsetter37]

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Can you post your point here. I don't understand a sentence you quoted if you're posting it to prove your point. For instance, 52% vs 45% is not 8 times greater. Second they mention arrests in there but that doesn't mean they were found guilty. And lastly this is an example of the point i'm trying to make. This act of posting stats with little to know explanation just because it fits your current narrative will not get us closer to the truth of the matter.

Can you post explanation in your own words referencing what you from that wiki excerpt, @psychegram?

 

[psychegram]

For instance, 52% vs 45% is not 8 times greater

It is on a per capita basis, since blacks make up about 10% of the US population, while whites are about 50% or 60%.

 

[Zzartemis]

I couldn't copy the charts to here....you might want to look at this article:

SNIP:
"The clearest discrepancy between these figures and Trump’s is that the overwhelming majority of white American murder victims are killed by other white Americans."


"Another way to look at these numbers is to take deaths as a share of the victims’ population (based on 2014 population estimates from the US Census bureau). That’s a measure of the risk to any person of dying at the hands of each ethnic group. Here again, whites are at far higher risk of being killed by other whites than by blacks. It does, however, underscore that a black person runs a far higher risk of being killed by another black person than for any other combination."

Here are four charts on race and murder in America to tweet back at Donald Trump

The data Trump tweeted are flagrantly and demonstrably false. Has a line been crossed?

qz.com

 

[trendsetter37]

I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

Bjorn is arguing that the narrative that blacks are uniquely subject to racist violence, simply isn't true; and that this narrative is spread by the lying media in order to deepen the division and rancor within society, with the goal of encouraging violent chaos.

He's entirely correct on both counts.

Let's let him explain his own words instead of speaking for him. Also it's simple to say racist violence happens to other groups, of course that is true but you cannot use that logic to go overboard and say what happened here was not out of line. When I first saw the news articles I thought it was strange that they were placing emphasis on white cop, black victim as well. I thought why would you use that kind of force on anyone that hadn't done anything relating to violence. So yea, I think the conversation we are having right now is a microcosm of what's happening in the news and wider collective consciousness.

This is not about white vs black, this is distraction and divisiveness. Yet here we are drudging up statistics on, this forum no less, in an attempt to say hey blacks are more violent than whites. What am I witnessing here?

 

[seek10]

The instability of multicultural societies is a general feature. The Roman and Austro-Hungarian empires are good examples of this; in both cases the populations were overwhelmingly European. One could also point to the post-colonial states of Africa and the Middle East, which were deliberately set up so as to be internally divided along tribal lines.

Humans are fully capable of being antagonistic over relatively small cultural, religious, or ethnic differences. Without exception, the best means of reducing this antagonism is to give distinct groups their own territories, and respect those boundaries.

If we look at the history of any region where lot of multi culturalism or not, ruling class( dynasties, kingdoms or empires, elected parties with some 'ism' ), they tend to last from approx. 75 years and last for 200-500 years at best. As long as economy is doing good, people tend to forget all their differences and celebrate 'Unity in Diversity' or 'God's children' or so on. When the economy goes down, all sorts differences comes to fore, and there will always be some leaders who will be there to take advantage of it.

 

[trendsetter37]

It is on a per capita basis, since blacks make up about 10% of the US population, while whites are about 50% or 60%.

Per capita still keeps, or aims to keep, the same proportion of instances. So your point again is what exactly?

 

[trendsetter37]

If we look at the history of any region where lot of multi culturalism or not, ruling class( dynasties, kingdoms or empires, elected parties with some 'ism' ), they tend to last from approx. 75 years and last for 200-500 years at best. As long as economy is doing good, people tend to forget all their differences and celebrate 'Unity in Diversity' or 'God's children' or so on. When the economy goes down, all sorts differences comes to fore, and there will always be some leaders who will be there to take advantage of it.

Yes, which tends to move towards Maslow's theories on how people behave relative to whether or not their survival is on the line. I'll post more excerpts.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

"It is quite true that man lives by bread alone — when there is no bread. But what happens to man’s desires when there is plenty of bread and when his belly is chronically filled?

At once other (and “higher”) needs emerge and these, rather than physiological hungers, dominate the organism. And when these in turn are satisfied, again new (and still “higher”) needs emerge and so on. This is what we mean by saying that the basic human needs are organized into a hierarchy of relative prepotency" (Maslow, 1943, p. 375).

The original hierarchy of needs five-stage model includes:






Maslow (1943, 1954) stated that people are motivated to achieve certain needs and that some needs take precedence over others.

Our most basic need is for physical survival, and this will be the first thing that motivates our behavior. Once that level is fulfilled the next level up is what motivates us, and so on.

1. Physiological needs - these are biological requirements for human survival, e.g. air, food, drink, shelter, clothing, warmth, sex, sleep.

If these needs are not satisfied the human body cannot function optimally. Maslow considered physiological needs the most important as all the other needs become secondary until these needs are met.

2. Safety needs - Once an individual’s physiological needs are satisfied, the needs for security and safety become salient. People want to experience order, predictability and control in their lives. These needs can be fulfilled by the family and society (e.g. police, schools, business and medical care).

For example, emotional security, financial security (e.g. employment, social welfare), law and order, freedom from fear, social stability, property, health and wellbeing (e.g. safety against accidents and injury).

3. Love and belongingness needs - after physiological and safety needs have been fulfilled, the third level of human needs is social and involves feelings of belongingness. The need for interpersonal relationships motivates behavior

Examples include friendship, intimacy, trust, and acceptance, receiving and giving affection and love. Affiliating, being part of a group (family, friends, work).

4. Esteem needs are the fourth level in Maslow’s hierarchy - which Maslow classified into two categories: (i) esteem for oneself (dignity, achievement, mastery, independence) and (ii) the desire for reputation or respect from others (e.g., status, prestige).

Maslow indicated that the need for respect or reputation is most important for children and adolescents and precedes real self-esteem or dignity.

5. Self-actualization needs are the highest level in Maslow's hierarchy, and refer to the realization of a person's potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences. Maslow (1943) describes this level as the desire to accomplish everything that one can, to become the most that one can be.

Individuals may perceive or focus on this need very specifically. For example, one individual may have a strong desire to become an ideal parent. In another, the desire may be expressed economically, academically or athletically. For others, it may be expressed creatively, in paintings, pictures, or inventions.

Said another way and/or my take on this is that becoming or striving to be a good Obyvatel is indeed an important step for any self growth. As long as you're in a state of survival it'll be difficult to overcome what your body and hormones will prompt you to think, feel, and believe vital. When not in this state you may think differently and about 'higher' aims. Given the above it is clear to see how economic downturns can seem causal in regards to societal breakdowns.

Edit: Clarity

 

[psychegram]

Let's let him explain his own words instead of speaking for him. Also it's simple to say racist violence happens to other groups, of course that is true but you cannot use that logic to go overboard and say what happened here was not out of line. When I first saw the news articles I thought it was strange that they were placing emphasis on white cop, black victim as well. I thought why would you use that kind of force on anyone that hadn't done anything relating to violence. So yea, I think the conversation we are having right now is a microcosm of what's happening in the news and wider collective consciousness.

This is not about white vs black, this is distraction and divisiveness. Yet here we are drudging up statistics on, this forum no less, in an attempt to say hey blacks are more violent than whites. What am I witnessing here?

The riots are predicated, fundamentally, on the perception that blacks are disproportionately targeted by police, by whites, and by white police. That perception is what gives the riots their moral legitimacy in the eyes of both rioters and their cheerleaders in the fake news.

The point is: it isn't true. An objective examination of statistics regarding violent crime and arrest reveals that, in fact, interactions between African-Americans and police are entirely proportionate to the per-capita rate of violent crime committed by the former. Said statistics furthermore reveal that, when interracial violence is looked at, the truth is that whites are much more likely to be victimized by blacks, than vice versa; again, this is the precise opposite of the media-induced hallucination.

The overarching point is that, as per usual, the media is lying; and these lies are getting people killed. White and black both.

 

[trendsetter37]

The riots are predicated, fundamentally, on the perception that blacks are disproportionately targeted by police, by whites, and by white police. That perception is what gives the riots their moral legitimacy in the eyes of both rioters and their cheerleaders in the fake news.

The point is: it isn't true. An objective examination of statistics regarding violent crime and arrest reveals that, in fact, interactions between African-Americans and police are entirely proportionate to the per-capita rate of violent crime committed by the former. Said statistics furthermore reveal that, when interracial violence is looked at, the truth is that whites are much more likely to be victimized by blacks, than vice versa; again, this is the precise opposite of the media-induced hallucination.

The overarching point is that, as per usual, the media is lying; and these lies are getting people killed. White and black both.

What you're saying isn't clear. You cannot transfer that conclusion onto a statistic measuring a different thing. That is not how statistics works. The direct quote from (and I don't really like wikipedia when it comes to politcally relevant facts) what you're referencing is this:

Most homicides were intraracial[sic], with 84% of White victims killed by Whites, and 93% of African American victims were killed by African Americans.

That means that 'Whites' are more likely to be killed by other white people and Blacks are more likely to be killed by other black people. Point blank. You can't extrapolate that to mean since whites are only have an 84% chance of getting killed by another white person, that automatically means 16% of the time they are killed by a black person. Which I guess lead you to believe that 16% is higher than the 7% of blacks being killed my non-blacks meaning whites are more often to be killed by blacks than vice versa. Is that how you came up with your conclusion?

I can agree with your statement that the media is lying but do not agree with how you got there.

 

[psychegram]

What you're saying isn't clear. You cannot transfer that conclusion onto a statistic measuring a different thing. That is not how statistics works. The direct quote from (and I don't really like wikipedia when it comes to politcally relevant facts) what you're referencing is this:



That means that 'Whites' are more likely to be killed by other white people and Blacks are more likely to be killed by other black people. Point blank. You can't extrapolate that to mean since whites are only have an 84% chance of getting killed by another white person, that automatically means 16% of the time they are killed by a black person. Which I guess lead you to believe that 16% is higher than the 7% of blacks being killed my non-blacks meaning whites are more often to be killed by blacks than vice versa. Is that how you came up with your conclusion?

I can agree with your statement that the media is lying but do not agree with how you got there.

Bureau of Justice statistics here:

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6686

Look at table 14 in the the pdf report at the link.

Black-on-black crime: 70% of incidents involving black victims
White-on-black: 10.6%
White-on-white: 61% of incidents with white victims
Black-on-white: 15.3%

Thus: both groups are more likely to be victimized by members of their racial group (not surprising, given that they tend to live in proximity to their own groups). But, proportionately, whites are more likely to be victimized by blacks than vice versa.

 

[bjorb]

I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

Bjorn is arguing that the narrative that blacks are uniquely subject to racist violence, simply isn't true; and that this narrative is spread by the lying media in order to deepen the division and rancor within society, with the goal of encouraging violent chaos.

He's entirely correct on both counts.

Let's let him explain his own words instead of speaking for him

That's what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.

In the game of divide and conquer, the statements in the quoted post serve that aim perfectly. Was that your intention, @bjorn?

No, not my intention. If you want my take on the situation. Read this article I wrote with great help from the Sott editors. Kind of predicated the whole thing.

9/11, Identity Politics And The Coming Storm

The events of 9/11, and the wars they unleashed, were the work of a ruthless cabal seeking to 'shape reality' in US society and beyond. Serving as a catalyst, 9/11 artificially introduced an 'us versus them' mentality upon everyone, ultimately...

www.sott.net

 

[Zzartemis]

It was only a matter of time...groups of soldiers are walking through residential areas, screaming at people to get inside...a shot of some type is fired in this video.

"NATIONAL GUARD IMPLEMENTING MARTIAL LAW IN MINNEAPOLIS!"

 

[Corvus]

Said another way and/or my take on this is that becoming or striving to be a good Obyvatel is indeed an important step for any self growth. As long as you're in a state of survival it'll be difficult to overcome what your body and hormones will prompt you to think, feel, and believe vital. When not in this state you may think differently and about 'higher' aims. Given the above it is clear to see how economic downturns can seem causal in regards to societal breakdowns.

Looking like that many others and me would already be hardcore criminals, and there is that saying roses grow best in manure and exactly that kind of situations like difficulties and sufferings make you to question things and ask about how things work. When it comes to to that hierarchy it is probably made when taking into consideration regards to Darwinian/religious deterministic looking on man as a reactive man totaly depenable on his enviroment and there is no internal force that has any influence, which is true for many but not all.
To give you an example on my job when it comes to gypsies, I thought people where racist in that regard on the job of targeting them, but when you look at records you see majority of those on the street have multiple felonies, and of course if you see them with other relevant factors that they will be targeted, which of course does not make it a any kind of rule. It is common sense and no I am not a racist because my best friend also has gypsie blood so it has nothing to do with it.

That means that 'Whites' are more likely to be killed by other white people and Blacks are more likely to be killed by other black people. Point blank. You can't extrapolate that to mean since whites are only have an 84% chance of getting killed by another white person, that automatically means 16% of the time they are killed by a black person. Which I guess lead you to believe that 16% is higher than the 7% of blacks being killed my non-blacks meaning whites are more often to be killed by blacks than vice versa. Is that how you came up with your conclusion?

I can agree with your statement that the media is lying but do not agree with how you got there.

That is how you come to conclusion when you have statistics which is not biased and skewed and I do not know if it is, but if it is not statistics does not lie. If all given the recent years politics in west it would be skewed to go more in hand to minorities. If it walks like a duck...You are biased because of your skin color but it is understandable given the circumstances and probably some life experiences.