Debunking Holla Forums infographs

Anyone got more? All I got is pic related (the 2nd image debunking the first)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union#Background
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Committee_elected_by_the_8th_Congress_of_the_Russian_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks),
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12552-016-9164-y
bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=702):
link.springer.com/article/10.1093/jurban/jti065.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495080/.
archive.samhsa.gov/data/2k13/DAWN2k11ED/DAWN2k11ED.pdf.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16867211,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin's_Cabinet#Formation).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Committee_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union#Lenin_era:_1917.E2.80.931922
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#Peoples_of_European_Russia.
revleft.space/vb/threads/41876-Russian-Revolution-funded-by-Zionist-Jews?p=656344#post656344
hillel.org/docs/default-source/historical/american-jewish-year-book-(1920-1921).pdf?sfvrsn=2,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia#Jews_in_the_revolutionary_movement):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_armies)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia#Jews_in_the_revolutionary_movement),
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia#Jews_in_the_revolutionary_movement
youtube.com/watch?v=rj7iRwzX-A0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews#By_ethnicity
pressreader.com/usa/chicago-sun-times/20150324/283446369929642
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York#Population
www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/year-end-2016-enforcement-report.pdf.
www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/stats/reports-analysis/crime-enf.page.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Committee_elected_by_the_17th_Congress_of_the_All-Union_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#Peoples_of_European_Russia),
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_correlations_of_criminal_behaviour#Socioeconomic_factors
cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarried-childbearing.htm
cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_01.pdf.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City).
nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf
www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/year-end-2016-enforcement-report.pdf
nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_of_incarcerated_African-American_males
bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf.
ipp.missouri.edu/2016/04/27/field-experiment-yields-little-evidence-of-bias/.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495080/
www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/year-end-2016-enforcement-report.pdf).
springer.com/gp/about-springer/media/research-news/all-english-research-news/wealth-doesn-t-protect-u-s--blacks-from-greater-chance-of-incarceration/7820280
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/pdf/0931865.pdf
ucdavis.edu/news/biracial-asian-americans-and-mental-health?id=8732
census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/data/sipp/interracial-instability.pdf
theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/mixed-race-children-mental-health
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overman_Committee#Criticism
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The following is from: "The Jews of the Soviet Union: The History of a National Minority" by Benjamin Pinkus, page 83.
"By 1939, the following Jewish Ministers and Deputy-Ministers were still in government: L. Kaganovich, M. Kaganovich, B. Antselovich, M. Berman, L. Ginzburg, L. Vannikov and P. Zhemchuzhina-Molotov. Thus, throughout the whole period, Jewish representation in the central administration was well above any proportional relation to the national ratio of the Jews in the Soviet Union, and very high in comparison with all the other national minorities. We can say that the Jews in the Soviet Union took over the muh muh privileged position, previously held by the Germans in tsarist Russia. In the senior ranks of the bureaucracy, the Jews held important posts in many ministries, but were particularly numerous in the Ministries of the Interior, Foreign Affairs and Foreign trade. If we take all three sectors of the administration, it emerges that of the 417 people who constituted the ruling elite of the Soviet Union in the mind 1920s (the members of the Central Execute Committee, the Party Central Committee, the Presidium of the Executive of the Soviets of the USSR and the Russian Republic, the Ministries, and the Chairman of the Executive Committee), twenty-seven (that is 6%) were Jews. The proportion of Jews decreased in the 1930s during the course of a natural process whereby a national elite came into being and found a place in the central administration; but it was still true that the Jews held a share in government more than double their proportion of the population. In the economic elite in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, the share of Jews was even more impressive, reaching as high as ten per cent."
From your own source. Take note that, when analyzing the Politburo during the early-mid twenties alone, Jews or half/quarter Jews (like Lenin) are shown to make up two or three of the seven or so positions. Ironic how in the image macro, Snyder is berated for pushing the opposite message, yet you are guilty of the same selective quote-mining by not including literally the preceding passage that affirms the very historical fact you are trying to revise.

To add on that, try going to the footnotes of Pinkus' work, look up the 70th and 71st citation, see if you can find anything. I'm having a difficult time, would like to see if anybody else can find anything. Google scholar only reroutes me to the same work.

Someone make sure to archive this thread if it becomes hot.

someone debunk this one for me please

I-I can't.

At last I truly see.

...

That's more like statistics - science just explains why blacks are prone to crime

Anyone here have an answer for the FBI crime statistics, or crime statistics in general? I can are against things like intelligence but when it comes to crime statistics I usually have nothing.

this leaves no room for me to hate the Chinese though.

Well it's cause blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime. That's not under any argument. The reason is why do they do it? Is the system oppressive and unfair to blacks, is it a part of their culture or are they simply more disposed to violence? If you want to argue the facts you can say that blacks are targeted more by police as proven by how disproportionately they are pulled over.

What exactly would be a proportionate amount of crime look like

The problem with debunking bullshit is, it takes exponentially more time than to create it. And God knows Holla Forums creates bullshit at luminal speeds.

Regardless, almost every damn time, all it took to debunk an infograph was to look at a single one of the sources and show it didn't say what was claimed. Or if there weren't any provided, google for an appropriate source and show it doesn't match its claim.

Bolshevism wasn't really 'invented', it was implemented. The assertion isn't that it was 'invented', but that many of the senior officials were Jews, and only later do we learn that Marx himself was of Jewish ancestry. Besides, we aren't discussing the origins OF Bolshevism, but the power structure prior to the purges. Your own source refutes your worldview, so you have nothing to argue about. But if you want to discuss the implementation OF Bolshevism during its initial legs, let's look at that.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union#Background

So, the original members of those who were to direct the October Revolution were disproportionately Jewish. Even if one of the seven members were Jews, that would be a disproportionate member with lots of influence. It would be as if a Cambodian was a justice for the Supreme Court. But it was more than just one Jew.
We have four full Jews, one half-Jew, one quarter-Jew, one Georgian, and ONE Russian.

Looking at the 8th Party Congress (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Committee_elected_by_the_8th_Congress_of_the_Russian_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks), there were 19 full members. Of those 19, 8 were actually Russian (the first "true center of political power", or the implementation of Bolshevism in Russia, was minority Russian). There was one Pole, two Latvians, one Georgian, one Bulgarian, and one Ukrainian. Trotsky, Zinoviev, Radek, and Kamenev (save for Kamenev, who was half-Jewish, the rest were fully Jewish). Then, there was Lenin, who was the most mixed of the bunch, with allegedly Chuvash and Russian ancestry. It is confirmed that his mother's father (Alexandr Blank, born Israel Blank) was Jewish, making him quarter-Jewish. Counting Lenin out, that means that full Jews represented ~15% of the party. Including the half-Jew Kamenev, that makes it a little over one-fifth. Including Lenin, that makes it a little over one-fourth. That means that the 8th Central Committee's full members were composed of the minority populations. There were more minority groups than ethnic Russians, by 11/19 to 8/19.
That's not looking at the full Politburo members during the Committe, of which there were six. Those six were Lenin, Kamenev, Stalin, Trotsky, Krestinsky (agreed upon as Russian, but could have been Ukrainian or Jewish converts, according to his Wiki page), and Stasova. That means one full Jew, one Georgian, one quarter-Jew mix (along with other ethnicities, allegedly), one half-Jew, and two Russians. Including the three candidates, that makes it four Russians, two full Jews, one half-Jew, one quarter-Jew (Lenin), and one Georgian. Examining the full members AND candidates, the result is similar: disproportionate minority control (in the case of the candidates, more Latvians and Lithuanians were present and a few Russians, but Russian representation is still beneath the majority level, despite their majority role). On all fronts, the disproportionate power was held by minority groups. In particular, the Jewish role is examined above. If you want to go by who 'invented' Bolshevism, then I guess you could say Lenin? His was the first Bolshevik government, so make of that how you will. Going off of Marx, who was ancestrally Jewish, the result is the same.

~15%, since that's how many black people live in the US.

The simplest answer of all is that black communities were abandoned by capitalists much earlier than white communities, who were aided by racist whites. People moved in massive numbers into Northern cities to work in factories, but during the '60s and '70s, they started closing them en masse.

More whites were educated and wealthy and still useful to porky, while blacks were still officially segregated and denied the benefits of their labour. Whites could move out of cities and find work as pencil-pushers. Blacks were abandoned.

Nowadays, if you live in a ghetto, that's been a ghetto for 50 fucking years, how are you going to earn a living? There's only shit jobs left like call centers and gas stations, and even they're filled up. You can scrounge for scraps, or you can do crimes, and if you're smart at all, you're going to do crimes for established criminals because they are basically the government/porky combined in one.

Well, even the poverty excuse is out the window, as race is still a better indicator.
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12552-016-9164-y
This is a false premise you're arguing off of, and a very poor excuse for criminality. First of all, it presupposes that A follows and causes B (that because, for no reason whatsoever, blacks are pulled over disproportionately, that this causes crime and has no reasoning). In reality, going off of the following link (bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=702):
Right there, using this logic, the gap between male and female criminal activity (at least concerning homicides) should be equivalent to the gap between blacks and whites. You would actually be pretty on-the-dot with that analogy, but that isn't why. Men simply commit more crime than women, full stop. Not because they are pulled over. I'll explain why:
So, the majority of those pulled over actually agree that it was legitimate, not without purpose. So that means the roughly ~30% should see this as just cause and motivation FOR their criminality, which is a statement not supported by any evidence. I'd like to see some report or something linking 'illegitimate police pull-overs' with hard crime.
It goes on:
Using this logic that there is some super primal instinct activated when people are unjustly targeted and 'pulled over', Hispanics should be more criminal given the fact that, not only are there more 'Hispanics' in the US, they were pulled over at about the same rate as whites AND they were searched more often than blacks, by about 1%. If anything, the criminality should be pretty up-there, as they seem to be "unjustly targeted", too. Yet blacks are still prone to criminality at higher rates than even Hispanics.
This is the old unsubstantiated discrimination canard that is unfalsifiable. Simply because Japanese-Americans make more money than Korean-Americans does not mean the system is rigged against them. In reality, single motherhood has had devastating effects. A lack of a male role model and fatherlessness/out-of-wedlock marriages resulting in childbirth aren't without their ramifications. Again, these are difficult factors to weed out, but some seem more plausible over others, given how the majority of these 'unjust targetings' result in blacks killing each other.

Holla Forums is correct about the amount and proportion of black crime.
Blacks commit about half of violent crime according to federal data on convictions.
Liberals claim that this data pains an inaccurate picture, but they are incorrect.
The oft cited FBI conviction statistics can be trusted because witness surveys reports corroborate their findings on perp's race
Victim's of violent crime might not be able to pick the right person out of a lineup, but they can remember the race of the person who mugged them

The funny thing is the justice depeartment under Eric Holder stopped recording perp's race in the victim survey reports
but if you look back to the Bush era reports, the data lines up with conviction statistics

Do not chose to die on the 'race and crime stats' hill.
Holla Forums is right on that one
but by all means, don't cede them an inch about the causes of this phenomenon

I've never read anyone dispute that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crimes tbh, debates always seem to revolve (as they should) around the cause for it.

lol you wave this away like it doesn't mean anything. Half of all prisoners are in there for drug possession, but if you don't get searched, you don't get charged. Whites do drugs as much, often more, than blacks do, but they don't get searched? Funny that.

Well, it isn't entirely poverty, as other factors are still better indicators. And the history of blacks in the US relies on environmental effects and experiences (such as slavery or Jim crow, etc.) having a quantitate effect on the subsequent generations. This would argue for the heritability of certain traits, such as those predisposing groups to criminality. So far, this has not been proven and I'm pretty sure the premise of heritability and genes being expressed in environments, which as passed down among various groups of people, is not one that you are ready to reconcile with, as most creationists are.
So that's another excuse that falls flat on its face, as no such discriminatory laws exist because they are outlawed. I'd like to see some legislation allowing such cases to exist beyond outliers that were reprimanded in order to confirm that as a viable cause. Otherwise, the same point can be raised against the Jews: they have faced pogroms and anti-Semitism for thousands of years and were almost annihilated, yet they are not 'prone to criminality'. Going off of casualties alone, I'll take slavery over gas chambers any day.

Ashkenazi jews were shoehorned into being moneylenders and merchants for like 800 years
the ones that were the wealthiest, (smartest) were best able to insulate their families from pogroms and persecution
this resulted an increase in I.Q. of roughly 1/3 of a point per generation
Only Ashkenazi jews were shoehorned into these financial professions, so only Ashkenazi jews have greater than average intelligences today

This also explains why half of the world chess champions, 25% of noble prize winners, X% of top porkies are Ashkenazi today
There are actually significant test score gaps in Isreal between Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi jews because of this phenomenon

Blacks having higher than average testosterone also surely contributes to crime
Which would ofc be not a result of slavery or Jim crow, because it's present in West Africa today also.

No, that wasn't my quote. That was from the source. My addition was the following: Using this logic that there is some super primal instinct activated when people are unjustly targeted and 'pulled over', Hispanics should be more criminal given the fact that, not only are there more 'Hispanics' in the US, they were pulled over at about the same rate as whites AND they were searched more often than blacks, by about 1%. If anything, the criminality should be pretty up-there, as they seem to be "unjustly targeted", too. Yet blacks are still prone to criminality at higher rates than even Hispanics.
Preposterous. That isn't the only way to get arrested and charged. You can be caught in the act of exchange/use, that isn't the only way to get charged. And even if you are caught, or searched and found to have illegal drugs, you aren't always charged with a crime. Besides, those who are searched and found to have drugs are breaking the drug laws in-place. They are still criminals.
Actually, the quotation from the source (if you'd actually read it, which it seems like you didn't given how you think that was my 'handwaving') is concerned with getting pulled over and searched, not all searches. This figure is concerned with people in cars getting pulled over and searched.
Also, if whites do drugs "as much", this still makes blacks VASTLY over-represented in total drug usage. Did you mean as a proportion? If so, there is some questionable evidence regarding the validity of self-reports, as blacks and hispanics tend to bend the truth when self-reporting: link.springer.com/article/10.1093/jurban/jti065.
A study more recent: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495080/.
When comparing the self-reports with hair samples, the results are not consistent.
Examining black and white admission to emergency rooms (due to drug-related issues), blacks still out-ranked whites: archive.samhsa.gov/data/2k13/DAWN2k11ED/DAWN2k11ED.pdf.
Finally, it would only logically follow that higher rates of illegal activity expose blacks to more intense criminal processing. Because of the disproportionate criminal activity, they can be arrested and searched over robbery charges and found to have drugs. It also poses an odd dilemma: if there is knowledge of illegal activity that whites/Hispanics/other groups commit, if it is not reported to the authorities, that is illegal. You become an accessory to a crime. If you have knowledge of all these underground white gangs or Jewish gangs that are getting a free pass because of their skin colour, please report this information to your local authorities.

According to: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16867211, there is reason to believe that selective marriages of highly-educated individuals during the Middle Ages has lead to these modern results (also, a lot to do with consanguineous marriages, which would explain the rates of mental and genetic diseases Jews are subject to). I'd actually like to see a study examining Mizrahi Jewish Autism Level, I couldn't find any.

This is actually a really common point made, but it isn't really tenable once you control for waist circumference/BMI, too.

people really aren't doing Autism Level&(insert race/ethnicity) research anymore in the US
it's taboo to rock the boat and puncture the liberal narrative

But fear not, there will be an answers in due time.
It will be chinese geneticists and not Western social scientists who finally end the race and Autism Level wars
Bejing has many people researching the genetics of Autism Level right now and they give no fucks about hurting anybodies feelings
Soon they'll have all the genes that effect intelligence identified, and their distribution mapped to existing ethnic populations

woops, forgot about that

yeah, if you're a cracker

Who would have imagined that a race whose favourite brand of music glorifies violent drug dealers with no empathy would be more prone to criminal activity?
Probably coincidence and it's actually because "the man" is oppressing them

How is it police manage to determine that a suspect is black and pull them over for a drug search when they're traveling 40mph?
Are blacks just shit drivers who attract attention that way?

reminder that liberals destroyed Black America by incentivizing single motherhood
And then liberals and reactionaries put the nail in the coffin with the war on drugs

This is a stupid argument. If you're referring to rap music. That started in the 80's, and "gangsta rap" in the late 80's. Crime rates declined dramatically through the 90s up to today.

So the rise of gangsta rap correlates with a significant decline in violent crime.

This isn't how you "debunk" claims. You do it by examining the source THOROUGHLY and compare them to others from opposite views.
Don't embarrass yourself by using fallacies.

So what you're saying is the fact that black youth literally WORSHIP VIOLENT SOCIOPATHIC CRIMINALS has nothing to do with the fact that they are more likely to be charged with crimes?
Are you retarded?
Maybe police just got better at catching repeat offenders and preventing crime

...

...

I'm saying if you're trying to blame gangsta rap you're a fool because the period where rap has been popular happens to be the period with the lowest levels of crime in modern history.

Also, the market buying rap music is about 60-80% white. So if people rappin about being gangstas was some important thing for crime it should show up about the same with whites.

you're free to look up the references in that Holla Forums macro. one is a literal blog post without any sources. then there's timothy snyder (and that book also got btfo by grover furr) and the rest are a bunch of people whose main intention was to spread as much disinformation as possible about the soviets during the civil war and in nazi germany. you're asking to be objective with people who were paid to not be objective.

[citation required]

The first politburo you speak of didn't direct anything because it lasted 2 weeks and didn't hold any meetings. Like the OP says, what held power from October 1917 and on was the Council of people's commissars that was elected by the 2nd congress of Soviets, and Trotsky was the only person there with a jewish background. Second, many of the jews in the bolshevik party and the central committee joined late in the revolution when Trotsky and his group were allowed into the party during the 6th party congress in August 1917. The Council of people's commissars was the government and highest apparatus of the Russian SR during its first years, and russians clearly held the majority.

And Lenin was as jewish as he was swedish. I mean he wasn't even jewish by Nuremberg laws. Speaking of "disproportionate minorities" here's a fact, the Russian Empire was the most multiethnic empire of its time, it covered hundreds of languages and half of its population wasn't russian. Poles and Baltic peoples were a smaller minority than jews but held a similar representation in the communist party, yet you don't see nazis talking about Polish Bolshevism conspiracies.

I'm sorry but the jewish bolshevik myth is simply not real. I don't know why you're trying so hard to claim otherwise, but I have a feeling that you're just doing it to validate your own bias agenda.

I genuinely don't get why people think black people do these things because they're poor.

As I quoted: but this precursor did not outlast the event; the Central Committee continued with the political functions.
From the same link: From 1917 to the mid-1920s, congresses were held annually, the Central Committee was convened at least once a month and the Politburo met once a week. With Joseph Stalin's consolidation of power, the frequency of formal meetings declined. By the mid-1930s, the Central Committee began meeting only once a month, and the Politburo convened at most once every third week.
Slightly dishonest, as I was responding to the user who who accused me of purporting how Jews "invented" Bolshevism. Rather, they implemented it. From the link, again: On August 18, 1917, the top Bolshevik leader, Vladimir Lenin, set up a political bureau…to direct the October Revolution, with only seven members (Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Stalin, Sokolnikov, and Bubnov), but this precursor did not outlast the event; the Central Committee continued with the political functions…The 8th Party Congress in 1919 formalized this reality and re-established what would later on become the true center of political power in the Soviet Union. It ordered the Central Committee to appoint a five-member Politburo to decide on questions too urgent to await full Central Committee deliberation. The original members of the Politburo were Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Joseph Stalin, Lev Kamenev and Nikolai Krestinsky.
Lenin being a quarter-Jew, Kamenev a half-Jew, Trotsky a full Jew, Stalin a Georgian, and Krestinsky allegedly Russian (but some state he was Ukrainian, others that his family had converted from Judaism).
Of course, I am only concerned with what the user was accusing me of: Jewish "creation" (I prefer implementation) of Bolshevism. I was concerned with how the movement took its roots, and how the following 'Red Terror' lead by Trotsky's Red Army played a role.

Not entirely accurate, that was the Central Committee, according to Lenin, which was decided by the Congress of the Russian Communist Party. The Sovnarkom was also responsible to the Congress of Soviets for the "general administration of the affairs of the state" (from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin's_Cabinet#Formation).
From: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Committee_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union#Lenin_era:_1917.E2.80.931922
"During the first years in power, under Lenin's rule, the Central Committee was the key decision-making body in both practice and theory, and decisions were made through majority votes."
It was responsible FOR the Central Committee Commissions, while both were responsible to the Congress.
His mother was German-Swedish, so that makes him one-eighth Swedish, but one-quarter Jewish.
I don't care what the Nuremberg laws state, they are irrelevant to determining ancestry, they use arbitrary cut-offs. Having a Jewish grandparent makes you part-Jewish.
Demonstrably untrue: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#Peoples_of_European_Russia.
1926 Census held that Russians were still the majority.
Poles AND Baltic people? No. They amount to .52% ethnic composition, whereas Jews were .58%. None of them should have even been representing Russian districts, yet they both did. The issue is primarily because Jews like Sverdlov are prolific precisely because of the role played in events like the Red Terror. And when Poles like Dzerzhinsky are involved in organizations like the Cheka, they are also mentioned for their role. They were not even Russian, yet held such power.
See:
The source in the OP, which is a Jewish man, tends to disagree. I quote: The proportion of Jews decreased in the 1930s during the course of a natural process whereby a national elite came into being and found a place in the central administration; but it was still true that the Jews held a share in government more than double their proportion of the population.

...

I think it's kind of counter-productive to do things like this. Even if everyone in the central government and any kind of secret police was really jewish, it still wouldn't really matter at all.
Why? Because by trying to disprove these facts, we are accepting the premise that this would prove the existence of a jewish conspiracy if it was correct and that the real tragedy of the October Revolution and the following years was not that the Bolsheviks had to use/used violent means to achieve their goals, but that the ethnical composition of the soviet leadership was not perfectly in line with the "victims" of red terror.

They don't call it the Streisand effect for nothing.
Not everyone, but more than is expected. It's the same reason why the US should pay so much attention and obsess so much effort and energy over such a small state like Israel.
It isn't really a conspiracy if it is well-known and citizens can openly discuss it. The whole point of a conspiracy is that it isn't easily accessible information. Pretty sure most people know Marx was ancestrally Jewish.
Except that is the opposite. The false dichotomy is not true, it isn't "people died" versus "Jews were involved", it is both. People died, and some Jews were involved at disproportionate rates, along with other groups, like Poles. Ethnic Russians were the primary victims. People in all nations and of all walks of life don't really like it when they aren't properly represented, let alone killed because they dissent by people who don't even represent them.

Uhm… this still doesn't prove anything. If you can find something like a letter written by Marx where he tells Something Something Rotschild that he will fool people into overthrowing capitalism and rip him of his power and then the Rotschild writes back "YES! YES! BRUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!" then I will honestly go natsucc. But of course, this is not the truth.
Sorry if I misjudged you, but for me Holla Forums seems to care a lot more about latter then the former, and even like the former if the victims are of the wrong skin colour or nose shape.
I totally disagree. If people are ruled over/killed by people who are more different then them, then they can easily blame some abstract concept surrounding their oppressors instead of opresssion itself. That would force them to think of some solution which more radical than simply replacing the people at the top so they will be ruled over by tyrants who they like more than the previous ones because they speak the same language as them or offer some gibsmedats, and thus preserving the existing power structures.

Are you retarded? I'm saying that you are misinterpreting the source. You're going off and making up "super primal instincts". You're declaring as if getting pulled over "causes crime", when getting pulled over is merely the path by which crime is foisted upon people. The cops get to choose who is accused.


Protesting for fair wages could also be considered a crime, so this virtue signalling bs doesn't work for me. Throwing people into jail for doing, selling, or moving drugs is completely ineffectual because the drug moving industry is merely a banned form of capitalism rather than a tremendous moral failure.

You're being a tremendous autist, because this pedantry isn't actually changing my point (which you haven't addressed). The source you are quoting from never mentions statistics from all searches, which makes them a non-existent data point. In fact, foot searches are even more racially biased than driver stops. NY police frisked black people 5 times more than whites, yet the rate of actual arrests was the same between races. Some precincts, whites were arrested at higher rates.


Yes, in proportion. If you weren't an autist, you might have simply intuited that instead of argue against a non-existent point.


You have no idea how cops work. They choose what they will do to you. They are perfectly happy to lie and threaten people into acquiescing to searches, and mysteriously, they target blacks over whites.

Emergency room visits are going to involve hardcore addicts more than active criminals. It shouldn't be shocking that blacks, who are ridiculously poor as a demographic, will make up a higher proportion society's most desperate people. Again, you mistake the natural consequence of capital flight with moral fun.

This and everything else about your post are retarded.

not sure why Holla Forums makes such a big deal about this one
we aren't liberal multikultis
I believe communism is compatible with 'human bio-diversity'
it's was the porkies who created the massive demographics shifts that they complain about

The critiques in the second pic are good but i cant find any info about Benjamin Pinkus, intead, this revleft post that i see a some time ago has much better sources:

revleft.space/vb/threads/41876-Russian-Revolution-funded-by-Zionist-Jews?p=656344#post656344

I genuinely don't get why people think white people do these things because they wanted to escape poverty and oppression.

It proves that it isn't a conspiracy. By definition, it isn't something the general public CAN know. Watergate WAS a conspiracy, until it became general knowledge. Rothschild isn't even involved in this, we are discussing Communism and the Jewish element.
Well, both are relevant in the discussion.
Again, a false dichotomy. It IS possible that the oppressed group can blame BOTH the oppressors for falsely representing them (in fact, not even representing them, just killing them) AND disavow the oppression itself. The Americans wanted nothing to do with the Brits AND fought to get out of their reign of influence (as they saw it, oppression). Again, these two things can be true at the same time and they aren't mutually exclusive. To speak in terms more apt for this board, you can hate the bourgeois for being within the upper-class (and illustrating the divide with the lower classes) and because of the oppression. In fact, it can be because of the oppression that they are upper class. Many Jews postulate that the reason why Jews like Kaganovich were eager to act as they did was because Bolshevism was like Napoleon's Jewish emancipation.

You're being the equivalent of people arguing video games turn people into satanists. I'd drop the case if I were you.

'Crime' is not foisted upon anybody. Getting pulled over is, by definition, not a crime. 'Merely the path': how verbose, point me to legislation that shows how it is criminal. Even the 'victims' agree, more often than not, that it was justified. Your argument still boils down to 'getting pulled over' leading to some propensity to commit more crime. Prove this causal link, that's what I'm asking.
And courts decide if that accusation is worth a damn. And?
No, it's not. Right to protest is constitutionally protected. If you burn businesses that don't pay fair wages, that's a different story.
Ought-is. The law that currently stands disallows those activities, so they are, by definition, against the law. I don't think it's effective, either, but we are seeing a shift towards legalization anyways. But that doesn't mean it is legal in states that still outlaw it.
It's because you are conflating two different scenarios. One has to do with ALL searches, and the other (which the statistic was referencing) has to do with searches after getting pulled over. These are two different things.
Now you're getting it. It was related to searches after being pulled over. Not all searches. You first mentioned the 'non-existent data point' here:
Not sure if it's you, but this was said: Whites do drugs as much, often more, than blacks do, but they don't get searched?
Irrelevant, as this is not ALL searches.
Maybe improve your sentence structure so I don't have to make your points for you, huh?
[citation needed]
You can start by pointing to some legislation, or… you know, shit out a fraction of evidence proving this vast under-cover conspiracy where cops become courts, or that they are allowed to have free reign. Empty assertions are dismissed if you lack supporting evidence. I can easily counter your point with the opposite, and we'd both have the same evidence supporting our claims: none.
Hardcore addicts are criminals. Abusing substances that are illegal is against the law, so if you're admitted to the hospital, you are about as active as can be.

Citation on the census data. Earliest I can find that's properly cited is 1926, where Russians were ~78%, which would make their representation right on the bat. According to: hillel.org/docs/default-source/historical/american-jewish-year-book-(1920-1921).pdf?sfvrsn=2, Jewish population did not even pass 2% in 1919 (it was about .21%). Let's be generous and ignore this to claim that the population was 7%. That is what the Jewish population in Russia SHOULD have been if the claim "similarly disproportionately represented" is to be true. If there was 78% Russians, but only 50% Russians in total, that's a disproportionate representation by about ratio of 1.56. For that to be true for the 11% of the Jews, they would have to be ~7%, but they weren't. Let's say that the Jewish population dropped from 1907 to 1919, and that they used to be five times as populous (so, from .21% to 1%). Even so, that is a factor of 11 times as disproportionately representative, nothing CLOSE to 1.56 times.
I think the point is being forgotten. It isn't that other groups weren't present, it was that Jews and other minorities held disproportionate power over the lands. Especially given how there were many important Jews in positions of power, such as Trotsky or Sverdlov. They are infamous for specific reasons. Even the triumvirate (read: Troika) in Lenin's absence was composed of one full Jew, one half-Jew, and one Georgian; the two Jews would swap to the side of a full-Jew before being killed by the Georgian. The only 'Russian' in the mix was from the half-mix Kamenev.
In 1926, ethnic Russian population composed of 78%, which would mean that, within that time frame, the 38/78 (~48%) was not representative: minority groups held more power than the majority. Compare this to the Russian czarist regime of the past, which yields stark differences. It was the first time minorities held that much power. Let's be generous again and assume the Jewish population skyrocketed from 1919 to become 5% in 1923: this still means that they are disproportionately represented by a factor of 3, if they held 13 positions of the 78 (in reality, as of 1926, the population never reached above 1%).
Russians constituted just over half, even though they were 3/4 of the population. Ukrainians also made about 1/14 the population, but they were still under-represented. Jews in 1926 were .58%. If they were ~11%, that's about 19x as much influence. What of the Ukrainians?
Poland isn't a Baltic state, but Latvia is. Felix was a Pole, Yakov was Latvian.
Sure, but you seem to forget: pointing out Jewish over-representation doesn't equate to any other minorities ALSO holding disproportionate control. The two things can be true at the same time, they aren't mutually exclusive.

The same pattern is observed above (just half were Russians, even though Russians were about 3/4). This time, Jewish influence is even greater.
It does start to equalize after the damage was done. The Yezhovshchina had climaxed a year before, picking up off of the terror left over by Kaganovich.
There were Purges that targeted Jews, too. Hence, the 'anti-Semitism claims against Jews themselves' strawman, even though it was other minorities killing other minorities.
At that time period, absolutely. That's 30-60 years after the time period in-question; that is, the implementation of Bolshevism, the initial governments, and the power structure during many purges/terrors, which were composed of minorities (of which Jews were a large part). Even Wikipedia states (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia#Jews_in_the_revolutionary_movement):
"Many Jews were prominent in Russian revolutionary parties. The idea of overthrowing the Tsarist regime was attractive to many members of the Jewish intelligentsia because of the oppression of non-Russian nations and non-Orthodox Christians within the Russian Empire. For much the same reason, many non-Russians, notably Latvians or Poles, were disproportionately represented in the party leaderships.

In 1897 General Jewish Labour Bund (The Bund), was formed. Many Jews joined the ranks of two principal revolutionary parties: Socialist-Revolutionary Party and Russian Social Democratic Labour Party—both Bolshevik and Menshevik factions. A notable number of Bolshevik party members were ethnically Jewish, especially in the leadership of the party, and the percentage of Jewish party members among the rival Mensheviks was even higher. Both the founders and leaders of Menshevik faction, Julius Martov and Pavel Axelrod, were Jewish.

Because some of the leading Bolsheviks were Ethnic Jews, and Bolshevism supports a policy of promoting international proletarian revolution—most notably in the case of Leon Trotsky—many enemies of Bolshevism, as well as contemporary antisemites, draw a picture of Communism as a political slur at Jews and accuse Jews of pursuing Bolshevism to benefit Jewish interests, reflected in the terms Jewish Bolshevism or Judeo-Bolshevism. The original atheistic and internationalistic ideology of the Bolsheviks (See proletarian internationalism, bourgeois nationalism) was incompatible with Jewish traditionalism. Bolsheviks such as Trotsky echoed sentiments dismissing Jewish heritage in place of "internationalism".

Soon after seizing power, the Bolsheviks established the Yevsektsiya, the Jewish section of the Communist party in order to destroy the rival Bund and Zionist parties, suppress Judaism and replace traditional Jewish culture with "proletarian culture".

In March 1919, Vladimir Lenin delivered a speech "On Anti-Jewish Pogroms" on a gramophone disc. Lenin sought to explain the phenomenon of antisemitism in Marxist terms. According to Lenin, antisemitism was an "attempt to divert the hatred of the workers and peasants from the exploiters toward the Jews". Linking antisemitism to class struggle, he argued that it was merely a political technique used by the tsar to exploit religious fanaticism, popularize the despotic, unpopular regime, and divert popular anger toward a scapegoat. The Soviet Union also officially maintained this Marxist-Leninist interpretation under Joseph Stalin, who expounded Lenin's critique of antisemitism. However, this did not prevent the widely publicized repressions of Jewish intellectuals during 1948–1953 when Stalin increasingly associated Jews with "cosmopolitanism" and pro-Americanism."

They also make the mistake of "Jewish ancestry is equivalent to ancestral Jewish tradition/religion", which is not accurate. One can be Jewish without being religious.

High levels of sophistry detected in this thread, and you faggots should already learn to do so as well.

I'm asking how you know cops "get to choose who is accused". What about the courts, do they exist in your fantasy?

But that isn't the argument that fascists make.
Their claim isn't "Minority nations in the Russian Empire killed 100 billion Russians"
Their claim is "THE JEWS killed 100 billion Russians, and then proceeded to suppress the ukranians, the poles, and the baltics, who were our anti-communist aryan brothers"

Ethnic Russians and Ukranians were underrepresented because they were mostly illiterate peasants, (who often weren't even aware of the political machinations happening in the urban areas, when the civil war started they were their own faction en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_armies) while Jews, Volga, Baltics, Poles, Finnish and other peoples of the Russian Empire had established local centers of government, culture, and education, as well as been antagonised by the Czar and the aristocracy's central authority.
That's why after the October Revolution dozens of places declared independence and local governance, and often fought both the Bolsheviks and the Russian Whites. Because Russia was y'know, an Empire. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheism
And that's also why when the USSR was established it sought to provide the instruments of local rule, creating a Jewish Oblast, a Volga Oblast and so on.

Annihilated.

That's not me, and your autism is peaking again. You have failed to understand what should be clear through context: not all crimes actually result in arrest. It would be impossible to get arrested for drug possession if you are never searched for drugs. Your misunderstanding, or your bad faith, is irrelevant so long as you keep folding on this simple fact.

Where are these claims, please? Who are these 'fascists' who claim this?
Again, source on any billion claim. Outlandish hyperbole with no supporting quotations. It was the minority groups that held lots of influence and enacted policies during the height of oppression, like the Red Terror, for example.
>Ethnic Russians and Ukranians were underrepresented because they were mostly illiterate peasants, (who often weren't even aware of the political machinations happening in the urban areas, when the civil war started they were their own faction en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_armies)
Given the aftermath, it's a shame they lost.
The point isn't the 'why' (I post a possible reason above: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia#Jews_in_the_revolutionary_movement), but to point out that they were present, at all, and to what degree.>>1902139
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia#Jews_in_the_revolutionary_movement

Exactly why I cited the hair sampling, which shows disproportionate drug use in blacks and inaccuracy with self-reports. Cannot logically extrapolate arrests and self-reported drug use as being representative, as there are discrepancies in drug usage.
Since you don't want to defend the point about cops being courts, it is dismissed as nonsense.

But why does their entire continent and wherever they reside in the world have the same issues, throughout history?

Da white mayne be keepin us down.

Pic related, Roots of Russian Social Democracy , page 44.


You whole point is summarized in this part.

Opressed minorities are always "disproportionately representative" in communist parties, this happen because they see our flag as a instrument of is own liberation, this not only happen in Russia, but with negros in us, the kurds in Turkey, the jews in germany and the arabs in Israel, and this dont happen only with the jews in Russia, Transcaucasians are about of 0,7% of Russia population and 10% of central committee, much more "disproportionately represented" than the jews.

Also, the Bolchevicks have a majority of is members in the big cities and the ethnic composition change (some minorities are big than others, some dont even exist), there is also some ethnical groups how live in a determined area inside the country, like the chechens.


Trostky was a ethnic jew, not a religious one


Well, great example of Jewish Bolshevism.


Yeah, there is the entire speech, i dont see anything wrong with that:
youtube.com/watch?v=rj7iRwzX-A0


How do you know? Or you are just assume that?

What if Jews were considered exploiters of the workers and peasants? Given how disproportionately they were as lenders, pawnbrokers, etc it's not really much of a stretch to think that the non-Jewish community may have had legitimate grievances that were generalised into ethnic hatred

Lenin talk about it in the speech:

No, I'm asking for the citation on the census data that allows the author to make the 'similarly disproportionately represented' assertion. Jewish population wasn't hovering at 5% or so, it was lower than that. I'm not referencing the Congress, but the population total, as a percentage. I said: Citation on the census data. Earliest I can find that's properly cited is 1926, where Russians were ~78%, which would make their representation right on the bat. According to: hillel.org/docs/default-source/historical/american-jewish-year-book-(1920-1921).pdf?sfvrsn=2, Jewish population did not even pass 2% in 1919 (it was about .21%). Let's be generous and ignore this to claim that the population was 7%. That is what the Jewish population in Russia SHOULD have been if the claim "similarly disproportionately represented" is to be true. If there was 78% Russians, but only 50% Russians in total, that's a disproportionate representation by about ratio of 1.56. For that to be true for the 11% of the Jews, they would have to be ~7%, but they weren't. Let's say that the Jewish population dropped from 1907 to 1919, and that they used to be five times as populous (so, from .21% to 1%). Even so, that is a factor of 11 times as disproportionately representative, nothing CLOSE to 1.56 times.

Ought-is. I am not arguing as to WHY they might have joined, but that they did, which you seem to agree with. I've already referenced what I think are the causes above, the link is in the post you responded to.
'Transcaucasia' constitutes of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. 1926 census data reports that, in total, they were 0.25% of the population, whereas Jews were 0.58%. When are you examining the 10% claim for the Transcaucasians? Is it from point x to point y? And where is the census data on the total population? Going off of your own image, there are only Georgians and Armenians listed, which total 5 of the 105, whereas Jews were 12 of the 105.
Translating the 1926 census data for .58% Jews and .25% Transcaucasians (which is MUCH more generous than your .70%, by a factor of 2.8), it is exactly the same disproportionate representation. Jews: ((12/105)*100)/0.58=19.7x. Georgians, Armenians, Azerbaijanis (omitted from your image, as they are not cited as being present): ((5/105)*100)/.25=19x. If we use your own .7% source-less population figure for all Transcaucasians, that results in the following: ((5/105)*100)/.7=6.8x. Again, using your own image and your own total population stats, Jews are still over-represented by about 13 times as Transcaucasians were.
Good thing Jews are an ethnicity and a religious group. A Jew can be irreligious and still Jewish. Ethnicity is not amended by faith.
Not Judaism and Bolshevism, they were largely atheistic. Again, Judaism=/=all Jews.
The issue isn't to point out 'wrongs' or 'rights', but to demonstrate the facts. We can discuss how the failures and subsequent repression of political freedoms followed, at the hands of the minorities, if you'd like.
Source: www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/dna-links-prove-jews-are-a-race-says-genetics-expert-1.428664.
Also, see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews#By_ethnicity

Correction: Again, using your own image and your own total population stats, Jews are still over-represented by about [by a factor of 2.8] times as Transcaucasians were.
Got the numerator and denominator mixed up.

Maybe you should be looking at arrest rates instead of studies conducted on vietnam vets.

Let me spell it out for you, cops search blacks at wildly disproportionate rates. This whole program, NY's stop-and-frisk was worthless, because you might note, 95% of anybody searched was innocent.

But funny thing, the arrest rate for blacks is 3%, while the arrest rate for whites is 4%. Of course, because 46053 blacks were searched, compared to 12781 whites, more blacks end up in jail even though the difference in "criminality" is negligible. Hell, the blacks even get a bigger sample size so the math is more secure.

I refer you to my argument, "your autismal misinterpretation is extraneous to your inability to understand crime"

So cite them. Onus is on you.
In what precincts? In all of them? Would you like to break them down by racial composition of the police force to substantiate that point? Otherwise, the entity of 'the police' and their actions cannot be attributed to racism, because that would lead to the actual basis for their reasoning: higher rates of illegal activity expose blacks to more intense criminal processing. The following article explains how it is "a welcome sight".
pressreader.com/usa/chicago-sun-times/20150324/283446369929642
In districts with the stop and frisk program, sure. You have still not demonstrated how there is a causal link between being searched and committing crime at the rates. Has your non-existent study controlled for single motherhood? Or drug use, or previous criminal history? Attributing the purpose of a phenomenon to some irrational judgement, without actually examining the precincts to examine the purpose behind the stops, or the racial composition, or anonymous surveys, etc., is an empty assertion.
That's not the purpose of the program. It was to act as a disincentive to increase police presence where it is needed. The next few posts will examine your claim ("more blacks end up in jail even though the difference in "criminality" is negligible"). For now, I'll ask an important question: of the '95%', does this apply to both blacks and whites, or the entire group lumped together. It makes a difference and your image does not answer it. Using your logic, since a smaller population of whites was arrested at greater rates than blacks, this is obvious evidence of corrupt policing.
Also, you cannot infer from the arrested white population that there are more 'white criminals' lurking around that got off scot-free while the cops focused on blacks. That relies on unfalsifiable information that cannot be proven. It is the same reason why we cannot extrapolate 'potential crimes' to absurd degrees.

>No, I'm asking for the citation on the census data that allows the author to make the 'similarly disproportionately represented' assertion. Jewish population wasn't hovering at 5% or so, it was lower than that. I'm not referencing the Congress, but the population total, as a percentage. I said: Citation on the census data. Earliest I can find that's properly cited is 1926, where Russians were ~78%, which would make their representation right on the bat. According to: hillel.org/docs/default-source/historical/american-jewish-year-book-(1920-1921).pdf?sfvrsn=2, Jewish population did not even pass 2% in 1919 (it was about .21%). Let's be generous and ignore this to claim that the population was 7%. That is what the Jewish population in Russia SHOULD have been if the claim "similarly disproportionately represented" is to be true. If there was 78% Russians, but only 50% Russians in total, that's a disproportionate representation by about ratio of 1.56. For that to be true for the 11% of the Jews, they would have to be ~7%, but they weren't. Let's say that the Jewish population dropped from 1907 to 1919, and that they used to be five times as populous (so, from .21% to 1%). Even so, that is a factor of 11 times as disproportionately representative, nothing CLOSE to 1.56 times.

You misread it, he say that the two groups are "disproportionately represented" in the same way, the percent in the party are bigger than the country.


Yes, but they still a small minority if compared with the russians, and mainly, the infograph still biased and incorrect.


Sorry, i make a mistake, i was talking about the baltics, not the transcaucasians and the 1926 sensus.


Yeah, i not questioning this.


What I meant is, i dont see any favoritism or something who justify things like "the jews are slaving the people of russia!"

On the 'less criminality' claim. It's long and refutes your central point directly, so I don't anticipate a response.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York#Population
From: www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/year-end-2016-enforcement-report.pdf. That's for 2016, here are the rest of the years available: www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/stats/reports-analysis/crime-enf.page.

Looking at murder and non-negligent manslaughter: The Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter arrest population is similarly distributed. Black arrestees (52.4%) and Hispanic arrestees (35.9%) account for the majority of Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter arrestees while White arrestees (7.1%) and Asian/Pacific Islander (4.0%) arrestees account for the remaining portions of the Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter arrest population.

For rape:
Rape victims are most frequently Black (38.5%) or Hispanic (35.1%). White victims account for (19.9%) of all Rape victims while Asian/Pacific Islanders account for (6.5%) of all Rape Victims. Rape suspects are most frequently Black (50.8%) or Hispanic (33.9%). White suspects account for (10.3%) of all Rape suspects while Asian/Pacific Islanders accounted for (4.8%) of the known Rape suspects. Rape arrestees are most frequently Black (44.3%) and Hispanic (41.3%). Asian/Pacific Islander arrestees (7.1%) and White arrestees (7.0%) account for the remaining portions of the Rape arrestee population.

Other felony sex crimes:
Other Felony Sex Crime victims are most frequently Hispanic (34.8%) or Black (33.8%). White victims account for (24.2%) of all Other Felony Sex Crime victims while Asian/Pacific Islanders account for (6.8%) of the Other Felony Sex Crime Victims. Known Other Felony Sex Crime
suspects are most frequently Black (42.3%) or Hispanic (36.2%). White suspects account for (14.9%) of all Other Felony Sex Crime suspects
while Asian/Pacific Islanders accounted for (6.1%) of known Other Felony Sex Crime suspects. Hispanic arrestees are the largest portion
of the Other Felony Sex Crime arrest population (45.8%) followed by Black arrestees who account for (38.0%) of the arrest population.
White arrestees (10.5%) and Asian /Pacific Islander (5.7%) arrestees account for the remaining significant portions of the Other Felony Sex Crime arrest population.

Robbery:
Robbery victims are most frequently Hispanic (39.2%) or Black (31.5%). Whites and Asian/Pacific Islanders account for the same amount of victims, each accounting for (14.2%). The race/ethnicity of known Robbery suspects is primarily Black (66.2%). Hispanic suspects account for an additional (27.2%) of the suspect population. White suspects account for (4.2%) of all Robbery suspects while Asian /Pacific Islanders accounted for (2.0%) of known Robbery suspects. The Robbery arrestees are most frequently Black (59.9%) or Hispanic (31.2%). White arrestees (5.7%) and Asian/Pacific Islander (3.1%) arrestees account for the remaining portions of the Robbery arrest population.

Felonious assault:
Felonious Assault victims are most frequently Black (46.0%) or Hispanic (34.2%). White victims account for (12.8%) of all Felonious Assault victims while Asian/Pacific Islanders account for (6.6%) of all Felonious Assault Victims. The race/ethnicity of known Felonious Assault suspects is most frequently Black (53.2%) or Hispanic (32.7%). White suspects account for (8.6%) of all Felonious Assault suspects while Asian/Pacific Islanders accounted for (5.2%) of the known Felonious Assault suspects. Felonious Assault arrestees are most frequently Black (52.4%) or Hispanic (33.1%). White arrestees (8.6%) and Asian/Pacific Islanders (5.6%) account for the remaining significant portions of the Felonious Assault arrestee population.

Grand larceny:
Grand Larceny victims are most frequently White (38.0%) or Black (24.9%). Hispanic victims account for an additional (22.8%) of all Grand Larceny victims while Asian/Pacific Islanders account for (13.5%) of all Grand Larceny Victims. The race/ethnicity of known Grand Larceny suspects are most frequently Black (57.4%) or Hispanic (24.9%). White suspects account for (13.2%) of all Grand Larceny suspects while Asian/Pacific Islanders accounted for (4.3%) of the known Grand Larceny suspects. Grand Larceny arrestees are most frequently Black (51.7%) or Hispanic (27.5%). White arrestees (14.8%) and Asian/Pacific Islanders (5.8%) account for the remaining significant portions of the Grand Larceny arrest population.

It also lists some smaller misdemeanours, but let's get to shootings and firearm arrests.
Shootings: Shooting victims are most frequently Black (72.5%) or Hispanic (23.3%). White victims account for an additional (2.9%) of all
Shooting victims while Asian/Pacific Islanders victims account for (1.3%) of all Shooting Victims. The race/ethnicity of known Shooting suspects is most frequently Black (70.7%). Hispanic suspects accounted for an additional (26.9%) of all suspects. White suspects (1.9%) and Asian/Pacific Islander suspects (0.6%) accounted for the remaining portion of known Shooting suspects. The Shooting arrest population is similarly distributed. Black arrestees (67.5%) and Hispanic arrestees (29.2%) account for the majority of Shooting arrest population. White arrestees (2.3%) and Asian/Pacific Islander arrestees (1.0%) account for the remaining portion of the Shooting arrest population.

Firearm arrests:
The Firearm Arrest population is most frequently Black (73.6%) or Hispanic (22.7%). White arrestees account for (3.1%) and Asian
/Pacific Islanders account for (0.6%) of the total Firearm arrest population. The Firearm arrest group consists of arrests in which at least one firearm is recovered and the arrestee is charged with a Dangerous Weapons Felony charge. The Dangerous Weapon charge may also be one of many arrest charges lodged, some of which may be for more serious violent felonies. This arrest population therefore overlaps with arrests for other violent crimes that appear in other charts.

Where is this 'difference in criminality'?
That's three million blacks and 3.4 million Latinos. Demonstrably untrue.

Really? Because he didn't just say "disproportionately represented", he said "similarly disproportionately represented. But sure, it is true that they are both disproportionately represented. Just not on similar levels.
Just a heads up, dismissing a claim because it is politically dissatisfying to you does not constitute a rebuttal. For example, there is no citation for the quotation in the fifth response. Who said this?
Fourth response doesn't logically follow. Same goes with the third, and I've already explained the government structures. The Sovnarkom, sure. Not the Central Committee. Jews were still disproportionately represented and, at times, enacted/followed through with disastrous policies.
The second response isn't really a refutation, just stating an opinion. The opinion of the source used is also in favour of the disproportionate Jewish role prior to the Stalinist era.
The first response is to Plocker's opinion piece, in which he claims: In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin.
Examining: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Committee_elected_by_the_17th_Congress_of_the_All-Union_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks).
Of the individuals who held seats representing the various institutions (26 in total), 6 were Jews. That equates to in between one-fifth and one-fourth the Jewish population. According to a 1939 census (hereon ought: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#Peoples_of_European_Russia), Jews were 0.82% total population. 17 of the 26 were Russian, equating to ~65%. 1939 census states that Russians were ~83% total population.
2 of the 26 were Latvian, which is ~7.7% compared to their .1% total population in 1939. Finally, there was one Azerbaijani, equating to ~3.8% compared to their .1% total population in 1939 0.04% total population (from the 'Peoples of the Caucuses').

Of the full members (total 71), 13 were Jews, which comes out to a little under one-fifth of the total (22x over-representation based on 1939 census; the under/over representation will follow the population hereon out).
2 Armenians (~3%, which is ~15x), 1 Azerbaijani (~1.4%, which is 352x, yes 352. There were only .04% Azerbaijanis, yet one somehow found his way into the membership), 5 Georgians (7%, which is 176x, same as before), 1 Kazakh (~1.4%, which is 4.2x), 5 Latvians (7%, which is 70x), 2 Lithuanians (~3%, which is 141x), 2 Poles (~3%, which is 22x), 46 Russians (~62%, which is under-represented by a factor of .78x, as the total population in 1939 was 82.9%), 7 Ukrainians (9.8%, which is 3.2x, although the Ukrainian population dropped from 7.4% to 3% from 1926 to 1939), and 1 Uzbek (~1.4%, which is a whopping 141x, as their population in 1939 was 0.01% the total population). These figures discount the "Moldovan/Lithuanian/Ukrainian/Russian" full members who were Jewish, as none of them are half-Jewish: all are ethnic Jews born in Ukraine, but ethnically Jewish.
This, of course, ascribes equal importance to each member. That is, that the single Azerbaijani was 'uncommon'. In fact, the isolated populations that were over-represented actually represented their own party (the single Uzbek/Azerbaijani members represented their own parties/republics). However, other minorities that were over-represented held more powerful positions. For example, Lev Mekhlis (Jewish) was the Deputy People's Commissar for Defense, Valery Mezhlauk (Latvian) was the First Deputy Chairman for the State Planning Commission, and Lazar Kaganovich (Jewish) was the First Secretary for the Moscow Regional Committee (as well as the Second Secretary). You can also look at the link to see the inner-member groups, of which Jews and other minorities comprised disproportionate representation (from the Secretariat to the Orgburo).

Baltic states are Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. There is only 1 Estonian of the total 105, equating to a little under 1%. Taking information from the total population of Estonia in 1926 (which was 0.16% the total), that equates to an over-representation by a factor of 6.

Uh oh this looks like a reasonable and rational argument coming from the right wing! We better ignore it!

I did
lol if you think black people cannot be racist. Besides, it doesn't actually matter, institutions put policies in practice in that don't require servile police officers to think very hard about their actions.

Strange question. I already gave you arrest rates for each group.

You're a thick knob, crime is being committed separately from the searches, but crimes such drug or weapons possession are unlikely to be recorded if the police don't know about it. Thus, if you search more black people, more black people end up in prison.

As for why people commit crime, it's simple. Crime is easy, drugs are good fun and good business, people involved in crime will carry weapons to protect themselves. We've known that poor people commit more crimes for centuries, this is not even in question.

What keeps people poor? Prison sentences for one, a pretty big barrier to employment.. What produces more prison sentences? "Random" search policies. What breaks up families? What decreases respect for police? There is a circular system here, of targeting black people for "criminality", then placing them in a system that makes them poorer in both economic and moral terms, then justifying the continuation of targeted arrest.

It does not, because my central point was not that black people commit all crimes at the same rate. You may have assumed this because you wanted to lay a sick own, but that's poor form.

Your central tenet is this:
Which is to say, you believe blacks are genetically more criminal. Otherwise you are making the most banal point possible.

You tried to use this paper to prove your point, which is pic related
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12552-016-9164-y
So, 90% of non-criminal blacks had a total wealth of less than 22k. The median wealth of non-criminal blacks is only $1,300. The idea that poverty has nothing to do with black crime rates is ridiculous, the vast majority of blacks are extremely poor and come from poor families.

That does not explain why, of course, but there's a wealth of studies that demonstrate systemic bias against black applicants to everything. If you cannot even become a wage slave, what do you do besides be a criminal?

Of course, being black, they are far more likely to be stopped and searched by the police. If you repeat your line, I'll repeat mine, you can't be incarcerated (for certain crimes) if you aren't searched. Supposing the crime rate normalizes between races, but search rate stays the same, blacks will still be more likelt to be imprisoned.


Tell that one to the coal miners.
You've got a strange stance of "criminality". Why is any race predisposed to crime, if what constitutes crime is arbitrary?

...

Nope, your first image is unrelated, discussing precincts in NY. Still, onus is on you.
Again themselves? Awful mental gymnastics you've got going there. Still, only way to prove some corruption is to substantiate the conspiracy across every state where blacks are arrested at such high rates. Otherwise, the excuse is dismissed.
How, because of Hollywood corrupt cop flicks, or your anecdotes? Again, cite some evidence for this massive conspiracy of under-ground rogue cops. By the way, cops are still held accountable for their actions, they have to prove their claims before in courts.
So it's 97% for blacks and 96% for whites (comparing to the unsourced "46053 blacks were searched, compared to 12781 whites" claim), then. All that demonstrates is that the quasi-police state was not effective.
So blacks commit more crime if results after searching them lead to more criminal activity. In New York, the same logic doesn't apply if you just increase the searches against, say, whites and Asians. But it does if you examine Hispanics and blacks.
My point about inferring 'guesstimations' from crimes that have not been reported was exactly to point out that we only know what has been recorded, which shows that blacks commit more crime (at least in New York). If the assertion is that simply ramping up all searches will yield in an equal and proportional amount of arrests for all people, then that is demonstrably untrue as blacks commit more crime. What we know for certain is that, of the arrests, blacks are disproportionately involved.
Criminals have and always will exist. I doubt there is a good way to test the 'fun factor' of why people follow crime and drug trade. If given the choice, most rational agents would choose a safer and less-dangerous method of income.
Actually, socioeconomic factors don't always demonstrate an obvious correlation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_correlations_of_criminal_behaviour#Socioeconomic_factors
People are not poor because they commit crime. An individual can have a clean record and be poor.
So don't commit crime. Just really a matter of long-term time preferences. Why focus on slinging weed knowing that getting caught means any long-term employment goals are out the widow.
[citation needed]

If the families were never married to begin with, as there is a substantial amount of out-of-wedlock births in black communities: cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarried-childbearing.htm
That's for ALL unmarried women. Digging deeper here: cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_01.pdf.
"Within age groups, 88 percent of births to teenagers and 63 percent of births to women aged 20–24 were nonmarital. One in five births to women aged 30 and over were to unmarried women. The proportions of nonmarital births vary widely among population subgroups. In 2010, these proportions were 17 percent for API, 29 percent for non-Hispanic white, 53 percent for Hispanic, 66 percent for AIAN, and 73 percent for non-Hispanic black births."
The fact that they arrest you for committing crimes. So when you are more criminal, you hate them more.
Sorry, this corrupt cop system nation-wide causing criminal activity is not substantiated, by any means. You haven't even cited anything examining these precincts to find the causal link between corruption and its link to criminality. Japanese-Americans make less money than Korean-Americans, that doesn't mean there is a nation-wide conspiracy against Koreans to rob them of their hard-earned money. They simply earn less money, full stop. Blacks commit more crime, full stop. Inputting an emotionally pleasing explanation without evidence can be dismissed.
You're right, the rates of rape offenses are different than, say, murder offenses. Oh, and that's touching into another issue: the different causes of crime. So, cops wasting 15 minutes of your time because they pulled you over somehow leading to you wanting to rape a woman, or break into a car. How are these even related? You are already a psychopath is an inconvenience leads to such behaviours (also, not a single shred of evidence linking the conspiracy of corruption to propensity to get your dick wet illegally).
[citation needed]
Race is still a better indicator. So, you can examine criminal activity better if you break it down by racial categories than by wealth. I said it was a better indicator. Not that it was the cause. Nice strawman, though.
See: argument from personal incredulity.
So source them. Just vaguely referencing "the tons of data" isn't actually evidence. So if you are denied a job, you become a criminal? There must have been massive rape and murder epidemics during the Great Depression, all those people who were unemployed were just running around murdering people are the rates blacks are today.
They commit more crime. Also, still no evidence of the cop corruption conspiracy and the causal link between searches and criminal activity. That was in New York, and stop and frisk has greatly decreased as of 2015 ("However, the number of stops has been reduced dramatically since then, to 22,939 in 2015", from the wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City). Yet all the evidence I cited was from 2016. The excuse is thrown out the window.
If whites were killing as many people as blacks were, they would also be subject to special police attention precisely because of their actions. They commit more crime. Also, citation on that claim. Controlling for race only shows how, say, the three million blacks in New York are dramatically over-represented in criminal activity, making up the majority (along with Hispanics).
They can also protest.
They choose to commit crime. It is a bad life decision. It is illegal. They choose to. I don't care how poor you are, if you choose to sell crack to people, don't complain about your circumstances, nobody is forcing you to sell drugs or kill people. You choose to act as you do.
I also linked to single motherhood. Lacking in a male role model to guide you to make better choices can lead you down a bad life path (one that you choose to follow).

...

Way more than half. Besides, Mongols held the largest empire in all of human history and, adjusting for proportional population losses, were the most brutal of all people.
Helped us get to the moon, too. War always fuels innovation.
War isn't really mutually exclusive to whites, although white nations have been/are superpowers.
Where are the millions of colonized people killed? The Cold War never heated up, 'millions' did not die. But since the Cold War, because of all wars? Sure.
As if hyperinflation is an invention of whites. Nobody forces you to print money. Examining the third world shows that the economic health of those nations is nothing compared to 'white' and Eastern Asian nations.
The "Petrodollar" isn't mean to 'steal' oil, dingus. It is meant to limit its sale to other buyers. Other than that, can't think of any 'enrichment'. There is no large-scale theft, there are global markets, though. Also, military spending isn't the majority of the budget. Not even close.
Healthcare isn't a right. Pay for your own shit.
The FBI isn't Jewish-owned. The point is that Congress acts first with interests of the Jewish state at-heart. If it harms Israel, chances are it is met with harsh criticism. I thought you lot were against corruption and purchasing politicians? Oh, and it isn't an 'inherently criminal' point, it's that they commit more crimes, full stop. Poverty doesn't explain the reasoning, but single motherhood and lack of stable marriages damages the family, which is not inconsequential.
Courts determine guilt. Because they prove guilt. They don't just say niggers, though. Nice try. Have you ever been inside of a court before?

Well, these are foot searches in NY, along with the arrest rate for drugs/weapons/contraband
racism is just racially-based prejudice, ofc blacks can be prejudiced against other blacks. Sounds like you're a bit sheltered
I tell you that cops search black people disproportionately, show you that cops search black people disproportionately, and you're going off about rogue cops? Are you attacking the nypd's own records or are you flailing?
It demonstrates that in a large sample of searches, only 3% of blacks vs. 4% of whites were found carrying drugs, weapons, or other contraband.
You are searched and arrested in swift motion, you seem to want to abstract something very simple.
"We search 5 times more blacks, arrest them at the same rate as whites, but there are 5 times more blacks in prison??? The niggers are criminals!!"

You're citing wikipedia and dialing foxnews bub. lol your wikipedia citation still says "poverty and crime are positively correlated, except everybody does drugs".
2day I learned you must be married to be a family - Timmy age 5, 1861
Murders and rape charges are 2% of all inmates in ny, I'm more concerned about the 30% that are in for drug offenses

I see, so you just wanted to spend all this time and effort to make "the most banal point ever"? Nice work einstein, you proved that blacks are more likely to be arrested in america. That's Jew science for ya

Actually, I just looked at a study that says 90% of innocent black people were poorer than 90% of white criminals, ofc you want to cut that out of the quote

Yuh, if you're poor as shit and the only people hiring (and actively recruiting) are gangs, you're going to become a gangster. How crazy of a sentiment. National crime stats weren't collected in the '20s, so it's impossible to say, but high-profile murderers like Bonnie and Clyde don't come from nowhere.
Also:
nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf
>They commit more crime. Also, still no evidence of the cop corruption conspiracy and the causal link between searches and criminal activity. That was in New York, and stop and frisk has greatly decreased as of 2015 ("However, the number of stops has been reduced dramatically since then, to 22,939 in 2015", from the wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City). Yet all the evidence I cited was from 2016. The excuse is thrown out the window.
Same retarded line, same inability to recognize drug-related offences as the majority prison-filler in america.


Oh, so crime isn't arbitrary? All crimes are immoral and mean you are genetically predisposed to commiting them? So if it's illegal to strike, strikers are immoral half-breeds, and if it's illegal to wear mixed fabrics, mixed garmenters are deplorable mongrels, and if it's illegal to dogwhistle, dogwhistlers are moronic half-apes?

The whole "USSR was Jewish" shit is debunked by the fact that the Soviet Union trained, funded, and armed Arab states for the express purpose of driving Israel into the sea.

Sure, but that isn't related to your claim about vietnam vets you made above. Still lacking in any evidence, I don't even know what you were referencing.
None of this is relevant if you can demonstrate evidence of this bias and process influenced by said bias. Black crime isn't contained to only the state of New York, which would mean this bias extends to the vast majority of precincts across the nation. Going off of Occam's razor, it is more likely that blacks simply commit more crime (due to a multi-faceted range of issues, including but not limited to poor familial structure and everything that entails for subsequent generations) than the existence of massive bias across the nation, unless you can substantiate this claim.
Great, then that's more criminals in prison. Police alcohol stops aren't meant to result in 90% arrests of criminals as a ratio of total searches, they are meant to find those who are drinking and driving. It also, still, demonstrates that the method is ineffective. I'm sure there are other ways to catch criminals.
You are not arrested if you are not breaking the law. You already admit that most of them were innocent. Criminals were still taken off the street, so it wasn't all for naught, but it was ineffective.
The problem is that they don't commit crime at the same rate as whites. They actually aren't arrested at the same rate as whites are. Perhaps for stop and frisk, but not as a representation of criminal activity, as I sourced above. They are more involved in criminal activity than whites are. You cannot extend the whites searched and the black/white arrest rate to be indicative of criminal behaviour of whites/blacks except for stop and frisk. Besides, it was dramatically lowered as of 2015, so it isn't relevant anymore.
I can also be upset that your source comes from the ACLU (as they make the same claims), but that means nothing. Just because the ACLU said so doesn't make it wrong.
For parental income, sure (now you see where I'm getting at with familial structure). Study I linked above doesn't paint as gracious a picture for total wealth, but you said it was ridiculous and your opinions determine truth, so…
I said that "If the families were never married to begin with, as there is a substantial amount of out-of-wedlock births in black communities" in response to "What breaks up families?". If families were never married, they can be broken up much easier. Pointing this out doesn't actually make a mutually exclusive statement on behalf of families: you can be a family without being married. The point was that they are broken apart easier if they weren't married.
Same source: www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/year-end-2016-enforcement-report.pdf
"The Drug Felony Arrest population is most frequently Hispanic (42.8%) or Black (42.7%). White arrestees account for (11.5%) and Asian Pacific Islanders account for (2.9%) of the total Drug Felony arrest population. The Drug Misdemeanor Arrest population is most frequently Black (45.5%) or Hispanic (36.2%). White arrestees account for (14.6%) and Asian Pacific Islanders account for (3.6%) of the total Drug Misdemeanor arrest population."
The assertion that there are Asian drug lords who are just walking around unchecked by the police is not substantiated, and the whole 'self-reported' claim is analyzed in citations I've listed above.

The Indochina wars and the Korean war didn't happen, I guess.

And why is Holla Forums even in this thread

I didn't think they could survive without their echo chamber

Because they commit more crime. Cannot extrapolate with absolute certainty the reality of 'unknown crime' to groups that are 'glossed over' by the police. Of known crime, blacks are disproportionately represented. This isn't because police target them, ergo they commit more crime. If you go and rape somebody because police target you, then you are mentally unstable.
That's not what you said (that is because blacks, all across the board, are poor; this is explained by the unemployment rates for blacks), you said that: So, 90% of non-criminal blacks had a total wealth of less than 22k. The median wealth of non-criminal blacks is only $1,300.
That is true. It is also true that the bottom 25% of the poorest non-criminal whites are closer to the black median (with the white median being half of the 90th percentile of non-criminal blacks). You then followed by stating: The idea that poverty has nothing to do with black crime rates is ridiculous, the vast majority of blacks are extremely poor and come from poor families.
This is an argument from personal incredulity. It doesn't matter if you find something implausible.
Poor life choice. Dangerous 'career' path.
Sure, an increase, but not at the rates expected of the unemployed population. One popular couple isn't indicative of any common trend.
>nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf
nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf
Go to page 36, examine quantitive scores and literacy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_of_incarcerated_African-American_males
Criminal groups aren't in high demand.
For recidivism: bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf.
The 'equal resumes' aren't necessarily competing with each other and the response rate is also affected by the total pool of applicants. If few white applicants sent in resumes, it will look like the whites who received callbacks are 'with the bias'.
The callback responses were examined once again and the results in your study were not replicated: ipp.missouri.edu/2016/04/27/field-experiment-yields-little-evidence-of-bias/.
Depends on the legal code.
Who knows. I haven't seen anything regarding that issue, I'm more concerned with broken families. But the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Nope, wrong again.

They did occur. How many 'million' do you think died? Pretty sure those who were subsequently colonized by their own after the withdrawal were glad to have let the 'whites' win.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495080/
Oh so you don't read the studies you link?
The present study further explores the relationship between self-report and illicit drug use as indicated by hair testing. Testing was carried out at the third wave (1996−7) of a longitudinal study of a community sample. The participants were all middle-aged men including men who were deployed to Vietnam and a matched non-veteran comparison group who have been followed since 1972
The total sample size of individuals selected for interview was 1,227, including 943 (76.9%) veterans and 284 (23.1%) non-veterans. Of the selected veterans, 898 (95.2% of those selected) were interviewed in 1972; non-veteran participants were interviewed in 1974 and totaled 284.

No, you literally claimed that blacks can't be racist about blacks, and I'm telling you that you have a retarded belief. Nice that you try and expand my insult to a new argument, are you too autistic get from context that I think you're greenbean amateur?

In this case, they clearly stop more blacks, and consequently arrest more blacks and throw them into a system designed to make them more unemployable. It's weird how police departments do that.
I'll start caring about criminals taken off the streets when the feds start jailing porky.

Circular logic on display once more. Blacks and whites arrested for contraband at equal rates, but more blacks go to jail because more blacks are searched. Then reactionaries look at the jails and say "The niggers is criminals!!" and demand the police keep searching more blacks.
(Then ignore all the bad effects on communities when enormous quantities of young men are made unemployable.)
"Poverty correlates positively with crime, except for drugs"
I insulted you for panicking and looking to wikipedia for a source, then agreed with your source. You're a little confused I think.

...

You have to be trolling me.

The US launched massive, indiscriminate, war criminal bombing campaigns in North Korea, North and South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. The populations of these countries overwhelmingly hated American forces and were glad to see them gone.

Average estimates suggest anywhere between 1.3 million and 2.4 million people died in the Indochina wars, most of them civilians. 1.2 million people died in "battle deaths" in the Korean War, so who knows how many civilians actually died as a direct result of the war itself. A lot; we can say that much for sure.

I can't deal with the captchas on 4chin anymore

Guess which image macro people will take more serious

I can't imagine how painfully lazy someone would have to be in order to be incapable of searching the sources themselves and seeing who's telling the truth.

I'm asking for your evidence of your claim. You stated: Maybe you should be looking at arrest rates instead of studies conducted on vietnam vets. The entire purpose of the study isn't to analyze arrest rates. You are making a claim to truth, substantiate it. The point was that self-reports aren't as valid as they seem.
They can't.
Yeah, it's almost as if they arrest criminals, and blacks are demonstrably disproportionate in criminal activity (and that whites who aren't searched don't automatically qualify as potential criminals that got off scot-free without evidence). Also, Asians and whites who are arrested aren't exactly ideal job candidates, either. All convicts are unpleasant to employers, not just blacks.
Well, when 'porkies' like Madoff get caught, they go to prison. Remind me again, how many years is he facing again?
Because the blacks commit crimes at disproportionate rates and are searched, yielding more captured criminals. Once again, the assertion that whites who aren't searched automatically qualify as potential criminals that got off scot-free lacks in evidence. Asians who aren't searched aren't criminals, they just aren't disproportionately represented in criminal activity. Also, see:
They aren't arrested at equal rates, at least in NY.
Because they commit more crime. See the drug felony arrest population stats I linked above (www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/year-end-2016-enforcement-report.pdf).
"Socioeconomic status (usually measured using the three variables income (or wealth), occupational level, and years of education) correlates negatively with criminality, except for self-reported illegal drug use."
Compared to: springer.com/gp/about-springer/media/research-news/all-english-research-news/wealth-doesn-t-protect-u-s--blacks-from-greater-chance-of-incarceration/7820280 (same study that was 'ridiculous'):

Ethnic demographic information is the issue, not total territory controlled. Of the land and ethnic groups within the lands, there were disparities (more Russians than Ukrainians, more Ukrainians than Georgians).

War crimes don't exist, sorry. War is amoral, it is kill or be killed. If you can't defend yourself in the test of might, you deserve to die. North Koreans are lucky they even still exist.
Yeah, they did hate them. But they hated Communists more, at least the people who suffered more at the hands of the Communists (read: middle class). Newer generations are indifferent, anyways.
Not that many. Lot more could have died, it isn't even 10 million.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/pdf/0931865.pdf

that mixed-race adolescents are at higher
health and behavior risk than single-race individuals because of stress associated with
mixed racial identity. An alternative and simpler hypothesis is that mixed-race adolescents
are affected by the cultural experience of
both races and will have risk status in between
their 2 component races. We test the
hypothesis that mixed-race adolescents are
within the boundary values for the nonrisk individual and family attributes of the 2 singlerace groups that constitute their identities.

ucdavis.edu/news/biracial-asian-americans-and-mental-health?id=8732


census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/data/sipp/interracial-instability.pdf


theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/mixed-race-children-mental-health

Holla Forums don't read their sauces.

Actually, they do. There are these things called "international laws" that every major nation on Earth has agreed to; how to properly conduct yourself in armed conflict is extensively regulated by those laws.
There was no substantial middle class in these countries at the time of those wars. There were peasants, aristocrats, a *very* small working class, and national business elite. All of these were subservient to *inter*national business elite. The peasants were ambivalent toward communist forces, but still strongly preferred them over their American counterparts.
So, millions of people died, but it's okay because it wasn't TENS of millions?

You can't be serious.

By definition, that is what all of the literature arrives at: ethnic discrimination.
It was already aptly summarized: Morley said the strongest common experience was the "too white to be black, too black to be white".

About as binding as the might behind the law, just like any other legal code. During war, the entire point is to kill the enemy through superior might/power. International law is exactly what is at stake during world war: the conflict to determine law through force, although this assumes that one side has some moral casus belli, which is rare on paper and the exception in reality.
Regulated by the global superpowers, who have no obligation to follow the rules if nobody can stop them. If tomorrow, China, the US, Russia, etc. all decided to invade and slaughter every single person in Columbia, nobody could stop them. It's kind of like extending some law upon the lawless: it is meaningless.
No wonder they were so keen to adopt an egalitarian philosophy. I wonder how that worked out for Vietnam and Cambodia. I'm sure they have tons of economic freedom.
I said: Not that many. Lot more could have died, it isn't even 10 million.
Not once did I say that it was okay. I said that not that many died. The US could have levelled the entire population, but they chose not to. There's another good example: what good would the Geneva conventions be if those who enforced them (namely, the two superpowers of the US and USSR, at the time) decided to invade North Korea and kill every single last one of them? War has no rules, it is about determining the rules to follow after the dust has settled. I'm sure the conquered can lay the ruleset, let's see how far that gets them.

This is a wikipedia quote:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overman_Committee#Criticism

The Wikipedia sources are Propaganda and Democracy: The American Experience of Media and Mass Persuasion (p. 122–123) and Facts and Fabrications about Soviet Russia (p. 15).

Its just two propagandistic book that dont have any academic support, its not a serious source.

Also, i see you only care about the source when this is something convenient.


Yes, but the jews are only about 10% of CC, its not a majority, they still need a consensus.


Tymothy Snyder is a serious historian, but i have my doubts about this numbers, source?

>Examining: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Committee_elected_by_the_17th_Congress_of_the_All-Union_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks).

>Of the individuals who held seats representing the various institutions (26 in total), 6 were Jews. That equates to in between one-fifth and one-fourth the Jewish population. According to a 1939 census (hereon ought: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#Peoples_of_European_Russia), Jews were 0.82% total population. 17 of the 26 were Russian, equating to ~65%. 1939 census states that Russians were ~83% total population.


Yeah, jewish people still overrepresented, like Latvians and Azerbaijanis, but there still a minority, and this dont prove the claim of Plocker.


Again, some minorities are overrepresented, but they still minorities when in comparisition with the russians.

Every position in the CC is powerful, and you are just cherrypicking, all these positions were occupied by jews, russians and other minorities over time.

You can also look at the link to see the inner-member groups, of which Jews and other minorities comprised disproportionate representation (from the Secretariat to the Orgburo).
Yes, but the percent of jews still much smaller than OP infograph.
There were 8 ethnic baltics in 1922 CC.

I looked across many different forums to find the full text or a pdf of Sproule's work, but I couldn't find anything. I did find a full text of Clark's book: the only time he mentions 'Jew' is from a source that was a Jewish newspaper and to dismiss an entry in a magazine that "contains a series of brief bio-graphical sketches of prominent Soviet officials that descends in places to the worst kind of personal slander." (page 45). On page 15, here is the chapter:

"There have been two carefully organized campaigns to
discredit Soviet Russia on the part of government agen-
cies. Both have had a considerable effect on the public
mind because of the unusual amount of space devoted by the
newspapers to their proceedings, and both have spread upon
their official records the most unsupportable of fabrications
and falsifications. The "Overman Committee" of the United
States Senate and the "Lusk Committee" of the New York
State Legislature have probably done more to muddy the
waters of intelligence about Russia than any two other single
agencies.

From February H until March 10, 1919, the American
papers were screaming in scare heads, and in columns upon
columns of news stories, the most scandalous misrepresenta-
tion about Soviet Russia, brought to the light by the careful
manipulation of the United States Senate Committee Investi-
gating Bolshevism. The proceedings were staged in such a
way as to allow the testimony of only those witnesses who
would attack the Russian Government in the most lurid style.
It was only by injecting themselves rather unceremoniously
into the proceedings that any witnesses at all were heard who
were in any way sympathetic with the Russian revolution.
The most notorious and unscrupulous of the enemies of Soviet
Russia were invited to testify before the committee and were
treated with respect, while the friends of Soviet Russia who
contrived to compel the committee to admit their testimony
were treated with frank indignity.

The details of these proceedings are too numerous to con-
sider in this connection. Suffice it to quote some typical head-
lines with which the New York Times summarized in bold-
faced type their daily columns of almost verbatim accounts of
the hearings at Washington.

"TELLS SENATORS OF MASS TERROR BY BOLSHE-
VIKI — SECRET KILLINGS IN CELLARS — SOVIETS
WARNED AGAINST 'HESITATION' IN THE EXECU-
TIONS." (February 12, 1919.)"

[it goes on to list a bunch of headline quotes similar to the one I listed]

All this was less than twelve months before the same New
York Times, mider the heading "Law and Order in Soviet
Russia," printed the following statements from the first of its
correspondents to actually enter Soviet Russia since the first
year of the revolution, Mr. Arthur Copping.

The working millions, in their abiding fear and hatred of the des-
potism that is ended, cheerfully put up not only with a grievous shortage
of food, fuel and other necessaries that is associated with the democratic
era that has dawned for them, but also with the asounding idealistic
and hitherto untested economic principles upon which it is sought to
build a new social fabric. I told Krassm , , , that the British Gov-
ernment and people were now beginning to believe that Soviet Russia
today, instead of being a tyrannical chaos, was an orderly and upward-
striving democracy. In contradiction to most of the testimony that has
trickled through the frontiers . . . the members of Russia's gov-
ernment, so far from hatching schemes of robbery, spoliation' and
aggression, are toiling night and day in a self-sacrificing spirit which la
almost fanatical, to build up a purely Utopian state baaed on theoriea
and ideals adopt€d aecretiy under the despotism of Tsardoai and nur-
tured through long years of exile, The only Russians who had acquired
self-reliance and business efficiency . . . capable of firmly handling
the national helm, were these extremists, who composed the following
of Lenin."

As you can tell, the full text has some spelling errors, but I think you can decipher them out. It seems that the 'critique' is based on unfair testimony (not examining those sympathetic with the revolution) and how the same sources that publish sensationalist headlines previously paraded the 'workers' for their revolution against 'despotism', opting for a 'democratic method [adopting] untested economic principles'. The book was written in 1920, so I don't blame him for thinking they were 'untested'. How democratic and 'Utopian' were the goals of the revolutionaries. The author is replacing propaganda with propaganda.

'The working millions, in their abiding fear and hatred of the des-
potism that is ended, cheerfully put up not only with a grievous shortage
of food, fuel and other necessaries that is associated with the democratic
era that has dawned for them, but also with the asounding idealistic
and hitherto untested economic principles upon which it is sought to
build a new social fabric'
Yeah, those poor workers who put up with food shortages would learn what real food shortage looked like with the Bolsheviks. If you want to dismiss sources for being propagandist, then Clark's writings can be dismissed for being out-dated. The first source you used, from Pinkus, actually disagrees with you.
Lol, you miss the point entirely. Never claimed it was a majority, but that they were 'disproportionately represented'. Pinkus concurs.
Source for what? Snyder's book is in the first image, 'Bloodlands' (2010). The second response in the second image is the one that makes the claims, ask the guy for where/when Snyder 'explicitly [says] that the Jewish Bolshevik myth is a canard invented by Nazis'. I'm not making that claim, he was. Besides, it's funny that the same source cited below reaches the same conclusion. Are Jews Nazis now?
Great, then we agree: Jews and other minorities were vastly over-represented, and minority groups consisting of Poles and Jews, like Felix and Lazar, made large policy plans for groups of people that they did not actually represent.
Plocker's claim is that Jews, like Kaganovich, existed and enacted policies that were disastrous, leading to the deaths of millions.
Still missing the point. Disproportionate representation was my argument, and you already agree with me on that.
I'm 'cherrypicking' the year of your image? If you even payed any attention, I was responding to the image you'd posted. It is concerned with a specific period of time. Yeah, the positions were purged of those minorities eventually, but early on, they were disproportionately represented.
I was concerned with Jews in specific positions, namely the PB, OG, CC, and the Secretariat, not officers, commissars, and the like. The fifth source in the first image is correct if they examine the very first provisional government after the revolution: most were Jews and, controlling for the population of Jews within the empire at the time (less than 1%), 3 Jews (or of partial Jewish ancestry) of 6 position is vastly disproportionate. 50% represented for the .5% Jewish population is much more than 90% representation, it is 25x over-representation (for the first Politburo, consisting of Lenin, Kamenev, Stasova, Krestinsky, Trotsky, and Stalin).
The figures I was citing were for 1934, not 1922. Keep up.

When Holla Forums says the USSR was Jewish. You reply "So what".

Seriously, who gives a shit beyond Holla Forums shitheads and antisemites.

Exactly, it's just a statement of fact to point out that Jews were also involved in positions of power in the USSR. It's just revisionism to dismiss historical facts to placate your sense of philo-Semitism.

The Clark books is not about anti-semitism and ethnics minorities in Russia, is about the spreading disinformation about soviet union in US, the wikipedia quote was referring to Overman committe, whom reverend George Simons was a part.


Its because the people who are sympathetic with the revolution stay in Russia, the majority of the "russian diaspora" are violently anti-communist and antisemitic.


Yeah, that why wikipedia use sproule too.


I dont use Pinkus, my first post was , i dont find any information about Pinkus, so i use others sources.


But i agree that the jews are 'disproportionately represented' ,like other minorities, but not in the way that infograph show.


For the number in the "booldlands", there is no footnotes, no citation, he just claim "The NKVD was composed of many nationalities, and represented
a kind of internationalism. When the show trials began in 1936, the heights of
the NKVD were dominated by men whose own origins were within the Soviet
national minorities, Jews above all.", but without any source, i try find these "NKVD trials" but without sucess.


Just over-represented.


There no such thing as "ethnical representation", they represented people who have the same ideals or support then, there no capitalists poles or kulaks jews support then just because they are from the same ethnical group.


Nope, in the infograph, Clark claim that is 38,5% of Senior post in Soviet-security apparatus is from jewish origin.


For example…


I agree with that minorities are disproportionately represented, but i thought we are talking about the infograph, and he still incorrect.


No, you are cherrypicking minorities inside the CC. of course there are minorities inside then, but there no secret jewish plot behind then, like the infograph suggested.


The fifth source claim that 95% of member of bolshevik central government are jews.

I was talking about 22, but i agree that the minorities are disproportionately represented.

It is cited as if the entirety of the claims held within are equally under the veil of propaganda, yet when I try and find the refutation of the involvement of Jews, nothing comes up.
First of all, people within Russia=/=sympathetic with the revolution. Many don't have a choice to leave, or they are just 'dealt with' by the secret police. Second, those who leave may be anti-communist, but may not necessarily be anti-semitic.
I can't find any of his works that aren't behind a paywall. p.123 of his book is cut off in Google Books. If it is anything like Clark's book and doesn't even reference the Jewish involvement, then it's unrelated.
Great, so when you state: "In 1934, out of 139 members of which the nationality of 133 are known, 72 were Russian and 23 were Jewish. The Jewish presence was startlingly high, but their position was not any threat to the Russian majority", know that we agree. It's just the last portion of the sentence, where you seem to forget how proportions work.
Well, it depends. Examining the first provisional Politburo, as a proportion, it was far more than '90%'. Jews were less than 1% of the population, yet held 3 of the 6 positions. Let's be generous and say Jews were 25% of the population (even though that is nowhere near what it has ever been). 50% of the first Politburo, but only 25% of the overall population. Very over-represented.
That's not what the infograph suggests. Where does it state this? Please source this.
Also, if I'm cherrypicking, then you are guilty of the same accusation when you state: I agree with that minorities are disproportionately represented.
If it is referencing the very first Politburo, then as a proportion, it is much greater over-representation than 1.9x. Jews were about .6%, but held 50% of the positions in the very first Politburo. That's ~83x over-representation, and a lot of power concentrated in the hands of the minority.
You responded to the figures I cited for 1934, not 1922.