Massachusetts
Marc Ferguson is shocked by “the persistence of virulent racism” which he has discovered among the reactionary conservatives on this website.
Why is this shocking though? The theory of racial equality has been the official dogma of the United States ever since the Brown decision in 1954 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 dismantled the Jim Crow South.
The entire American public education system (and by extension, the physical geography of countless cities, small towns, counties, neighborhoods and suburbs, which provide the White tax base for the integrated public schools) has been reconstructed around the dogma of racial equality.
Every other Western country (Britain, France, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, etc.) is equally committed to the proposition that Africans are just as intelligent and moral as Whites and that racially exclusive public schools are racist and immoral. And so, every single day in the United States, and throughout much of the Western world, the liberal dogma of racial equality is tested in practice in integrated public schools.
And the result?
The result is that racial inequality stubbornly persists. It persists in spite of the billions of dollars that have been squandered on Great Society social programs like Head Start. It has persisted in spite of proscribing “racists” and “white supremacists” to the margins of society and reconstructing every major institution in America around the conscious promotion of black people.
To be a Disingenuous White Liberal (DWL) like Marc Ferguson, you have to believe several contradictory assumptions:
(1) First, you have to believe that “humanity” is a mammal that evolved from primate ancestors, and that human evolution was driven by a gradual increase in cranial capacity that resulted in greater intelligence which conferred a greater fitness upon the humans that possessed those mutations.
(2) Second, you have to believe that somewhere around 70,000 to 50,000 years ago, when the first modern humans emerged, that all biological differences in intelligence and behavior between human populations mysteriously vanished, and that at that particular point in history the grace of “equality” descended from the clouds and bestowed “human dignity” upon us, and that “intelligence” ceased having anything to do with the size and nature of the human brain.
(3) Third, you got to believe that modern humans continued to evolve after they emerged 70,000 to 50,000 years ago, and that the spread of “humanity” across every continent on earth into radically different environments, which put them under radically different selection pressures, produced striking but ultimately superficial racial changes in morphology (your skin is the largest organ in the human body), but none, absolutely none, in their mental capacities and behavior.
If the theory of racial equality is true, then the White Southerners who lived among blacks for three centuries, and who interacted with them on a daily basis, were just suffering from prejudice for attributing to them hereditary racial characteristics like lower intelligence and lower conscientiousness compared to Europeans and Indians.
The Northeastern Yankee, who did not live in daily contact with blacks, who had little practical experience in dealing with with them, was correct in assuming the equality of the races through a logical deduction from the most cherished abstract liberal principle of the Declaration of Independence, “all men are created equal.”
With the benefit of hindsight, we can shoot down the Enlightenment assumptions of the USA’s Declaration of Independence:
(1) Is it true that our species (Homo sapiens sapiens) was created? No, modern humans must have evolved as a race from an earlier human species, until the genetic distance between modern humans and their archaic predecessor became so great that we became a species in our own right, or we simply killed them off.
(2) Is it true that “all men are created equal”? This is preposterous given everything we know about evolution which is driven by natural selection acting upon hereditary inequality.
(3) Was there a “state of nature”? There is no proof there was ever a “state of nature” in which we exchanged our natural rights to enter into a civilized state. It is a historical myth propagated by lawyers. It was based on their own life experience in dealing with contracts and poor intelligence on aboriginal tribes in the New World.
(4) Do “natural rights” exist? There is no proof that social science is ever going to discover moral laws analogous to the laws of physics. It is much more likely that a moral sense evolved among humans because more cohesive groups were more competitive than fractious ones and had a greater reproductive advantage.
(5) Are men naturally free and equal? No, primate societies are fiercely violent, tribalistic, and hierarchical.
(6) Are men naturally born good only to be corrupted by society? There is no reason to believe this. The evidence points to just the opposite conclusion. Humans become less inclined to casual violence and more domesticated the longer that certain groups have lived in a civilized state.
Confederate ideology has stood the test of time because it is closer to the truth than Yankee ideology:
(1) The African negro is less intelligent and less conscientious than the White race. 150 years after slavery, this observation is still true. It is still true after DWLs did literally everything in their power uplift the negro and force reality to conform, unsuccessfully it turns out, to the liberal dogma of racial equality.
(2) Freedom failed everywhere it was tried: it failed in Haiti, it failed in sub-Saharan Africa, it failed in Dixie, it failed in Detroit, it failed everywhere in Europe where African immigrants have settled. When the African negro is combined with freedom and equality, civilization suffers a predictable decline.
(3) As John C. Calhoun pointed out, liberty proved to be a curse rather than a blessing to the negro. Look at Haiti, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Detroit, Zimbabwe, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
(4) Slavery was the only argument for the African negro. The average single black woman in the United States has a net worth of $5 dollars after nearly 150 years of free society. That means the average black woman has lost 99 percent of her value since the destruction of slavery.
(5) The complexity of modern society will always produce inequality among social classes. In the United States, equality is more of a legend than anything else. There is no equality between Jewish billionaire capitalists like George Soros and the White working class.
The question is not whether there will be a wealthy ruling class. That is always a given. The real question is whether the ruling class will have any sense of racial, ethnic, and cultural loyalty to the lower classes.
An aristocratic upper class, preferably a rural landed gentry that invests its wealth in localized leisure activities, which is drawn by the late of fate from the people of the community, is naturally superior to the type of vulgar ruling class thrown up by liberal capitalist democracy, which is always striving to multiply the gap between itself and the lower classes.
The modern ruling class has no interest whatsoever at stake in the working class people who live in the small towns and cities of Dixie; the same cannot be said of the local country squire, who is familiar to everyone, and probably related to everyone in his community through culture and kinship.
150 years ago, the only useful enterprise known to mankind in which the African negro could be profitably employed was as manual labor in cash crop agriculture. It says a lot about modern liberalism that the only substitutes ithas managed to find since that time are sports, entertainment, and narcotics trafficking.
(1) I’ve never denied the existence of variation within racial groups. There is variation in skin color, hair texture, height, etc. Naturally, there is variation in intelligence, morality, behavior.
(2) The variation within groups is consistent with the principle of inequality. There is no such thing as equality between or within racial groups.
(3) Racial differences in intelligence and behavior is one consideration in who should be included within the political sphere. It is not the only consideration or even the most important consideration.
(4) Should a highly destructive, intelligent, and antagonistic class of enemies enjoy equal rights within our political system? No, obviously.
(5) I don’t even agree with the concept of America. I’m not even sold on the concept of White Nationalism. Race is anthropological concept. It is an important concept, but it is an error to assume that Whites are loyal to their race.
(6) The state should be based on a form of homogeneity that is strongly felt by all citizens. Differences in intelligence are less important than differences in identity and loyalties.
(7) Should we include an antagonistic class of blacks within our state? No, their loyalties are to other blacks, not to us, and their inclusion would produce nothing but discord.
(8) Personally, I believe the state should be based on blood kinship and shared cultural identity, with political rights based on shared loyalties and capacity to participate in the political sphere as members of an exclusive polity.
The political system should be racially, ethnically, and culturally neutral. It should be a place for members of the in-group to decide matters among themselves. The member of the out-group should always be excluded.
This is assuming we even opt for republican government again after our near fatal experience with it.
Svigor – the little bitch didn’t put my posts through. I was polite. I just asked him why he’s very adept at insulting us – but cannot cite the Joys O’s Nig Nogs. What’s so great about niggers?
(I worded my query in a more professional, polite manner).
crypto
What is your point? That some blacks have higher iqs than whites? Did you even read my post? Do you understand the meaning imparted by the shape of a normal distribution curve? A curve with a greater mean and lower “inertia” will always be preferable to one with more “mass” in the tails. Whites, especially those from northern europe, are tightly clustered around the mean not only for iq, but other factors that determine good social cohesiveness. And as has been pointed out, just because a foreign race is intelligent, this does not mean they are good candidate to do business with, let alone “assimilate”. Whites are far more kind, generous, polite and giving than any other race. I have spent time in both east and west asia, and east asia is a cold, cold place.
“So, 11-16 percent of American blacks are actually a higher number than 3 million, as there are aproxomately 42 million currently in the USA. Lets say only 11 percent have an IQ over 100, that’s 4.7 million. You would agree its likely then that over 4 million blacks have higher IQ than the roughly 100 million whites at or below the white mean? I think my point stands.”
That is absolutely true, but incomplete. What has been missed is regression to mean, and the effect it has on the population over the course of generations.
“why don’t they deserve full equality under law?”
Our laws were designed for an exclusively European population. Throwing multiculturalism/diversity/tribalism into the mix breaks down pretty much all institutions. Even totalitarian communism wasn’t sufficient to keep a lid on tribal rivalries.
Gooks (or “east asians” as faux aryan calls them) are NOT more intelligent than whites. Gooks exhibit the greatest impulse-control of all the races, and this facilitates their excelling in controlled-environments. Pharmaceutical-grade controlled, like for example, a school lesson — there is a subject, a syllabus, a set of prescribed tasks like assignments, lesson-based tests, and a guide assigned to oversee their progress. But put the slants in an environment where the situational dynamics are beyond their control, and require creative thinking on-the-fly, like say operating an automobile in aggressive traffic, or conceiving a radical approach to solving a problem, and the yellow wonder’s standardized- test IQ becomes moot.
If gooks are so much smarter than white people, then why hadn’t discovered or harnessed electricity by the time they came into contact with European explorers and merchants? Why was their “medicine” primitive and shananistic? Why hadn’t they any knowledge of Newtonian physics? Why? Because gook cognitive-superiority over white people is a MYTH.
White Europeans are by far the most creative race. One only needs to examine art to conclude that, let alone the scientific and technical achievements of white euros.
Pay no attention to Crypto Kike.
FYI – Kikes and Gooks aren’t smarter than Whites. They are just more devious.
Fellas – please pay attention to this Zimmerman/Martin slugfesy. The Media is demonizing Mestizo Martin as WHITE.
Hunter, just read the eight-point response above, excellent.
Chris, Jim, I agree though average brain size is slightly greater in East Asians than Europeans, there is no evidence for greater, or even anywhere close to equal creativity, and it’s worth noting that Europeans have more Neanderthal DNA and appear be the source of it in Asians.
Thanks for confirming my belief that racists are stupid.
Hey Chuck, thanks for confirming the fact that leftoids are cowards and can’t argue their way out of wet paper bags. Leftoidism will fall the instant it has to rely on persuasion, rather than force, as it does now.
The Chucks hate it when you keep flogging the point:
All men (even White men!) have the God-given right to choose with whom they form associations, including the associations of neighborhood, community, school, church, business, institution, and any other. The ongoing denial of this right is an injustice, and must be stopped. Freedom is not a conditional right.
Notice how they won’t respond to it?
Keep flogging it.
Svigor – the little bitch didn’t put my posts through. I was polite. I just asked him why he’s very adept at insulting us – but cannot cite the Joys O’s Nig Nogs. What’s so great about niggers?
(I worded my query in a more professional, polite manner).
Leftoids are supreme cowards. Usually they’re not such obvious paltroons as Chuck and Marc are, though.
Hunter —
makes sense not to make group characteristics and achievement your main reason for excluding others, since individuals will insist and perhaps offer evidence they aren’t unintelligent or hostile or typical. can’t base it on history either, since blacks have been here longer than most whites. easier to say, “you’re not in because you’re not one of us, no matter how wonderful you are, and this land is ours only.”
then the question is only “who is us.” i’ll simply say an ALL-white state with a significant number of intelligent, ambitious whites who ideologically embrace either universalism and are antagonistic to white unity and white rule will be much more unstable than a predominantly white state with a managable number of relatively nonantagonistic other peoples. Ideology, functionality and affluence is AT LEAST as important as blood. If that guy who wants an all-white state in northwest wants to secure his state, he’ll need to evict a hell of a lot more white liberals and libertarians who want cheap labor and products than he’ll need to evict Jews and blacks. I can’t understand how it would be safe to allow whites even to read subversive literature in such a state.
A white dominated multi-racial state would do more to promote white unity, which would seem to be a prerequisite for its white citizens realizing the importance of preserving their status. It can’t be an accident that the only parts of America with any significant white racial consciousness are areas with lots of blacks around. Look at the importance that Israeli Arabs play in Israeli society — having them around and giving them citizenship and rights on paper reminds Jews why they can’t give the same rights to the Palestinians.
313 Chris — “gook cognitive-superiority over white people is a MYTH.”
Not if you’re using IQ tests to measure intelligence. Perhaps on some parts of the test, whites are superior, on others they aren’t. But overall, according to Rushton and others, east Asians average 106, whites 100. Your point that whites achieved more by harnessing science and inventing things and so forth is well taken. It means either IQ tests are a very incomplete measure of intelligence or else there are non-genetic, cultural and political factors at play. I assume Murray’s Human Achievement book goes into the reasons why in some detail.
Denise — why wouldn’t you want to pay attention to someone who takes your ideas seriously and doesn’t attack you ad hominem? That’s a courtesy the vast majority of your purer white brethren will never extend to you. Remember, you have no way of knowing the extent to which behavior of an individual corresponds to his group’s mean behavior.
If gooks are so much smarter than white people, then why hadn’t discovered or harnessed electricity by the time they came into contact with European explorers and merchants? Why was their “medicine” primitive and shananistic? Why hadn’t they any knowledge of Newtonian physics? Why? Because gook cognitive-superiority over white people is a MYTH.
First of all, no one really says Yellows are “so much” smarter than Whites. They have an edge in mean IQ, but that edge does not add up to “so much” smarter. Anyone who says Yellows are “so much” smarter than Whites has to admit that the difference between Whites and Blacks is 3x the difference between Whites and Yellows.
Second, inventive != smart. Of course, exhibit A for this is the fact that higher Yellow mean IQ has translated into Yellows being lapped by Whites in terms of inventiveness. My guess is that there’s a strong advantage in inventiveness to be had from not just intelligence, but also some x-factor, be it creativity, testosterone, extraversion, low agreeableness, individualism, etc., or a combination of some or all of these factors. I.e., that inventiveness is a function of more than just intelligence.
makes sense not to make group characteristics and achievement your main reason for excluding others, since individuals will insist and perhaps offer evidence they aren’t unintelligent or hostile or typical. can’t base it on history either, since blacks have been here longer than most whites. easier to say, “you’re not in because you’re not one of us, no matter how wonderful you are, and this land is ours only.”
then the question is only “who is us.”
Nope. Nope, nope, nope.
Men do not have to justify how they use their rights. Americans know they don’t need to explain to leftoids why they want to bear arms. Americans know they don’t need to explain to leftoids why they want to speak freely. Americans know they don’t need to explain to leftoids why they want to peacably assemble. Americans know they don’t need to explain to leftoids why they have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
We don’t have to explain why we want to exercise our rights. We just need to smash them in the face and tell them to stop denying us our rights. Period.
This is the Alpha and the Omega of our argument. Everything else is just filler and icing.
The right of men to decide their own associations no more depends on the particular associations they choose than their right to choose their own religion depends on the particular religion they choose.
Crypto aryan is straining to include some nonwhites. Why?
Even granting his point, why is it necessary to him for x number of nonwhites to be here when we are trying to get away from them? Why is the presence of nonwhites required?
There are generally three primary reasons for this, factoring out the Marc Ferguson type Liberal. Viz,
1) The advocate has a one or more nonwhite friends and thus projects their qualities onto the entirety of nonwhites as a whole because of a deep emotional commitment to their nonwhite friend(s).
2) The advocate has a sexual fetish for nonwhites.
3) The advocate has one or more family members who is or are romantically involved with nonwhites. This third condition is increasingly common today among white people and manifests itself in ways not related to racial issues. For example, many parents feel the need to reverse their previous lifelong principles and beliefs, even morality, when a child turns out to be homosexual. By this I mean they go well beyond what would be expected and even sympathized with. Most people would sympathize with and understand and not have a problem with their accepting the child’s sexuality and loving them anyway and letting it go at that. But instead an increasing number of people do a sudden about face by reversing previous stances and beliefs and becoming staunch “gay rights” advocates. The same thing happens often concerning drugs abuse, even serious crime. The mentality today goes thus, once it is apparent the child does something, that something suddenly becomes something that perhaps “we have been wrong about and really is OKAY. In other words, they come to accept Liberal premises through this route. We see this in regards to punishment. Parents in their 40s and younger who were themselves well disciplined do not even attempt to discipline their kids and will even say it is bad. This is becoming so acute that I fully expect any day now to begin hearing people say, “well, since little Johnie robbed that bank maybe robbing banks is alright and we have just been mistaken and prejudiced. I’m going to start getting things changed and lobbying for it to be ok to commit armed robbery. We need to start making sure schools start teaching this too! Our former beliefs were just wrong! From now on I am going to support bank robbers.”
I think ‘crypto aryan’ is just racially-mixed himself, and posts here as an occasional antidote to over-associating with his non-white side.
Probably so, but I was referring to only whites. It is to be expected that nonwhites and mongrels will support nonwhites among whites.
I should have also added drug use as a reason in my above post. It is well known to non-bat-shit-crazy-liberal whites that drug users depend on nonwhites for supplying drugs. It is also well know that this is the reason many white women become fixtures in black neighborhoods and circles and thus sex partners of blacks. They also believe that the more nonwhites, the cheaper drugs will be. It is said that this is the reason that Lady Gaga, for example, supports massive immigration from south of the border. She is said to believe cocaine will be even more readily available and possibly cheaper if more and more people from south of the border are constantly crossing the border.
I have little doubt that this is a significant motivation for many whites.
“Not if you’re using IQ tests to measure intelligence. Perhaps on some parts of the test, whites are superior, on others they aren’t. But overall, according to Rushton and others, east Asians average 106, whites 100. Your point that whites achieved more by harnessing science and inventing things and so forth is well taken. It means either IQ tests are a very incomplete measure of intelligence or else there are non-genetic, cultural and political factors at play. I assume Murray’s Human Achievement book goes into the reasons why in some detail.”
IQ, and intelligence tests in general have many different components. In this case their edge comes in visuospatial processing, from having lived on the steppes for so long. Likewise there are other behavioral traits that are not tested for, that are also important. Regardless they are smart(in particular the self-selected individuals who are immigrating here, atleast before chain migration gets going), have been creative before, and it would be wrong to underestimate them as it was in the past.
“Even granting his point, why is it necessary to him for x number of nonwhites to be here when we are trying to get away from them? Why is the presence of nonwhites required? ”
For one thing, its more practical. You’ll never get an all-white homeland bigger in size than liechtienstein in the western hemisphere and soo0ner or later you’ll realize this too. Removing every last non-white is simply not that important even to people who explicitely or implicitely are racially conscious or have grievances against diversity.
However, the idea of quite a few states seceding from the United States and creating viable new nation(s) that are 95% white or perhaps even more is not outside the realm of possibility at all. So you might as well look at the advantages of a situation like that.
“I think ‘crypto aryan’ is just racially-mixed himself, and posts here as an occasional antidote to over-associating with his non-white side.”
I do think a little diversity is a good thing, and I think individuals of any race should be treated as individuals first, because they may not conform to the good or bad norms associated with their group and also because…well they’re human too. On the other hand, I care more about the survival of people of European descent than most people I know who would meet your criteria for full membership in the “white tribe.”
Unfortunately, this puts me at odds with most others like me who are willing to admit they don’t want the USA to become majority non-white. Not a lot of people out there are saying “a little bit is fine, but not too much.” Except perhaps “the silent majority.”
I’m told that Sam Dickson gave a speech at Amren 2012 about this.
Sam’s ideal is an ethnostate. The people who are members of that ethnostate are racially, culturally, ethnically, and ideologically similar. Within those boundaries, we have what is called “politics.”
The state is based on a substantial form of homogeneity, not who is the smartest or most educated, as some of the HBD nerds imagine it to be. It is based on a group of people who consider themselves to be on the same side.
It is natural for there to be a spectrum of intelligence. Every group has its own role to play. It is the role of the intellectuals to defend the interests of the larger group, not to unite with other intellectuals on the basis of a less important characteristic.
Welcome back, Brutus. Sorry for being an asshole a few months ago.
Chuckie proves that non-racists are poopy-heads, and will eventually have those heads bashed in by the Niggers they adore. The sooner the better, I say!
@crypto aryan
The problem with “a little diversity” is that it never stays little. Say there is an all-white nation. This nation, as an experiment, admits a tiny group of non-whites as residents. What happens? The non-whites instinctively stay together out of a natural desire for reassurance and familiarity. Some might mix out and assimilate, but most stay in their racial community. So now the non-white community has expanded in number, and there are also now mixed individuals, who, by very definition, can no longer be white. The white population is now a little smaller by comparison.
Eventually, the non-whites start to feel conscious of there inability to fully assimilate, because they simply aren’t of the same genetic stock as their white hosts. They feel no loyalty to their host nation. They become resentful. They become angry. They make demands and threaten violence if they aren’t appeased. The mixed-breeds side with the non-whites because, as I stated earlier, they simply aren’t white, they’re mixed. And they know as much instinctively. So now the once-stable, once white country has deteriorated into a racial crisis. Sound like any countries we know?
Someone once geniusly said, “Diversity is the span of time between the first black family moving into a neighborhood, and the last white family moving out of it.”
Crypto,
“Denise — why wouldn’t you want to pay attention to someone who takes your ideas seriously and doesn’t attack you ad hominem? That’s a courtesy the vast majority of your purer white brethren will never extend to you. Remember, you have no way of knowing the extent to which behavior of an individual corresponds to his group’s mean behavior.”
Alright. I sincerely apologize if I hurt your feelings, or offended you. This WN world can make people cynical, and bitter. The Anti-White Authorities are really ramping up the agitprop. This Zimmerman Mestizo Demonized As White has rattled me, frankly. It’s confirmationm that actual PHYSICAL reality has NO meaning in the world at all.
The thing is, your defense of non-Whites is puzzling. It’s the Sign of the Anti. The wheat is seperating fomr the chaff, and we don’t need to be “fair” anymore. We never did, in fact. Your posts spurred reaction posts, defending the Pro White position.
I’ve seen these types of time wasters derail other threads, other websites. I understand that you are trying to be factually accurate, ect – but facts mean NOTHING to the myriad of enemies of the White Race.
I am White. By people are being systematically exterminated. I have known and appreciated and liked people of other Races – but I will take the dumbest, most annoying idiotic Pro White cretins of my own Race, over the best of any other – simply and finally because that annoying cretin IS Pro White White.
We don’t need to get into endless discussions or justifications. Really we don’t . As the walls close in – we need to simplify.
Do you understand?
Crypto, fucking learn statistics, afterwards your arguments will embarrass you.
“Welcome back, Brutus. Sorry for being an asshole a few months ago.”
It’s OK. I can be an asshole too at times. My motivation on these boards and elsewhere concerning these issues is to arrest and reverse what has happened to my country and people, not to “social network.”
Now, back to the task at hand.
The Marc Ferguson’s and Brooks D Simpson’s of today basically use the same technique a person who wanted to free a Charles Manson could only use on a small child who knows nothing about him.
“There is this poor man named Charlie Manson that many hateful people want to deny human rights and dignity to. These haters spew vile and disgusting language and even go so far as to deny Manson humanity and denounce him as an animal. These hateful bigots are ignorant and uninformed. Their outrageous lies should be condemned by all. There is no place in modern society for such outdated views. This man Manson and his followers in only two nights drastically raised safety awareness amongst the population of entire state of California and for much of the rest of the United States. Yet these ignoramuses through their uninformed ignorance deny Manson basic human rights and freedom!”
And that is exactly how Marc Ferguson and company use words and lying by omission. Instead of dealing with the fact of how Manson and his followers brutally murdered several people in the most horrifying way imaginable, Ferguson would reword those crimes into “Manson and his followers worked for two nights and raised safety awareness for the people of California.” Well, yeah, you could say that. It would even be accurate as far as it goes.
In the same kind of way, Marc Ferguson and Brooks Simpson totally ignore and try to deflect other people’s attention and awareness away from all of the chaos and instead labor “civil rights” and “humanity” and “voting” to frame everything and use as a vantage point. They do this because many people respond positively to appeals of “justice” and “rights” and allowing someone or some group of people “humanity.” Many people agree with these things. But hardly anyone agrees that Manson and his followers deserve rights anymore after the crimes they committed. And no doubt if you told a very young person who did not know of these crimes that people are only “denying” Manson “human rights” and “dignity ” without telling them about and attempting to conceal his crimes, you could probably get the young person to agree with you and join in in condemning people who know what happened: “Why, these people are denying this man basic human rights and calling him an animal! That is terrible and should not be tolerated in today’s society!”
In other words, Ferguson, Simpson and company are forever ONLY laboring the abstractions of “humanity” and “basic rights” while totally ignoring the actions of blacks and other “minority” groups. As long as some selected group or person has “civil rights,” all other considerations are irrelevant. It does not matter about the state of Detroit and what it once was, only that the blacks there got “Civil Rights.” It does not matter that tens of thousands of murders, rapes, beatings and robberies take place, only that we can go around saying that the perpetrators are human and should be treated with dignity.
Tell me how many white physicists there are and how many negro physicists there are in the United States.
With every advantage since the 1960s, negroes should have the same ratio as white folks among physicists, mathematicians, and chemists.
I had once asked, “How many black astrophysicists are there in America?” a few years ago. The answer was, “Less than a dozen.”
Look, as a man raised in the South, aware of negro violence, I can arrive at the following observation: Negroes are markedly less intelligent, on average, than whites, and they are markedly more violent than whites; the sum total of negro contribution to society is negative.
Conclusion: The best thing for all is a total evacuation of negroes from the USA back to Africa.
Southerners know negroes best, and they say, “You can take the nigger out of the jungle, but you can’t take the jungle out of the nigger.”
Truer words have never been spoken.