Why is racism wrong?

[Something completely different]

Are ou to fucking stupid to use the quote tags!?

Yes. I did. You can't have missed those examples, either.

No you did not. All you quote is a "youtube racist" which does not qualify for a source.

And I am certainly an atheist.

We will see about that.

True, I lack data on gang activity/membership in European countries. I can't say anything on matters of which I am ignorant. So I speak only of what I know.

Hardly a single country in Europe conducts research into which ethnical group is involved in most crime. Because that is discriminatory.
Gang culture is an urban thing usualy evolving out of poor urban ereas, which is why you wont find the average inbreed, jobless, racist, redneck without teeth, within any gang. And before you even ask: no, most european countries do not have a history of massive slavery which is why gang culture in most european cities evolves within poor white ereas.

Questions to be answered by research would include: What fraction of white youths in Europe belong to gangs, and how does that fraction compare with the fraction of blacks who belong to gangs?

compare??????? What the fuck do you mean with compare?????

The membership in a criminal organisation is enought. And as far as everyone can see, Italian street gangs are only filled with Italians.

You base your entire argument on the idiotic notion that blck gang criminality somehow is unique in the history of the US and the world.
Thereby completly forgetting that when the Irish, Italians and other minorities where in impoverished condition gang culture also formed arround those groups within the US.

Also: What is the ratio in the per capita murder rates between white gang members and black gang members? Repeat this question, except substitute robbery, rape, vandalism, arson for the word murder.

Cime statistics are not based on race.

No racist seriously claims that all the bad guys are black and that all the good guys are white. Instead of all-and-nothing, it's a question of more-and-less. That is why, among racists, the customary metric for comparisons is the ratio of the per capita rates (for whatever) between two specified races.

Crime rates do not depend on race you disgusting son of a bitch!
The number of crime in a place is dependent of social factors such as poverty, political conflict, ethnic conflict and proximity to international criminality (drug trafficing).
Race plays no role whatsoever within this.

(Edit: As it happens, I have heard a few things about gang activity in Europe/UK. I've heard that in the UK there is an extensive criminal network of Muslim pedophiles who are kidnapping British children all across the country and using them for the purpose of child prostitution.

I have heard that pigs rape sheep, which is probably not true because I heard it


Show some case work and reports before slandering an entire minority.

For several years, the police were either in denial, or were informed but were deliberately looking the other way, fearing to be accused of racism. I have also heard that all, or almost all, of the rapes in Scandinavia are perpetrated by non-white immigrants to Sweden/Norway. Of course, since I don't live in Europe, and especially since the media often don't carry news of this kind, there is undoubtedly much that I don't know regarding the distribution of criminal acts by race in Europe. I don't deny that I am largely ignorant of the matter.)

You must be a special kind of idiot to believe that one can base an argument of " have heared"

You mean the white South Africans whose ancestors stopped the Bantu and the Mbele from slaughtering each other by the hundreds of thousands year in and year out? The South Africans who paid their taxes, only to watch their government spend more to benefit the blacks than to benefit themselves? The South Africans who rebuilt hospitals and schools for blacks every time the blacks decided to burn down what they were given before? What kind of racial supremacy is that?

The South Africans who denied the right to self determination and the right to vote to blacks? The south Africans who murdered those who resisted that regime?

I can give backup to those claims, whilest you paint arpartheit as something really lovely.

The South Africans didn't want to be displaced in their country for the same reason the Israelis don't want to be displaced by the Arabs who live in Palestine. But whereas the Israelis continue to hold out, thanks to apartheid, the South Africans voted their apartheid away, gave the vote to blacks, and now they are being destroyed.

How are they being "destroyed"?????

I very much doubt that the Afrikaaners wanted to enslave the blacks. They just didn't want to happen what eventually did come about: the genocidal domination of black racists in their government.

The Apartheit regime used blcks to work for low wages in production whilest damning them to live in poverty from which there was no escape.

Now show some proof for the:

the genocidal domination of black racists in their government.

Oh, is that a Hitler reference? I should invoke Godwin's rule, then, I suppose.

No. Lebensraum was based on the racist theory that the infiror slavic people could be chased of their lands by the supirior germans. That is racism which contradicts your previously posted nonsence.

But I won't. Yes, the idea is to create a white living space. And, no, that's not a bad idea (even if Hitler had it too). It's a good idea.

So you defend the notion that it is alright to murder and dispalce an entire people?

That's your contrary argument? Somehow, I find it unimpressive. It means "using few words," and, whereas it's true that good writers use no more words than they need to, you appear to have used somewhat fewer than you should have.

You dont even understand what I am writing about????

The first laconic phrase ever was used during the second punic war when the city state of Athens besieged the city of Sparta. The Athenians sent the Spartans a message which red "If you dond surrender, we will enslave your women and children, kill all men, burn your city down and erease Sparta from history" To which the Spartans sent back a message that read "If".

You based your entire argument on a "if" and therefor your argument is not an argument but worthless gibberish that fell appart when you used the word "if".

And here's yet another thing I've noticed when racists and egalitarians debate. The egalitarians always, incessantly demand that the racists support everything they say with documented facts, with appropriate citations of scholarly and scientific reference material. And, to an extent, the racists do just that.

You have not.

However, the egalitarians almost never do as much to support their own opinions. Or, at least, I've not seen them do much of it. They appear to think that their assumption of racial equality is some sort of default idea, with a privileged status, such that it can be accepted without evidence. As if it needed none.

I dont see a reason to post documented facts for someone who cant post documented facts.

I've found an exception, in that debate between the racist and the egalitarian on YouTube. The egalitarian demanded that the racist explain why the (black) country of Sierra Leone had a higher average IQ than the white country of Croatia. The racist checked some reference material and found out that the average IQ of Sierra Leone is only 64, with only two countries in the world (both of them black: Eithiopia and Equatorial Guinea) having average IQs less than that. Meanwhile, the average IQ of Croatia is 90. The racist asked the egalitarian where he'd come by his information, and the egalitarian told him "IQ and the Wealth of Nations," by Richard Lynn et. al. It was the very same reference that the racist had found. The one time during that debate when the egalitarian bothered to cite an authoritative source, he lied about what was in it.

An idiotic example, because the state of education depends on an education system.

And again you do not post any sources.

Now fuck off and dont return you worthless sock.