Interview Of Nikole Hannah-Jones

The following is a fictional transcript of a negotiation between white people and black people in America over reparations. Representing black people in the negotiations is Nikole Hannah-Jones, a staff writer for New York Times magazine. She is the creator of the 1619 Project, which is an ongoing blood libel against white people. Representing white people of America is the typical white person, who has tried in good faith for generations to figure out how to include blacks in civil society.

White Person: Thank you for agreeing to begin this dialogue. Having read your latest, uh, column on reparations, we, and by “we” I mean white people, have decided that it is time to think about reparations. While we in no way accept the claim that modern whites owe modern blacks anything for the alleged crimes of our ancestors, in the furtherance of peace between the races, we are open to discussing reparations.

Nikole Hannah-Jones: Yes, well, as I said in my post, if true justice and equality are ever to be achieved in the United States, the country must finally take seriously what it owes black Americans. It is time for this country to pay its debt. It is time for reparations.

WP: Presumably, when you say “the country” you mean white people. You don’t expect Asians, newly arrived Africans and Native Americans to be part of this.

NHJ: I don’t understand.

WP: What don’t you understand?

NHJ: I don’t understand what “presumably” means.

WP: Oh, I see. Well, I’m here to speak on behalf of white people. I cannot obligate Asians or newly arrived Africans, or Arabs or anyone else to reparations. You mentioned white people 197 times in your column. You mentioned black people 179 times. Asians, Jews, Native Americans, Arabs and so on were mentioned zero times, so this is about blacks and whites, correct?

NHJ: That’s right. As I said in my piece, generations of white violence against black bodies has to be addressed. There can be no peace until white people accept what they owe to black people. Going back to the very beginning….

WP: I don’t mean to cut you off, but I read your piece and I have read all the other stuff in the 1619 project. Like all white people, I have grown up hearing the long list of grievances of black people. That’s why I’m here. We agree. It is time to negotiate a settlement in order to get racial peace.

NHJ: It has been more than 150 years since the white planter class last called up the slave patrols and deputized every white citizen to stop, question and subdue any black person who came across their paths in order to control and surveil a population who refused to submit to their enslavement. It has been 150 years since white Americans could enforce slave laws that said white people acting in the interest of the planter class would not be punished for killing a black person….

WP: Okay, okay, I got it. I read the piece, a few times, in fact. If all you’re going to do here is recite from the list of grievances, then we are wasting our time. I’m here to talk about reparations.

NHJ: If black lives are to truly matter in America, this nation must move beyond slogans and symbolism. Citizens don’t inherit just the glory of their nation, but its wrongs too. A truly great country does not ignore or excuse its sins. It confronts them and then works to make them right. If we are to be redeemed, if we are to live up to the magnificent ideals upon which we were founded, we must do what is just.

WP: Yes, well, that’s fine, but can you tell us what you mean by pay its debts? I’ve read all of your work. I’ve read Ta-Nahesi Coates on the subject of reparations. What seems to be missing is the dollar figure.

NHJ: As I said in my piece, generations of white violence against black bodies has to be addressed. There can be no peace until white people accept what they owe to black people….

WP: Right, I’ll stipulate that. In fact, without qualification, I’ll stipulate to all of the claims in your work. What I’m here to discuss is reparations. What number do we put on the check to make black people whole? What is the debt you expect us to pay?

NHJ: As I said in my piece, until white people atone for their crimes against black people and pay their debt…

WP: Hold up, I just said we will stipulate to all of that.

NHJ: I don’t know what you mean by “stipulate”, but white people need to accept their debt to black people. As I wrote in my piece…

WP: Sorry to cut you off again, but that’s what stipulate means. We agree to all the claims made in your work and in the work of others. We’re not here to debate it or hear another recitation of it. We are here to negotiate the check.

NHJ: Check?

WP: Yes. The check. We are prepared to write every descendant of slaves, even those of mixed race, a check. We’ll pay the debt you feel you are owed.

NHJ: I don’t think a check can cover the pain of 150 years of suffering…

WP: Okay, then what else do you want? Land, like a black homeland? A ride to the airport? What? Tell me what we have to do to close the books on this.

NHJ: As I said in my piece, until white people atone for their crimes against black people and pay their debt…

WP: I got it. We all get it. That’s why we’re here. What do you want from us?

NHJ: We want justice.

WP: Fine. What does that mean? What do we need to do in order for you to have justice? If it is not a check, then what is it.

NHJ: We still want the check.

WP: Okay, how much. What’s the number?

NHJ: But it can’t just be a check. White people have to atone for the crimes they have committed against black bodies…

WP: Look. I’m starting to lose my patience. We agree to all of that. What we want to know is what we have to do, in specific terms, in order for you people to believe you have justice and to believe the debt is paid. If it is not a check, then what is it?

NHJ: As I said in my piece, financial restitution cannot end racism, of course, but it can certainly mitigate racism’s most devastating effects. If we do nothing, black Americans may never recover from this pandemic, and they will certainly never know the equality the nation has promised.

WP: Okay, so what you are saying is there can never be reparations, as there is no way for you to ever feel you have been repaid. Reparations means the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged. It sounds to me like you will never forgive whites, much less allow whites to make amends, so what are you asking?

NHJ: We want what we were promised.

WP: Okay, what were you promised and who promised it to you?

NHJ: The civil rights movement ostensibly ended white advantage by law. And in the gauzy way white Americans tend to view history, particularly the history of racial inequality, the end of legal discrimination, after 350 years, is all that was required to vanquish this dark history and its effects. Changing the laws, too many Americans have believed, marked the end of the obligation.

WP: I see. You don’t really want reparation. What you want is a raise. You want to live on the guilt of modern white people forever, but with the condition you get to demand a raise every generation. In fact, there can never be peace, as that would mean no more raises and maybe no more white guilt. After all, if we feel we paid our debts to you, we have no reason to keep paying you.

What you really want is tribute. I think I can speak for the majority of white people and say we would rather have the Dane. At least with him the issue was clear.

NHJ: I don’t understand.

WP: We know.

Note: The good folks at Alaska Chaga are offering a ten percent discount to readers of this site. You just click on the this link and they take care of the rest. About a year ago they sent me some of their stuff. Up until that point, I had never heard of chaga, but I gave a try and it is very good. It is like a tea, but it has a milder flavor. It’s hot here in Lagos, so I’ve been drinking it cold. It is a great summer beverage.


For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!


297 thoughts on “Interview Of Nikole Hannah-Jones

    • Hey everybody! You *need* to distribute Z’s article to every single centrist-to-right person you know and spark discussion. I’m not sending it to clients or business partners for obvious reasons but on the friend and general acquaintance level a link to the article together with a brief question inviting a response is going out today.

      And, yes, I ordered a batch of AlaskaChaga “chunks.”

    • Yes, they just can’t deliver on it.
      Even revolutions need you to show up sober.

      • Yes, but you may quaff from the bottle “liberated” from the homes of the Burgeous (does anyone know how to spell it?) or the stores of the Capitalist Pigs 😀

        • Ah used too be able to spell Bourgeois, but ah’m goin full wignaht to meet expectations.
          [not yours sir]

    • I remember that from Paul Kersey’s site in the old days. That would be a great meme. BLM’s simple demand of white people: Die.

      • The problem isn’t gibs. The problem is as long as we exist they will always see themselves as inferior. This is what eats away at them in spite of all the adulation thrown their way through the sports and entertainment industry. This is why separation is the only solution.

        • “Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself.
          Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared.
          The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation.
          The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it.
          And, superiority excites envy.
          Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities.”
          Joseph Sobran, April 1997

           

        • “The problem is as long as we exist they will always see themselves as inferior.”

          In many ways they are inferior. In some ways (think sportsball) they are not inferior. But regardless, blame God for how He chose to make the races and nations. I had precious little to do with it myself.

          • But don’t blame God for Africans being in America. The biggest issue I see with the dissident right (or whatever this is) is that it doesn’t take black Americans seriously. Black people are different from white people, and neither side integrates with the other; we all know this. However, black people didn’t ask or volunteer to come to America, and while it’s easy to tell disaffected blacks to go back to Africa, the truth is a) they can’t afford to and b) they have lost their roots to the homeland and wouldn’t assimilate to it either. It seems imminently reasonable to me to simply give blacks their own place to live and rule in America (I’m thinking Florida, Alabama and Georgia) and maintain strict separation between the two. Alternatively, there’s genocide if you can stomach it. But telling blacks that they ought to be grateful (or at least not upset) that their ancestors were kidnapped from their homeland and forced to serve a society that organized around the kidnappers’ strengths and values is, quite frankly, rather cruel.

          • I agree that a separate black nation–Missibama, perhaps–is potentially a good solution. However, I don’t think anybody on the Dissident Right is arguing blacks should be grateful their ancestors were enslaved. I think what we’re saying is that they should be grateful for the incredible efforts, monetary and otherwise, whites have made to provide restitution. And indeed, perhaps for the fact that we haven’t come down on them like a load of bricks given their incredibly pernicious impact on society. But no. The more whites transfigure blacks, the more blacks behave demonically. It will stop. Either peacefully or violently. The choice is theirs.

          • I don’t think those states would approve. Perhaps New England seeing as though your white ancestors foisted them upon us with their war.

          • “My” white ancestors? The main reason I chose Mississippi and Alabama is because those states already have huge black populations. The same cannon be said for Maine and Vermont.

          • “… they should be grateful for the incredible efforts, monetary and otherwise, whites have made to provide restitution.”

            We have literally wrecked, spiritually, morally, and financially bankrupted our country trying to help these people. None of this disaster would be happening today if all Africans had been involuntarily repatriated back to Africa in 1865. One reason to bring in huge numbers of non-British whites, especially Irish and Jews, was to demographically dilute the Africans. (South Carolina was 60% African at one point) Judeocommunists never would have succeeded in destoying us if they didn’t have slavery guilt with which to cudgel the credulous.

            No one else on this planet, much less their own kind who SOLD them to the slavers in the first place, would have paid in blood to free them in the first place, much less given them the staggering amount of resources and opportunity that they have utterly squandered. I have no more sympathy for them. We need to ruthlessly look out for our own self-interests irrespective of theirs. It is what they have always done. The age of the stupidly nice white people is over.

          • I doubt most American Blacks would want to relocate to any African country, if they did even a brief study of live in the homeland.
            Finally, as a cracker in one of the states you name, I would be inconvenienced by such a partition, but if I were compensated for my property I would move, yes.
            Alas, I think that genocide (or more likely, falling short of, but a bloody Civil War II) is the most likely “solution”: precisely because we are humans, we are obstinate, and we wouldn’t consider what in retrospect would have been less bloody solutions.

          • I think they can survive in Africa. 42 million american blacks are hard to genocide by the africans.

          • The first reservations should be Broward County, Florida and the West Bank.

            A direct swap for African-Americans like Elon Musk would do for the rest. Let’s get our people out of there.

          • Blacks were not ‘kidnapped’ by Europeans.
            Strict separation is a pipe dream – they are incapable of building their wakanda and will always try to take what the White man has.
            ‘Quite frankly,’ they are an exceptionally cruel and savage subspecies.
            ‘Quite frankly,’ I could not give a damn about what they want or how they feel.

          • Obsurd. Blacks are damn lucky they were born here instead of in Africa. Period end of story.

          • Fuck that, I ain’t “giving” nothing to them. Do you want to turn Florida into Somalia? Try and sell that shit to the millions of people who worked all their lives for a little piece of their own. You’re an idiot to even suggest it.

        • Agree. Sometimes, even thick-skinned me is bothered by the implication: What if they really are inferior in so many respects? Doesn’t the natural human desire to not cause harm/offense underlie much of the “White Guilt”? Even Goodwhites must be aware, subconsciously perhaps, of the innate differences. But agreed, separation is the most humane option. Other options are, well, less humane 🙂

        • See themselves as inferior? They are. I used to wonder why a dude like Obummer and his spouse always appeared angry, or unhappy. Then it hit me. President, millionaire, celebrity, and at the end of the day, when he lays his head on the pillow, he knows deep down, that he’s just a common, everyday jogger. That’s gotta gall them.

      • Sub Kananga for Goldfinger and you’ve got it just right. Incidentally, James Bond is the archetype of the white man. And that is why the AWRs are working so hard to replace him with a black male.

        • Actually, they just replaced him with a black woman. Save Texas if you can Osti, we’re still hanging on by the skin of our teeth here in Florida.

          • Texas is on the ropes and awaiting the knockout punch, I’m afraid. This Abbott clown in charge is a worthless cuck and a two-bit tyrant. Oklahoma is a much more respectable state.

          • For once I can give you unqualified agreement. Texas has been coasting on its reputation (or the fake picture of the state painted by the $ew York media) for decades now. The state is bulging at the seams with people from all corners of the globe and the country. The uniparty’s r branch is filled with slimeballs like Cornyn and Abbot, and demographically the battle has long been lost.

    • They don’t want us to die – at least, not the smarter ones. Whites are their meal ticket. Without us, they go back to the jungle as they’re doing in Detroit, New Orleans, and Baltimore. They very much want us alive, whether they know it or not.
      The dissidents must pretty much give up on any ideas they have about peaceful segregation. That isn’t your fault either, it’s theirs. The black man is either at your feet, or he’s at your throat as the shitlib democrats are finding out right now.

      You have two options in the real world, Cracker: start shipping them back to Africa or genocide. Make your choice, or the black man will make it for you… and if he does, NOBODY is going to be happy with the result.

      • Maybe “the smarter ones” don’t desire our immediate demise. That leaves an awful lot who want us dead, no matter what the long-term consequences to themselves.

        Don’t forget, you are dealing with a group that routinely turns its own “hoods” into burnt-out wastelands, just for a bit of fun. (And then complain about living in food deserts, where only fast food, booze and drugs are readily available.) For many years I thought peaceful co-existence is possible — not any more.

        • No, partition …or bad uncle.
          I prefer partition, as bad uncle might not like us uppity wignats either.

        • To be fair to the blacks, they don’t complain about the food deserts themselves. White soyboys and wammen complain for them. Blacks are mostly just fine with a diet of hamburgers, malt liquor, cigarettes, and drugs. It’s only whitey who worries that they don’t get their veggies.

          • Have you eaten at black homes. I have since childhood. They have a particularly narrow range of preferred foods: fried chicken, barbequed pork, ribs and beef tips, fish preferably catfish and carp, cornbread, strawberry pie, sweet potato anything, watermelon, grape soda, greens mostly collard, blackeyed peas and baked beans. Toss in a bag of Cheetos and the occasional meateaters pizza and that’s the diet for those with discretionary income or relatives cooking. I may have overlooked one or two but they definitely enjoy a smaller range when compared with middle class and up whites.

          • Blacks don’t show much interest in ethnic foods such as Chinese, Thai, Mexican, Indian, Japanese, Korean, etc. They pretty much like soul food, which is virtually synonymous with Southern cooking, and nothing else.

      • To a degree.
        Via racist employment quotas South Africa has managed to degrade their formerly well-run electric utility, ESKOM to the point where rolling blackouts are now a regular feature of life.

      • Back to the jungle is exactly what would happen – and is happening – in the absence of white people.

      • They want us to be subjugated second-class citizens, tax serfs, and creators of amusing inventions such as duh Twitter and sail foams. They also want us to be punching bags with no recourse to self defense, cause it’s so much fun to attack YT in the street and occasionally rape and kill her.

  1. We are not there yet, nor will we ever be. Quote from John Wayne:
    “With a lot of blacks, there’s quite a bit of resentment along with their dissent, and possibly rightfully so. But we can’t all of a sudden get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of the blacks. I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people.”

    • And if the best blacks we’ve been able to come up with have been Colin Powell and Barack Obama, I’d say Wayne is still correct today.

      • Some local black pastors in days past were very effective in keeping their communities stable. Now they’ve been replaced by race hustlers and grievance-mongers.

        • Yep. Outside of sports and rap, most highly successful blacks have plenty of cream in their coffee.

      • He’s a goof frequently but Kanye West is capable of running just about any enterprise. I actually have worked with him and was skeptical until I couldn’t be based on the facts presented. We’ll get the extremely rare outlier now and then, say, one in 50-100 million black lives.

      • I don’t wish nukes in the hands of any intellectually challenged people. However, applied to the USA, they would be all but useless against Whites in a race war scenario. Big cities in the USA are a thing of the past. Butt that wouldn’t rule out Crips vs. Bloods now with thermonuclear weapons!
        And using nukes to target small, distributed relatively independent enclaves is as practical as killing a mosquito with an elephant gun. No, a future, dumber, darker USA would present more of a danger to (and from) foreign powers. A major nuclear war would probably disproportionately kill people of color in the USA. Even nuclear war is racist! 🙁

        • Dude, the US nuke arsenal is down to around 4000 warheads from a peak of over 30,000 warheads. Most of our nukes are at least 30 years old, and we have not tested a nuke since 1991. It’s likely that very few, if any, actually still work. The US is a paper tiger in the nuke game.

          • We are now in a multi year, trillion+ dollar program to upgrade the arsenal. I doubt if we have too many duds—as vs decommissioned warheads.

            This upgrade program began under Obama and if I read between the lines, includes making tactical nukes of a few hundred kiloton capacity—not a good sign.

            Anyway, arsenal reduction began under Bush the younger. Not herd a 30k figure, but reportedly Bush was told 15k. His surprise was noted—“What the hell we need that many for”. He was correct, we don’t need that many. Even the Chinese are said to have only a couple of hundred.

            A nuke is a pretty simple device once all figured out (IMO). With the exception of the use of tritium which decays and therefore reduces yield, I suspect we’ll have more than enough to create a credible deterrent.

            It’s the new “mini-nukes” I’m worried about. Those would be tempting to use in the battlefield. Especially if we are getting our ass kicked by a first rate advisory.

            But what do I know.

          • “Upgrade” is a stretch at this time. Almost all spending in this program has gone to build out facilities that were either repurposed or fell into disrepair over the past 30 years. The program has not produced a single new “battle ready” nuke to date and won’t produce any battle ready new nukes until at least 2024, which in government-speak means at least 2030.
            The Plutonium core triggers for our nukes have a design life of 20 years. We stopped making them in any quantity about 30 years ago, when the Rocky Flats plant outside Boulder got shut down by the EPA. (A high-end residential subdivision now resides on this property–no joke).
            We really have no idea whether most of our arsenal actually works. The US is in no position to escalate to a nuclear confrontation now.

      • The right may have to consider a campaign to sabotage and destroy the United States sometime in the future. Imagine the hatred the left currently has towards Russia, which is partly based on race, directed towards all Europeans. Will this POC empire demand the French tear down the Eiffel Tower and burn the Louvre? Will they turn this empire’s war machine on the continent and attack it for “white supremacy”?

        • Western civilization is now synonymous with white supremacy. And because the AWRs seek to eliminate white supremacy, you’d have to be a complete idiot not to see what the end game is here.

          • Yep, that’s why, in a post in the weekend thread, I proposed that we start making 3D scans of statues that are likely to be targeted by the Left but ultimately expand the project to include all of Western high culture. The people we’re dealing with certainly will burn the Louvre if they can.

            Fortunately it looks like Europeans are finally waking up to the threat of the swarthy hordes and the US is destroying itself so fast now that by the time it’s totally run by people like Ilhan Omar, the warlord guy from CHAZ, and BLM, it won’t be able to operate a high tech war machine anymore.

          • A very good idea regarding the statues. What worries me is the fact that most of America’s great museums are in vibrant metro areas. It’s only a matter of time before the Hutus and ANTIFAGS begin pillaging and destroying those. The lost artworks will be irreplaceable.

  2. I remember an old saying that went, “Never argue with an insane person.”

    It still holds true.

    • It’s a mad world that paints white people as the conquerer and expects us to pay tribute. I can’t imagine the brain cells people spend living in such a mental prison.

  3. The old joke is that the best kind of doctor to be is a dermatologist, because your patient never gets totally better and they rarely die (at which point they’re an oncologist’s problem, not yours). So someone like this woman or Coates can best be viewed as…”dermatologists” would be too kind a word, so how about vampires who occasionally notice that the wound is scabbing and needs to be rubbed raw again to get the blood to flow once more? Demographic change of course means that they’re going to have to fight to feast on the incapacitated body of the white victim, and of course even too many symbiotic lamprey discs sucking blood will leave the host dry and bled white. The parasite dies with the host, probably. It certainly won’t be feasting much anymore.

  4. Pardon me, but… fuck you, Nikole. I don’t owe you a thing. I am not paying nig geld.

  5. Insane creatures like this black b**** can’t get enough fantasizing about and lecturing Whites on this crap. It dreams of the mirror image of the antebellum south where the darkies own the plantations and wield the whip while Whitey labors in the proverbial cotton fields. One problem though, for sheboons like her, is the bucks are only gonna want the White wimminz. Those like her will soon find themselves laboring away along side of what’s of the White man. Better be careful what you wish for b****.

  6. Anoint Farrakhan the official leader of blacks and deride all others such as Nicole as poseurs (this happens to be reality). Negotiate with him the lands where blacks will live separately from whites and the start-up funds necessary. Then wall off their homeland and never allow one of them back into actual America.

    Those are reparations I and basically all whites, despite their denials, would accept. Most blacks would as well. It is moral and humane to all concerned.

  7. It’s ALWAYS just another way to say/get revenge.
    If these same morons were actual victims of anything they claimed to be victims of, maybe I could begin to understand but this is all basically disphoria.

  8. Now hold on there, Hoss. You do NOT speak for ‘White people’ if you give slavery reparations any sort of serious consideration.
    The logistics alone are impossible to sort out. Are the hordes of recent arrivals from south of the border ‘Whites’? Perhaps we should ask them for their views on what it is that they allegedly ‘owe’ the descendants of our former farm implements.
    And what about jews? Are they ‘White’ enough to owe dark-skinned types the Danegeld? Last I knew, they were still after their own tribute for certain events that may or may not have happened near the mid-century mark in another land far, far away.
    Bottom line, black America: I never owned a slave and you never picked cotton. End of lesson. I don’t owe you sh!t.

    • The point is that *even* if you agree with everything they say about wanting ‘reparations’, there can never be reparations, because they will never be satisfied. Arguing about whether you owe them anything or not is beside the point – they want tribute, now, and forever, just for existing.

      • That, and the ledger is entirely one sided. We never gave them anything and they never got any benefit to being born in America.
        It’s like the credit card company only recording purchases you made and completely ignoring your payments.

      • There is another point to be made as well: the actual position of Mx. Hanna-Jones is that slavery is perfectly moral, they just object to not being the slavers. Anyone earnestly arguing for Joggergeld can only do so by accepting that heritable chattel slavery is moral. They do not want peace and harmony, they want to enslave us and wear our civilization as a skinsuit.

        If you can communicate the above rationale to another YT, you have thrown them into the river od the great divide, and they can come over here or drown.

        • Say “Joggergeld” with a Norwegian “Y”- it’ll bring a smile to your face.

      • What’s your point, though? You think you can have an intelligent — White — discourse outwitting blacks who support reparations? You think you can convince them to look at the facts of the matter and conclude that we don’t owe them anything? You can’t. Modern political discourse is about emotion; it’s not about reason. Any kind of serious discussion on the subject will ultimately lead to blacks getting reparations because your side is weak and their side is not. Your side is filled with upper-class guys like David French who are more than happy to throw you guys under the bus if he thinks he can negotiate to keep his bank account. Their side is the entire establishment and nearly all blacks.

        The concept of reparations itself is morally wrong and should be opposed along those lines — reprehensible, evil, and perhaps even racist. We should even consider demanding payment from them as a deflection, truth though it may be. Both are more effective strategies than trying to convince 85IQs that their position is illogical.

        • That WAS the point – there can be no logical discourse on this or any subject between Whites and joggers.

    • Nice attempt at a Breitbart-esque deflection. It has absolutely nothing to do with slavery or picking cotton or Jim Crow or anything else they say it’s about.
      Reparations are not about the past, they are about the present. If the Breitbartians were right in the 60s, blacks would be indistinguishable from Whites on just about every metric, except to the extent they were better off than whites due to things like affirmative action. If that were the case, there would be no discussion about reparations.

      Anyone who tells you reparations are about slavery or anything else in the past is either a fool or is lying to you. Since our society is incapable of correctly diagnosing the problem, the demand for reparations is never going to go away. The problem is not slavery, not Jim Crow, it’s not red-lining, it’s not gerrymandering or the school-to-prison pipeline or any other fantasy excuse, it is DNA. Until we can admit that it’s DNA, the present, at all times, will look like the present.

    • To further muddy the waters, what do we do about Free Negroes that owned slaves? 😀 Are White indentured servants owed reparations?

  9. I’d happily pay 10% of my pre-tax income as reparations forever if it meant I never, ever had to see another jogger again. fWIW.

    • That’s been my position for some time. I’d happily pay ANY amount in “reparations,” provided the check came with a one-way ticket to Ghana. What else do you want? A “homeland”? Sure! I would happily give you my house, and everything in it, free gratis, provided we could surround it with a huge concrete wall and a nuclear minefield. So long as I can mark “paid” in the ledger and file any future correspondence under “not my problem,” I’ll pay anything. I know I am not alone in this.

      • How very kind of you. They have considered and rejected your offer. Write the check, bigot!

        • Oh, I have one more counter-offer – the Don Corleone kind. The relevant numbers are “63%” and “13%.” But nobody wants that.

        • It’ll bounce as Y/T is been bankrupted too.
          To what Yves said, its already happening. I know people who were last year civic nationalists and anti racists (in the Right Wing sense not the college boy sense) who are mulling on those 14 words.
          As Selco noted a society can go from “getting along pretty good.” to all out genocide in an instant and with the various levels of government in the US having auto delegitimizing themselves and Great Depression 2 under way, its like a building ful of paint soaked rags sharing a floor with a match factory.
          If you do anything, if you can’t move find a way to make dangerous friends and lots of them. Tribe up because singletons and atomized propel are going to be screwed.

    • How much to send the goodwhites packing with the pocs? I dont want to see them either.

      • Goodwhites are still White – they’ll quickly end up running everything in New Wakanda, then we’re worse off than before. A more… Maoist… solution is called for in the case of those traitors.

        • A more… Maoist… solution is called for in the case of those traitors…
          which is why we need Tar Baby and his …her…endless distractions out of the way.
          We YT are overdue a conversation with Gudwhites anyway…Tar Baby is just a distraction, and in the way…

          • From the point of view of Goodwhites and Jews, Tar Baby is not in the way, any more than the line of pawns is in the way of the queen or the bishop. Much more than any other racial group, his responses are predictable and can be easily controlled. When the Anglo-Jewish elite needs cover for something nefarious they want to do to Badwhites, they deploy their line of black pawns.

            This is why Floydmania got rolling just as the Coronathon would have been naturally fizzling and leaving a lot of very angry people looking right at the elite for an explanation of where their livelihood had gone.

            This is why there simply must be at least a chapter 3 if not chapter 4 before the election. What will it be? Well, it might just be another video inspired black uprising but even blacks might be getting rage fatigue at this point. How about a nice juicy war? They haven’t tried that one for a while now. Problem is that wars generally help the guy in the White House. Now if it were a catastrophic war, like one where the US mainland were invaded or nuked… Would the elite be willing to take things that far? They certainly hate us enough. I’ve heard the business in fortified New Zealand bunkers is booming. Any truth to that?

          • I think they’re on the 2016 playbook, or at least the Dems are…blood in the primary season for the Blacks to get their vote out, move ‘center’ whatever that is for General.
            Of course to them the Center now is Ta-Hesi Coates, so it’s difficult to tell.

            The alternative explanation is the elites have lost control of their pets, and their own narrative. Remember Bethesda MD, where the Federal Govt lives went out and ritually knelt. > once you kneel, you really don’t have power anymore.
            That which you knelt to has power, and that’s the power in the Democratic party.
            So in summary the Crazy Train doesn’t stop this time, it’s going to plow full speed through the station.

            >* I have no idea of the market for NZ bunkers, but I don’t doubt it.
            They may not realize once they flee, power is lost. So let em run.

          • “America” is now Africanized in most ways. And it is quickly becoming a black supremacist state. White elites prostrating themselves before the savages is symbolic of those facts.

          • I misread that as “there simply must be at least a chapter 13”

            Well, a Chapter 7 from the Enablers, at least.

          • I tend to agree — it feels like there are at least one or two more shoes to drop before the election. We haven’t had a good outrage in more than a week now, something has to be brewing.

          • I’m wondering if the Ghislaine Maxwell trial is going to be the thing. Assuming they don’t just kill her, it’s possible that she could implicate so much of the super-elite in pedophilia that politics could go completely off anyone’s narrative chain into chaos. Also, Kanye West may be serious about running. Either of these things could be the distraction that get’s them through the election season. Finally, there’s also the potential chaos at the party conventions next month.

            There also might now be multiple elite factions fighting to control the Next Shoe to drop. The media liars may not know which of the magic slippers they’re supposed to be watching.

          • That ship sailed about a year ago. So many billionaires bought up so much land for their bolt holes that the NZ govt banned real estate purchases by non citizens. I suppose there could still be leasing arrangements…

      • They dont get off easy with a check and a new homeland. They have debts outstanding to me and mine and I expect satisfaction.

        • They will suffer, don’t worry about that, they’re just a bunch of useful idiots for the elites.
          They have no allies any longer, every community of minorities hates them at this point. Most citizens of USA don’t want anything to do with them.

    • You are already paying 10% of your income to support joggers, not including AA make work, cops, prisons, and quality of life penalties for avoiding them.

      • Right, and I’m not getting anything in return. Let’s bump it up to a 100% one-time payment, but really get something this time! They seemed to have settled on Texas as the territory they want. So be it… provided the big beautiful wall gets built around it first.

    • A marked lack of mourning and reflection in Mexifornia, for sure. I think that’s what the fireworks in L.A. this weekend were all about.

  10. If Whites are going to pay reparations, then we are also entitled to a royalty check very time a person of color flips on a light switch … or turns the ignition key in a car … or boots up a computer … well, you get my drift.

    • Problem is, no one is asking for or taking checks. A check is a good rhetorical vehicle for the essay, but I’ve yet to hear a reparations proposal suggesting some sort of single payment and done.

      Rather proposals seem to ask for a “raise” as Z-man suggested astutely. Yeah, they want some cash assistance, but they also want new and expanded welfare and AA programs. And as has been said before, when in yet another few generations, such a program does not succeed in narrowing the Black/White gap, charges are sure to be made of racism, inadequate reparation payment, and what have you. Anything to ignore the innate biological difference which accounts for Black failure in modern society.

    • The mulatoes are always the most militant. Probably a combination of lack of identity and slightly higher IQ from the Euro genes.

      • I can remember a similar point being made in the alternate post-WW2 history novel Fatherland (1992).

        One of the police investigators tasked with ferreting out secret Jews and others of mixed-race was barely considered Aryan under the race laws because the Reich correctly understood that someone with a borderline identity in the role would be utterly fanatical about ferreting out problem elements.

        Fresh converts to Islam are similarly fanatical because they know it is the fastest way to earn street cred with the rest of the Ummah.

        • Borderline Mixed=Fanatic.
          You have just described Rheinhard Heydrich.
          look at his picture, and no he doesn’t look like Kenneth Branaugh, not at all.

      • That’s cause mulattoes know they can take control of large mass of dark skinned blacks & become the new ruling class.

        • Not in Haiti , they were all genocided. I actually think Hatian Whites might have done better by any measure a White guy living in Haiti could claim anyway.

    • This is a real problem and should be a warning to whites about intermixing. Two unhappy parties here, the mulatto and the us.

      • Heck, even the hapa children of White and Asian parents seem to experience more than a normal share of identity and mental issues.

        • Derbyshire’s half-breed kids seem to be doing well enough. Or at least you’d expect a world class racist like him to complain if they weren’t 😀

          • Ben. All joking aside. There are mixed race children and there are mixed race children. Not race all mixtures are conducive to societal calm. Black mixtures seem the worse. That’s not Derbyshire’s situation.

        • I’ve had buddies both Mulatto and Hapa and they were both miserable.
          Both being smart guys, they were more White than Other in behavior and preferences but this didn’t do a thing to increase happiness.
          A man without a tribe is alone in the world and while and entire nation of Mullatos or whatever might be OK , they wouldn’t fit anywhere else.
          Its actually sad as both these guys were decent people and pretty American too. They deserved better but the only way to avoid the damage is to stick to one’s own folk.

        • Hapa children do very well. They usually belong to stable families and are well-liked in the classroom and office. They provide an excellent opportunity for suburban whites to interact with someone not 100% white and without a chip on their shoulder. The odd-bods we see usually have white dads who are self-loathing of their own race. This is a very small minority.

          • Even if true its still a terrible idea.

            No decent person would destroy his or her history culture and genetic legacy by mixing with people who were not their own.

          • Walt – untrue. There are numerous hapa fora where they vent their rage and frustration at being neither fish nor fowl. They resent their White dads and consider their Asian mothers whores. Others go the super-Asian route, just as Mulattoes go the super black route, since they’ll never be truly White. A significant number of them are not half White, but half Jewish, which adds yet another layer of resentment and identity confusion. Derb’s own daughter is a supporter of Obama and the multicult and resents Whites. Add in all the Asians women (and these are Asian, not subcontinental women) who are now part of the spearpoint aimed at White ‘supremacy.’ Like AOC, they all have White husbands/boyfriends, but they resent the hell out of White people and White societies.
            None of this even touches on all the full Asian adoptees, who again resent the hell out of White people. Many of the Korean adoptees have tried to return to Korea but don’t quite fit in there, so hang out with other Korean adoptees.
            Mixing races and cultures that are so far apart is criminal, to both the races as a whole and the children produced. Hapas or Mulattoes, they are not a promising cohort.

          • Derb’s daughter hates whites? Did not know that. I know he said his wife votes Democrat but where the heck did you hear about his daughter?

  11. This is a very real conversation, not just tongue in cheek. Behind the attempted debate are two worldviews: 1) Western Civ and its bedrock philosophy of logic, order, and objectivity, and 2) Marxism and its shifting philosophies of Gramsci and Frankfurt School critical theory and dialectics. As Z-man makes clear, dialogue is impossible with #2 adherents.

    Worldview #1 thought they could coexist with the #2 mob, because at first they just asked for “toleration.” Then toleration morphed into celebration, which has recently morphed into “worship us.” Now the #1 folk are starting to get it … the #2 mob doesn’t want tribute – the want to wipe us out. Screw the debate … this is war.

    • Yes, and we need our own country back.
      Give Tar Baby lands of their own, the answer is Partition.
      Then we can have our internal convos with the Organ Grinders and the gu-YT

    • I think of the Gramsci and Frankfurt School types more as a kind of dialectical antithesis to Western thinking themselves. As such they can’t really work their dark magic without having the Western tradition to play off of and corrupt. They take advantage of the well meaning attempts of Western liberals to hear out their supposed grievances and deal rationally with them by immediately changing the complaint to some new focus once the original ones have been dealt with. You see this most obviously in the way the Left has pivoted, in the last 40 years, from wanting a “color and gender blind” society to pretty much wanting the exact opposite. They now demand endless quotas and tokenism focused around race and an ever shifting sexual zoology which they exclusively control. The problem is that if they ever fully succeed in killing the West, they will be a specialized parasite without a host. Their intellectual shenanigans are also useless against the more brutal logic of Asian and African societies which will simply laugh at them and gleefully bash their skulls in.

      To summarize, the postmoderns live by obscurantism but you can’t be an obscurantist without something to obscure.

  12. If there is a redoubt of “White privilege” in the country it is surely its elite educational institutions. Harvard, Yale, Princeton should be shamed into becoming all-Black universities. They already recognize the principle of discrimination in admissions to rectify past injustice, so there would be no legal objection to mount. They are the authors of the current ideology of racial grievance, so there should be no moral one either. They are wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice, so they could give free rides to students for the duration: say, something between a decade and a generation. Exclusive access for blacks to these name-brand degrees would be something of real value, and it would be incumbent upon those who benefited directly to raise up the community as a whole.

    This approach might have beneficial effects for higher education generally, as talented Non-blacks were dispersed in other schools instead of being concentrated in a distorting way among the Big Three (plus whatever). Other benefits would surely reveal themselves over time. A new set of elite schools would emerge as H, Y, P did their duty to the country by repairing its historic legacies of this and that. It might be an opportunity for a more practical, less radicalized set of schools to take the lead.

    Meanwhile, sports at the old elite schools would improve vastly.

    Most of all, the whole scheme would serve them right.

    • Many of these fine universities already find themselves surrounded by the target demographic. I would suggest to just save time, that they invite all comers to help themselves to freely offered money and property on campus. They’ll be free to help themselves to the girls, burn down buildings, topple statues of possible racists and generally enjoy themselves.

    • I think the Ivies would actually like to do this. Yale may be changing its name and Princeton expunged Woodrow Wilson from its public policy center. The AWRs who run these schools have absolutely no logical or moral defense against their wholesale reconfiguration as Afrocentric entities. The problem is that they would go broke within 20 years. Blacks don’t have the capital or the altruistic inclinations to bankroll elite universities. Without the vast sums traditionally donated by white, Jewish and Oriental alums, the Ivies would go belly up. And that is the only reason they won’t follow the logic of their own anti-white ideology.

      • What you describe, Ostei, is precisely why they must be made to do what I prescribe. We would be well rid of them.

        Also, it would rob White libs of their most cherished institutions. Humiliate them in a way they can’t even complain about. It’s past time to go on offense against them, force them to choke on their own B.S.

        Balance of terror is the only sure path to enduring peace.

  13. Since you can’t down vote me, here’s some off topic bragging: Derb opened his Friday podcast with a recording of mine.

  14. I don’t know man. I support reparations. For 14 trillion of money that doesn’t really exist, we can give blacks 350,000 dollars each. The amount of frivolous purchases and gloating by blacks should be enough to send racial tensions into the stratosphere.

    If we wait long enough the Hispanics will kill them for us.

    • If that ever happened you may as well open Cadillac/BMW/Bentley dealership that also sells a full line of rimz that includes dubz and spinnaz as well as grillz.

      Speaking of the Hispanics, where have they been in this whole mess? Other than the local gangs protecting their neighborhoods from joggers with violence they have not made much noise in a political or strategic sense.

      • I used to think the BMW 700 series sedan basically says “I’m a filthy rich son of a bitch, but low-key enough so I don’t rub it in your face.” Until I saw a lilac-purple one with fancy rims. I’m not sure it was owned by a pimp, couldn’t see the driver, but what are the odds? 🙂

    • Count up the trillions spent on Great Society. Quantify the set asides, the 8-H housing, minority-owned business perks, school breakfasts and lunches, along with multiple revenue streams of free money. Add to that the tens of millions of affirmative action decisions that displaced higher qualified people. Add on the tax that all of us suffer in dealing with chip-on-the-shoulder, belligerent blacks.

      Reparations have been paid in full. The only thing they want now is for whitey to bow, scrape and worship at their 1619 altar.

  15. what the nigs fail to comprehend (like so many things) is that they are a parasitical race, and depend on the white race in order to survive. as white influence recedes in an area, the black population will also shrink (generally).

    • If they could comprehend it, they wouldn’t care. Jews are equally parasitic, and I’m sure they are aware of it, and are content to keep on parasiting. If the host doesn’t have the will to remove the parasite, it will die, and the parasite will simply move on.

      • They’re running out of suitable hosts. The Han may want to imitate the Tribe but it’s yet to be seen if they’ll allow the Tribe to do its usual entryist bit.

        Chinese “Communism” if it can be called that at this point has proven resistant so far, particularly to the siren song of the J-Left/Optics Tribe’s liberalism and human rights. And they seem entirely unimpressed with the J-Right Jignat Tribe’s saber-rattling from sock-puppet Pompeo or anyone else in the Cheetoh Judas administration.

        • I think people underestimate that fact that Jews look White. Non-Whites will always see a foreigner when a Jews talks to them. That matters. Instinctually, they know that they’re dealing with another tribe and thus can’t trust them.

          • That’s right.

            If they don’t lose their minds completely the shapeshifting routine that Schrodinger’s whites use to hoodwink YT simply will not work on the Han people.

          • Although it’s rare, in theory we could convert to Judaism and infiltrate from outside. You’d just have to put up with a whiny wife 🙂 Sort of the opposite of the Spanish “conversos” who were claimed to retain their secret Judaism, we would feign allegiance to the Torah while we had our secret covens where we ate pork and shellfish 😀

          • The acceptance for converses to Judaism varies across sects. Not easy to be considered “solid” Jew, even if born into the family.

        • Part of the reason the CCP is unimpressed with all the neocon sabre rattling is that over the past 20 years they have made huge strides improving their air force, their air defenses, and their hypersonic missile capability.

          If they manage to improve their air/sealift capability, their submarine fleet, and their anti-submarine capabilities over the next 5 to 10 years there is no way the US can keep them out of Taiwan without resorting to nukes.

        • I hope the Jews will tread very carefully with the Chinese. They have a recent history, up to the present time even, of having, um, ethnic re-education camps 🙁

        • As a White man that is of little consolation.
          On a different note, I grew up in a silly “Christian” church that was heavily into end time prophecy. Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38 and 39 were considered end times Russia and China. Which almost seems prophetic considering how things are shaping up right now. Of course, the OT is inverted concerning who the good and bad guys are in this case.

  16. The problem as left out of the above article is the current representatives of White people are content to not demand an answer and allow us to live under guilt for eternity.

  17. The foot-stompy demand for reparationses n’sheeeit is a Lil’bow-wowdlerized form of “praxis” – something recently mentioned by McNabb on TDS.

    In a nutshell, it’s simply a demand for something because I have power and you don’t, usually tarted up with purely rhetorical claims without regard for their reality or justification

    “Gibs me dat b/c I want dat. F-your reality b/c my reality and if you don’t like it, Ima shank you.”

    The proper response is “no [hard R] no.”

    We’re tired of playing Cornell West word-salad-surgery about the destitutions of muh constitutions and the prostitutions of muh absolutions.

    No, [hard R], no.

    —–
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxis_(process)#Marxism

  18. I realize that this post was intended as edgy satire and the goal was tp demonstrate the absurdity of trying to negotiate over a nonsensical premise. But the problem is far more serious than just garnering entertainment value. Nickole Hanna-Jones is a parasite, and she would institutionalize parasitism as a life survival strategy. That is not a joke, that is an existential threat for the host. The proper response is not laughter, it is armed defense. Ask a Afrikaner how it ends.

    • Unfortunately, most Amerikaners don’t know that Zimbabwe used to be a nice place called Rhodesia and that South Africa was once considered to be a fairly developed country before they turned the keys over to the natives.

      The Amerikaners will soon learn how it all ends, unfortunately.

  19. Z, the problem is that blacks and their ((benefactors)) will find someone a bit brighter than Ms. Jones to do the negotiating. Their argument while tautological and stupid will be compelling to enough whites:

    Z: What exactly do you want?

    75% Jewish/25% black Mulatto: Well, since all groups are equally capable something only Hitler would disagree with, we can agree that any area – income, net worth, engineering and corporate jobs, etc. – where blacks underperform Whites is proof of White racism in some form.

    Z: Yes, yes, but what do you want?

    Mulatto: Patience my good man, I’m getting to that now. We want, no, demand, housing subsidies, income subsidies, government-enforced affirmative action in colleges and corporate America, changes to zoning laws, 401k donations, fair sentencing guidelines, punishments for call the police on an innocent black person and so forth until black metrics in a variety of areas match those of the Whites. When those metric are met and maintained for at least a decade, we can acknowledge that society has managed to contain White racism. We do not acknowledge that Whites are no longer racist, just that society has managed to control their vile behavior, but that racism is always there.

    That’s what they’re going to say about reparations. They don’t need to give up their leverage. They need to give us absolution.

    • Which is how we end up subsidizing them forever, as their metrics will never match ours…no matter how far we fall.

      • Yep, Z is wrong. They’ll be more than happy to talk specifics. Talking specifics doesn’t force them to give us absolution. (Btw, my last sentence should have said that they “don’t” need to give us absolution.)

        Talking specifics is useful for getting Joe Normie on our side. Joe Normie is expecting absolution. When they find out that they’re not going to get it, they may think twice about appeasing blacks and their ((benefactors)).

        • I could easily see Goodwhites throwing reparations dollars at blacks in one last desperate attempt to save their cult ideology of racial equality if given the chance; one last spite to the badWhites who’ve ruined everything by being right about the issue. You cannot persuade the other side they are wrong with logic. They are more akin to uncompromising religious zealots. The moment you open the reparations discussion in any serious manner you will lose because their side is strong and determined and our side is weak, occupied by traitors like David French and Rich Lowry. Those guys will be the ones negotiating on your behalf. Think about that. Be thankful if they get the sum down to a measly $10 trillion.

    • If the legalities could be resolved, I think most non-Black Americans would be for 100% partition/Segregation. Even many Blacks would intially be on board. We could promise them a substantial, even a 100% reduction in our arresting Black criminals. In fact, we could agree to parole all Blacks currently in prison, if they were re-located to the tribal homeland.
      That would sound great to the Woke, until they woke up to the fact that the Black criminals and the non-criminals had to live in the same space, and were forbidden to enter White areas.
      Sounds good to me!

  20. There are 3 factors imo making race relations unlivable. 1. Power. 2. Ideology. And 3. Fanatics. To some extent these are all basically the same factor.

    If blacks and whites can coexist in a stable way, without living under the tyranny of envy, we definitely cant in proximity to power that is up for grabs.

    Power isnt going anywhere, but maybe it wont be up for grabs in the next 10ish years. In the meantime maybe we could eliminate ideologies like the racial marxism which plays on and feeds into natural envy for political ends.

    Not likely, but even if we did we would still have to deal with fanatic whites. They are so sure of their moral superiority to bad whites they will kill bad whites without remorse, use blacks, and even get blacks killed in the process. Theyve done it througout American history.

    In fact, they have no problem with it now. Blacks who dont stand with BLM will be threatened and even attacked, including their children. RotC had a video of it just last week.

    Given we live in the real world, and we cant eliminate power or the liberalism that puts it up for grabs, we cant just eliminate a mind virus like marxism which makes a go for power, and we cant just snap our fingers and make fanatic whites disappear, then that basically leaves separation. Is that even worth considering on a large scale? The good whites are so good, i imagine theyll take anything separate that hasnt been cleansed of its sins as an opportunity to do some “cleansing”. Its why i shake my head when i hear people planning to escape to Poland: It is just delaying the inevitable. May as well stay put and do something to improve the state of things before they get even worse.

    It would be interesting to see an alternate world where these factors arent a problem, and what is possible there. I suppose thats why Christians have heaven.

  21. Reparations?
    Atonement?
    Tribute?

    Absolutely!
    Over 600,000 whites died freeing backs from servitude.
    The ultimate sacrifice was made by whites, for the sole benefit of blacks.
    We want Reparations, indeed.
    We want Tribute, not resentment.
    We want blacks to Atone for their past racially inspired crimes against Whitey, which are completely unjustified.

  22. Sorry Z-man, I just can’t read the words of these black bitches even if it was fake.

    I did skim over the article looking for the 22 Trillion dollars spent on the “war on poverty” and “great society” programs. Then there is the black privilege of quotas and set-asides and on and on and on.

    We have babied these black thugs long enough. It is time to get rid of them. By whatever means necessary.

    I was educated as forced busing began. I did not experience it as it was “behind me” in grade level. As a teacher I saw up close what having low IQ, violent blacks in a class meant.

    They owe us!

    • It’s still a great opportunity for us. For one it sets blacks apart and pits them against whites. Which they already are but many whites don’t realize it. Second it gets whites thinking about what life would be like without blacks. Thinking about what they would be willing to pay to be free of their problems.

      • You have a point, I acknowledge. But at some point in time violence will be the only answer. I suggest that from our point of view — the sooner the better. We are becoming an ever smaller portion of the population in this country.

  23. Browsing through the internet yesterday I ran across mention of a new negro movement even more radical than Burn Loot Murder. Their demand is for an ethno-state within the borders of the continental U.S. Actually, it doesn’t sound like a bad idea. Something like we gave to the Indian nations, a “reserved” space for them alone. Give it to them along with a permanent UBI, legalized drugs of all description, and something like a giant PX where they can get eberything fo free. The peace dividend to the rest of the nation would far outweigh the cost.

    JWM

    • Give the blacks and POCs California. It’s a lot to give up, but we’re not getting it back short of all out war anyway. Cancel citizenship and gibs for any blacks and POCs who stay in the remaining 49 states. Give whites in CA a relocation allowance to leave. Then cut CA loose as a sovereign nation.

        • My dear jwm, as a Floridian I say go to hell! 🙂

          Seriously, Florida would be a bad choice since we have so many blacks who are not African-Americans of slave decent. They don’t mix well with the nigs.

          And then, we have a ton of Hispanics who really don’t like the nigs. Really don’t like them.

          In this area, giving them Mississippi makes the most sense to me.

          But can California just leave regardless?

          • Florida is the third most Jewish state in America.

            Could we at least give the Blacks South Florida? Miami & Boca BTFO’d.

        • I’ll stand with you here in California JWM and say no. After all, no slaves disembarked our shores, nor any cotton picked by such.
          How about Tanaga island, Alaska?

        • FUSA border defenses will be important. I am in favor of Florida south of the panhandle because we will need a defensible wall when their Floridian Wakanda inevitably goes “Africa wins again!”

          No one wants to give up their portion of our country, but if someone doesn’t eventually we will lose it all anyway. This is the mistake the South African rich made. They didn’t want to give up property outside the area where they could have reasonably set up an Afrikaner homeland. If you try to save it all, you lose it all. South African white property rights hang by a thread, kept from complete unraveling by the flow of international money basically bribing SA black elites to behave. It won’t last.

      • We’re going to need California to give, along with Arizona and New Mexico, to the Hispanics as payment for their assistance to us when the race war really kicks off and we join forces to run the all the blacks who won’t go voluntarily into New Wakanda.

        • Interesting idea. But Hispanics are not nearly as dumb as joggers. I suspect they’d want some control over a homeland, but would recognize the use of a White minority remaining.

          • In return for supporting us in the war for the ethnostate, the Messkins might demand that a certain percentage of that ethnostate be Hispanic. The exact percentage would be negotiable and dependent upon how badly we needed them to achieve victory.

      • I’m not sure CA would work. The place is totally dependent on large scale waterworks that even the current state is having trouble maintaining. I doubt the Wakandifornians could keep it running. Then again, wherever you settle the blacks is going to be having trouble keeping the lights on and water running.

        The way I see it, we’ve basically got 3.5 new nations to create. One for hispanics, one for blacks, and one for whites. This last nation may need to be subdivided into 2 parts, one for the hopelessly pozzed whites and one for the sane ones so there’s your final 1.5 nations.

        I think this is actually a lot more possible than most of us believe right now. There are radical elements in all three communities that already agree that partition is needed. Most of us here are part of the white faction. The only arguments would be who gets what. The real problem, as we all know, is that the Anglo-Jewish elite wants to keep the whole dysfunctional blob together because they’re currently at the top of the creaking American pyramid. They probably also know that of the 3 factions who would be making the new nations, pretty much 3 out 3 want them dead. They would go from partying at Pedobear Ranch to being loaded onto the trains. They will keep fighting to keep the US together long after everyone else sees that it can’t work anymore.

    • Most of the black population is in a few states in the South East. I would gladly lose those states to be free from blacks.

      • I always liked Malcolm x cause he had the same vision as you do.
        Problem was the jews, they spread MLKs views over those of Malcolm X.

      • Illinois. They’ve already overtaken Chicongo, and the “Land of Lincoln” can inherit the problem Lincoln created.

    • No black is moving to an ethno-state. They all talk shit and puff their chest out but at the end of the day they know damn well who keeps the electricity and water treatment plants running. The only way you will get an ethno-state is if whites are the ‘machinery’ of that state and every black that lives there gets a complimentary white ho upon entry. Given the current state of affairs I think that is sadly achievable. White manlets and soyboys will happily serve their black masters and get off watching the bucks run a train on their own women. The cancer is that advanced. 🙁

      • If the US designated a black area and offered a $50,000 check to anyone moving there permanently then I doubt many would take it. it would however change the conversation. Every time a black started complaining we could point out they love white people so much they turned down $50,000 to live around us.
        As for the blacks and white girls all the data I’ve seen show women don’t actually date blacks very much. They just virtue signal about them.

      • Traitors deserve everything they get. Lets two bird-one stone this: the AWFLs get sent to Wakanda during the Great Partition. The leftover sois get to choose between our new Foreign Legion and open-air winter reeducation camps in western North Dakota.

    • Kinda funny to watch everybody go all NIMBY in the comments when someone suggests giving their particular corner of the world to found the New Wakanda.

      Logistcally, you’d have to give them territory where most of them already are to cut down on resettlement costs. That means a large portion of the Old South, unfortunately. Florida, Georgia, and (sigh) my birth state of Alabama it is.

      • This is the proper attitude. If we aren’t willing to cut lose something then we will lose everything when succeeding generations kick the can down the road AGAIN.

        • South America. There’s plenty of room on the other side of the river. And there’s lots of jungle for them to run around in chucking there spears.

  24. Nailed it! (Of course, I don’t agree to any of the stipulations, but good rhetorical device to highlight the core problem with “reparations.” )
    As Z-man strongly implies, there is no end to this blackmail. And as Kipling concluded, a long time ago:

    “We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
    No matter how trifling the cost;
    For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
    And the nation that plays it is lost!”

    Short version: F’ off, you get nothing from us.

  25. This entire thing would collapse like a house of cards without the implicit support of white wahmen. They have become the greatest vector of destruction for western civ imaginable and the (((Architects))) of feminism probably saw that as well.

    You take a creature that is already of average intelligence (women cluster VERY heavily in the middle intellect vs. men at the outlier edges) and add a dash of herding / social safety and you can get them to do pretty much anything with enough social pressure / gaslighting. And so here we are. A strategy moving forward is to shift attention from blacks which will get you erased financially and in some cases physically and start aggressively attacking white females.

    I have posited this before but it needs to go into overdrive. Before the White Knights and M’Lady Manginas start crawling out of the woodwork to chastise me I am NOT talking about /ourgals/ but the reality is for every one woman who is on our side there are probably 9 against particularly if you count the younger demographic.

    Here are 2 relevant takes on this the first funnily enough is from (((Tablet))) magazine but the hot take is pretty on point why the new ‘fad’ of wokeness has taken off so quickly. There is also the obvious element of spiritual emptiness which is why the cult and religiosity of this movement is so obvious to anyone outside looking in.
    https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/social-justice-solipsism

    The second one is a funny YT video about how to start the much needed derision and mockery of white women. It is the one thing they respond to very rapidly other than fear & pain because mockery creates anxiety and anxiety creates fear. So you are getting to one of the primary educational tools in a roundabout manor. The ineffable Sam Hyde has completely captured the absurdity of these BLM marches / social media events being 70% white wahmen (hence why I said they would fall apart in weeks w/o their traitorous endorsement). Very comical:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjz9lJ-2In8

    Lastly, this book was recommended to me by more than one reader here. I strongly advise reading it because it was prescient on so many levels regarding our current situation as the firestorm in the fictional setting starts in Minneapolis and the current trajectory of our society tracks scarily well in this fictional novel that is practically non-fiction at this point, and will be soon if we don’t course correct rapidly. Reparations, riots, and whites under the boot for decades is what the book is about and we are right on track for all of that. Consider it a glimpse into your unaltered future and you can be sure Amazon will memory hole it sooner or later so get it while you still can, hard copy.
    https://www.amazon.com/Her-Eyes-Doctrine-Ash-Donaldson/dp/107338487X/ref=sr_1_2?crid=3QJETFQAC53RN&

    • BTW: That novel above I recommended paints the near future very clearly and I’ve talked about it here before as far as end-game reparations. Z’s topic and a few posters here get it that reparations will be an all encompassing thing going forward. Whitey Tax (in the book that is a real thing and probably IRL soon too). They know subconsciously they are wholly incapable w/o us which just fuels the rage even more. The smarter ones and their (((handlers))) will not kill the golden goose, but they will bind it into eternal servitude and it appears a terrifying percentage of white men in particular, are quite fun living with the ball gag in their mouth and the leather cuck suit.

      Back to the novel: White males are indentured servants with no rights who are killed indiscriminately for fun. They exist because their IQ is high enough to keep society functional and they have lost all will to fight so they meekly go about keeping the trains running somewhat on time. Mechanical / blue collar work. Tech work becomes dominated by Chinese / Indians, and the blacks are exalted as they are now but don’t have to do anything receiving reparations and UBI from the broken backs of the enslaved whites. Latinos interestingly have basically carved out a separate nation that resembles the nations they live in now. This is all very solid speculation IMHO as I definitely could see that happening IRL. They do NOT want to be around blacks so they will likely peel of the southwest for themselves.

      So tl;dr- About what this country will actually look like in 20-30 years time (the setting of the book)

    • Women seem to track to whatever they think is the dominant culture. They get that from mass media. The way to get white women on our side is to become the dominant culture.

      • Which is why it starts with every individual man reclaiming – or enforcing, his own masculine frame. A dominant culture is the result of a critical mass of men exercising their dominance within their own lives and women entering the fold.

        Too many on or near our side are still operating entirely with the feminized/prog/globopedo frame; they are waiting for big man gadot to tell their wives and daughters or tinderbumble insta bang dolls that they have to listen to daddy.

        Appealing to the same higher authorities that granted gynocracy the crown is a losing proposition. As is aspiring to catch an ‘equal parter’ with debt-fueled lifestyle bait absent that frame and internalized world view.

  26. We need to realize that Nicole Hannah-Jones is a figurehead for the elite establishment, which is still white. The New York Times is still considered “The Paper of Record”. Ta-Nehisi Coates advises Sen. Warren with his incredible anti-white working-class hostility. The Ta has The Atlantic, another elite establishment publication, as a platform. It was recently reported in the Economist, which is at the apex of elite publications, that Mary Barra, CEO of GM, “was outraged by the killing of George Floyd, the latest in a long string of deaths of unarmed black American by the police”. Z-Man’s “ruling classes” probably are far more dangerous than the blacks.

    • All true. Coates and Hannah-Jones are slightly more polished than the bug-eyed Step ‘n Fetchits of the Thirties flicks, but they are mentally one and the same: low IQ house servants who think Dey Made Dat. We really need to work hard to destroy Big Tech and Big China Imports, Inc., along with their Conservatism, Inc., and Marxism, Inc. mouthpieces. BAMN. The real enemies are Bezos and Gates, not Shanika and Tyrone. The latter two can be decimated before nightfall. The twilight struggle is with the former.

  27. This is brilliant. Reminds me of James Howard Kunstler’s argument that the whole point of the new BLM religion is to saddle us with a new kind of original sin but, unlike Christianity, there is no redemption or salvation possible.

  28. What do they think affirmative action is? What do they think welfare is? Section 8 and a whole bunch of other programs?

    How much do we get for forfeiting our cities to them? How about black crime? Where are our reparations? What about all the murdered white people? Do we really expect their relatives to pay the murderer’s relatives and the murderer? Presumably blacks in prison will get a check?
    They are never willing to look at both sides of the ledger. If the US were a white country we would be running large surpluses every single year. White people are large net payers of taxes while the blacks and browns are large net recipients. Alt-hype and Sean Last did a (simple) breakdown of this.
    All of this ignores the reality that ALL African Americans are significantly better off because of slavery. NONE of them would even be alive without slavery. But even putting that aside and assuming they would be alive, but in Africa, every last one of them is better off because they live in America.
    But what happened is that all of these gibs programs have just become the new baseline, the new norm. So let’s say we give all black people a check on an ongoing basis. Let’s say it’s 2k a month. That will become the new normal and new demands of reparations will be made. Slowly the rationale for the (newly) existing checks will change. It will become an anti-poverty check or some other way to disguise the nature of the check. That will become the new baseline from which more reparations will be demanded.
    The reparations are coming and there will be more after that.

  29. Z’s dialogue captures a truth that I try to convey to my normie conservative friends: Non-whites are never going to be satisfied with some sort of good-hearted or high-dollar gesture. They want perpetual tribute, if not eventual conquest.

    The difficulty of my position is that there is no irrefutable way to prove my prediction. I have family members whom I can see are hoping that their good intentions will finally be recognized and rewarded with an end to racial strife. No one can foretell the future, but I see nothing but endless hatred.

    • Modern conflicts often seem different from historical ones to me. I was thinking about the contrast between the American Revolutionary War and the current demand from BLM. The Revolutionary War was ultimately fought over certain very definitive issues (excessive taxation, taxation without representation in Parliament, etc…) Could these grievances have been resolved peacefully? Who knows? Maybe not. Nonetheless, no one was really in doubt about what they were.

      Modern movements of “social justice”, including BLM, feminism, polygenderism, etc… seem to make demands that are either enormously broad, incoherent, or both. The frustrating circularity of the “negotiations” in Z’s interview illustrates this well. The modern progressive is ultimately mad, not at white people, or at men or Christians, but just at reality itself. Blacks don’t really want reparations, they want to be white. Women don’t really want “equality”, they want to be men. It’s impossible to negotiate with such people because there’s no degree of compromise or outright capitulation that could appease them. What they demand is akin to demanding that 2 be made 3.

      This is also why this stuff has a genocidal flavor to it. You’re dealing with people who are in Silence of the Lambs territory here where they hope, through some primal magic, to wear their enemies skins and thus become them. Since people can’t live without their skins, the endgame is obvious.

    • The model is holocaust reparations. Who do you think trained the AA’s? They (holocaust reparations), also, will never end, have morphed into multigenerational payments.

  30. Nice change up, Z-man! Reminded me of Plato’s Dialogues, but with Socrates interrogating morons instead of bright young Athenian citizens.

    The Danegeld reference at the end was the best, illustrating John Derbyshire’s “blackety-blackety-black” observation from long ago. Of course Mx. Hanna-Barbera-Jones doesn’t get the Dane analogy, because blacks only think-read-write about blackety-black stuff, and Danes sure ain’t black.

    The Z-man on black Solipsism; worth reading again:
    http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=3460

  31. Z, you wrote a similar column about a year ago and ever since my understanding of “reparations” has been as clear as day.

    If only other white people would just figure out that they really don’t want one check, they want multiple generations of ransom, this would all get cleared up pretty quickly.

  32. The funny part is, even if America gave these people their own state and all the whites left, it wouldn’t be very long until you saw a repeat of what happened in Zimbabwe. Tens of thousands of white farmers were forced off their lands and many resettled in Australia. Now they’re being asked to come back after the people “in charge” figured out they have no clue how to run the farms.

    • But it’s worse. I’ve heard that some of these “White” farmers have returned. 🙁

      • Some people can’t walk away from a bad relationship no matter how abusive. Sad.

  33. Am I the only one able to make up/down votes?
    Any reparation check should only be in the form of a one-way ticket out of the country, a small start over stipend, and a forever revocation of US citizenship. Are any listening to the invitation from Ghana?

    • You can vote as much as you like, it just doesn’t make any difference (just like in the real world!!!) 😀 Actually, it is probably a bug with the web site. I even gave you an upvote, it shows, but diappears when I reload the page.

  34. Oh this is just terrible… a white BLM purple haired grrl, Summer Taylor has been run over, accidentally I’m sure…by one Dawit Kelete, 27, driving a Jag as it were. He fled the scene, BLM protester chased him down, Dawit Kelete of course is a White Raycixx ….Black man. He was described as ‘sullen’ when arrested.
    Oh horrors it’s worse, the surviving grrrl is getting FB death threats, I can’t imagine from who…
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8494227/PICTURED-Black-man-27-knocked-killed-Black-Lives-Matter-protester.html

    • I have to add the sorrows come in battalions…the grill on the Jag is all messed up.

    • My only question is why did the Ethiopian mow them down? My guess is just common n3gro sociopathy.

    • Another Black White Supremacist! It is really terrible how many of those there are these days. We had the ones in Minnesota doing all the rioting just recently as all the MSM were reporting and now this… Sad! I thought we got rid of the last one back in 08?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLNDqxrUUwQ

    • FWP vssc:
      Here’s a touching quote from the Daily Mail article:

      ‘Summer has been there since day one standing up for Black lives. Staying out all day and night, while still working full time taking care of animals,’ Hoberecht said.

      ’nuff said.

      JWM

      • As RamzPaul observed, “Summer Taylor’s last act resulted in a black man being arrested.”

      • working full time taking care of animals,”

        Somewhere at the Daily Mail a Pajeet is having a laugh.
        No, the Pajeets don’t like them either.

    • The second last thing to go through her mind as she was hit by the car was, “Mom was right, I shouldn’t have ever been a part of this. I should have gotten married and been at home with my kids…” The last thing to go through her mind of course was the Jaguar hood ornament.

  35. Great essay! If I’ve learnt nothing else from Z’s writings, it is this: that the Radical cannot be appeased. No matter how many inches you give, he will continue demanding miles. A corollary: Why bother to even negotiate with such an unreasonable foe? You are just wasting your time and any resources you would yield. The claim for “Slavery Reparations” is as unpayable as the Bible’s bloodguilt on the Jews for crucifying Jesus (Matt. 27:25): “His blood be on us and on our children.” This verse has been used for centuries for Christians to persecute Jews.*
    I’ll lay good money you never were taught that in your church, were you? But my point is this: wouldn’t demanding today’s Jew pay for something a few ancestors maybe did two millennia ago be just as illogical as a Black demanding that today’s White pay for something some Whites did a century or four ago?
    Some embellishments: First agree with a Black activist that descendants are due reparations for Slavery, Jim Crow, etc. But then ask: Were former slave owners compensated for the sudden loss of property Of course they weren’t. But aren’t they entitled to it? Yes, slavery was evil and all that, but that’s beside the point. Until 1860, it was legal. That is even in the bill of rights…taking without compensation. Just because you don’t approve of the type of property a person has, doesn’t make you any less of a thief if you steal it from him.
    Which is greater, the compensation due the estates (and thus heirs) of Slave-holders or claims of the suddenly (in the eyes of the law) property turned into free man beings? Why not just call it a wash?
    Even if we agreed in principle to reparations, significant impediments main. Not the least is the probable illegality of it. The Constitution prohibits “after the fact” laws.*
    I don’t know if that would apply, but wouldn’t effectively penalizing the present generation for the sins of distant ancestors apply? And, even if that weren’t an obstacle, consider the difficulties of proving who is a proper descendant of a freed slave. Or do we just accept the claim of any dark-skinned person to a large sum of money? That runs afoul of the concept of equal protection under the laws, doesn’t it? And the ultimate problem: what would Blacks do with the money if they got it? They would blow it foolishly, almost guaranteed. Sudden riches are the ruin of many, perhaps the majority, of people who receive it. But Blacks have shown an unequalled ability to bring quicker ruin upon themselves than any other group. There’s no reason to expect that they would do any differently if they got, say a million dollar check.
    Even if it were paid out like a settlement over the lifetime of a claimant, they would still waste it. And there’s another argument: why are only Blacks alive today? Aren’t their children equally entitled to a pay-out? 
    So it seems that, even if a monetary amount and pay-out were agreed upon, there would still be dissatisfaction, and clamor for more, more, more free stuff!

    Unrelated bits of news on the racism front:

    Are Woke protesters/barbarians overly zealous in choosing targets? Yes and no. For instance, they are toppling monuments oo abolitionists. Didn’t they fight to end slavery? Indeed they did. But a lot of them also wanted to send the freed Negroes back to Africa. Hence, Liberia. I wish that every Black that was arrested and convicted of relatively minor crimes could have, as an alternative punishment, a mandatory sightseeing trip to the country of his ancestors, to see how they really live over there. The cost would probably be comparable to what a year or two in jail costs, and might do wonders to open his eyes to how good American Blacks have it, compared to the mother land.
    A recent example of how capitalism continues to exploit blacks. Despite its liberal bias, I use Firefox and the included Pocket propaganda service 🙂
    Here’s a recent piece:
    https://www.propublica.org/article/how-dollar-stores-became-magnets-for-crime-and-killing?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

    Now, you don’t have to read the article. But the gist of it is: Dollar General (type) stores prey upon poor urban Blacks. They don’t pay well. They attract crime, from the relatively innocuous (shoplifting) to the violent armed robbery and sometimes murder. All this you understand, is the store’s fault. They should hire armed guards! I’ll give the Woke author credit for at least in passing mentioning that grocery stores, indeed all stores, have long gone from these neighborhoods. The article doesn’t seem to mention WHY the stores are long gone, or that teenage boys deal drugs and sometimes shoot each other, or load up the old 9mm and find the nearest cash register when they need some folding green. You see, it’s all the evil capitalist corporation’s fault for locating the stores where there’s poverty. Am I missing something, or is the store being blamed for all the miseries of the area it tries to do business in?

    On an anecdotal note, I frequently shot at a Dollar General nearby. I live in a not-wealthy area, but one that has relatively few Blacks. Violent crime does happen but at a fraction of the urban shitholes. The Circle-K a mile closer to the highway was robbed by two Blacks at 02:00 AM a few months back, but they were probably from out of town.

    *I believe these are both related issues. The idea that descendants were responsiblie for the debts of ancestors is ancient, as shown in the Matthew quote. But basically the idea went out of fashion with Feudalism. Unfortunately, the issue is not so easily dismissed in the case of genetics…

    • Ben, you’re getting close. I’d find a new “homeland” candidate and then send everyone convicted of a serious crime to be “transported” there—never to return. That would be eugenic and take care of any number of our immediate problems.

    • On an anecdotal note, I frequently shot at a Dollar General nearby.

      Me too. It’s hard to resist rolling down the window and bustin a few caps of 9mm at them sometimes just for old times sake. Makes me feel like I’m back in B’more.

  36. Not very realistic dialogue. IRL, the representative for the Black people would have stomped the representative for the white people within the first five exchanges. Then the representative for the Black people would have set the representative for the white people on fire. Then the FBI would arrest the representative of the white people for using an unspecified racial slur.

    • Your scenario is so unrealistic. They would have robbed the white of any money, cell phones, other valuables he might have had. They would have stabbed or shot him, depending upon the weapons on hand. If Whitey was a “she” she would have been raped.

  37. Will they be allowed to come in and take over my house and live there? Beware, it’s already happened, certain zip codes in Florida iirc were occupied in just such a way in the aftermath of the housing bubble when a lot of properties became vacant. The vibrancy was eventually evicted but it took some effort against their bullshit claims.

    What happens when they start to claim reparations on their own in just such a way? Ofay, don’t leave your house unattended for even two minutes if you’re smart. It might be just like that Simpsons episode where the carnies moved in. Wouldn’t be laughing then.

  38. The parasite dies without the host. Hence that’s why there never is a final number to put onto the check. As much as it pains blacks (I refuse to use uppercase to describe them), their existence depends on us. They need our tax revenue to keep the gibs train rolling. They need us to continue to fund government agencies and corporations with their diversity hires that create a fake black middle class from whole cloth. This explains their never-ending rage. It’s not slavery (just an excuse) or Jim Crow laws (ditto). They know that if not for white, Western Civilization, they’d be living in extreme poverty in Africa.

    There’s several things I don’t understand from a rhetorical POV. They are:

    • If Black Lives (truly) Matter, why is it that black-on-black crime and massive rates of abortion are greeted with a shrug?The number of whites who kill people of color is minuscule compared black-on-black and black-on-white violent crime.
    • Why is it that we always here about a “dialogue” when white viewpoints are automatically dismissed as racist since only whites can be racists? That’s a monologue or better yet, a lecture.
  39. I’m all for reparations… so long as each one includes a one-way ticket to Wakanda.

    • Yah, good luck with that.There’s no brakes on the crazy train. The left never sleeps and it’s never satisfied. You either destroy it, join it or get as far away from it as you possibly can. Those are your options

  40. I am told by a source I trust that careful analysis of the images reveal that many of the “weapons” carried by the Bleck Panther Militia in Georgia are Airsoft toy guns.

    • Wouldn’t matter if they weren’t if we are being honest. They are like all joggers. They talk a good game with overwhelming numbers. Let an equal amount of well trained YTs show up and you will see them running faster than a new Air Jordan Release Day Sale. Trigger discipline, not muzzle sweeping your own, aiming, etc. are really not their strong suit despite their claims that they are all billy bad-asses w/ military training. Rhodesians were a good example of what small unit tactics and YT can pull off.

      This whole thing, this embarrassing LARP shambles onward like a zombie because of the massive infusion of cash, media, and support by TPTB and globohomo corps, it will fold like a house of cards under even minor pressure w/o that.

  41. Well, since this crap is never getting fixed, how are we going to find a way around it? I have no freaking idea.Then again, I’m 67 years old and I won’t be around that much loger. But for young people, the day will come when they will have to start thinking outside the box. How will they thwart the system, at least for themselves. Our people will have to get cunning, ruthless and determined. otherwise forget it, we’re done.

  42. Murray Rothbard warned all of us about individualism run amok.

    “Contemporary libertarians often assume, mistakenly, that individuals are bound to each other only by the nexus of market exchange. They forget that everyone is necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture. …usually including an ethnic group, with specific values, cultures, religious beliefs, and traditions.”

    Blacks have to go. But then we must realize that there are very different groups of whites. Often the southern cracker does not really want to be around the German descended. (I have such animals as in-laws)

  43. Blacks have huge rates of mental illness. Even when they are sane, they usually have their monomania — blackness — which is a kind of insanity.

  44. Zero suspension of disbelief since the black representative’s lines were written in grammatically correct sentences. How does she not know what “presumably” means, but uses the word “ostensibly” herself?
    I’m just nitpicking, though. It was a good read and creatively presented.

  45. Africans were not stolen, they were bought, legally, from the recognized rulers of various West African Nations, some of which actually had diplomatic relations with Great Britain and other European States at the time. I wonder if it is possible to complain to the vendors’ successor States and ask for a refund on the grounds that the “goods” were clearly faulty. If a refund is out of the question maybe return the “goods” descendants and settle for a credit note to be redeemed against other African exports, palm oil or coconuts for example.

    • I think we have to realize that facts and logic are no longer the currency of American discourse, if they ever were. Blacks, and many Whites, operate with feelings and magic. No amount of history, statistics, and legal arguments will make any difference. That may have had some general effect in 1980, but it means nothing in 2020. We’re not gonna survive by facts and logic; The Spanish and the English did not win this hemisphere in a debate, and a debate will not get it back.

    • They have one already. It’s called “Liberia”:
      “Liberia began as a settlement of the American Colonization Society (ACS), who believed black people would face better chances for freedom and prosperity in Africa. The country declared its independence on July 26, 1847.” — wikipedia

  46. The whole BLM thing is like a leaderless mob running around with no accountability. The most interesting thing right now would be to find someone who doesn’t really represent the movement and nominate them as ‘the one running this thing’ and ‘the only one who can save black America’. The movement would collapse within weeks due to infighting and the leadership would have to be protected by violence. It is like an abandoned ship smashing into the pier. Make some moron it’s captain and it will sink.

  47. Pingback: Interview with a vampire

  48. I always have worked off the presumption that blacks will accept nothing less than the 100% elimination of all white people and the confiscation of 100% of their property and monies. Nothing else makes sense otherwise.

  49. Reminds me of the fictional dialogue of when Socrates met Darwin:
     
     
     
          SOCRATES MEETS DARWIN: A STUDY IN QUESTION BEGGING
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                          Gary Colwell, Ph.D.
     
    Cf. The Darwin upheaval. One circle of admirers who said: “Of
    course”, and another circle [of enemies-R] who said: “Of course
    not”. Why … should a man say of course'? (The idea was that
    of monocellular organisms becoming more and more complicated
    until they became mammals, men, etc.) Did anyone see this
    process happening? No. Has anyone seen it happening now? No. 
    The evidence of breeding is just a drop in the bucket. But there
    were thousands of books in which this was said to be the obvious
    solution. People were certain on grounds which were extremely
    thin. Could not there have been an attitude which said: "I do
    not know. It is an interesting hypothesis which may eventually
    be well confirmed"? This shows how you can be persuaded of a
    certain thing. In the end you forget entirely every question of
    verification, you are just sure it must have been like that.
                            L. Wittgenstein
                           _Lectures & Conversations on Aesthetics,
                          Psychology and Religious Belief_.
     
     
    The year is 2002. The place is an imaginary after-world from
    which all aspects of life on earth can be monitored. A gigantic
    party is underway with all the famous thinkers of history in
    attendance. Socrates, who is a little more boisterous than
    usual, weaves his way among the guests, calling out, "Darwin! ...
    Darwin! ... Where is that man?!" Eventually Darwin hears his
    name being called and answers:
     
    D      Socrates! Over here!
     
    S      Oh, there you are. Look, I've got to have a talk with
    you. The matter is serious. I have been following the
    development of evolutionary thinking for over one hundred and
    thirty-five years and after listening to the experts I still
    cannot make head or tail of it.
     
    D      What is your problem?
     
    S      Well, first of all, I simply do not know what people mean
    when they say things like "man evolved" or "because of evolution
    this or that happened." Now I realize that today even the
    earthly school children can say the word "evolution" with an air
    of confidence and understanding. And I also see that the word
    appears in all manner of magazines and popular books on biology. 
    But do these people really understand what they confidently talk
    about? I mean, it is possible to fit a supposedly technical word
    into an informal conversational sentence without making a
    grammatical mistake, and still not have a fig of a notion as to
    what one means by it. It seems to me that nothing but the vaguest
    of ideas is being traded in all this talk about evolution.
     
    D      You ought to realize, Socrates, that scientific words
    have a way of slipping their moorings in the technical
    disciplines and drifting into the mainstream of everyday
    conversation. And when they do, not everyone who uses these
    words has a clear understanding of their meanings. Practically
    every discipline suffers because untrained people use its jargon
    vacuously, usually because they want to impress their friends. 
    But for every one hundred people who mindlessly parrot a
    scientific term like "evolution" there is probably at least one
    person who can explain its meaning. Also, you must not assume
    that because a technical term comes tripping off the tongues of
    individual discussants in a conversation they do not know what
    the word means. It would be very awkward indeed if a person
    always had to explain the underlying concepts of such terms in
    order to speak intelligibly. It is precisely because some words
    stand for a whole cluster of concepts that they find their
    usefulness as shorthand notation in scientific discourse.
     
    S      Well said, Darwin! You are just the man to explain this
    whole business to me. Please tell me then what evolution is.
     
    D      You suggested that you are familiar with the literature. 
    Surely you do not want me to start with the basics.
     
    S      Yes, I do. Be as simple as you can without sacrificing
    the truth, because I must have missed something at a very
    rudimentary level.
     
    D      The word "evolution" simply means "change"; and the
    scientific theory of evolution is the theory which states that
    organisms have gradually changed from the most simple forms into
    the most complex forms, beginning with unicellular organisms and
    ending with man--at least ending for the time being. This
    gradual change took place during the course of millions of years
    and its basis in fact has been established by the observations of
    science. The best way to ...
     
    S      But do not scientists today speak of evolution as a fact? 
    You say it is a theory. Which is it?
     
    D      Yes, you can say that it is a fact. The theory is based
    upon observed facts and ...
     
    S      But is the process of change itself observable? I mean
    that change to which, presumably, the word "evolution" refers.
     
    D      Yes! Now will you please stop interrupting and let me
    continue?
     
    S      I'm sorry. Please continue.
     
    D      As I started to say, perhaps the best way to see this
    change is by examining some of the more important explanatory
    parts of the theory. First, the structural explanations of the
    theory of evolution explain the similarities of body structure
    found among organisms of widely diverse species living today. 
    For example, although the whale, the bat, the horse and man are
    members of quite diverse species, their appendages exhibit marked
    similarities. The flipper of the whale, the wing of the bat, the
    leg of the horse, and the arm of man are all structurally alike,
    even though they are functionally different. Evolution explains
    the presence of these structural similarities by pointing out
    that the organisms of these diverse species have an ancestor or
    ancestors in common from which they have descended. Over many
    years of descent from a common ancestry these different organisms
    have changed; though not enough to erase the structural
    similarity we still observe today. Descent, with change, from a
    common ancestry also accounts for the presence of vestiges in
    many different organisms. You must have read that vestiges are
    remnants of larger and once useful body parts--organs,
    appendages, etc.--which have atrophied through lack of use as the
    whole body of the organism descended and changed. For some
    reason these original parts did not disappear completely,
    although their functional contribution to the organism
    disappeared. The vermiform appendix in man and the wings of
    flightless birds are two familiar examples commonly cited.
     
    S      All of this sounds disturbingly familiar. You see it is
    this business about descent and change that bothers me. I asked
    you what evolution is; you said that it is the change of
    organisms from one form into another. Further, you said that
    this change can be seen by looking at the structural similarities
    between members of diverse species, which presumably illustrate
    the change in question. But since I have only the vaguest notion
    as to what this process of change is like, it is hardly
    enlightening to point to the perceived structural similarity
    between organisms and to their vestigial organs as evidence of
    this change. In other words, the idea of descent with change is
    what I am asking you to explain; but you have presupposed it with
    your reference to similar structures and vestigial organs. 
    Unless I have missed something, this looks like a subtle species
    of question begging.
     
    D      Look, the evidence is as clear as the nose on your face. 
    How else can we account for these similarities between life
    forms? Why should these organisms exhibit a similar structure
    unless in fact they had descended from a common ancestry?
     
    S      I can't see the nose on my face very well and neither can
    I see very well this vaguely conceived change you speak of. If
    you are going to start asking "why" questions at the very general
    level of structural similarities between organisms can you not
    exercise your imagination and think of something which has
    greater conceptual definition than "descent, with change, from a
    common ancestry?" Of course, I do not know the answer to this
    biological riddle, but I can think of at least one theory which
    will account for such similarities. Perhaps the god which sent
    me on my philosophical mission to the people of Athens devised a
    good plan by which to make the species of his creation function
    well. He may have used the same basic structural design in many
    diverse species, much the same as automobile manufacturers today
    on earth retain the same basic design for different models. The
    same design, with modification, can serve many purposes. Just as
    you asked your "why" question, so I can ask mine. "Why should a
    creator throw away a perfectly useful basic design?"
     
    D      You can't be serious! That is a preposterous notion. 
    The scientific community generally rejects such antiquated
    thought.
     
    S      That may be a true statement about what most scientists
    believe, but you are not suggesting that truth in science is
    established by counting the beliefs of scientists, are you?
     
    D      Even if I were so backward as to entertain the
    possibility of such a creation, your theory still would not work. 
    Just because similarities between the structural designs of
    automobiles can be accounted for in terms of a modification of
    the ideas of the inventor or manufacturer, it does not
    necessarily follow that the structural similarities between
    organisms can be accounted for in the same way by referring to a
    creator of living organisms. Change in complexity and in
    apparent design can be accounted for in more than one way.
     
    S      True enough, but this establishes my point. Just as it
    does not follow necessarily that the developmental changes in
    automobiles and the developmental changes in organisms are the
    result of essentially the same kind of process, neither does it
    follow necessarily that those changes are not the result of the
    same kind of process. They both could be the result of creative
    planning. And at this level of observation, where you seem to
    see evidence of evolutionary change I merely point out that there
    is a good alternative way of explaining the same perceived
    phenomenon of structural similarity. But more importantly, my
    idea of creation gives an intelligible account of what the change
    is and how it is to be conceived: namely, a creative change in
    the basic plan of the god. Your notion, however, still lacks
    definition; it presupposes that some kind of change occurred
    within nature and among different organisms. You have yet to
    conceptually identify for me what this change is which presumably
    is at the heart of evolutionary theory.
     
    D      You might be able to conceive of possible alternatives to
    evolution but you cannot dismiss the facts which evidence
    evolutionary change.
     
    S      But that is precisely the point of contention. What is
    factual is not changing, at least not to the degree needed to
    transform one species into another. All the organisms which you
    claim have descended from a common ancestry--the whale, the bat,
    the horse and man--have not changed into different species
    throughout the thousands of generations of their observed
    existence. Furthermore, any of the organisms which you may
    imagine to have been their ancestors and which are still living
    today--some of the reptiles, for example--also have not changed
    throughout successive generations of their offspring. The change
    which is supposed to distinguish evolution as an important
    scientific fact is precisely what is lacking when we examine it. 
    And speaking of the facts, as your disciples today are wont to
    do, the evidence you adduce in support of this vaguely conceived
    notion of change is highly suspect. In reference to your own
    example, I have noticed over the years that as the knowledge of
    animal physiology has increased, the number of vestigial organs
    so-called has dwindled drastically. Earlier in the history of
    evolutionary theory some biologists writing on the topic listed
    more than one hundred and eighty of these rudimentary structures. 
    The human body alone became a veritable museum of evolutionary
    remnants. But today I see that most textbooks which treat the
    subject at all list only about six vestigial organs, with of
    course the vermiform appendix in man still being given the most
    prominent place. Unfortunately, the category of "chief vestigial
    organ" has itself become vestigial; because immunologists now do
    not think that the appendix is a useless remnant. The role of
    the appendix in human immunology is well established.
     
    D      So, what are you ultimately saying Socrates: that with a
    few examples like those you can overturn the scientific theory of
    evolution? I suppose the next thing you will tell me is that the
    entire fossil record is also not a fact! What do you propose we
    do with the countless fossils laid down in the strata of the
    earth's crust in such a fashion that only the most obtuse
    observer could fail to get their message?
     
    S      I have always been slow to understand popular concepts. 
    Will you please tell me what that unmistakable message is that
    you get from the earth?
     
    D      Come now, my friend! You must know that fossils have
    been laid down in the earth's strata in a clearly discernible
    pattern. The pattern I refer to--as I think you already know--is
    the gradual and progressive change in complexity of the life
    forms which have been fossilized. Beginning with very simple
    organisms fossilized in the Cambrian layers, you can see, as you
    move up through successive layers, a graduated complexity in the
    forms of life, until you reach the most complex organisms in the
    most recent layers at the top. The unmistakable message is that
    simple organisms have progressively changed or evolved into
    highly complex organisms.
     
    S      You asked me what I proposed to do with the fossil
    record. I do not propose to do anything with it except seriously
    try to give it the most sensible interpretation, and I must say
    that your interpretation does not strike me as the most sensible
    one. Your traditional account of the fossil record manifests the
    same weaknesses as your so-called structural explanations. 
    First, the alleged facts upon which you construct your theory of
    evolutionary progression--whatever that is precisely--are not
    nearly so factual once you look carefully at them. Second, given
    an account of the facts as they really are, there is a better
    alternative explanation than evolution: as I said, a creative
    change in the basic plan of the god.
     
    You claim that the fossils evidence a gradual progressive change
    in the complexity of life forms, beginning with simple organisms
    in the bottom layers and ending with complex organisms in the top
    layers. But unfortunately the evidence cannot be made to conform
    to such a simple account. In actual fact the change one observes
    is neither gradual, nor progressive, nor does it begin with
    simple organisms.
     
    Whatever you wish to say about those life forms at the bottom of
    the evolutionary ladder, organisms such as sponges and protozoa,
    you ought not to say that they are simple. Contrary to public
    opinion the story of evolution does not begin with simple
    organisms, but with very complex ones. Even single-celled
    organisms exhibit a degree of complexity which is awe-inspiring. 
    It seems to me that accounting for the composition, structure and
    sophisticated functions of such allegedly primitive organisms is
    a major problem for the theory of evolution. As well, among the
    oldest fossils one can find evidence of prehistoric animals which
    seem to have been at least as complex as modern animals; perhaps
    more so.  Therefore, because the organisms whose remains are
    found in the deepest strata are not "simple" in any ordinary
    sense of the term, and because the remains of highly complex
    animals are found where they should not be found if evolution is
    true, it is a misrepresentation of the facts to simply say that
    the change which fossils exhibit begins with simple organisms or
    that it always progresses from simple organisms to complex ones.
     
    But worse still, the changes from one organism to another which
    the fossils are supposed to exhibit cannot consistently be called
    gradual. Within many important sections of the geological column
    where you find a succession of fossils, from less complex in the
    bottom layers to more complex in the top layers, the succession
    is not gradual! At many junctures within these sections there
    are tremendously large jumps in the complexity of organisms, with
    no trace of a series of graduated intermediate forms to account
    for the alleged evolutionary change. Doesn't evolution here
    become a kind of "god of the gaps?" Where, for example, are all
    the intermediate forms between birds and reptiles? I can see no
    way that such leaps in complexity can be accounted for by a
    theory which relies so heavily upon the "long - long - ago - over
    - a - long - long - time" theme in its scenario. Even one
    hundred million years of sedimentary deposition cannot begin to
    account for the colossal jumps in the complexity of these life
    forms. Is evolution consistent with its own canons? Don't you
    see ...
     
    D      Now hold on just a minute! You talk so simplistically,
    as though evolutionary development were a simple linear
    progression laid out like beads on a string. You will do much
    better if you think of it as a progression, using the model of a
    tree. Granted, several of the branches are missing, which we
    shall probably be able to draw in some day, but the main outline
    is there. Evolution has been a very complex process which we do
    not completely understand, but I am confident that eventually we
    shall understand it and thereby clear up the major problems that
    remain.
     
    S      I wondered when you were going to use that old ploy. You
    appeal to scientific ignorance of the workings of this allegedly
    complex evolutionary process, but at the same time assert the
    existence of that process by emphasizing its inscrutability--when
    all the while the very existence of the process itself is
    precisely what is in question! It is in question because there
    is neither a clear referent for the phrase "evolutionary change"
    nor unambiguous evidence to support the evolutionary ideas of
    change even supposing the referent for "change" were clearly
    given. How is it that although you do not have the requisite
    fossil evidence to support evolutionary theory you still know
    that evolution occurred? And how does its occurrence gain
    existential status in the deep recess of your ignorance? My
    response to your claim that there is so much about the workings
    of evolution that we don't understand, is: how do you know that
    it is evolution that has been working?
     
    D      Obviously because we can see clearly the broad outlines
    of its work.
     
    S      You are still begging the question. The vital evidence
    you need to support the claim that it is evolution's work which
    is broadly outlined, and not the work of some other force, is
    missing. Do you not see that by the same kind of reasoning you
    could say that a few different colored dots on a canvas are,
    without further evidence, the broad outlines of a Rembrandt? 
    There is no disanalogy here because, contrary to popular belief,
    it is not in fact the case that just a few branches are missing
    from the tree of evolution--whole sections of the main trunk are
    missing! The onus is not upon me to see how much I can exercise
    my imagination by filling the blanks; the onus is upon you to
    provide evidence which will support such an imaginative theory. 
    It is your responsibility to produce the important missing
    pieces: not mine to trail after your flights of imagination.
     
    D      Socrates, I now think I see your problem. You fail to
    make a distinction between the results of evolutionary change and
    the process of change itself. Obviously we cannot observe the
    change which modified all those species in the past; but we can
    infer the existence of such a change from the fossil remains.
     
    S      Be careful now. You are wandering in a circle. We have
    already discussed the gappy fossil record. Let us not wander
    back to the fossil remains and what we are supposed to be able to
    infer from them; for we have seen large problems along that path. 
    You seem not to be grasping the main point of my criticism. When
    you say "results of evolutionary change," notice: you assume
    that the "change" has taken place; when in fact it is precisely
    this change that I am asking you to substantiate. What you
    desire to call the "results" of change I have argued are really
    the deficient beginnings of your case for evolution. Logically
    you cannot call these weak beginnings "the results." 
    Furthermore, it is not only that the fossil record is lacking in
    evidence--it presents contradictory evidence. Not only are many
    fossils missing which should be present; there are many fossils
    present where they should be missing.
     
    Let me illustrate the point. Suppose that an earthling walks
    into his dining room in the morning and sees a beautiful vase on
    a table. Later that afternoon he returns to the dining room, but
    this time he sees the vase smashed in pieces on the floor. There
    has been a change all right, but the "how" of that change may not
    at all be clear. Was it the cat, an earth tremor, a human hand,
    gravity, the wind, or something else? Unless he has more
    evidence than just the memory of the unbroken vase in the
    morning, together with the spectacle of smashed pieces in the
    afternoon, it is presumptuous of him to single out any one of
    those agents as being responsible for the destruction. Notice,
    however, that he can bridge the gap between his remembrance of
    the vase intact and his perception of the broken pieces before
    him, by using his imagination. But if all that he uses to bridge
    the gap is his imagination, then the change which he proposes--
    for example, the movement of the cat's tail against the vase--is
    merely a conceptual change, with no basis in fact. He needs more
    than a jumping imagination to account for change in the world
    around him.
     
    The need for evidence of a specific kind of change is much more
    acute in the case of evolution; because there you want to argue
    not only that a change took place in nature itself, but that
    simpler organisms changed into more complex organisms, by chance. 
    Unlike the change in the vase, the notion of evolutionary change
    is counter-intuitive; it is especially important to fill in the
    gaps with something more than the imagination.
     
    I am not denying, for example, that reptiles are different from
    mammals. And there is of course a conceptual change which one
    must make in moving from his thoughts about fossils of reptiles
    to his thoughts about fossils of mammals. But unless one has
    something more to offer than the catch phrase "because of
    evolutionary change," his ideas remain groundless. The "how" of
    evolutionary change is not, as many scientists seem to think, a
    non-essential extra to be filled in at some later date. It is
    the very heart of this putative process. If the "how" of
    evolutionary theory cannot be identified and coherently
    described, and if clear non-contradictory evidence at the crucial
    points cannot be given in support of the theory, then, to speak
    of "evolutionary change" as a distinctive occurrence within
    nature is to speak vacuously.
     
    D      You keep harping on this business of change, as though
    evolution had been discovered yesterday. You said that you have
    been reading the literature. Have you not read anything about
    natural selection and genetic variation?
     
    S      Yes, I have - and you would have done as well if you had
    read Mendel instead of leaving him alone on your library shelf -
    he is, after all, the father of your theory, is he not? But
    never mind, like the rest of evolutionary theory, I cannot make
    head or tail of natural selection and genetic variation. Now, I
    will stop harping if you change your tune.
     
    D      Speaking of "old ploys," that one of playing the dummy is
    wearing rather thin. I remember your tricks. Let me guess: now
    you want me to give you a basic lesson in the mechanics of
    evolutionary change?
     
    S      Yes indeed I do! And let me assure you that my ignorance
    is not feigned--I really do not understand all this business. 
    That is why I have come to you, the expert.
     
    D      Well, when I first conceived of the theory of evolution I
    accepted the Lamarckian assumption that hereditary changes are
    produced by the environment. In order to adapt to a particular
    environmental niche for which it was not viably suited, an
    organism acquired the characteristics necessary for survival. 
    The environment, so to speak, urged upon the organism the
    acquisition of these characteristics--or, so we thought. In
    addition, I also thought that, corresponding to this change in
    the organism's characteristics, hereditary changes were somehow
    produced, such that the newly acquired characteristics could be
    transmitted to succeeding generations. All of this of course was
    before the advent of genetics. It is now believed by those who
    still accept my basic evolutionary model that the mechanisms of
    change are different. Neo-Darwinians hold that hereditary
    changes are the result of gene mutations. Simply stated, instead
    of saying that the environment produces adaptive changes which
    are hereditary, it is now said that hereditary changes make
    adaptation possible. Changes in the genetic makeup of an
    organism alter that organism in such a manner as to prepare it
    for an environmental niche into which it can emigrate. This
    genetic preparation is sometimes called preadaptation. Let me
    give you a simple illustration. It is often discovered that the
    inhabitants of caves are blind and possess highly developed
    tactile sense organs. According to my old view, the darkness
    forced the would-be cave inhabitants to give up using their eyes
    and acquire an acute sense of touch. The revised Neo-Darwinian
    view says that this is putting the cart before the horse. 
    Actually, the would-be inhabitants must be equipped to survive
    before they emigrate to the caves. That is, they are preadapted
    by a genetic mutation which results in a heightened tactile
    sensitivity.
     
    S      Please forgive another simple-minded question, but why
    would anyone think in the first place that organisms adapt to
    their environments, either in the manner you first proposed or in
    the manner proposed by your followers today?
     
    D      Well, obviously, because of the compatibility which
    exists between organisms and their environments. It must surely
    be evident even to your critical mind how well organisms and
    their environments fit together: the environment being suitable
    to accommodate the organism and the organism being fit to exist
    in its environment. This harmonious state of affairs can be
    observed everywhere on earth.
     
    S      But have these adaptations of new organisms to new
    environments ever been observed? I do not mean just those
    changes in parts of an organism such as tails getting longer or
    fur changing color, etc., as a result of cross-breeding within
    the same species. These confined changes were observed and well
    known to everyone hundreds of years before the word "evolution"
    gained any currency. I mean, has anyone ever scientifically
    observed a radical change in an organism at the specific or even
    sub-specific level, such that the radically new organism could
    fit into a radically new environment? Or, has anyone even
    observed an organism like the bat losing its sight, then gaining
    a heightened sense of touch and hearing, and then emigrating to a
    radically new environment like a cave where it continued to live
    and reproduce offspring similarly adapted?
     
    D      Of course not. Natural selection at the level you are
    asking about cannot be directly observed. It is a very complex
    process which has taken a great deal of time.
     
    S      But would you not agree that adaptation at that level has
    got to be established before evolution may be called an
    explanatory scientific theory about how organisms have radically
    changed?
     
    D      Certainly the changes must have been radical but the ...
     
    S      Well, if small changes such as the variations in the size
    of an appendage, or in the color of some body part, cannot
    provide the evidence needed for the appearance of these radically
    new organisms, upon what basis do you argue that such large scale
    changes have occurred which enable an organisms to adapt to a
    radically new environment?
     
    D      I have already told you: upon the basis of the
    harmonious interaction of organisms with their environment. The
    organisms must have changed dramatically in order to fit into new
    environmental niches.
     
    S      Let me understand what you are saying. You say that
    organisms and their environments fit together?
     
    D      Yes, that's right.
     
    S      And they fit together because the organism adapts to its
    environment?
     
    D      Correct.
     
    S      And when I ask you how you know that the organism does
    adapt to a radically new environment you say, because the
    organism and its environment fit together.
     
    D      Yes, that's my position.
     
    S      Don't you see that you're arguing in a circle? You jump
    from the observed harmony in nature to the mysterious conclusion
    that organisms change dramatically and then adapt to a radically
    new environment, providing no other factual support for this
    grand inductive inference than the obvious facts about harmony
    with which you started. It seems that evolutionists use the
    notion of "fitness" both as a starting observation and as a
    concluding explanation. The only facts involved in your case for
    natural selection are those which are obvious and agreeable to
    everyone before any inferences are drawn. As a description of
    the way organisms and their environments are suited to one
    another, part of your account is unobjectionable; but as a
    putative explanation of how organisms have come into being,
    natural selection really does not provide an answer. At best we
    may learn how some existing organisms survive a radical
    environmental change--such as black moths in sooty trees--but not
    how they radically change in surviving. I repeat my former
    criticism of putative "evolutionary change": the change that you
    need to demonstrate is precisely what you assume throughout your
    whole account. And, if you are going to take such liberty with
    inductive inference you should not object to an alternative
    inference of no greater breadth which is drawn from the same
    observations about natural harmony. Why not infer that the
    delicate balance of nature everywhere observed is the work of a
    god who ...
     
    D      You might have gotten away with that kind of argument in
    your time, or even one hundred years ago, but not now. I think
    that I have already made it plain that the idea of genetic
    variation forms an integral part of evolutionary theory as it is
    taught today. No one any longer speaks about natural selection
    without saying or implying that genetic variations form an
    integral part of the evolutionary process.
     
    S      Well then, are you now admitting that the main support
    for the belief in evolutionary change is found in genetics? I
    should soon very much like to get to the foundation of this whole
    matter.
     
    D      Yes, you could say that. The evidence for change you so
    eagerly seek is found in the fact of gene mutations.
     
    S      But is there really any scientific evidence--I mean solid
    data; not fanciful theorizing--which shows that a mutant form of
    an organism can change it into anything like what is needed to
    reproduce a new species?
     
    D      Come now, you must surely have read about the mutant
    forms in plants, animals, and insects. Are you not familiar with
    the fruitfly experiments? Countless mutants of the Drosophila
    have been observed and written up in the literature.
     
    S      It seems that you are not the only one who thinks he is
    not being heard. I have just asked a question the thrust of
    which you seem to be completely ignoring. The weakness of the
    genetic explanation for evolution lies precisely in the alleged
    evidence you advance in support of it. Even if the highly
    improbable occurred, that is, even if a thousand of such mutants
    occurred in one and the same fruitfly, you would still not have
    an organism whose total change represented anything like a new
    species actually found in nature. And what is important here of
    course is that such a large scale change never has been observed.
     
    D      I do not know what literature you have been reading, but
    a mutation which can change an antenna into a leg is quite a
    powerful piece of evidence for the mechanism of evolutionary
    change.
     
    S      That is a very misleading description my friend. What
    you are suggesting is the origination of a new complex structure,
    a leg, is really just the switching of an already genetically
    encoded structure to a new location, the place of the antenna,
    where it then develops. What is worse, however, is that this
    sort of aberrant switching is disadvantageous to the fly, even
    if, hypothetically speaking, one could say that some new genetic
    material were being added to the blueprint of the fly, which
    definitely is not the case. If you are going to gain any
    distance with the genetic argument you will have to show that an
    organism can create new genetic material which increases
    radically the complexity of the structure or function of the
    organism, thus enabling it to adapt to a radically new
    environment. If, for instance, we have evolved from protozoa,
    where did the genes for a nervous system, bones, etc. come from? 
    There is a huge gap here which needs to be filled.
     
    D      Even so, the small genetic changes that we do observe
    provide us with a good working idea of how large scale changes in
    organisms could have occurred and thus produced radically new
    organisms.
     
    S      Has anyone ever observed these grand genetic changes
    which you imagine could have been the impetus for evolutionary
    advancement?
     
    D      No, of course not, but just because they have not been
    observed, it does not mean that they did not occur! You have not
    shown that such changes could not have happened.
     
    S      No it does not--but neither does it mean that they did
    occur. But, since you are the one advancing the theory, the onus
    is yours to establish its truth. It is not my responsibility to
    satisfy your impossible request, to show that some imagined
    events, such as large scale genetic changes which, as purely
    imagined events, are not logically impossible, could not occur. 
    That kind of demonstration cannot be provided in any world, let
    along be provided in evolutionary theory. Nor is it ever a
    reasonable request that it should be provided. How, for example,
    would you ever demonstrate that a creator could not possibly
    exist? You must base your case for evolution on positive
    available evidence--unless of course you decide to give your
    ideas, as they now stand, a more suitable title: "a poetic
    vision" or "a secular faith" or something similar. I am afraid
    that you have not yet felt how heavy the burden of proof is which
    rests upon your shoulders.
     
    D      And you seem to have something against speculation in
    science. In fact, you misrepresent the scientific process. 
    Listen, it would be ridiculous for scientists to formulate only
    theories for which there was already confirming evidence. Surely
    it is not necessary to present the confirming evidence for
    possible advantageous macromutations before I theorize that they
    have occurred?
     
    S      I have nothing at all against speculation, in science or
    anywhere else. I only wish that you--and especially your
    followers--would call it exactly that, instead of making
    grandiose claims about the evidence for evolution. You give
    everybody the impression that evolution is firmly grounded on
    facts. You claim that genetics has the answer to the questions
    of change which I have just been pursuing. And yet when the
    truth is told, either, the changes which can actually be observed
    are small, not radical, and most often disadvantageous to an
    organism, thus providing no relevant evidence for the large scale
    changes required by evolution; or, the changes are large but non-
    existent, purely products of your imagination, having no basis in
    fact. So, in either case the foundational support for the claim
    that evolution has occurred has yet to be established.
     
    D      I grant you that the theory may have some weaknesses in
    each of its various explanatory parts, but when the explanations
    are taken altogether, I think you will have to admit, they
    present a very convincing account.
     
    S      That's like saying that although one leaky bucket will
    not hold water, ten leaky buckets will.
     
    D      It depends on how far you want to carry the water!
     
    S      Yes, and how big the holes are! But to carry the
    progressive development of life forms all the way from
    noncellular organisms to man? That is a very long way, my
    friend. You began by discussing structural similarities and
    vestigial organs. When I pointed out that your account not only
    contained factual mistakes but also presumed without
    justification the answer to my basic question of evolutionary
    change, you directed our discussion to the fossil record and the
    supposedly unmistakable pattern which is exhibited there. When I
    pointed out further factual errors and emphasized again your
    persistence in assuming without warrant the very change in
    question, you then led us into a discussion of what are
    apparently the dual pillars of evolutionary theory, natural
    selection and genetic variation. And now after I have once again
    pointed out that even in the genetic account radical change is
    being assumed, not evidenced, you still want to go back over this
    whole business and say that somehow all the missing supports for
    your theory are able to make it stand. Is not that an odd kind
    of argument?
     
    D      How else can we account for the existence of complex life
    forms?
     
    S      Goodness gracious! You are surely not suggesting that a
    bad theory is better than none at all? Has it never occurred to
    you to say, "I do not know"? You ought to read Wittgenstein.
     
    D      But no intellectually respectable scientist today could
    doubt it!
     
    S      That is the problem with you people. You hold your
    theories with such religious fervour that you cannot detach
    yourself from them long enough to ask a few basic questions.
     
    D      And the problem with philosophers is that they are always
    preoccupied with semantics. Clever word play, that's all!
     
    S      I have never pretended that philosophy is anything but
    the art of asking uncomfortable questions about fundamental
    assumptions. Say what you like against philosophers, but that
    will not remove the serious criticisms which hound your theory.
     
    D      Do you realize what you're suggesting? Are you asking me
    to believe that all of these venerable men of science are
    misguided because they do not have any clear idea of evolutionary
    change? One should not dignify the suggestion with a response.
     
    S      I do not know this, but let me tell you what I think is
    the main reason for the perpetuation of this conceptual
    confusion. The pseudo-explanatory force of evolutionary theory
    derives its psychological power from the fact that
    anthropomorphic terms within its narrative are readily understood
    in non-scientific speech contexts.
     
    D      What in thunder does that mean!?
     
    S      Consider the fanciful character of the stories that are
    spun around the fossil remains. We read about vertebrates who
    left their aquatic environment and developed limbs by a happy
    accident. And with their newly developed limbs these amphibians
    learned to linger about the drying pools. In the story of the
    descent from the trees we read of men-like, tree-borne primates
    who became earth-borne creatures. They assumed an erect posture,
    lengthened and strengthened their lower limbs; and the latter
    became organs of the mind. A more anthropomorphic story would be
    difficult to write. It is hardly a step at all to imagine a
    group of turtles getting together for a conference to make plans
    for an exploring expedition. Of course if these action verbs and
    nouns are read anthropomorphically then the conclusion towards
    which the evolutionary argument moves is assumed at the outset. 
    Presumably the lower forms of life somehow developed into the
    complex form called man. Therefore, in the beginning they did
    not possess, even at the amphibian stage, the motivation and
    ability to direct their destinies, as man is able to do. To
    smuggle into the language of explanation the suggestion that they
    did is to gain a psychological support for the central thesis of
    evolution which needs to be established legitimately by non-
    semantical means.
     
    This dramatic-scientific story of evolution is conceived so
    generally that it can accommodate almost any idea, which in fact
    it does. Not only does it deposit in its store the scientific
    jargon of "fossils," "strata," etc., but it also incorporates
    with ease the anthropomorphic language of epic poetry. The
    scientist learns to speak in one breath of "carbon dating,"
    "developing limbs" and "happy accidents." His narrative
    explanation admixes science and saga, with a strong emphasis upon
    the latter. And the anthropomorphic action terms find ready
    acceptance in the minds of readers because their minds are
    accustomed to using such terms daily in ordinary sensible
    contexts. For example, "the development of limbs" is thought to
    convey something intelligible because "the development of
    muscles" or "the development of talent" are perfectly sensible.
     
    It is this practice of semantical borrowing which makes popular
    books on evolution so saleable. People see beautifully colored
    charts and read in the captions below all about the saga of
    evolution. Even the children can repeat with confidence the
    story of "amphibians developing limbs" and "reptiles taking to
    flight." And all of this is done with an air of clear
    understanding, as if evolution were really being explained.
     
    D      Socrates, I am afraid that you have now stepped out onto
    a very long limb from which, sadly, there is no return. Don't
    you realize that no scientist in his senses would claim that
    these narrative accounts explain how evolution occurred? They
    serve merely as an heuristic device, that's all.
     
    S      Are you saying that these accounts are used only for
    teaching purposes and are not intended as explanations of the
    evolutionary process?
     
    D      Yes, that's right.
     
    S      That leads me to ask two questions. If the narratives
    are meant to be taken only as a kind of grand mnemonic, then
    ought not the writers of these accounts say so unequivocally, to
    make clear the metaphorical nature of their language? For it
    certainly seems that they intend for the narratives to be taken
    as explanations. My second question, however, leads me to doubt
    your easy interpretation of these narratives. In order for the
    story of evolution to represent the truth it must surely be based
    upon a knowledge of the mechanisms for evolutionary development--
    otherwise there is no guarantee that the story corresponds to the
    actual developmental process which it merely wants to picture. 
    But if that is the case, what are these known mechanisms of
    progressive radical change in the development of organisms?
     
    D      Natural selection and genetic variation, of course!
     
    S      But you're arguing in a circle again. We have already
    seen that there is nothing in genetics which can account for the
    radical changes required by your theory. And now you want to
    base the epic, "protozoa to man," on this foundationless support.
     
    You know, Darwin, the longer I talk with you the more questions I
    have. Could it be that the theory of evolution is not only a
    question-begging argument, but something even more problematic? 
    Is it even empirically significant? I mean to ask, does the key
    phrase "evolutionary change" have an empirical referent?
     
    If one tries to discover how evolution works he is told that the
    causal factors involved are not observable, not repeatable, not
    simple, and not agreeable to all scientists. And if one wants to
    see this negative qualification on a grand scale he need only
    look at the history of the subject. When Lamarckism and
    Darwinism failed, evolution succeeded. When Vitalism and
    Finalism failed, evolution still succeeded.[1] Even though Neo-
    Lamarckians and Neo-Darwinians have been at loggerheads about
    crucial matters, evolution supposedly stands above the confusion
    and contradictions.[2] What is this change called "evolution"
    which survives all the vicissitudes of its vague and
    contradictory explanations? How does this alleged process, which
    cannot be repeated or observed or even specified, and whose
    supporting explanations of natural selection and genetic
    variation crumble beneath the weight of logical-empirical
    analysis, differ from no process at all?
     
    D      Enough! I do not want to hear any more of this nonsense. 
    What you are saying is silly! Be gone!
     
     
    Socrates calmly turned and walked away, and as he cleared a path
    among the guests he was heard muttering to himself, "I wonder if
    Freud is here. Perhaps he can help me understand what Darwin
    said."
     
     
    ENDNOTES
     
    [1]    "A theory may be described as
    vitalistic’ if it purports
    to give a systematic explanation of evolution in terms of some
    unique non-natural agency” such as “the life force',elan
    vital’, entelechy, etc.” (Goudge, p. 80)
     
    “Just as vitalism is not necessarily finalistic, so finalism is
    not necessarily vitalistic. For the core of finalism is the
    contention that a necessary condition of evolution consists of
    its orientation towards an ultimate goal.” The goal may be
    reached by “mechanically determined processes.” (Goudge, p. 81)
     
    [2]    Neo-Lamarkism holds “…that the effects of use and
    disuse [of parts of an organism], together with other
    environmentally induced changes, can become fixed in the
    hereditary equipment of species…” (Goudge, pp. 85,86)
     
    Neo-Darwinism, simply stated, is Darwinism without the Lamarkian
    assumption that hereditary changes are produced by the
    environment, and with the assumption that heredity changes stem
    from genetic variation in the organism. A complete account would
    be much more complicated than this and would reveal that Neo-
    Darwinians differ significantly in their evolutionary views
    according to the theory of mechanism for genetic variation and
    natural selection which they hold.

  50. I am certain that there are a good number of blacks who will not be happy until they have their very own white slaves. They don’t want reparations, they want superiority. But this all misses the root of the problem, which is the deep pockets which are financing this revolution. They are playing both sides against each other. They see blacks and whites alike as tools to attain their goals.

Comments are closed.