Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
ANY White man is an upgrade for a Black/Brown woman, compared to their fellow Black/Brown men. This is also why JD Vance married a Jeet. Jeetas don't care if you're a fat White guy because ANY White guy is an upgrade to them, compared to an Indian man.
Any Black woman with an average IQ will realize that Black men have no money and will abandon their kids. The father will stay around to raise the kids if he's White. The White husband will also have a career and not be constantly running from the law.
Easiest way to check that would be to look at crime rates in hispanic countries with minimal black populations. If you look at El Salvador, with some policing, you can get a hispanic country to white levels of safety. US hispanics are a weird self-selected group that might not be representative by merit of illegals making up a disproportionate percentage of the population. There is existing bias toward criminality with such a group.
Easiest way to check that would be to look at crime rates in hispanic countries with minimal black populations. If you look at El Salvador, with some policing, you can get a hispanic country to white levels of safety. US hispanics are a weird self-selected group that might not be representative by merit of illegals making up a disproportionate percentage of the population. There is existing bias toward criminality with such a group.
Still, its probably worse, since a great part of them are done by relatives, between 43-79% and when that happens, normally they don't even file a police report. only between 6-20% of the times do they file a police report
So most likely, the real sexual abuse numbers are even higher
I remember reading about how in black gangs they routinely rape the juniors to establish dominance, which explains how homosexuality is so prevalent in black communities.
This is my biggest question I have. Why are Jews considered different from white? Is it for cultural reasons as Jewish culture is different from the European / Western culture or is it something else?
Did these stats account for gypsies who are a more aggressive, carnivorous strain of indians? I bet a lot of ex-yugoslav petty crime falls at their feet.
Eh... not really, most research indicates the average is close together with different studies showing slight leads in either direction. However when assessing the question of potential upper limit strength almost all of the strongest men in the world where White and White athletes are generally dominant in upper body strength dependent sports. https://www.mensjournal.com/fitness/10-strongest-men-in-the-world
Funnily enough the first African to win the worlds strongest man competition was a White dude from South Africa, who has also repeatedly won the strongest man in Africa competition.
Still, its probably worse, since a great part of them are done by relatives, between 43-79% and when that happens, normally they don't even file a police report. only between 6-20% of the times do they file a police report
So most likely, the real sexual abuse numbers are even higher
I've come to the conclusion that it's a mix of their low IQ (and low impulse control as a result), as well as r-selection/k-selection theory (with whites preferring quality when mating, whereas non-whites prefer quantity). Browns act just like animals do, if you've ever seen a dog humping a person's leg. They act much more like animals when it comes to their impulses with sex or violence.
Most animals just try to pop out as many babies as possible because their mindset is "at least one will survive". But whites prefer to just raise fewer offspring to really focus on the quality of offspring and stay around to raise them.
I firmly believe that human races are different subspecies and the way browns act more animalistic is proof of that, and you can observe many biological differences between the races too (not just skin color, the differences go way beyond just skin color).
They really ARE NOT LIKE US, despite all the "it's just a difference in skin!" propaganda. Their brains and bodies are completely different. Saying we're "all one race, the human race" is like saying all dog breeds are the exact same.
I've come to the conclusion that it's a mix of their low IQ (and low impulse control as a result), as well as r-selection/k-selection theory (with whites preferring quality when mating, whereas non-whites prefer quantity). Browns act just like animals do, if you've ever seen a dog humping a person's leg. They act much more like animals when it comes to their impulses with sex or violence.
Most animals just try to pop out as many babies as possible because their mindset is "at least one will survive". But whites prefer to just raise fewer offspring to really focus on the quality of offspring and stay around to raise them.
I firmly believe that human races are different subspecies and the way browns act more animalistic is proof of that, and you can observe many biological differences between the races too (not just skin color, the differences go way beyond just skin color).
They really ARE NOT LIKE US, despite all the "it's just a difference in skin!" propaganda. Their brains and bodies are completely different. Saying we're "all one race, the human race" is like saying all dog breeds are the exact same.
They don't just "mate like animals", they mate like retarded mutts. Most animals actually do have a selection process, special sorts of mating rituals to help select a mate, and will actually remain with the same mate. Even in animals where it's multiple females for one male such as herd animals still are "fixed" with the same females and the same male mating until old age or sickness/injury stops them. And it makes sense, if you have a male who can protect the female (or group) and do his job there is no reason to exchange him for another until the time comes he's too frail to continue doing so.
The animal kingdom is much more organized and makes far more sense than people credit.
It's even stranger if you restrict it to the example of dogs and wolves. Wolves are notorious for controlled breeding practices. It's very irregular for more than one female to be pregnant at a time. The pack structure is quite family orientated with new breeding pairs typically being the result of mature wolves breaking off from existing packs and starting a new one (btw, this is why wolf culls result in population explosions. The broken packs scatter into many new breeding pairs).
The lesser species of humans act like dogs instead of wolves. Infidelity and inability to pair bond are typical amongst them, which stands in stark contrast to whites and yellows, who reliably have low single mother rates.
I only regret that this chart doesn't further break down "hispanic" into white and non-white. Seeing asian, black, and "other" broken down further would help too. White also includes arabs and other semitic persons, though this doesn't throw off the data much in the US by merit of low semitic population. Seeing additional breakdown by race of father would be quite enlightening too. Who wants to bet black father is disproportionately the parental race.
These maps are slightly wrong in the Balkans: Greece should be J2; Kosovo and Bulgaria should be E1b1b1a1; Croatia and Montenegro should be I2a. However, I admit that it's a close call in these countries.
The associations in the first map are also wrong, because haplogroups are very old, from before there was a clear division among the referred populations. This is why one can find Europeans belonging to almost any haplogroup (except A and B).
If you want to identify population clusters, you should look for PCA graphs of autosomal DNA, since they offer a more comprehensive outlook on ancestry. Y-DNA only tells which individual men descend from a common patrilineal ancestor, how long ago that ancestor lived, and what migratory path they took. It's useful if you're interested in male-specific migratory patterns, but it's useless for generalized analysis without information about the incidence of such haplogroups in the target population.
According to autosomal DNA data, all Europeans cluster together, except the Sami, Turks and Caucasians. Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews also cluster with Europeans. The former are closest to Calabrians and the latter are closest to Cypriots. The Basques, Sardinians and Finns are outliers inside the European cluster. The most homogenous areas in the European cluster are Iceland, the Faroe Islands and the British Isles. The most heterogenous countries inside the cluster are Russia, Finland, Italy, Germany and France.
Albeit all these details, The European cluster is very homogenous overall: the second most homogenous population cluster in the world, in fact (only East Asians are less genetically diverse). The most diverse region in the world, containing 90% of human genetic diversity, is Subsaharan Africa.
This really is a problem with American data, the definition of 'White' is very loose and includes groups nobody actually considers White. I suspect American Whites are better than the stats suggest because of this.
See this post from the indian menace thread showing that apparently a lot of indians are being marked as White in arrest records:
Because they spent some time in Imperial Italy before moving to Central and Eastern Europe, and intermixed with local Italians (more than they did with non-Italians). Ashkenazi Jews can be modeled as 50% Levantine and 50% European. Most of their European heritage is from Roman-era Italians. Roman-era ancestry is more preserved in Southern Italians than in Northern Italians due to endogamy.
Levantine ancestry also shifts the Ashkenazi and Sephardic populations southwards, so admixture with Germanics and Slavs doesn't make them more Germanic or Slavic-like.
