Movement for Black Lives releases its agenda

[The Sage of Main Street]

Preppies' Pet Pit Bulls

https://policy.m4bl.org/

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/2/12341708/black-lives-matter-policy-platform

The agenda is built on six key platform proposals:

Ending the war on black people: This section of the platform focuses heavily on criminal justice reform to stop the systemic criminalization of black people. The demands include demilitarizing the police, ending the criminalization of black youth, and implementing anti-discrimination protections for black transgender, queer, and gender nonconforming people.

Reparations: Here the platform details ways to rectify the harms done to black people, including full and free access to quality education for black people, federal and state legislation to acknowledge long-term effects of slavery, and a guaranteed minimum livable income.

Invest-divest: The panel offers ways of redirect funds used to criminalize black people toward investing in black communities. The recommendations proposed include reallocating money for policing into local restorative justice services and employment programs and divesting in fossil fuels for local sustainable energy solutions.

Economic justice: This platform focuses on economic restructuring. In addition to proposing restructured tax codes to better redistribute wealth, the plan also demands the Glass-Steagall Act be restored to break up large banking institutions, protecting the rights for workers to unionize, and ending the privatization of natural resources.

Community control: This section focuses more specifically on ensuring that the community has control over institutions responsible for protecting and serving them. This includes giving communities the right to determine disciplinary actions for law enforcement at the local, state, and federal level and putting an end to privatized education policies for more democratically controlled school boards.

Political power: Along with addressing systemic issues, the platform makes the case for fostering black people’s right to exercise their full political power. In addition to decriminalizing political activities, this section demands protecting black people’s right to vote, taking money out of politics, and breaking down the digital divide through full access to technology and net neutrality.

A good start.

What powerful clique of thughuggers sponsors Black Lowlifes Matter? Who writes BLM's script? What illegitimate class is vastly outnumbered and fears other Whites having any pride?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Pretentious Preachers With Ulterior Motives

You're missing the black-rights movement.

By absolving them of blame for the situation it keeps the problem from being solved and thus causes the murder of blacks--far more than are shot by the police.

The polarized nature of this debate, like pretty much everything in American politics, is what prevents progress.

YES there is a self defeating culture within some black communities. YES racism is a real thing that still exists today and driving while black is a real thing in the USA where you are more likely to be pulled over simply for being black and male. YES BLM latches onto questionable martyrs and claims special victim status (while interrupting gay pride parades etc). YES a cycle of poverty was introduced with slavery and such cycles are hard to break through generations especially when social expectations are put in place based on a physically identifiable grouping (race).

All of this is true. It doesn't hurt any of us to admit it all.

It's not true at all. Blacks in America have never been treated worse than they deserved. And it certainly does hurt, insult, humiliate, and demoralize Whites to put up with self-righteous race traitors telling us what we must think.

The Puritans were harshly and deservedly criticized by calling normal and healthy activity a "sin." It's the same with bossy snakes claiming that "racism" is wrong.

 

[Trausti]

Among tribes, external threats are always taken many times more seriously than internal threats, and white cops are seen as an external threat against blacks. It is a problem that exists everywhere in group politics, i.e. Islamic terrorists are seen as a far more serious threat than swimming pools. I believe the claim of the external threat should be evaluated for its truth value, all the same.

A complete and total failure to confront the number one killer of blacks: other blacks.

The real killer is poverty and oppression.

There is little oppression, and the poverty is caused by heritable low intelligence. Black Americans have an average income the same as expected of whites with an average IQ of 85. This wouldn't be blaming blacks. Blame is useless for circumstances out of anyone's control. Nobody is to blame, including whites.

Little oppression?

There have been centuries of massive oppression. As much oppression as can be placed on a group short of killing them. And this was oppression at the hands of despicable and disturbed whites.

Contrary to the ignorance of some, the effects of all this oppression do not disappear overnight. They do not disappear in a generation. They do not disappear from the oppressed or the oppressor.

And for the young black individual there is the oppression of substandard schools and harassment from the police and the oppression of the drug war and prison.

And the oppression of poverty.

Some of this oppression is the oppression all poor people face in an unjust society where the rich prey on the poor and live as parasites off others.

Ok, let's itemize those oppressions:

· Historical oppression
· Substandard schools
· Harassment by police
· Drug war
· Poverty

Each of these hypotheses is a testable prediction. The hypothesis of historical oppression would predict that even oppressed higher IQ races would remain poor after the oppression, but the prediction has not held up for the Jews, Chinese and Irish. The hypothesis of substandard schools would predict that blacks would perform better academically in high quality schools, and this prediction bears fruit at a young age, per the study by Scarr and Weinberg in which black children were adopted into white families and their IQs increased well above the black average at the age of 7. But, this advantage disappeared in the ten-year follow up study, in which the IQs of the black 17 year olds lowered to the value expected by the Wilson effect (increasing heritability of IQ with age). The hypotheses of harassment by police and drug war could be a respectable hypothesis, but it needs more detail, because it can mean many things: what is the cause and effect relationship? If the premise is that blacks commit equal or less crime but they are disproportionately targeted by the justice system, then that premise is easily struck down, but maybe you don't mean that. Poverty: again, blacks have incomes expected of their IQ, so it would be self-oppression at worst, and more optimistically the reverse is true: American blacks live far better lives than if they were to live in a random nation of equal average IQ, such as the Philippines.

So much can be explained by IQ, but to notice that is akin to a 19th century British naturalist suggesting that the diversity of life is due to natural processes rather than divine creation.

 

[untermensche]

Among tribes, external threats are always taken many times more seriously than internal threats, and white cops are seen as an external threat against blacks. It is a problem that exists everywhere in group politics, i.e. Islamic terrorists are seen as a far more serious threat than swimming pools. I believe the claim of the external threat should be evaluated for its truth value, all the same.

A complete and total failure to confront the number one killer of blacks: other blacks.

The real killer is poverty and oppression.

There is little oppression, and the poverty is caused by heritable low intelligence. Black Americans have an average income the same as expected of whites with an average IQ of 85. This wouldn't be blaming blacks. Blame is useless for circumstances out of anyone's control. Nobody is to blame, including whites.

Little oppression?

There have been centuries of massive oppression. As much oppression as can be placed on a group short of killing them. And this was oppression at the hands of despicable and disturbed whites.

Contrary to the ignorance of some, the effects of all this oppression do not disappear overnight. They do not disappear in a generation. They do not disappear from the oppressed or the oppressor.

And for the young black individual there is the oppression of substandard schools and harassment from the police and the oppression of the drug war and prison.

And the oppression of poverty.

Some of this oppression is the oppression all poor people face in an unjust society where the rich prey on the poor and live as parasites off others.

Ok, let's itemize those oppressions:

· Historical oppression
· Substandard schools
· Harassment by police
· Drug war
· Poverty

Each of these hypotheses is a testable prediction. The hypothesis of historical oppression would predict that even oppressed higher IQ races would remain poor after the oppression, but the prediction has not held up for the Jews, Chinese and Irish. The hypothesis of substandard schools would predict that blacks would perform better academically in high quality schools, and this prediction bears fruit at a young age, per the study by Scarr and Weinberg in which black children were adopted into white families and their IQs increased well above the black average at the age of 7. But, this advantage disappeared in the ten-year follow up study, in which the IQs of the black 17 year olds lowered to the value expected by the Wilson effect (increasing heritability of IQ with age). The hypotheses of harassment by police and drug war could be a respectable hypothesis, but it needs more detail, because it can mean many things: what is the cause and effect relationship? If the premise is that blacks commit equal or less crime but they are disproportionately targeted by the justice system, then that premise is easily struck down, but maybe you don't mean that. Poverty: again, blacks have incomes expected of their IQ, so it would be self-oppression at worst, and more optimistically the reverse is true: American blacks live far better lives than if they were to live in a random nation of equal average IQ, such as the Philippines.

This is pulled from your backside.

You cannot say the oppression of Jews or Chinese or Irish in the past is equivalent to oppression of blacks which has existed non-stop for centuries in North America. When were the Jews, Chinese, or Irish enslaved in this nation?

This is an equivalency pulled from thin air and amounts to hand waving.

As far as the IQ arguments they are based on the notion that a despised and discriminated population shows the same motivation on meaningless tasks ordered by the master as the favored race that expects rewards for jumping through the right hoops.

The day motivation to take meaningless tests (hoop jumping) can be measured is the day any IQ data has any validity.

And of course the reason the Philippines is such a wasteland has everything to do with US or US supported violence and oppression and nothing to do with IQ.

 

[untermensche]

So much can be explained by IQ, but to notice that is akin to a 19th century British naturalist suggesting that the diversity of life is due to natural processes rather than divine creation.

Only hardened racists take any of the twisted IQ arguments seriously.

Gould destroyed them all decades ago.

But ignorance has a way of coming back every now and then.

And this ignorance has a special attraction to some irrational minds.

 

[laughing dog]

So much can be explained by IQ, but to notice that is akin to a 19th century British naturalist suggesting that the diversity of life is due to natural processes rather than divine creation.

Does IQ explain your posts?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 7736

This is more factual.

No. I'm not going to bother with Photoshop to fix it but the last frame should have labels

"Rich" and "Poor".

- - - Updated - - -

It's not true at all. Blacks in America have never been treated worse than they deserved. And it certainly does hurt, insult, humiliate, and demoralize Whites to put up with self-righteous race traitors telling us what we must think.

The Puritans were harshly and deservedly criticized by calling normal and healthy activity a "sin." It's the same with bossy snakes claiming that "racism" is wrong.

This isn't Stormfront, we aren't going to buy this garbage. There's no question that blacks used to be treated very unfairly. You think slavery is fair?!?!

 

[untermensche]

No. I'm not going to bother with Photoshop to fix it but the last frame should have labels

"Rich" and "Poor".

My suspicion is you have never lived one day as an oppressed minority.

And you in your ignorance think your experience is the experience of all.

The divide between rich and poor is a real feature of US society.

So is the divide between black and white.

 

[RavenSky]

Among tribes, external threats are always taken many times more seriously than internal threats, and white cops are seen as an external threat against blacks. It is a problem that exists everywhere in group politics, i.e. Islamic terrorists are seen as a far more serious threat than swimming pools. I believe the claim of the external threat should be evaluated for its truth value, all the same.

A complete and total failure to confront the number one killer of blacks: other blacks.

The real killer is poverty and oppression.

There is little oppression, and the poverty is caused by heritable low intelligence. Black Americans have an average income the same as expected of whites with an average IQ of 85. This wouldn't be blaming blacks. Blame is useless for circumstances out of anyone's control. Nobody is to blame, including whites.

Little oppression?

There have been centuries of massive oppression. As much oppression as can be placed on a group short of killing them. And this was oppression at the hands of despicable and disturbed whites.

Contrary to the ignorance of some, the effects of all this oppression do not disappear overnight. They do not disappear in a generation. They do not disappear from the oppressed or the oppressor.

And for the young black individual there is the oppression of substandard schools and harassment from the police and the oppression of the drug war and prison.

And the oppression of poverty.

Some of this oppression is the oppression all poor people face in an unjust society where the rich prey on the poor and live as parasites off others.

Once again you show you have no idea of reality.

I've seen real poverty, what we have in America is nothing like that. I've seen people far worse off than what we have here. You'll have to look at the news to find the really bad oppression--it normally happens in areas it's not safe to go.

There was a really good segment about poverty on television recently. They were discussing how the outcomes of poverty (to health and longevity in particular) in the USA are as bad or worse as those in third world countries. One of the speakers commented that some people in this country refuse to believe it because of that poor person they once saw with an iPhone.

That speaker was talking about you.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This isn't Stormfront, we aren't going to buy this garbage.

It's no wonder these guys will show up when you and Derec post the kinds of things you do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This isn't Stormfront, we aren't going to buy this garbage.

It's no wonder these guys will show up when you and Derec post the kinds of things you do.

We are after equality, not the white superiority that Stormfront wants.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Among tribes, external threats are always taken many times more seriously than internal threats, and white cops are seen as an external threat against blacks. It is a problem that exists everywhere in group politics, i.e. Islamic terrorists are seen as a far more serious threat than swimming pools. I believe the claim of the external threat should be evaluated for its truth value, all the same.

A complete and total failure to confront the number one killer of blacks: other blacks.

The real killer is poverty and oppression.

There is little oppression, and the poverty is caused by heritable low intelligence. Black Americans have an average income the same as expected of whites with an average IQ of 85. This wouldn't be blaming blacks. Blame is useless for circumstances out of anyone's control. Nobody is to blame, including whites.

Little oppression?

There have been centuries of massive oppression. As much oppression as can be placed on a group short of killing them. And this was oppression at the hands of despicable and disturbed whites.

Contrary to the ignorance of some, the effects of all this oppression do not disappear overnight. They do not disappear in a generation. They do not disappear from the oppressed or the oppressor.

And for the young black individual there is the oppression of substandard schools and harassment from the police and the oppression of the drug war and prison.

And the oppression of poverty.

Some of this oppression is the oppression all poor people face in an unjust society where the rich prey on the poor and live as parasites off others.

Ok, let's itemize those oppressions:

· Historical oppression
· Substandard schools
· Harassment by police
· Drug war
· Poverty

Each of these hypotheses is a testable prediction. The hypothesis of historical oppression would predict that even oppressed higher IQ races would remain poor after the oppression, but the prediction has not held up for the Jews, Chinese and Irish. The hypothesis of substandard schools would predict that blacks would perform better academically in high quality schools, and this prediction bears fruit at a young age, per the study by Scarr and Weinberg in which black children were adopted into white families and their IQs increased well above the black average at the age of 7. But, this advantage disappeared in the ten-year follow up study, in which the IQs of the black 17 year olds lowered to the value expected by the Wilson effect (increasing heritability of IQ with age). The hypotheses of harassment by police and drug war could be a respectable hypothesis, but it needs more detail, because it can mean many things: what is the cause and effect relationship? If the premise is that blacks commit equal or less crime but they are disproportionately targeted by the justice system, then that premise is easily struck down, but maybe you don't mean that. Poverty: again, blacks have incomes expected of their IQ, so it would be self-oppression at worst, and more optimistically the reverse is true: American blacks live far better lives than if they were to live in a random nation of equal average IQ, such as the Philippines.

This is pulled from your backside.

You cannot say the oppression of Jews or Chinese or Irish in the past is equivalent to oppression of blacks which has existed non-stop for centuries in North America. When were the Jews, Chinese, or Irish enslaved in this nation?

This is an equivalency pulled from thin air and amounts to hand waving.

As far as the IQ arguments they are based on the notion that a despised and discriminated population shows the same motivation on meaningless tasks ordered by the master as the favored race that expects rewards for jumping through the right hoops.

The day motivation to take meaningless tests (hoop jumping) can be measured is the day any IQ data has any validity.

And of course the reason the Philippines is such a wasteland has everything to do with US or US supported violence and oppression and nothing to do with IQ.

If the hypothesis fails the predictions, then the hypothesis is far less likely. If all the predictions are dismissed as irrelevant, then the hypothesis is not even wrong. I am not the one hand waving. In contrast, IQ values have predictive validity of many relevant biological and socioeconomic variables. On the other hand, IQ is ideologically uncomfortable, so best not believe it.

 

[Trausti]

This is pulled from your backside.

You cannot say the oppression of Jews or Chinese or Irish in the past is equivalent to oppression of blacks which has existed non-stop for centuries in North America. When were the Jews, Chinese, or Irish enslaved in this nation?

This is an equivalency pulled from thin air and amounts to hand waving.

As far as the IQ arguments they are based on the notion that a despised and discriminated population shows the same motivation on meaningless tasks ordered by the master as the favored race that expects rewards for jumping through the right hoops.

The day motivation to take meaningless tests (hoop jumping) can be measured is the day any IQ data has any validity.

And of course the reason the Philippines is such a wasteland has everything to do with US or US supported violence and oppression and nothing to do with IQ.

If the hypothesis fails the predictions, then the hypothesis is far less likely. If all the predictions are dismissed as irrelevant, then the hypothesis is not even wrong. I am not the one hand waving. In contrast, IQ values have predictive validity of many relevant biological and socioeconomic variables. On the other hand, IQ is ideologically uncomfortable, so best not believe it.

 

[untermensche]

If the hypothesis fails the predictions, then the hypothesis is far less likely. If all the predictions are dismissed as irrelevant, then the hypothesis is not even wrong. I am not the one hand waving. In contrast, IQ values have predictive validity of many relevant biological and socioeconomic variables. On the other hand, IQ is ideologically uncomfortable, so best not believe it.

Three other adoption studies found contrary evidence to the Minnesota study, lending support to a mostly environmental hypothesis:

Eyferth (1961) studied the out-of-wedlock children of black and white soldiers stationed in Germany after World War 2 and then raised by white German mothers and found no significant differences.
Tizard et al. (1972) studied black (African and West Indian), white, and mixed-race children raised in British long-stay residential nurseries. Three out of four tests found no significant differences. One test found higher scores for non-whites.
Moore (1986) compared black and mixed-race children adopted by either black or white middle-class families in the United States. Moore observed that 23 black and interracial children raised by white parents had a significantly higher mean score than 23 age-matched children raised by black parents (117 vs 104), and argued that differences in early socialization explained these differences.

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

The data is not on your side.

And the ultimate fact is, no matter what the average IQ, there will always be some with very high IQ's. When you harm the whole you deprive society of the full potential of these high IQ individuals.

 

[Trausti]

Three other adoption studies found contrary evidence to the Minnesota study, lending support to a mostly environmental hypothesis:

Eyferth (1961) studied the out-of-wedlock children of black and white soldiers stationed in Germany after World War 2 and then raised by white German mothers and found no significant differences.
Tizard et al. (1972) studied black (African and West Indian), white, and mixed-race children raised in British long-stay residential nurseries. Three out of four tests found no significant differences. One test found higher scores for non-whites.
Moore (1986) compared black and mixed-race children adopted by either black or white middle-class families in the United States. Moore observed that 23 black and interracial children raised by white parents had a significantly higher mean score than 23 age-matched children raised by black parents (117 vs 104), and argued that differences in early socialization explained these differences.

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

The data is not on your side.

And the ultimate fact is, no matter what the average IQ, there will always be some with very high IQ's. When you harm the whole you deprive society of the full potential of these high IQ individuals.

So Pinker was right about people hating the message.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Three other adoption studies found contrary evidence to the Minnesota study, lending support to a mostly environmental hypothesis:

Eyferth (1961) studied the out-of-wedlock children of black and white soldiers stationed in Germany after World War 2 and then raised by white German mothers and found no significant differences.
Tizard et al. (1972) studied black (African and West Indian), white, and mixed-race children raised in British long-stay residential nurseries. Three out of four tests found no significant differences. One test found higher scores for non-whites.
Moore (1986) compared black and mixed-race children adopted by either black or white middle-class families in the United States. Moore observed that 23 black and interracial children raised by white parents had a significantly higher mean score than 23 age-matched children raised by black parents (117 vs 104), and argued that differences in early socialization explained these differences.

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

The data is not on your side.

And the ultimate fact is, no matter what the average IQ, there will always be some with very high IQ's. When you harm the whole you deprive society of the full potential of these high IQ individuals.

I agree with that ultimate fact, as the IQ data is easily abused by the right-wing partisans, and that makes it all the more important for the left wing to accept the data and protect it from political abuse, not deny it or hide it. It has enormous explanatory relevance, and it will be undeniable when the human genome is fully reverse engineered, which could happen in the next ten years. The NIH is planning a survey of a million American genomes and profiles. The Wikipedia article is an accurate and useful overview, so I recommend you don't cherry pick. The three studies you picked, each with a small and unrepresentative samples, stand in contrast to a vast library of data of such matters, lists of which you can find in Lynn's Global Bell Curve, Shuey's Testing of Negro Intelligence (old but about the same age as the Eyferth study), and Roth et al's 2001 "Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: A metaanalysis."

 

[untermensche]

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

The data is not on your side.

And the ultimate fact is, no matter what the average IQ, there will always be some with very high IQ's. When you harm the whole you deprive society of the full potential of these high IQ individuals.

I agree with that ultimate fact, as the IQ data is easily abused by the right-wing partisans, and that makes it all the more important for the left wing to accept the data and protect it from political abuse, not deny it or hide it. It has enormous explanatory relevance, and it will be undeniable when the human genome is fully reverse engineered, which could happen in the next ten years. The NIH is planning a survey of a million American genomes and profiles. The Wikipedia article is an accurate and useful overview, so I recommend you don't cherry pick. The three studies you picked, each with a small and unrepresentative samples, stand in contrast to a vast library of data of such matters, lists of which you can find in Lynn's Global Bell Curve, Shuey's Testing of Negro Intelligence (old but about the same age as the Eyferth study), and Roth et al's 2001 "Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: A metaanalysis."

There is no concrete data to support the idea that intelligence varies in any population.

There is fluid data that changes all the time.

 

[Trausti]

I agree with that ultimate fact, as the IQ data is easily abused by the right-wing partisans, and that makes it all the more important for the left wing to accept the data and protect it from political abuse, not deny it or hide it. It has enormous explanatory relevance, and it will be undeniable when the human genome is fully reverse engineered, which could happen in the next ten years. The NIH is planning a survey of a million American genomes and profiles. The Wikipedia article is an accurate and useful overview, so I recommend you don't cherry pick. The three studies you picked, each with a small and unrepresentative samples, stand in contrast to a vast library of data of such matters, lists of which you can find in Lynn's Global Bell Curve, Shuey's Testing of Negro Intelligence (old but about the same age as the Eyferth study), and Roth et al's 2001 "Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: A metaanalysis."

There is no concrete data to support the idea that intelligence varies in any population.

There is fluid data that changes all the time.

People really hate the message: https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

 

[JonA]

I have a YouTube video that provides a summary of the case. Links to the video are automatically blocked on Facebook.

{video}

I watched the video. I don't recall it addressing the issue of how the racial differences arise.

For example, black people who live outside the first world (like everyone who lives outside the first world outside their own will) tend to live in poverty with incomplete access to education, healthcare, sanitation, and other things that promote intelligence. Black people who live within the first world tend to live with a history of oppression tied to their ankles - oppression that has only recently been getting taken down brick by brick.

These factors - historically and even presently poor living conditions with incomplete access to those things that promote intelligence - are as common to this group as their shared skin color.

Or to put it differently: I am already aware of, and accept, the evidence of the existence IQ differences between races; I am more interested in seeing the evidence showing these differences to be primarily the result of genetics rather than historical/environmental influences.

Causation vs. correlation.

 

[untermensche]

There is no concrete data to support the idea that intelligence varies in any population.

There is fluid data that changes all the time.

People really hate the message: https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

It sure looks like cultural effects.

All the top are Far East societies but they vary greatly in genetic makeup.

Then Italy? A hodgepodge of genetic makeup.

You've got Italy way above Vietnam.

If it was some genetic effect you would expect to see Italian Americans do better than Vietnamese Americans.

But we see the opposite.

So much for genes and intelligence.

And I wait and wait for somebody to tell me how motivation to take the test is measured on IQ tests?

That is a huge variable that no study ever looks at.