>If we wait two years, things will be much worse That's what wakes up the general population. Most don't care until it's at their front door. That's how democracy works unfortunately. It's always reactive. Otherwise people would be watching the stock market and rioting in the streets because the Democrats own stated goal is to plunge us into debt and then print our way back out. >Once you know, for example, that American niggers have an average 85 IQ and are simply incapable, on a genetic level, of running cities This is white-nigger tier logic. You're referencing IQ, and then contradicting the implications of said IQ. The Flynn Effect means that IQ steadily increases over time. So when half the country was illiterate, and the average was 100, that's very different from today where almost everyone is literate and the average IQ is 100. For example, >Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997, the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80. That means someone who scores 100 today, would've scored much higher in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, etc. They measure IQ every year with a new sample of the population, and the new sample almost always scores higher. So when you say >incapable, on a genetic level, of running cities because they lack the intelligence, you know it for life If you're using IQ as your basis for argument then you're contradicting yourself, because the average black IQ today is higher than the entire average IQ in the 1930s, when the US was overwhelmingly white. I'm just letting you know it's a very stupid argument.