The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Grand Bargain
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

An absolute immigration moratorium and reparations for American blacks and American Indians who are verifiably able to prove they are at least third-generation in residency, with a sunset provision that takes effect in twenty years if and only if the official poverty rate is under 10.0%. The annual reparation amount per eligible adult is $1,000 a month, indexed to the CPI over the twenty-year period, an amount that comes to more than half the contemporary difference in median incomes between white and black/American Indian households. With around 30 million people eligible, this comes to $360 billion annually–less than 10% of the current federal budget.

Could a Republican win on this? It seems conceivable to me. It takes the leading issue of concern for the Republican electorate and pairs it with a real benefit for the rest of Old America that would generate a lot of vociferous support from American blacks, making it exceedingly difficult for the left to attack.

 
Hide 161 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The left doesn’t need to attack the proposal. Instead they can come up with an even more radical proposal. This is just admitting defeat, trying to make short term gains(one election) while taking long term losses. All you would be doing here is possibly creating bi-partisan support for reparations, and making immigration restriction tied up with other issues.

    It’s worthless to make compromises with blacks. Lie to them, try to discredit Democrats in the hopes of harming black turnout, but don’t show weakness towards them. They don’t respect that and will view it (correctly) as an opportunity to extract more in the future.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @EldnahYm

    My thoughts exactly. Reparations will become the default for both parties (once you promised it, it'll be hard to backtrack on the technicality that you only promised it in exchange for no immigration), while immigration enforcement just won't happen.

    Basically those who want reparations will keep voting for the Democrats, but it'll perhaps dent the enthusiasm of Republican voters who would want none of it. It's not a winning platform for conservatives/racialists/alt-right/white nationalists/whoever.

    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    @EldnahYm

    I'm not saying out of cruelty, but out of necessity.

    Treat the African American group (and most sub saharan africans) the way you would treat a dog.

    If you give a dog scraps he will beg at the table every night. If you don't train your dog he will be rambunctious and destructive. If you don't assert yourself as master, he will not listen to you.

    You have to tell blacks to fuck off, essentially. They can't do facts or logic. It's either give them what they want, or tell them to take a hike.

    Replies: @anon, @Audacious Epigone

  2. 216 says:

    Hard to say if the GOP can out-reparation the Dems. Any reparations would presumably be paid for by significant cuts to the Pentagon, and a presumable racial tax on whites (Jews presumably exempted as the revived MENA category).

    Logistically, I don’t see the Dems being capable of enacting this even if the win in 2020. Its rube bait designed to replicate the “agitate and humiliate” of BLM or “crybully” method. Any GOP attacks on reparations presumably trigger the Tribal Gun, spiking turnout. Without court-packing, reparations is only possible when another vacancy arises (presumably Thomas, ironic)

    The existence of this reparations demand will also piss off the “white college” voters the Dems need, as the older moderates will resent being taxed. Indebted Millennials presumably don’t care about reckless spending, as the Dems are promising to wipe their debts out.

    There is also the third dimension of reparations: A shooting war breaking out as “white separatism” becomes more than a ADLbb fever dream.

    From a conspiratorial perspective, we might reckon that reparations talk is designed to get a neutered Trump back over the top in 2020, rather than risk a right-wing backlash to an unprepared Dem Admin that immidiately would go for a gun ban and amnesty.

  3. 216 says:

    O/T

    Hugbox

    Like it or not, Manners maketh man.

    Continued relevancy of the Right depends upon our understanding that “edgelord” behavior is increasingly unacceptable to the growing number of cat-ladies. By and large our movements are despised by most white Millennials.

    Whenever we act up, even worse through IRL violence, the hammer comes down hard. There is not going to be any EO coming out of the WH, or any FCC actions that will force Big Social to allow outright Neo-Nazism back on to their sites.

    • Replies: @Issac
    @216

    They should be encouraged to purity spiral as often as possible. The right is effectively gone from polite society online and off. The utility of social media is to encourage the hard left to put lead in their own feet by goring the center.

    , @SunBakedSuburb
    @216

    "... 'edgelord' behavior is increasingly unacceptable to the growing number of cat-ladies."

    Cat-ladies usually keep to themselves, and their numbers are dwindling due to generational die-off. They have been replaced by dog-ladies who are mostly extroverts. But males tend to overlook the dog-lady threat because they are comfortable with canine servility and believe dog is God spelled backwards.

  4. Once there is an acceptances of the main premise – that of reparations – those conditions aren’t going to obtain. The eligible pool will likely expand.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  5. Priss Factor [AKA "Asagirian"] says: • Website

    Associate and tie Immigration with ‘Genocide’ of the Indians.

    And do the same with Hawaii, a very blue state that takes pride its Diversity.

    Tie Diversity with Imperialism. Native Hawaiians lost their beloved homeland to whites and Asians who came as immigrant-invaders. Worse, these degenerate whites and their imitative yellow dogs have spreads globo-homo PC garbage all over.

    Also, mention what became of Palestine due to endless Jewish immigration.

    Even though a great nation was created by Immigration-Invasion, its great victims were the indigenous folks of America and Hawaii. THEREFORE, all immigration-invasion must be halted and the main mission of America must be to revive the Indian and Hawaiian communities.

    It’s about time to associate immigration with shame and blame. Immigrant-Guilt. Emma-Lazarusism or Emma-gration led to Indians being reduced to wretched huddled masses in Reservations.

    At least white immigrant guilt was mitigated by having created a great nation. So, whites have earned some right to the New World.

    But all these non-white losers coming to mooch off Indian lands and White achievement, they must be stopped. Immigrant-Moocher Guilt.

    • Agree: Rosie, utu
    • Replies: @tamo
    @Priss Factor

    What a stupid comment from an asshole who might be a low-iq subhuman Armenian monkey who tries to pass himself as whitey, LOL !!!

  6. aren’t you a little old to still believe in santa claus, AE?

  7. Haven’t we already paid reparations? I am sure there has been a huge transfer of wealth from white America to Black America since the 1960s. Has anyone ever tried to quantitate it?

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Wolverine

    An honest accounting of which race has hurt/benefited the other more would leave blacks owing whites.

    , @Binks007
    @Wolverine

    Yes, I have seen numbers in the 20 trillion range. I'll look for the source.

    , @EliteCommInc.
    @Wolverine

    There are some stats on those subsidies. I think it was in this blog. Though which article I cannot recall. There was even an attempted to strategy to quantify by tax revenues.

    But the problem is that those subsidies were indicative of conditions in the now and were distributed among whites as well. So they would't really classify. You don't get government distribution of welfare until around 1960. The New Deal was distributed to whites first. Let's eschew the contend that whites deserved because they were white.

    Whenever the economy takes a hit, those on lower rungs get hit worse.

    , @Mr. Rational
    @Wolverine

    One good place to start is The Racial Tithe, which found that each black in the USA received an average of no less than $7700 per year in taxpayer-paid benefits not including the benefit of military defense.  That only counted welfare programs and taxes paid, I believe.  If the burden of the criminal justice system on non-blacks was added I'm sure it would top $12,000 per head per year.

    Note that said essay does not come up in most search engines and has been purged even from the Wayback Machine.  So much for preserving history!  Read it if you can find it.

    Replies: @res, @BengaliCanadianDude, @Truth, @Audacious Epigone

    , @Mr. Rational
    @Wolverine

    Ah, found The Racial Tithe at archive.is.

    Save a copy while it's still there.  The analysis alone should be examined as a study in how to extract information that the gatekeepers want locked up.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  8. @EldnahYm
    The left doesn't need to attack the proposal. Instead they can come up with an even more radical proposal. This is just admitting defeat, trying to make short term gains(one election) while taking long term losses. All you would be doing here is possibly creating bi-partisan support for reparations, and making immigration restriction tied up with other issues.

    It's worthless to make compromises with blacks. Lie to them, try to discredit Democrats in the hopes of harming black turnout, but don't show weakness towards them. They don't respect that and will view it (correctly) as an opportunity to extract more in the future.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    My thoughts exactly. Reparations will become the default for both parties (once you promised it, it’ll be hard to backtrack on the technicality that you only promised it in exchange for no immigration), while immigration enforcement just won’t happen.

    Basically those who want reparations will keep voting for the Democrats, but it’ll perhaps dent the enthusiasm of Republican voters who would want none of it. It’s not a winning platform for conservatives/racialists/alt-right/white nationalists/whoever.

    • Agree: Mr McKenna
  9. That’s not a bargain. The Americans that do not qualify get nothing in exchange for reparations. The rest of America should get quotas, affirmative action set-asides and all proactive attempts at “diversity” by any governmental unit made illegal. The use of disparate impact as a legal doctrine should be prohibited. Actually, we need a constitutional amendment that prohibits the collection or use of data by any metric of group characteristics by any governmental unit of any kind.

    You did not address the non-enforcement of immigration laws which is what the Republican Party sewer pond scum leaders (most) prefer. We should also get immigration law reform, for instance, a sane policy with regard to “refugees.”

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @iffen


    Actually, we need a constitutional amendment that prohibits the collection or use of data by any metric of group characteristics by any governmental unit of any kind.
     
    Hey!

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
     
    You are quite welcome.

    - Founding Fathers

    Replies: @iffen

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @iffen

    The moratorium legislatively enacted first, then the reparations, with said reparations being stipulated as such rather than as tribute. IOW, the putative debt owed to blacks is considered to have been made good on twenty years on.

  10. Would the reparations payments result in many blacks no longer qualifying for welfare ?

    Would Blacks under the age of 18 qualify for reparations ? A mother with 3 kids would be raking in 3,000 per month…could she still live in public housing ? Still collect welfare and food stamps ?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Prodigal son

    These are details to be worked out.

    I'm not American, but if I were, I'd very much want no immigration, so much so that paying whatever amount of welfare payments to the descendants of slaves would be worth it for me.

    But the issue is, you cannot make a deal with these people. They accept nothing short of your destruction, so there's no point in trying to come up with reasonable bargains. They'd take what you give them, and then not deliver their side of the bargain. Here, they'd take the reparations, and then not give you immigration restriction anyway.

    Also while it's a nice mental exercise to think of a thousand ways you could give better deals for certain leftist constituencies, they won't vote for you anyway.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @SunBakedSuburb
    @Prodigal son

    "Would the reparations payments result in many blacks no longer qualifying for welfare?"

    No. Blacks will still be entitled to welfare benefits, but under the new reparations law their parties will become longer, louder, and more extravagant.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Prodigal son

    It'd have to be for those aged 18+ or it'd be considerably more expensive.

  11. In the legislative process, the immigration limit would of course be dropped.

  12. @Prodigal son
    Would the reparations payments result in many blacks no longer qualifying for welfare ?

    Would Blacks under the age of 18 qualify for reparations ? A mother with 3 kids would be raking in 3,000 per month...could she still live in public housing ? Still collect welfare and food stamps ?

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @SunBakedSuburb, @Audacious Epigone

    These are details to be worked out.

    I’m not American, but if I were, I’d very much want no immigration, so much so that paying whatever amount of welfare payments to the descendants of slaves would be worth it for me.

    But the issue is, you cannot make a deal with these people. They accept nothing short of your destruction, so there’s no point in trying to come up with reasonable bargains. They’d take what you give them, and then not deliver their side of the bargain. Here, they’d take the reparations, and then not give you immigration restriction anyway.

    Also while it’s a nice mental exercise to think of a thousand ways you could give better deals for certain leftist constituencies, they won’t vote for you anyway.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @reiner Tor


    But the issue is, you cannot make a deal with these people. They accept nothing short of your destruction, so there’s no point in trying to come up with reasonable bargains. They’d take what you give them, and then not deliver their side of the bargain. Here, they’d take the reparations, and then not give you immigration restriction anyway.

    Also while it’s a nice mental exercise to think of a thousand ways you could give better deals for certain leftist constituencies, they won’t vote for you anyway.
     
    Indeed. The dissident Right picks on boomers quite a bit, and much of it is very justified, but they have their own side of the story. Specifically, Whites agreed to end de jure segregation, provide generous welfare benefits, accept affirmative action, and pay lip service to egalitarianism in response to the Civil Rights Movement. All blacks had to do was accept the existence of the White majority and remain loyal to the implicitly White USA. They have refused, instead choosing to side with you-know-who, agitating for endless displacement-level, non-white immivasion.

    Personally, I would have no great objection to Republicans making this offer, but it will never happen, because it presupposes a recognition of legitimate White ethnic interests.

    Replies: @obwandiyag

  13. Charming, that you think the race conflicts in America can be solved.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter
    @Polemeros

    They can be solved, but the solutions will be bloody.

  14. I would be for blacks paying whites reparations. They should pay reparations for the decline in white property values due to high levels of black crime. Not only have whites in many cities seen these declines over the last sixty years, many houses in cities have been completely abandoned by whites at great financial loss in order to flee to safer suburbs. In addition to these losses in property value, the whites who stayed should also be given reparations for the times they’ve been victims of black crime and also for the additional cost of black crime prevention measures like locks, fences, guns and burglary alarms. In addition to this, blacks should pay reparations for all the jobs lost by whites due to affirmative action. Blacks should also pay reparations to whites for the billions in welfare provided to blacks who didn’t bother to complete school, get a job and only have children they could support.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    @Mark G.

    "Blacks should also pay reparations to whites for the billions in welfare provided to blacks who didn’t bother to complete school, get a job and only have children they could support. "

    I take it you mean both whites and blacks in this category.

    Replies: @Mark G., @C. ThunderCock

  15. There was a third party candidate who advocated slavery reparations funded by a financial transaction tax combined with a moratorium on immigration.

    https://www.starktruthradio.com/?cat=618

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Robert S

    Interesting, thanks.

  16. There is no need for reparations for blacks.

    Compared to living in Africa they hit the jackpot when their ancestors were brought to America (and generally not by white Americans.)

    If they want reparations they should ask the blacks back in Africa who sold their ancestors or the descendants of those who financed the slave ships.

    However, many white countries should ask oil-rich ME countries for reparations for all their slaving activity in the past!

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Truth
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    What if there were no slave ships, and they weren't brought here from Africa?

    What if like the Moon Landing and the Holocaust, the whole "African Slave Trade" thing was a hoax?

    What if "go back to Africa" could no longer be honestly uttered?

    There are a growing group of Americans that believe these things, and that's going to be a gamechanger.

    Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter, @Achmed E. Newman, @SunBakedSuburb

  17. @Polemeros
    Charming, that you think the race conflicts in America can be solved.

    Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter

    They can be solved, but the solutions will be bloody.

  18. @Wolverine
    Haven’t we already paid reparations? I am sure there has been a huge transfer of wealth from white America to Black America since the 1960s. Has anyone ever tried to quantitate it?

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Binks007, @EliteCommInc., @Mr. Rational, @Mr. Rational

    An honest accounting of which race has hurt/benefited the other more would leave blacks owing whites.

    • Agree: Prodigal son
  19. @reiner Tor
    @Prodigal son

    These are details to be worked out.

    I'm not American, but if I were, I'd very much want no immigration, so much so that paying whatever amount of welfare payments to the descendants of slaves would be worth it for me.

    But the issue is, you cannot make a deal with these people. They accept nothing short of your destruction, so there's no point in trying to come up with reasonable bargains. They'd take what you give them, and then not deliver their side of the bargain. Here, they'd take the reparations, and then not give you immigration restriction anyway.

    Also while it's a nice mental exercise to think of a thousand ways you could give better deals for certain leftist constituencies, they won't vote for you anyway.

    Replies: @Rosie

    But the issue is, you cannot make a deal with these people. They accept nothing short of your destruction, so there’s no point in trying to come up with reasonable bargains. They’d take what you give them, and then not deliver their side of the bargain. Here, they’d take the reparations, and then not give you immigration restriction anyway.

    Also while it’s a nice mental exercise to think of a thousand ways you could give better deals for certain leftist constituencies, they won’t vote for you anyway.

    Indeed. The dissident Right picks on boomers quite a bit, and much of it is very justified, but they have their own side of the story. Specifically, Whites agreed to end de jure segregation, provide generous welfare benefits, accept affirmative action, and pay lip service to egalitarianism in response to the Civil Rights Movement. All blacks had to do was accept the existence of the White majority and remain loyal to the implicitly White USA. They have refused, instead choosing to side with you-know-who, agitating for endless displacement-level, non-white immivasion.

    Personally, I would have no great objection to Republicans making this offer, but it will never happen, because it presupposes a recognition of legitimate White ethnic interests.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    @Rosie

    "Generous" welfare benefits. Hahaha.

    I suppose no whites are on this "generous" welfare. Only a majority.

    Replies: @Mark G., @Rosie

  20. @EldnahYm
    The left doesn't need to attack the proposal. Instead they can come up with an even more radical proposal. This is just admitting defeat, trying to make short term gains(one election) while taking long term losses. All you would be doing here is possibly creating bi-partisan support for reparations, and making immigration restriction tied up with other issues.

    It's worthless to make compromises with blacks. Lie to them, try to discredit Democrats in the hopes of harming black turnout, but don't show weakness towards them. They don't respect that and will view it (correctly) as an opportunity to extract more in the future.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    I’m not saying out of cruelty, but out of necessity.

    Treat the African American group (and most sub saharan africans) the way you would treat a dog.

    If you give a dog scraps he will beg at the table every night. If you don’t train your dog he will be rambunctious and destructive. If you don’t assert yourself as master, he will not listen to you.

    You have to tell blacks to fuck off, essentially. They can’t do facts or logic. It’s either give them what they want, or tell them to take a hike.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @anon
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian


    If you give a dog scraps he will beg at the table every night. If you don’t train your dog he will be rambunctious and destructive. If you don’t assert yourself as master, he will not listen to you.

    You have to tell blacks to fuck off, essentially
     
    not just blacks, we have to say it to all non-whites except NE Asians, who are the one group that's not a huge drain on us

    jews, black, brown, mooslims - all got to go

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    They did well enough even vis-a-vis whites in the middle part of the 20th century. Certainly better than dogs could ever do.

  21. why don’t they go after the individuals and companies that got rich off slavery?

    for example the Monsantos just sold their toxic chemical business for $66 billion

  22. You will not be allowed anything, so you might as well self-deplatform

    Get off of Big Social

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @216


    Get off of Big Social
     
    I'm proud of you, 216, for not saying...

    Thot status: patrolled

    BTW, something I've been wondering, how does schoolmarm feel about the term "thot"?

    Replies: @216, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Audacious Epigone

  23. The only thing that matters is remediating the demographic ballot box stuffing by “New Americans” that vote for greater centralization of social policy.

    An immigration moratorium won’t do it.

    The 1924 immigration moratorium was too late. We got FDR stuffing the Supreme Court to the point that a farmer couldn’t grow feed for his own animals and “America First” being denounced as Nazi so we could sacrifice, in Europe, the sons of those farmers for the high purpose of saving Soviet lives.

    Trump’s election did only one thing to delay the day of reckoning:

    Appointing Supreme Court judges with enough lifespan to prevent “hate speech” and “gun control” laws from being passed and enforced for a few more years.

    After that grace period is over…

  24. @216
    You will not be allowed anything, so you might as well self-deplatform

    https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/1115279949550817281

    Get off of Big Social

    Replies: @Rosie

    Get off of Big Social

    I’m proud of you, 216, for not saying…

    Thot status: patrolled

    BTW, something I’ve been wondering, how does schoolmarm feel about the term “thot”?

    • Replies: @216
    @Rosie

    In the interest of civility I will refrain from using it, even though it is deserved.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Rosie

    Yes, what we need are more banned words because shut up.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Rosie

    It's trashy but it's not dehumanizing so she tolerates it.

    Replies: @Rosie

  25. anon[350] • Disclaimer says:
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    @EldnahYm

    I'm not saying out of cruelty, but out of necessity.

    Treat the African American group (and most sub saharan africans) the way you would treat a dog.

    If you give a dog scraps he will beg at the table every night. If you don't train your dog he will be rambunctious and destructive. If you don't assert yourself as master, he will not listen to you.

    You have to tell blacks to fuck off, essentially. They can't do facts or logic. It's either give them what they want, or tell them to take a hike.

    Replies: @anon, @Audacious Epigone

    If you give a dog scraps he will beg at the table every night. If you don’t train your dog he will be rambunctious and destructive. If you don’t assert yourself as master, he will not listen to you.

    You have to tell blacks to fuck off, essentially

    not just blacks, we have to say it to all non-whites except NE Asians, who are the one group that’s not a huge drain on us

    jews, black, brown, mooslims – all got to go

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @anon

    Not going to happen. Possession is 9/10ths of the law, as they say.

  26. bc says:

    Just over thirty years ago, President Ronald Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986. We refer to it today as the Reagan amnesty. Amnesty was granted to millions of illegal aliens in return for effective border control and penalizing employers who hire illegal aliens. We are still waiting for those two parts of the bargain to be fulfilled.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Fidelios Automata
    @bc

    Exactly!

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @bc

    Yes, Ronnie should not have signed it, and he had big regrets later on about this.

  27. @Peripatetic Commenter
    There is no need for reparations for blacks.

    Compared to living in Africa they hit the jackpot when their ancestors were brought to America (and generally not by white Americans.)

    If they want reparations they should ask the blacks back in Africa who sold their ancestors or the descendants of those who financed the slave ships.

    However, many white countries should ask oil-rich ME countries for reparations for all their slaving activity in the past!

    Replies: @Truth

    What if there were no slave ships, and they weren’t brought here from Africa?

    What if like the Moon Landing and the Holocaust, the whole “African Slave Trade” thing was a hoax?

    What if “go back to Africa” could no longer be honestly uttered?

    There are a growing group of Americans that believe these things, and that’s going to be a gamechanger.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter
    @Truth

    I can't help it if there are stupid people in the world.

    There were slave ships and slaving run both into Europe and Slavic lands by Muslims as well as to West Africa by various others.

    The moon landing doesn't look too impossible.

    There were lots of Jews slaughtered in places north of Poland, but it seems unlikely the Germans operated ovens at Auschwitz.

    Do you always traffic in nonsense?

    Replies: @Truth

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @Truth


    ... that’s going to be a gamechanger.
     
    Yes, for the State Hospitals. Indeed, it may give just them the boost in enrollment that they need to become viable Institutions again.

    Replies: @Truth

    , @SunBakedSuburb
    @Truth

    "What if 'go back to Africa' could no longer be honestly uttered?"

    How about "go back to Africa with this bag of reparations cash?" It doesn't have to be Africa; the Caribbean looks pretty nice.

    Replies: @iffen, @Truth, @Mr. Rational

  28. @Rosie
    @216


    Get off of Big Social
     
    I'm proud of you, 216, for not saying...

    Thot status: patrolled

    BTW, something I've been wondering, how does schoolmarm feel about the term "thot"?

    Replies: @216, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Audacious Epigone

    In the interest of civility I will refrain from using it, even though it is deserved.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @216


    even though it is deserved.
     
    I can think of anyone further from whoredom than Faith Goldy. Drop-dead gorgeous with intelligence to back it up. I'm quite sure she could do a great deal better for herself in any other business than White advocacy! I will always have a special admiration for the innocent way in which she entered this movement. She went to a rally and provided fair and neutral coverage to White men asserting their rights, and for that she was put out on the street. I distinctly remember Millennial Woes telling her not to worry because she had "new friends now" in one of his videos. Unfortunately, her treatment has often been disgraceful. (I'm looking at you, Matt Parrot. I saw your tweet about her a few weeks ago.)

    Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

  29. @Wolverine
    Haven’t we already paid reparations? I am sure there has been a huge transfer of wealth from white America to Black America since the 1960s. Has anyone ever tried to quantitate it?

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Binks007, @EliteCommInc., @Mr. Rational, @Mr. Rational

    Yes, I have seen numbers in the 20 trillion range. I’ll look for the source.

  30. @Wolverine
    Haven’t we already paid reparations? I am sure there has been a huge transfer of wealth from white America to Black America since the 1960s. Has anyone ever tried to quantitate it?

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Binks007, @EliteCommInc., @Mr. Rational, @Mr. Rational

    There are some stats on those subsidies. I think it was in this blog. Though which article I cannot recall. There was even an attempted to strategy to quantify by tax revenues.

    But the problem is that those subsidies were indicative of conditions in the now and were distributed among whites as well. So they would’t really classify. You don’t get government distribution of welfare until around 1960. The New Deal was distributed to whites first. Let’s eschew the contend that whites deserved because they were white.

    Whenever the economy takes a hit, those on lower rungs get hit worse.

  31. @Mark G.
    I would be for blacks paying whites reparations. They should pay reparations for the decline in white property values due to high levels of black crime. Not only have whites in many cities seen these declines over the last sixty years, many houses in cities have been completely abandoned by whites at great financial loss in order to flee to safer suburbs. In addition to these losses in property value, the whites who stayed should also be given reparations for the times they've been victims of black crime and also for the additional cost of black crime prevention measures like locks, fences, guns and burglary alarms. In addition to this, blacks should pay reparations for all the jobs lost by whites due to affirmative action. Blacks should also pay reparations to whites for the billions in welfare provided to blacks who didn't bother to complete school, get a job and only have children they could support.

    Replies: @EliteCommInc.

    “Blacks should also pay reparations to whites for the billions in welfare provided to blacks who didn’t bother to complete school, get a job and only have children they could support. ”

    I take it you mean both whites and blacks in this category.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @EliteCommInc.

    Much more welfare flows to blacks than whites. Liberals are often disingenuous and point out that whites receive sixty percent of welfare versus thirty percent of welfare going to blacks while ignoring the fact that non-hispanic whites make up sixty three percent of the population while blacks make up fourteen percent. That means blacks get double the amount of welfare than their percentage of the population and are individually twice as likely to get welfare as whites. Social Security is often included under welfare but you have to consider that people pay into that before receiving benefits so it is not really in the same category as other welfare programs. If you strip out Social Security, then the disparity in welfare between whites and blacks is even larger with blacks using many welfare programs at the same rate as whites even though their numbers are only one fourth of whites.

    Replies: @EliteCommInc., @obwandiyag

    , @C. ThunderCock
    @EliteCommInc.

    Anti-white parasite in favor of rewards by Ethnic group when there's a net benefit to non-whites, against it in favor of "individuality" when there's a net benefit for whites, IMAGINE MOI SHOCK.
    I know you're just being a disingenuous little prick as usual, but you're dreaming if you think an honest accounting on an individual basis as per your request wouldn't be a massive net loss for Blacks (hence the obvious utility of using Race as the standard).

    Replies: @EliteCommInc.

  32. @216
    @Rosie

    In the interest of civility I will refrain from using it, even though it is deserved.

    Replies: @Rosie

    even though it is deserved.

    I can think of anyone further from whoredom than Faith Goldy. Drop-dead gorgeous with intelligence to back it up. I’m quite sure she could do a great deal better for herself in any other business than White advocacy! I will always have a special admiration for the innocent way in which she entered this movement. She went to a rally and provided fair and neutral coverage to White men asserting their rights, and for that she was put out on the street. I distinctly remember Millennial Woes telling her not to worry because she had “new friends now” in one of his videos. Unfortunately, her treatment has often been disgraceful. (I’m looking at you, Matt Parrot. I saw your tweet about her a few weeks ago.)

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    @Rosie

    I met Faith Goldy in person. She seems like a smart, upbeat, friendly lady. I certainly have no problem with her. I think most of the screeching about her is fake, ginned up by online trolls to discredit her.

    It's always fun being at the right wing rallies. People like Goldy and others are very nice people. Lots of funny people too. I was with some buddies and we were shit talking the antifa, and talking to the cops about immigration and crime.

    There are some cops that are *very* friendly to us, obviously trying to make the point that they agreed with our signs and flags.

    Anyways, my point is. The "white nationalists" like myself and Faith Goldy are just average guys. Some rednecks, some working class, some educated. We don't hate people, we just want a homeland. The other side, antifa, is quite disgusting. Full of trannies, drug addicts and communists. The deplatforming is wrong, but there hasn't been *any* direct WN action against anybody other than some random Muslims in New Zealand so....

    Replies: @216

  33. Terrible bargain. Reparations are a farce and Republicans who entertain the idea seriously may as well stick a gun in their mouth.

    Think about it: There is no one left alive by several generations that either owned slaves or was one. There are millions of European descendants currently in the US who do not have ancestors that lived in the US during the period of legal slavery, or were a part of the conquering of the Amerindians. Why are they accountable?

    Further is the precedent set: Now, we are all accountable for the sins of our ancestors? Your grandfather killed (or robbed, or raped, or swindled, etc) my grandfather so now you are financially liable to me?

    As someone said – reparations have already been paid out in the trillions, in the form of welfare entitlements, money spent in attempts to close the achievement gap, affirmative action, and finally, countless white vaginas that have been offered up to the god of the irresponsibly insatiable negro sex drive, willing or otherwise, so that fatherless mulatto bastards can go forth continue the good work of violent criminality and or poor work ethic.

    Here’s what I propose:

  34. @EliteCommInc.
    @Mark G.

    "Blacks should also pay reparations to whites for the billions in welfare provided to blacks who didn’t bother to complete school, get a job and only have children they could support. "

    I take it you mean both whites and blacks in this category.

    Replies: @Mark G., @C. ThunderCock

    Much more welfare flows to blacks than whites. Liberals are often disingenuous and point out that whites receive sixty percent of welfare versus thirty percent of welfare going to blacks while ignoring the fact that non-hispanic whites make up sixty three percent of the population while blacks make up fourteen percent. That means blacks get double the amount of welfare than their percentage of the population and are individually twice as likely to get welfare as whites. Social Security is often included under welfare but you have to consider that people pay into that before receiving benefits so it is not really in the same category as other welfare programs. If you strip out Social Security, then the disparity in welfare between whites and blacks is even larger with blacks using many welfare programs at the same rate as whites even though their numbers are only one fourth of whites.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    @Mark G.

    I won't even contend the numbers or the strange analysis for the moment. Your comment is nonresponsive. I presume you mean whites and blacks in the category you reference.

    , @obwandiyag
    @Mark G.

    Wrong. You don't know what "more" means.

  35. @Rosie
    @216


    even though it is deserved.
     
    I can think of anyone further from whoredom than Faith Goldy. Drop-dead gorgeous with intelligence to back it up. I'm quite sure she could do a great deal better for herself in any other business than White advocacy! I will always have a special admiration for the innocent way in which she entered this movement. She went to a rally and provided fair and neutral coverage to White men asserting their rights, and for that she was put out on the street. I distinctly remember Millennial Woes telling her not to worry because she had "new friends now" in one of his videos. Unfortunately, her treatment has often been disgraceful. (I'm looking at you, Matt Parrot. I saw your tweet about her a few weeks ago.)

    Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    I met Faith Goldy in person. She seems like a smart, upbeat, friendly lady. I certainly have no problem with her. I think most of the screeching about her is fake, ginned up by online trolls to discredit her.

    It’s always fun being at the right wing rallies. People like Goldy and others are very nice people. Lots of funny people too. I was with some buddies and we were shit talking the antifa, and talking to the cops about immigration and crime.

    There are some cops that are *very* friendly to us, obviously trying to make the point that they agreed with our signs and flags.

    Anyways, my point is. The “white nationalists” like myself and Faith Goldy are just average guys. Some rednecks, some working class, some educated. We don’t hate people, we just want a homeland. The other side, antifa, is quite disgusting. Full of trannies, drug addicts and communists. The deplatforming is wrong, but there hasn’t been *any* direct WN action against anybody other than some random Muslims in New Zealand so….

    • Replies: @216
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    The media narrative says otherwise, regardless of what you personally believe.

    https://twitter.com/10M_a_day/status/1115327359094280192

    BTW, dehumanization is a bad look.

    Replies: @EldnahYm, @Audacious Epigone

  36. @Truth
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    What if there were no slave ships, and they weren't brought here from Africa?

    What if like the Moon Landing and the Holocaust, the whole "African Slave Trade" thing was a hoax?

    What if "go back to Africa" could no longer be honestly uttered?

    There are a growing group of Americans that believe these things, and that's going to be a gamechanger.

    Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter, @Achmed E. Newman, @SunBakedSuburb

    I can’t help it if there are stupid people in the world.

    There were slave ships and slaving run both into Europe and Slavic lands by Muslims as well as to West Africa by various others.

    The moon landing doesn’t look too impossible.

    There were lots of Jews slaughtered in places north of Poland, but it seems unlikely the Germans operated ovens at Auschwitz.

    Do you always traffic in nonsense?

    • Replies: @Truth
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    So let me see if I get this straight:

    1) There were slave ships although not one has ever been recovered.

    2) The moon landing "doesn't look too impossible."

    3) The holocaust was only half-hoax.

    4) I traffic in nonsense.

  37. @Rosie
    @216


    Get off of Big Social
     
    I'm proud of you, 216, for not saying...

    Thot status: patrolled

    BTW, something I've been wondering, how does schoolmarm feel about the term "thot"?

    Replies: @216, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Audacious Epigone

    Yes, what we need are more banned words because shut up.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    Yes, what we need are more banned words because shut up.
     
    Actually yes, some words should be banned because they have no intellectual content. They don't advance the argument in any way, but only hinder it by allowing loudmouth bullies to run off any commenters whose arguments they find inconvenient.

    All that said, it's AE's blog. He can choose to moderate or not, ideally in a principled, consistent manner. There is no argument for banning n***** and k*** but allowing t***.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Audacious Epigone

  38. This “grand bargain” reminds me of the 1986 Reagan “bargain” on immigration.
    How did that work out?

  39. @216
    O/T

    Hugbox

    https://twitter.com/triketora/status/1114890731783507970

    Like it or not, Manners maketh man.

    Continued relevancy of the Right depends upon our understanding that "edgelord" behavior is increasingly unacceptable to the growing number of cat-ladies. By and large our movements are despised by most white Millennials.

    Whenever we act up, even worse through IRL violence, the hammer comes down hard. There is not going to be any EO coming out of the WH, or any FCC actions that will force Big Social to allow outright Neo-Nazism back on to their sites.

    Replies: @Issac, @SunBakedSuburb

    They should be encouraged to purity spiral as often as possible. The right is effectively gone from polite society online and off. The utility of social media is to encourage the hard left to put lead in their own feet by goring the center.

  40. @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Rosie

    Yes, what we need are more banned words because shut up.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Yes, what we need are more banned words because shut up.

    Actually yes, some words should be banned because they have no intellectual content. They don’t advance the argument in any way, but only hinder it by allowing loudmouth bullies to run off any commenters whose arguments they find inconvenient.

    All that said, it’s AE’s blog. He can choose to moderate or not, ideally in a principled, consistent manner. There is no argument for banning n***** and k*** but allowing t***.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Rosie

    I don't know what "thot" is. Maybe you or Mike could explain. What are you people talking about? I should keep up more, but I'm NOT on social freaking media, so ...

    Replies: @Rosie, @Mr. Rational, @MikeatMikedotMike

    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Rosie

    "Actually yes, some words should be banned because they have no intellectual content. "

    Subjective. Your list will vary from anyone else's.

    "by allowing loudmouth bullies to run off any commenters whose arguments they find inconvenient."

    The word bully has no intellectual content. As with the term racist, its use means to stifle discussion, not assist it. Even so, you have the ignore feature. I make careful use of it.

    "There is no argument for banning n***** and k*** but allowing t***."

    Sure there is. One cannot choose to be a negro or a(n) (ethnic) Jew, but one has a choice about whether she is a whore or not.

    "He can choose to moderate or not, ideally in a principled, consistent manner. "

    The only truly consistent word moderation requires banning all words, or banning none.
    I prefer to ban no words. Allowing people to communicate uncensored provides readers with a better sense of who they are dealing with.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Rosie

    Does "thot" run people off the same way N- or K- does? I don't think so, but I may be incorrect.

    Replies: @Rosie

  41. @Mark G.
    @EliteCommInc.

    Much more welfare flows to blacks than whites. Liberals are often disingenuous and point out that whites receive sixty percent of welfare versus thirty percent of welfare going to blacks while ignoring the fact that non-hispanic whites make up sixty three percent of the population while blacks make up fourteen percent. That means blacks get double the amount of welfare than their percentage of the population and are individually twice as likely to get welfare as whites. Social Security is often included under welfare but you have to consider that people pay into that before receiving benefits so it is not really in the same category as other welfare programs. If you strip out Social Security, then the disparity in welfare between whites and blacks is even larger with blacks using many welfare programs at the same rate as whites even though their numbers are only one fourth of whites.

    Replies: @EliteCommInc., @obwandiyag

    I won’t even contend the numbers or the strange analysis for the moment. Your comment is nonresponsive. I presume you mean whites and blacks in the category you reference.

  42. Silly, no one is offering the bargain that you write about. If you are offering it, I do not think you will have any takers. Suppose black people by a majority said, sure give me reparations and it is OK with me closing the border and ending all immigration. So what? Black people do not control immigration so they cannot stop it no matter what they want.

    The people who do control immigration are basically indifferent to reparations. They may support it as a political wedge, but it is not like they support immigration as part of a gigantic fairness and ethical package where higher taxes on hedge funds allow them to ease up on immigration and maintain the same amount of virtue in the world or something.

  43. You are getting some really nasty comments. I am a 1st amendment guy but somehow isteve avoids the really nasty stuff. Maybe you need to moderate comments “at whim”.

    • Disagree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @scrivener3

    Huh? What nasty comments? Not everyone agrees with the post every time, but not agreeing is not necessarily being nasty.

  44. The bargain would never work. They’d get their reparations and we’d get some Marxist 9th circuit justice ruling that the immigration ban was unconstitutional. Furthermore, bargaining with con artists like Sharpton is like trying to appease SJW’s. It will only increase their “gimme” demands.

  45. @bc
    Just over thirty years ago, President Ronald Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986. We refer to it today as the Reagan amnesty. Amnesty was granted to millions of illegal aliens in return for effective border control and penalizing employers who hire illegal aliens. We are still waiting for those two parts of the bargain to be fulfilled.

    Replies: @Fidelios Automata, @Achmed E. Newman

    Exactly!

  46. Perhaps one could, but we’d never see the immigration moratorium and the sun would never set on the reparations. Our enemies have no honor. They cannot be bargained with. Either we destroy them, they destroy us, or we separate*.

    * Eternal vigilance required if we manage to separate.

  47. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    @Rosie

    I met Faith Goldy in person. She seems like a smart, upbeat, friendly lady. I certainly have no problem with her. I think most of the screeching about her is fake, ginned up by online trolls to discredit her.

    It's always fun being at the right wing rallies. People like Goldy and others are very nice people. Lots of funny people too. I was with some buddies and we were shit talking the antifa, and talking to the cops about immigration and crime.

    There are some cops that are *very* friendly to us, obviously trying to make the point that they agreed with our signs and flags.

    Anyways, my point is. The "white nationalists" like myself and Faith Goldy are just average guys. Some rednecks, some working class, some educated. We don't hate people, we just want a homeland. The other side, antifa, is quite disgusting. Full of trannies, drug addicts and communists. The deplatforming is wrong, but there hasn't been *any* direct WN action against anybody other than some random Muslims in New Zealand so....

    Replies: @216

    The media narrative says otherwise, regardless of what you personally believe.

    https://twitter.com/10M_a_day/status/1115327359094280192

    BTW, dehumanization is a bad look.

    • Replies: @EldnahYm
    @216

    Eliot Engel is a Jew of course.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @216

    The "white nationalist" hearings were probably an own-goal by the left, fortunately. I've talked to normies about it over the last couple of days and it has been 100% lampooning.

    Candace Owens did a great job. Anytime antifa is called out is good, and she's laid the groundwork for people to start responding to "white nationalist!" with "nice campaign slogan, good luck with that". It's already lost its sting.

  48. @Peripatetic Commenter
    @Truth

    I can't help it if there are stupid people in the world.

    There were slave ships and slaving run both into Europe and Slavic lands by Muslims as well as to West Africa by various others.

    The moon landing doesn't look too impossible.

    There were lots of Jews slaughtered in places north of Poland, but it seems unlikely the Germans operated ovens at Auschwitz.

    Do you always traffic in nonsense?

    Replies: @Truth

    So let me see if I get this straight:

    1) There were slave ships although not one has ever been recovered.

    2) The moon landing “doesn’t look too impossible.”

    3) The holocaust was only half-hoax.

    4) I traffic in nonsense.

  49. This “grand bargain” is out. An immigration moratorium would require enforcing existing immigration law to stop illegals, and that needs to be in place BEFORE engaging in any further discussion. Otherwise you’re just gently asking permission for something that shouldn’t even be negotiated in the first place.

    Re: the moon landing, the thing to note here is that (((lies))) always are targeted at breaking down white/western culture and achievements and making whites feel bad about themselves. They are NEVER designed to make whites feel proud of themselves or to inspire them with achievements to emulate or surpass. Take a look at the moon landing “debate” and ask yourself which side achieves one result, and which side achieves the other.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  50. 3140683

    As much as I see that comment as a bit over-the-top, Schlomo, as far as your last part:

    This would be a better suggestion than reparations.

    AGREED.

    It ain’t like we’d be taking taxpayers’ money and giving it to people who have been wronged. Not a one of the Grandparents/Great-Grandparents of the people you’d be stealing from working people to give cash to, were wronged by anyone alive today, for the case of Indians/Blacks, respectively.

    To hell with this idea.

  51. @bc
    Just over thirty years ago, President Ronald Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986. We refer to it today as the Reagan amnesty. Amnesty was granted to millions of illegal aliens in return for effective border control and penalizing employers who hire illegal aliens. We are still waiting for those two parts of the bargain to be fulfilled.

    Replies: @Fidelios Automata, @Achmed E. Newman

    Yes, Ronnie should not have signed it, and he had big regrets later on about this.

  52. @Rosie
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    Yes, what we need are more banned words because shut up.
     
    Actually yes, some words should be banned because they have no intellectual content. They don't advance the argument in any way, but only hinder it by allowing loudmouth bullies to run off any commenters whose arguments they find inconvenient.

    All that said, it's AE's blog. He can choose to moderate or not, ideally in a principled, consistent manner. There is no argument for banning n***** and k*** but allowing t***.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Audacious Epigone

    I don’t know what “thot” is. Maybe you or Mike could explain. What are you people talking about? I should keep up more, but I’m NOT on social freaking media, so …

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Achmed E. Newman


    I don’t know what “thot” is. Maybe you or Mike could explain. What are you people talking about? I should keep up more, but I’m NOT on social freaking media, so …
     
    T (that)
    H (hoe)
    O (over)
    T (there)

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    , @Mr. Rational
    @Achmed E. Newman

    When mystified about a slang term, Urban Dictionary is your friend.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Achmed E. Newman

    For the record, I don't use the term "thot." It's a staple over at Heartiste's. I just use the term "whore" if the situation calls for it. Adding "that, over." and "there" doesn't make the point any better.

    It still doesn't mean I'd ban it.

  53. @iffen
    That's not a bargain. The Americans that do not qualify get nothing in exchange for reparations. The rest of America should get quotas, affirmative action set-asides and all proactive attempts at “diversity” by any governmental unit made illegal. The use of disparate impact as a legal doctrine should be prohibited. Actually, we need a constitutional amendment that prohibits the collection or use of data by any metric of group characteristics by any governmental unit of any kind.

    You did not address the non-enforcement of immigration laws which is what the Republican Party sewer pond scum leaders (most) prefer. We should also get immigration law reform, for instance, a sane policy with regard to “refugees.”

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Audacious Epigone

    Actually, we need a constitutional amendment that prohibits the collection or use of data by any metric of group characteristics by any governmental unit of any kind.

    Hey!

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    You are quite welcome.

    – Founding Fathers

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Good luck with executing.

  54. @Truth
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    What if there were no slave ships, and they weren't brought here from Africa?

    What if like the Moon Landing and the Holocaust, the whole "African Slave Trade" thing was a hoax?

    What if "go back to Africa" could no longer be honestly uttered?

    There are a growing group of Americans that believe these things, and that's going to be a gamechanger.

    Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter, @Achmed E. Newman, @SunBakedSuburb

    … that’s going to be a gamechanger.

    Yes, for the State Hospitals. Indeed, it may give just them the boost in enrollment that they need to become viable Institutions again.

    • Replies: @Truth
    @Achmed E. Newman

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tposm-kxdmI

  55. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Truth


    ... that’s going to be a gamechanger.
     
    Yes, for the State Hospitals. Indeed, it may give just them the boost in enrollment that they need to become viable Institutions again.

    Replies: @Truth

  56. @Rosie
    @reiner Tor


    But the issue is, you cannot make a deal with these people. They accept nothing short of your destruction, so there’s no point in trying to come up with reasonable bargains. They’d take what you give them, and then not deliver their side of the bargain. Here, they’d take the reparations, and then not give you immigration restriction anyway.

    Also while it’s a nice mental exercise to think of a thousand ways you could give better deals for certain leftist constituencies, they won’t vote for you anyway.
     
    Indeed. The dissident Right picks on boomers quite a bit, and much of it is very justified, but they have their own side of the story. Specifically, Whites agreed to end de jure segregation, provide generous welfare benefits, accept affirmative action, and pay lip service to egalitarianism in response to the Civil Rights Movement. All blacks had to do was accept the existence of the White majority and remain loyal to the implicitly White USA. They have refused, instead choosing to side with you-know-who, agitating for endless displacement-level, non-white immivasion.

    Personally, I would have no great objection to Republicans making this offer, but it will never happen, because it presupposes a recognition of legitimate White ethnic interests.

    Replies: @obwandiyag

    “Generous” welfare benefits. Hahaha.

    I suppose no whites are on this “generous” welfare. Only a majority.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @obwandiyag

    Whites don't need blacks. If every black person in the United States suddenly disappeared in a puff of smoke whites would be better off overall. If every white person disappeared blacks would be in trouble. Whites are always trying to move away from blacks and blacks are always trying to follow them and move into their neighborhoods and into their schools. Blacks claim they are oppressed by whites but it's a strange kind of oppression if you are trying to follow your oppressor instead of trying to get away from him. Blacks are not able to create desirable societies on their own. The first step to doing so would require blacks to admit their shortcomings and try to improve and the majority of blacks are incapable of doing that. They would rather blame white people for their self-inflicted problems.

    Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude

    , @Rosie
    @obwandiyag


    I suppose no whites are on this “generous” welfare. Only a majority.
     
    Non-whites understand proportional relationships when they are on the losing side (disparate impact), but then play dumb when their own dysfunction is noticed.

    Replies: @obwandiyag

  57. @Mark G.
    @EliteCommInc.

    Much more welfare flows to blacks than whites. Liberals are often disingenuous and point out that whites receive sixty percent of welfare versus thirty percent of welfare going to blacks while ignoring the fact that non-hispanic whites make up sixty three percent of the population while blacks make up fourteen percent. That means blacks get double the amount of welfare than their percentage of the population and are individually twice as likely to get welfare as whites. Social Security is often included under welfare but you have to consider that people pay into that before receiving benefits so it is not really in the same category as other welfare programs. If you strip out Social Security, then the disparity in welfare between whites and blacks is even larger with blacks using many welfare programs at the same rate as whites even though their numbers are only one fourth of whites.

    Replies: @EliteCommInc., @obwandiyag

    Wrong. You don’t know what “more” means.

  58. It would be easy to fund reparations. The US Forest Service and the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management control millions of acres of land in the United States. Simply deed over $100,000 ($200,000?) of land to each eligible person.

    National Parks, Wilderness Areas, Wildlife Refuges and other scientifically, culturally or envronmentally senitive land would not be subject to exchange.

    This would return land to productive use, spuring the economy, and drive a wedge between environmentalists and a large portion of the Democrat Party coalition.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Hank Archer

    Some things are much more important to the environmentalists on the left than some little thing like the environment, Hank. That's why they won't mention overcrowding and destruction of the environment as results of immigration.

    No, they ain't getting no $100,000 piece of land, because there is not now anyone eligible - no slaves that I've seen, even on the back roads, and no Indians dependent on Buffalo meat.

  59. @obwandiyag
    @Rosie

    "Generous" welfare benefits. Hahaha.

    I suppose no whites are on this "generous" welfare. Only a majority.

    Replies: @Mark G., @Rosie

    Whites don’t need blacks. If every black person in the United States suddenly disappeared in a puff of smoke whites would be better off overall. If every white person disappeared blacks would be in trouble. Whites are always trying to move away from blacks and blacks are always trying to follow them and move into their neighborhoods and into their schools. Blacks claim they are oppressed by whites but it’s a strange kind of oppression if you are trying to follow your oppressor instead of trying to get away from him. Blacks are not able to create desirable societies on their own. The first step to doing so would require blacks to admit their shortcomings and try to improve and the majority of blacks are incapable of doing that. They would rather blame white people for their self-inflicted problems.

    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude
    @Mark G.

    I don't know why you give that Nigerian troll replies lol

  60. @EliteCommInc.
    @Mark G.

    "Blacks should also pay reparations to whites for the billions in welfare provided to blacks who didn’t bother to complete school, get a job and only have children they could support. "

    I take it you mean both whites and blacks in this category.

    Replies: @Mark G., @C. ThunderCock

    Anti-white parasite in favor of rewards by Ethnic group when there’s a net benefit to non-whites, against it in favor of “individuality” when there’s a net benefit for whites, IMAGINE MOI SHOCK.
    I know you’re just being a disingenuous little prick as usual, but you’re dreaming if you think an honest accounting on an individual basis as per your request wouldn’t be a massive net loss for Blacks (hence the obvious utility of using Race as the standard).

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    @C. ThunderCock

    Again, nonresponsive. Again, I will eschew the assumptions and peculiar analysis. But to the point of the matter, of repayment, I am sure the intended comment is for people who engage in this distinction you make regardless of skin color.


    ---------------------------------------------



    It never ceases to amaze turn on the personal. Be that as it may, I am unclear what evidence exists that I am "anti-white". But if you can locate some I would be happy to address it.

    If by rewards to ethnic group, I don't think I have a stated position on reparations if that os what you are on about. And I am not clear what is meant by

    "when there’s a net benefit to non-whites, against it in favor of “individuality” when there’s a net benefit for whites, IMAGINE MOI SHOCK."

    I am unclear where the argument fits and muchless. I am sure you have it clear in your mind, I am just unclear how to respond. I don't know if an individual accounting would yield the outcome you suggest. I have my doubts. But what I know for sure is this, if I am managing a loss, then I am going to be more concerned who creates that loss the most, regardless of the proportionality issue. Which from the originator of this question has provided some baffling analytics. His analysis seems to suggest that individual blacks are getting twice as much or some percentage more than whites in assistance programs based on proportional assessments. Now that is not what proportionality outcomes mean, but if you care to tackle the matter explaining how that is the case, I am certainly willing to hear it.
    -----------------

    Laughing.

    Now about this personal reference, I guess opinions vary.

  61. @scrivener3
    You are getting some really nasty comments. I am a 1st amendment guy but somehow isteve avoids the really nasty stuff. Maybe you need to moderate comments "at whim".

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Huh? What nasty comments? Not everyone agrees with the post every time, but not agreeing is not necessarily being nasty.

  62. @Hank Archer
    It would be easy to fund reparations. The US Forest Service and the Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management control millions of acres of land in the United States. Simply deed over $100,000 ($200,000?) of land to each eligible person.

    National Parks, Wilderness Areas, Wildlife Refuges and other scientifically, culturally or envronmentally senitive land would not be subject to exchange.

    This would return land to productive use, spuring the economy, and drive a wedge between environmentalists and a large portion of the Democrat Party coalition.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Some things are much more important to the environmentalists on the left than some little thing like the environment, Hank. That’s why they won’t mention overcrowding and destruction of the environment as results of immigration.

    No, they ain’t getting no $100,000 piece of land, because there is not now anyone eligible – no slaves that I’ve seen, even on the back roads, and no Indians dependent on Buffalo meat.

  63. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Rosie

    I don't know what "thot" is. Maybe you or Mike could explain. What are you people talking about? I should keep up more, but I'm NOT on social freaking media, so ...

    Replies: @Rosie, @Mr. Rational, @MikeatMikedotMike

    I don’t know what “thot” is. Maybe you or Mike could explain. What are you people talking about? I should keep up more, but I’m NOT on social freaking media, so …

    T (that)
    H (hoe)
    O (over)
    T (there)

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Rosie

    THANKS.

    That Hot-Assed Nubile Kinky Skank (?)

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  64. @obwandiyag
    @Rosie

    "Generous" welfare benefits. Hahaha.

    I suppose no whites are on this "generous" welfare. Only a majority.

    Replies: @Mark G., @Rosie

    I suppose no whites are on this “generous” welfare. Only a majority.

    Non-whites understand proportional relationships when they are on the losing side (disparate impact), but then play dumb when their own dysfunction is noticed.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    @Rosie

    Only complete imbeciles think welfare is "generous." Imbecile.

    Replies: @Truth

  65. @Wolverine
    Haven’t we already paid reparations? I am sure there has been a huge transfer of wealth from white America to Black America since the 1960s. Has anyone ever tried to quantitate it?

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Binks007, @EliteCommInc., @Mr. Rational, @Mr. Rational

    One good place to start is The Racial Tithe, which found that each black in the USA received an average of no less than $7700 per year in taxpayer-paid benefits not including the benefit of military defense.  That only counted welfare programs and taxes paid, I believe.  If the burden of the criminal justice system on non-blacks was added I’m sure it would top $12,000 per head per year.

    Note that said essay does not come up in most search engines and has been purged even from the Wayback Machine.  So much for preserving history!  Read it if you can find it.

    • Replies: @res
    @Mr. Rational

    "This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine."

    That's the message there. It's new to me. I guess the Wayback Machine isn't a safe repository.

    There is some discussion at https://www.discussionist.com/10151534952
    but the page they link to has been scrubbed as well.

    You can see the beginning at https://neoreactive.curiaregis.net/2016/05/12/the-racial-tithe/

    You can see Disqus comments at https://disqus.com/home/discussion/therightstuffbiz/the_racial_tithe_25/

    Does anyone have a copy?

    This looks similar: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/05/11/fiscal-impact-of-whites-blacks-and-hispanics/
    Is it just the same article with a different title? The beginning is the same. The Wayback Machine has copies of this as well.

    , @BengaliCanadianDude
    @Mr. Rational

    Alt-Hype wrote about this

    Replies: @Talha

    , @Truth
    @Mr. Rational

    I'm afraid it doesn't work that way, Old Sport.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/16/the-biggest-beneficiaries-of-the-government-safety-net-working-class-whites/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3a0ab0d82952

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2012/09/03/real-welfare-problem-government-giveaways-corporate-1

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Mr. Rational

    Was it originally Ryan Faulk's?

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  66. @Rosie
    @Achmed E. Newman


    I don’t know what “thot” is. Maybe you or Mike could explain. What are you people talking about? I should keep up more, but I’m NOT on social freaking media, so …
     
    T (that)
    H (hoe)
    O (over)
    T (there)

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    THANKS.

    That Hot-Assed Nubile Kinky Skank (?)

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Oh brother.

  67. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Rosie

    I don't know what "thot" is. Maybe you or Mike could explain. What are you people talking about? I should keep up more, but I'm NOT on social freaking media, so ...

    Replies: @Rosie, @Mr. Rational, @MikeatMikedotMike

    When mystified about a slang term, Urban Dictionary is your friend.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Mr. Rational

    I'll make an effort to remember that site, Mr. R. Thanks.

  68. @Wolverine
    Haven’t we already paid reparations? I am sure there has been a huge transfer of wealth from white America to Black America since the 1960s. Has anyone ever tried to quantitate it?

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Binks007, @EliteCommInc., @Mr. Rational, @Mr. Rational

    Ah, found The Racial Tithe at archive.is.

    Save a copy while it’s still there.  The analysis alone should be examined as a study in how to extract information that the gatekeepers want locked up.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Mr. Rational

    Given that blacks have ALREADY received massive "reparations" (even without including the deadweight losses of affirmative action overhead and minority business set-asides) and are still complaining it's not enough, it's time to crack down on them.  Hard.

    We should begin by housing ALL black felons and black illegal aliens off our shores, preferably in Africa.  Since they would not be a danger to US residents if they escaped their "prison", it could be an open-air affair with nothing more than a 4-foot cyclone fence to mark the boundary; "inmates" would only have to be counted at morning muster to get credit for their time served.  I'm sure both Liberia and Ghana would love to have themselves some of that business, and it would cost the US taxpayers quite a bit less than keeping them in cells here.

    For a bonus, after they are released make them pay their own way back, and offer them a nice cash bonus to surrender their US citizenship so we can keep them out permanently.  This also eliminates the problem of having them on voter rolls electing Democrats.

    Best of all, their families might move to Africa to be with them and get out from under "racist oppression".  ;-)

    Replies: @Truth

  69. @Mr. Rational
    @Wolverine

    Ah, found The Racial Tithe at archive.is.

    Save a copy while it's still there.  The analysis alone should be examined as a study in how to extract information that the gatekeepers want locked up.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Given that blacks have ALREADY received massive “reparations” (even without including the deadweight losses of affirmative action overhead and minority business set-asides) and are still complaining it’s not enough, it’s time to crack down on them.  Hard.

    We should begin by housing ALL black felons and black illegal aliens off our shores, preferably in Africa.  Since they would not be a danger to US residents if they escaped their “prison”, it could be an open-air affair with nothing more than a 4-foot cyclone fence to mark the boundary; “inmates” would only have to be counted at morning muster to get credit for their time served.  I’m sure both Liberia and Ghana would love to have themselves some of that business, and it would cost the US taxpayers quite a bit less than keeping them in cells here.

    For a bonus, after they are released make them pay their own way back, and offer them a nice cash bonus to surrender their US citizenship so we can keep them out permanently.  This also eliminates the problem of having them on voter rolls electing Democrats.

    Best of all, their families might move to Africa to be with them and get out from under “racist oppression”.  😉

    • Replies: @Truth
    @Mr. Rational


    We should begin by housing ALL black felons and black illegal aliens off our shores, preferably in Africa. Since they would not be a danger to US residents if they escaped their “prison”, it could be an open-air affair with nothing more than a 4-foot cyclone fence to mark the boundary; “inmates” would only have to be counted at morning muster to get credit for their time served. I’m sure both Liberia and Ghana would love to have themselves some of that business, and it would cost the US taxpayers quite a bit less than keeping them in cells here.

    For a bonus, after they are released make them pay their own way back, and offer them a nice cash bonus to surrender their US citizenship so we can keep them out permanently. This also eliminates the problem of having them on voter rolls electing Democrats.
     
    Are you asleep, dreamwriting at your desk again, Rational? Wake up and get the lead out, old Sport, your boss warned you last week, and that code is not going to write itself.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  70. @216
    O/T

    Hugbox

    https://twitter.com/triketora/status/1114890731783507970

    Like it or not, Manners maketh man.

    Continued relevancy of the Right depends upon our understanding that "edgelord" behavior is increasingly unacceptable to the growing number of cat-ladies. By and large our movements are despised by most white Millennials.

    Whenever we act up, even worse through IRL violence, the hammer comes down hard. There is not going to be any EO coming out of the WH, or any FCC actions that will force Big Social to allow outright Neo-Nazism back on to their sites.

    Replies: @Issac, @SunBakedSuburb

    “… ‘edgelord’ behavior is increasingly unacceptable to the growing number of cat-ladies.”

    Cat-ladies usually keep to themselves, and their numbers are dwindling due to generational die-off. They have been replaced by dog-ladies who are mostly extroverts. But males tend to overlook the dog-lady threat because they are comfortable with canine servility and believe dog is God spelled backwards.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  71. @Prodigal son
    Would the reparations payments result in many blacks no longer qualifying for welfare ?

    Would Blacks under the age of 18 qualify for reparations ? A mother with 3 kids would be raking in 3,000 per month...could she still live in public housing ? Still collect welfare and food stamps ?

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @SunBakedSuburb, @Audacious Epigone

    “Would the reparations payments result in many blacks no longer qualifying for welfare?”

    No. Blacks will still be entitled to welfare benefits, but under the new reparations law their parties will become longer, louder, and more extravagant.

  72. @Truth
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    What if there were no slave ships, and they weren't brought here from Africa?

    What if like the Moon Landing and the Holocaust, the whole "African Slave Trade" thing was a hoax?

    What if "go back to Africa" could no longer be honestly uttered?

    There are a growing group of Americans that believe these things, and that's going to be a gamechanger.

    Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter, @Achmed E. Newman, @SunBakedSuburb

    “What if ‘go back to Africa’ could no longer be honestly uttered?”

    How about “go back to Africa with this bag of reparations cash?” It doesn’t have to be Africa; the Caribbean looks pretty nice.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @SunBakedSuburb

    the Caribbean looks pretty nice.

    I think that you are missing it. Quite a few Caribbeans immigrate to the US.

    , @Truth
    @SunBakedSuburb

    But if the true insult is "go back to Southern New Jersey" because that's where the ancestors were before The Mayflower?

    , @Mr. Rational
    @SunBakedSuburb


    It doesn’t have to be Africa; the Caribbean looks pretty nice.
     
    The Caribbean is too nice to waste on Africans.  Send them back to their own continent and society; they are the only ones who created it, or deserve to suffer it.
  73. res says:
    @Mr. Rational
    @Wolverine

    One good place to start is The Racial Tithe, which found that each black in the USA received an average of no less than $7700 per year in taxpayer-paid benefits not including the benefit of military defense.  That only counted welfare programs and taxes paid, I believe.  If the burden of the criminal justice system on non-blacks was added I'm sure it would top $12,000 per head per year.

    Note that said essay does not come up in most search engines and has been purged even from the Wayback Machine.  So much for preserving history!  Read it if you can find it.

    Replies: @res, @BengaliCanadianDude, @Truth, @Audacious Epigone

    “This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine.”

    That’s the message there. It’s new to me. I guess the Wayback Machine isn’t a safe repository.

    There is some discussion at https://www.discussionist.com/10151534952
    but the page they link to has been scrubbed as well.

    You can see the beginning at https://neoreactive.curiaregis.net/2016/05/12/the-racial-tithe/

    You can see Disqus comments at https://disqus.com/home/discussion/therightstuffbiz/the_racial_tithe_25/

    Does anyone have a copy?

    This looks similar: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/05/11/fiscal-impact-of-whites-blacks-and-hispanics/
    Is it just the same article with a different title? The beginning is the same. The Wayback Machine has copies of this as well.

  74. @Mr. Rational
    @Mr. Rational

    Given that blacks have ALREADY received massive "reparations" (even without including the deadweight losses of affirmative action overhead and minority business set-asides) and are still complaining it's not enough, it's time to crack down on them.  Hard.

    We should begin by housing ALL black felons and black illegal aliens off our shores, preferably in Africa.  Since they would not be a danger to US residents if they escaped their "prison", it could be an open-air affair with nothing more than a 4-foot cyclone fence to mark the boundary; "inmates" would only have to be counted at morning muster to get credit for their time served.  I'm sure both Liberia and Ghana would love to have themselves some of that business, and it would cost the US taxpayers quite a bit less than keeping them in cells here.

    For a bonus, after they are released make them pay their own way back, and offer them a nice cash bonus to surrender their US citizenship so we can keep them out permanently.  This also eliminates the problem of having them on voter rolls electing Democrats.

    Best of all, their families might move to Africa to be with them and get out from under "racist oppression".  ;-)

    Replies: @Truth

    We should begin by housing ALL black felons and black illegal aliens off our shores, preferably in Africa. Since they would not be a danger to US residents if they escaped their “prison”, it could be an open-air affair with nothing more than a 4-foot cyclone fence to mark the boundary; “inmates” would only have to be counted at morning muster to get credit for their time served. I’m sure both Liberia and Ghana would love to have themselves some of that business, and it would cost the US taxpayers quite a bit less than keeping them in cells here.

    For a bonus, after they are released make them pay their own way back, and offer them a nice cash bonus to surrender their US citizenship so we can keep them out permanently. This also eliminates the problem of having them on voter rolls electing Democrats.

    Are you asleep, dreamwriting at your desk again, Rational? Wake up and get the lead out, old Sport, your boss warned you last week, and that code is not going to write itself.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Truth


    Wake up and get the lead out, old Sport
     
    Plenty awake, TYVM.

    your boss warned you last week, and that code is not going to write itself.
     
    I am my own boss, I don't write code for anyone but myself, and I may yet indulge fantasies about shutting down electoral machinery in un-American enclaves in the USA.  I grew up on science fiction and I have seen it turn into reality; beware the day I decide to turn my own narrative into reality, because you SAF will not like it.
  75. @Achmed E. Newman
    @iffen


    Actually, we need a constitutional amendment that prohibits the collection or use of data by any metric of group characteristics by any governmental unit of any kind.
     
    Hey!

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
     
    You are quite welcome.

    - Founding Fathers

    Replies: @iffen

    Good luck with executing.

  76. @SunBakedSuburb
    @Truth

    "What if 'go back to Africa' could no longer be honestly uttered?"

    How about "go back to Africa with this bag of reparations cash?" It doesn't have to be Africa; the Caribbean looks pretty nice.

    Replies: @iffen, @Truth, @Mr. Rational

    the Caribbean looks pretty nice.

    I think that you are missing it. Quite a few Caribbeans immigrate to the US.

  77. @Mr. Rational
    @Wolverine

    One good place to start is The Racial Tithe, which found that each black in the USA received an average of no less than $7700 per year in taxpayer-paid benefits not including the benefit of military defense.  That only counted welfare programs and taxes paid, I believe.  If the burden of the criminal justice system on non-blacks was added I'm sure it would top $12,000 per head per year.

    Note that said essay does not come up in most search engines and has been purged even from the Wayback Machine.  So much for preserving history!  Read it if you can find it.

    Replies: @res, @BengaliCanadianDude, @Truth, @Audacious Epigone

    Alt-Hype wrote about this

    • Replies: @Talha
    @BengaliCanadianDude

    Somewhat off-topic and somewhat not, since a lot of this stuff was and is discussed in the hip-hop scene...

    We were discussing the degeneracy in modern day rap on the other thread, I hadn’t been able to put my finger on a trend that I had noticed over the years and how themes had changed, but did some digging and this guy has one of the best articles analyzing the emergence of certain themes in rap and its connection to the disappearance of Muslim influences on the genre starting around 9/11 - worth a read:
    “For proof, look no further than the chest of your favorite rapper. Odds are the messiah is hanging in the form of a gaudy, diamond-encrusted pendant called a Jesus piece, first worn by Ghostface Killah in 1994—or at least that’s what he says. Biggie was the Jesus piece’s biggest fan until Kanye made the pendants really popular by releasing his own line in 2004. The Game gave the movement another push in 2012 when he named his album Jesus Piece and declared there was nothing wrong with smoking weed, going to strip clubs, eating fried chicken and still believing in God.“
    https://www.vocativ.com/culture/religion/islam-hip-hop/index.html

    Wa salaam.

  78. @Mark G.
    @obwandiyag

    Whites don't need blacks. If every black person in the United States suddenly disappeared in a puff of smoke whites would be better off overall. If every white person disappeared blacks would be in trouble. Whites are always trying to move away from blacks and blacks are always trying to follow them and move into their neighborhoods and into their schools. Blacks claim they are oppressed by whites but it's a strange kind of oppression if you are trying to follow your oppressor instead of trying to get away from him. Blacks are not able to create desirable societies on their own. The first step to doing so would require blacks to admit their shortcomings and try to improve and the majority of blacks are incapable of doing that. They would rather blame white people for their self-inflicted problems.

    Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude

    I don’t know why you give that Nigerian troll replies lol

  79. @216
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    The media narrative says otherwise, regardless of what you personally believe.

    https://twitter.com/10M_a_day/status/1115327359094280192

    BTW, dehumanization is a bad look.

    Replies: @EldnahYm, @Audacious Epigone

    Eliot Engel is a Jew of course.

  80. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Rosie

    I don't know what "thot" is. Maybe you or Mike could explain. What are you people talking about? I should keep up more, but I'm NOT on social freaking media, so ...

    Replies: @Rosie, @Mr. Rational, @MikeatMikedotMike

    For the record, I don’t use the term “thot.” It’s a staple over at Heartiste’s. I just use the term “whore” if the situation calls for it. Adding “that, over.” and “there” doesn’t make the point any better.

    It still doesn’t mean I’d ban it.

  81. @Rosie
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    Yes, what we need are more banned words because shut up.
     
    Actually yes, some words should be banned because they have no intellectual content. They don't advance the argument in any way, but only hinder it by allowing loudmouth bullies to run off any commenters whose arguments they find inconvenient.

    All that said, it's AE's blog. He can choose to moderate or not, ideally in a principled, consistent manner. There is no argument for banning n***** and k*** but allowing t***.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Audacious Epigone

    “Actually yes, some words should be banned because they have no intellectual content. ”

    Subjective. Your list will vary from anyone else’s.

    “by allowing loudmouth bullies to run off any commenters whose arguments they find inconvenient.”

    The word bully has no intellectual content. As with the term racist, its use means to stifle discussion, not assist it. Even so, you have the ignore feature. I make careful use of it.

    “There is no argument for banning n***** and k*** but allowing t***.”

    Sure there is. One cannot choose to be a negro or a(n) (ethnic) Jew, but one has a choice about whether she is a whore or not.

    “He can choose to moderate or not, ideally in a principled, consistent manner. ”

    The only truly consistent word moderation requires banning all words, or banning none.
    I prefer to ban no words. Allowing people to communicate uncensored provides readers with a better sense of who they are dealing with.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    The word bully has no intellectual content. As with the term racist, its use means to stifle discussion, not assist it.
     
    I disagree completely. There is such a thing as fair play in a debate, to wit: don't use ad hominems.

    Even so, you have the ignore feature.
     
    I have learned that ignoring dissident right misogynists does not make them go away, unfortunately. You have to take them on and RIP them a new a$$h0le.

    Sure there is. One cannot choose to be a negro or a(n) (ethnic) Jew, but one has a choice about whether she is a whore or not.
     
    Those ethnic slurs do not refer merely to ancestry but rather conduct, as you well know.

    That said, of the word "whore" or any of its variations, including "thot" were used according to the actual dictionary meaning, as in prostitution, that would be an entirely different matter. Unfortunately, these words are not so used in the dissident right. Rather, they are often used to insult and humiliate people who bear no resemblance whatsoever to an actual prostitute, and indeed may well be the very opposite of same.

    According to these dissident right misogynists, the way to make women non-whores is to force them into unwanted marriages in order to survive. IOW, to save women from prostitution, we have to force them into prostitution.
  82. A race doesn’t bargain its way off the exit ramp of history. The Romans made many deals with the Goths and other Germanics, but the Western Empire still ended in a Dark Age, and in the process, our Germanic ancestors laid the roots of our civilization.

    The vector of power is all that matters. As others have noted, what about the naked evil that is AA, with it’s obvious unearned benefits to blacks and especially, mestizos, let alone its far greater, but far less obvious, benefits to Jews? If we had the power and vitality to enforce this proposal, without the further compromises that would inevitably be urged, we wouldn’t need to offer it in the first place.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    @Jack Highlands

    Boy this never get tiresome.


    Blacks are the least beneficiaries of AA. The primary beneficiaries of the policy and practice have been whites. This is complaint about AA has never been accurate about who benefits the most.


    Now undoubtedly some one will pipe in that history as to policy doesn't matter or that the impacts of little consequence or that despite having the history correct the rationales are incorrect. They don't venture how, they just make the claim, note some contemporary numbers as though that settles it.


    Affirmative Action has always primarily benefited whites. That was the case in 1993 when I first checked the labor departments numbers and that is the case today some 26 years later. The policy was officially engaged by Pres Johnson, though the Admin of Pres. Kennedy first proposed it. And while as policy various attempts have been made to balance out the matter, by attending to qualified candidates in years prior to address very specific practices barring certain citizens access as far back as the 1930's. It was not uncommon for these attempts to change discrimination to result in riots against anything that smacked of equality for the same.

    I will leave you to investigate who engaged in said riots and who were the targets.


    And nothing about the initial policy pressed against qualifications. That was instituted primarily to benefit women -- and again, I leave it to you yo figure which set of the population were under consideration.

    Replies: @res

  83. @Mr. Rational
    @Wolverine

    One good place to start is The Racial Tithe, which found that each black in the USA received an average of no less than $7700 per year in taxpayer-paid benefits not including the benefit of military defense.  That only counted welfare programs and taxes paid, I believe.  If the burden of the criminal justice system on non-blacks was added I'm sure it would top $12,000 per head per year.

    Note that said essay does not come up in most search engines and has been purged even from the Wayback Machine.  So much for preserving history!  Read it if you can find it.

    Replies: @res, @BengaliCanadianDude, @Truth, @Audacious Epigone

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Truth

    Says the guy who doesn't know the meaning of "per capita", thereby proving with his handle that SJWAL.

    Replies: @Truth

  84. @SunBakedSuburb
    @Truth

    "What if 'go back to Africa' could no longer be honestly uttered?"

    How about "go back to Africa with this bag of reparations cash?" It doesn't have to be Africa; the Caribbean looks pretty nice.

    Replies: @iffen, @Truth, @Mr. Rational

    But if the true insult is “go back to Southern New Jersey” because that’s where the ancestors were before The Mayflower?

  85. @Rosie
    @obwandiyag


    I suppose no whites are on this “generous” welfare. Only a majority.
     
    Non-whites understand proportional relationships when they are on the losing side (disparate impact), but then play dumb when their own dysfunction is noticed.

    Replies: @obwandiyag

    Only complete imbeciles think welfare is “generous.” Imbecile.

    • Agree: Truth
    • Replies: @Truth
    @obwandiyag

    Soreu Rosie, Obie-one is correct here.

  86. @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Rosie

    "Actually yes, some words should be banned because they have no intellectual content. "

    Subjective. Your list will vary from anyone else's.

    "by allowing loudmouth bullies to run off any commenters whose arguments they find inconvenient."

    The word bully has no intellectual content. As with the term racist, its use means to stifle discussion, not assist it. Even so, you have the ignore feature. I make careful use of it.

    "There is no argument for banning n***** and k*** but allowing t***."

    Sure there is. One cannot choose to be a negro or a(n) (ethnic) Jew, but one has a choice about whether she is a whore or not.

    "He can choose to moderate or not, ideally in a principled, consistent manner. "

    The only truly consistent word moderation requires banning all words, or banning none.
    I prefer to ban no words. Allowing people to communicate uncensored provides readers with a better sense of who they are dealing with.

    Replies: @Rosie

    The word bully has no intellectual content. As with the term racist, its use means to stifle discussion, not assist it.

    I disagree completely. There is such a thing as fair play in a debate, to wit: don’t use ad hominems.

    Even so, you have the ignore feature.

    I have learned that ignoring dissident right misogynists does not make them go away, unfortunately. You have to take them on and RIP them a new a$$h0le.

    Sure there is. One cannot choose to be a negro or a(n) (ethnic) Jew, but one has a choice about whether she is a whore or not.

    Those ethnic slurs do not refer merely to ancestry but rather conduct, as you well know.

    That said, of the word “whore” or any of its variations, including “thot” were used according to the actual dictionary meaning, as in prostitution, that would be an entirely different matter. Unfortunately, these words are not so used in the dissident right. Rather, they are often used to insult and humiliate people who bear no resemblance whatsoever to an actual prostitute, and indeed may well be the very opposite of same.

    According to these dissident right misogynists, the way to make women non-whores is to force them into unwanted marriages in order to survive. IOW, to save women from prostitution, we have to force them into prostitution.

  87. @C. ThunderCock
    @EliteCommInc.

    Anti-white parasite in favor of rewards by Ethnic group when there's a net benefit to non-whites, against it in favor of "individuality" when there's a net benefit for whites, IMAGINE MOI SHOCK.
    I know you're just being a disingenuous little prick as usual, but you're dreaming if you think an honest accounting on an individual basis as per your request wouldn't be a massive net loss for Blacks (hence the obvious utility of using Race as the standard).

    Replies: @EliteCommInc.

    Again, nonresponsive. Again, I will eschew the assumptions and peculiar analysis. But to the point of the matter, of repayment, I am sure the intended comment is for people who engage in this distinction you make regardless of skin color.

    ———————————————

    It never ceases to amaze turn on the personal. Be that as it may, I am unclear what evidence exists that I am “anti-white”. But if you can locate some I would be happy to address it.

    If by rewards to ethnic group, I don’t think I have a stated position on reparations if that os what you are on about. And I am not clear what is meant by

    “when there’s a net benefit to non-whites, against it in favor of “individuality” when there’s a net benefit for whites, IMAGINE MOI SHOCK.”

    I am unclear where the argument fits and muchless. I am sure you have it clear in your mind, I am just unclear how to respond. I don’t know if an individual accounting would yield the outcome you suggest. I have my doubts. But what I know for sure is this, if I am managing a loss, then I am going to be more concerned who creates that loss the most, regardless of the proportionality issue. Which from the originator of this question has provided some baffling analytics. His analysis seems to suggest that individual blacks are getting twice as much or some percentage more than whites in assistance programs based on proportional assessments. Now that is not what proportionality outcomes mean, but if you care to tackle the matter explaining how that is the case, I am certainly willing to hear it.
    —————–

    Laughing.

    Now about this personal reference, I guess opinions vary.

  88. @obwandiyag
    @Rosie

    Only complete imbeciles think welfare is "generous." Imbecile.

    Replies: @Truth

    Soreu Rosie, Obie-one is correct here.

  89. @Jack Highlands
    A race doesn't bargain its way off the exit ramp of history. The Romans made many deals with the Goths and other Germanics, but the Western Empire still ended in a Dark Age, and in the process, our Germanic ancestors laid the roots of our civilization.

    The vector of power is all that matters. As others have noted, what about the naked evil that is AA, with it's obvious unearned benefits to blacks and especially, mestizos, let alone its far greater, but far less obvious, benefits to Jews? If we had the power and vitality to enforce this proposal, without the further compromises that would inevitably be urged, we wouldn't need to offer it in the first place.

    Replies: @EliteCommInc.

    Boy this never get tiresome.

    Blacks are the least beneficiaries of AA. The primary beneficiaries of the policy and practice have been whites. This is complaint about AA has never been accurate about who benefits the most.

    Now undoubtedly some one will pipe in that history as to policy doesn’t matter or that the impacts of little consequence or that despite having the history correct the rationales are incorrect. They don’t venture how, they just make the claim, note some contemporary numbers as though that settles it.

    Affirmative Action has always primarily benefited whites. That was the case in 1993 when I first checked the labor departments numbers and that is the case today some 26 years later. The policy was officially engaged by Pres Johnson, though the Admin of Pres. Kennedy first proposed it. And while as policy various attempts have been made to balance out the matter, by attending to qualified candidates in years prior to address very specific practices barring certain citizens access as far back as the 1930’s. It was not uncommon for these attempts to change discrimination to result in riots against anything that smacked of equality for the same.

    I will leave you to investigate who engaged in said riots and who were the targets.

    And nothing about the initial policy pressed against qualifications. That was instituted primarily to benefit women — and again, I leave it to you yo figure which set of the population were under consideration.

    • Troll: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @res
    @EliteCommInc.


    Blacks are the least beneficiaries of AA. The primary beneficiaries of the policy and practice have been whites.
     
    1. Learn what per capita means.
    2. Learn what net means. White women may benefit, but white men most certainly do not.

    Please try to do better on both your grammar and content. Your comments are tiresome to read. Especially the long ones.

    P.S. If you actually want to continue arguing this point please provide data supporting your position. Since I asked for data, here is some of my own. See Table 2 which gives logistic regression coefficients (as odds ratios) showing the large advantage African Americans have in college admissions all else being equal:
    https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/files/webAdmission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004.pdf
    The corresponding numbers for Harvard (which I have presented in other threads) are even larger.
  90. @SunBakedSuburb
    @Truth

    "What if 'go back to Africa' could no longer be honestly uttered?"

    How about "go back to Africa with this bag of reparations cash?" It doesn't have to be Africa; the Caribbean looks pretty nice.

    Replies: @iffen, @Truth, @Mr. Rational

    It doesn’t have to be Africa; the Caribbean looks pretty nice.

    The Caribbean is too nice to waste on Africans.  Send them back to their own continent and society; they are the only ones who created it, or deserve to suffer it.

  91. @Truth
    @Mr. Rational


    We should begin by housing ALL black felons and black illegal aliens off our shores, preferably in Africa. Since they would not be a danger to US residents if they escaped their “prison”, it could be an open-air affair with nothing more than a 4-foot cyclone fence to mark the boundary; “inmates” would only have to be counted at morning muster to get credit for their time served. I’m sure both Liberia and Ghana would love to have themselves some of that business, and it would cost the US taxpayers quite a bit less than keeping them in cells here.

    For a bonus, after they are released make them pay their own way back, and offer them a nice cash bonus to surrender their US citizenship so we can keep them out permanently. This also eliminates the problem of having them on voter rolls electing Democrats.
     
    Are you asleep, dreamwriting at your desk again, Rational? Wake up and get the lead out, old Sport, your boss warned you last week, and that code is not going to write itself.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Wake up and get the lead out, old Sport

    Plenty awake, TYVM.

    your boss warned you last week, and that code is not going to write itself.

    I am my own boss, I don’t write code for anyone but myself, and I may yet indulge fantasies about shutting down electoral machinery in un-American enclaves in the USA.  I grew up on science fiction and I have seen it turn into reality; beware the day I decide to turn my own narrative into reality, because you SAF will not like it.

  92. @Truth
    @Mr. Rational

    I'm afraid it doesn't work that way, Old Sport.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/16/the-biggest-beneficiaries-of-the-government-safety-net-working-class-whites/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3a0ab0d82952

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2012/09/03/real-welfare-problem-government-giveaways-corporate-1

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Says the guy who doesn’t know the meaning of “per capita”, thereby proving with his handle that SJWAL.

    • Replies: @Truth
    @Mr. Rational

    I keep hearing about this "Per Capita" guy, how many benefits did he get last year?

    Replies: @res

  93. @BengaliCanadianDude
    @Mr. Rational

    Alt-Hype wrote about this

    Replies: @Talha

    Somewhat off-topic and somewhat not, since a lot of this stuff was and is discussed in the hip-hop scene…

    We were discussing the degeneracy in modern day rap on the other thread, I hadn’t been able to put my finger on a trend that I had noticed over the years and how themes had changed, but did some digging and this guy has one of the best articles analyzing the emergence of certain themes in rap and its connection to the disappearance of Muslim influences on the genre starting around 9/11 – worth a read:
    “For proof, look no further than the chest of your favorite rapper. Odds are the messiah is hanging in the form of a gaudy, diamond-encrusted pendant called a Jesus piece, first worn by Ghostface Killah in 1994—or at least that’s what he says. Biggie was the Jesus piece’s biggest fan until Kanye made the pendants really popular by releasing his own line in 2004. The Game gave the movement another push in 2012 when he named his album Jesus Piece and declared there was nothing wrong with smoking weed, going to strip clubs, eating fried chicken and still believing in God.“
    https://www.vocativ.com/culture/religion/islam-hip-hop/index.html

    Wa salaam.

  94. @Mr. Rational
    @Truth

    Says the guy who doesn't know the meaning of "per capita", thereby proving with his handle that SJWAL.

    Replies: @Truth

    I keep hearing about this “Per Capita” guy, how many benefits did he get last year?

    • Replies: @res
    @Truth

    When you don't have a leg to stand on, bring the snark. I guess that explains why your comments are so snark filled.

    Replies: @Truth

  95. @EliteCommInc.
    @Jack Highlands

    Boy this never get tiresome.


    Blacks are the least beneficiaries of AA. The primary beneficiaries of the policy and practice have been whites. This is complaint about AA has never been accurate about who benefits the most.


    Now undoubtedly some one will pipe in that history as to policy doesn't matter or that the impacts of little consequence or that despite having the history correct the rationales are incorrect. They don't venture how, they just make the claim, note some contemporary numbers as though that settles it.


    Affirmative Action has always primarily benefited whites. That was the case in 1993 when I first checked the labor departments numbers and that is the case today some 26 years later. The policy was officially engaged by Pres Johnson, though the Admin of Pres. Kennedy first proposed it. And while as policy various attempts have been made to balance out the matter, by attending to qualified candidates in years prior to address very specific practices barring certain citizens access as far back as the 1930's. It was not uncommon for these attempts to change discrimination to result in riots against anything that smacked of equality for the same.

    I will leave you to investigate who engaged in said riots and who were the targets.


    And nothing about the initial policy pressed against qualifications. That was instituted primarily to benefit women -- and again, I leave it to you yo figure which set of the population were under consideration.

    Replies: @res

    Blacks are the least beneficiaries of AA. The primary beneficiaries of the policy and practice have been whites.

    1. Learn what per capita means.
    2. Learn what net means. White women may benefit, but white men most certainly do not.

    Please try to do better on both your grammar and content. Your comments are tiresome to read. Especially the long ones.

    P.S. If you actually want to continue arguing this point please provide data supporting your position. Since I asked for data, here is some of my own. See Table 2 which gives logistic regression coefficients (as odds ratios) showing the large advantage African Americans have in college admissions all else being equal:
    https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/files/webAdmission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004.pdf
    The corresponding numbers for Harvard (which I have presented in other threads) are even larger.

  96. @Truth
    @Mr. Rational

    I keep hearing about this "Per Capita" guy, how many benefits did he get last year?

    Replies: @res

    When you don’t have a leg to stand on, bring the snark. I guess that explains why your comments are so snark filled.

    • Replies: @Truth
    @res

    Well no, Old Sport, my comments are "snark filled" because that is the level of intellect that tyour comments demand.

    I posted two links earlier, one that white people collect more social welfare than blacks, one that corporate welfare far exceeds social welfare $. Corporate welfare is close to %0 black.

    With this is mind, I guess my one leg is doing me fine.

    https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-flamingos-stand-one-leg

    A wise professor made one of the brilliant statements of our time that I have adopted into my personal canon:

    I only debate my equals, all others, I teach.
    -John Henrik Clarke

    If you want serious debate, prove that you are an equal.

    Replies: @Talha, @Mark G., @res, @Reg Cæsar

  97. @res
    @Truth

    When you don't have a leg to stand on, bring the snark. I guess that explains why your comments are so snark filled.

    Replies: @Truth

    Well no, Old Sport, my comments are “snark filled” because that is the level of intellect that tyour comments demand.

    I posted two links earlier, one that white people collect more social welfare than blacks, one that corporate welfare far exceeds social welfare $. Corporate welfare is close to %0 black.

    With this is mind, I guess my one leg is doing me fine.

    https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-flamingos-stand-one-leg

    A wise professor made one of the brilliant statements of our time that I have adopted into my personal canon:

    I only debate my equals, all others, I teach.
    -John Henrik Clarke

    If you want serious debate, prove that you are an equal.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Truth


    Corporate welfare is close to %0 black.
     
    Honestly, this has been one of the greatest swindles in world history. In the past, if the elite wanted to rip you off this badly, they would have to raise taxes so high that they would have to also cover the cost of the financing the boots willing to carry out the bloody slaughter of the people who would rise up in protest.

    But, we have WiFi and on-demand porn...so all's good!

    Peace.

    Replies: @Truth

    , @Mark G.
    @Truth

    The cost of corporate welfare has been estimated at between $90 and $170 billion per year while social welfare costs $50 billion. However, you have to consider that corporations paid $440 billion in federal taxes last year. So they are actually receiving much less in benefits than they are paying in taxes. Poor people on welfare don't pay anything close to that in taxes so social welfare is much more of a drain on society.

    Replies: @Talha, @Truth

    , @res
    @Truth


    If you want serious debate, prove that you are an equal.
     
    I think my comments on unz.com do a quite good job of demonstrating that I am an equal (well, at least if you add the proviso "or better"). For some reason I don't think I have ever seen you engage with one of my substantive comments with anything other than snark.

    Perhaps I would be well advised to take Clarke's quote to heart. Thanks for the tip.

    Replies: @Truth

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Truth


    Corporate welfare is close to %0 black.
     
    Hardly. Immigration is huge corporate welfare.


    https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/sub-saharan-african-immigrants-united-states

    https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/haitian-immigrants-united-states
  98. @Truth
    @res

    Well no, Old Sport, my comments are "snark filled" because that is the level of intellect that tyour comments demand.

    I posted two links earlier, one that white people collect more social welfare than blacks, one that corporate welfare far exceeds social welfare $. Corporate welfare is close to %0 black.

    With this is mind, I guess my one leg is doing me fine.

    https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-flamingos-stand-one-leg

    A wise professor made one of the brilliant statements of our time that I have adopted into my personal canon:

    I only debate my equals, all others, I teach.
    -John Henrik Clarke

    If you want serious debate, prove that you are an equal.

    Replies: @Talha, @Mark G., @res, @Reg Cæsar

    Corporate welfare is close to %0 black.

    Honestly, this has been one of the greatest swindles in world history. In the past, if the elite wanted to rip you off this badly, they would have to raise taxes so high that they would have to also cover the cost of the financing the boots willing to carry out the bloody slaughter of the people who would rise up in protest.

    But, we have WiFi and on-demand porn…so all’s good!

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Truth
    @Talha

    Bread and circuses and then they rob you blind.

    Replies: @Talha

  99. @Truth
    @res

    Well no, Old Sport, my comments are "snark filled" because that is the level of intellect that tyour comments demand.

    I posted two links earlier, one that white people collect more social welfare than blacks, one that corporate welfare far exceeds social welfare $. Corporate welfare is close to %0 black.

    With this is mind, I guess my one leg is doing me fine.

    https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-flamingos-stand-one-leg

    A wise professor made one of the brilliant statements of our time that I have adopted into my personal canon:

    I only debate my equals, all others, I teach.
    -John Henrik Clarke

    If you want serious debate, prove that you are an equal.

    Replies: @Talha, @Mark G., @res, @Reg Cæsar

    The cost of corporate welfare has been estimated at between $90 and $170 billion per year while social welfare costs $50 billion. However, you have to consider that corporations paid $440 billion in federal taxes last year. So they are actually receiving much less in benefits than they are paying in taxes. Poor people on welfare don’t pay anything close to that in taxes so social welfare is much more of a drain on society.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Mark G.

    The corporation is comprised of many composite parts; shareholders, employees, officers, etc.

    Which of the parts is paying the cost of the taxes and which of the parts are receiving the benefit of the welfare? Is there an official breakdown somewhere (even something showing averages across industries) or is this all a black box and we are supposed to trust that the ones who pay into the cost of the taxes are the same ones that benefit from the welfare?

    Peace.

    Replies: @Mark G.

    , @Truth
    @Mark G.

    My friend, you have fallen for this ridiculous, make-believe libertarian foolishness.

    Someone a few years ago came up with the brilliant idea of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax so that "everyone will pay his fair share..." Ok, so I will leave it up to you; what is the upshot of this plan?

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  100. @Mark G.
    @Truth

    The cost of corporate welfare has been estimated at between $90 and $170 billion per year while social welfare costs $50 billion. However, you have to consider that corporations paid $440 billion in federal taxes last year. So they are actually receiving much less in benefits than they are paying in taxes. Poor people on welfare don't pay anything close to that in taxes so social welfare is much more of a drain on society.

    Replies: @Talha, @Truth

    The corporation is comprised of many composite parts; shareholders, employees, officers, etc.

    Which of the parts is paying the cost of the taxes and which of the parts are receiving the benefit of the welfare? Is there an official breakdown somewhere (even something showing averages across industries) or is this all a black box and we are supposed to trust that the ones who pay into the cost of the taxes are the same ones that benefit from the welfare?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @Talha

    The corporations who are receiving the benefits are not always the same ones who are paying the taxes. I would be against corporate welfare. The ones who benefit would be the ones with the best political connections. Those would usually be the largest ones so it would make it more difficult for small businesses who were competing against them. You would have situations where corporations in the same industry are competing against each other but one has an advantage over the other because the government is giving it tax breaks or subsidies. That seems unfair to me that someone would get something like that just because of political pull. In the case of social welfare, whites receive more than blacks along the lines of 60% to 30%. However, whites make up 63% of the population versus 14% of blacks so, per capita, blacks receive twice as much as whites. People who say whites get more than blacks are just looking at the total amounts involved. Also, blacks are more likely to vote for politicians who are pro-welfare and whites are more likely to vote for politicians who are anti-welfare. If it was really true that whites get more welfare do you really think it is plausible that whites and blacks would be voting for the opposite of their own self-interest? I don't think so. I think that both blacks and whites correctly perceive that blacks get more welfare than whites.

  101. @Talha
    @Truth


    Corporate welfare is close to %0 black.
     
    Honestly, this has been one of the greatest swindles in world history. In the past, if the elite wanted to rip you off this badly, they would have to raise taxes so high that they would have to also cover the cost of the financing the boots willing to carry out the bloody slaughter of the people who would rise up in protest.

    But, we have WiFi and on-demand porn...so all's good!

    Peace.

    Replies: @Truth

    Bread and circuses and then they rob you blind.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @Talha
    @Truth

    They used to have more obvious schemes in the past, you know, like clipping the edges of coins and stuff. Now they just have money they can float in and out of the ether and inflate in "derivative" and speculative markets that nobody but they pay attention to until the SHTF and then...well, we can just have the money run into some commodity or currency as a safe-haven and who cares if some South American country goes up in flames because its people can't afford bread - they're just lesser men anyway.

    "Mighty indeed were the plots which they made, but their plots were (well) within the sight of Allah, even though they were such as to shake the mountains." (14:46)

    Peace.

  102. @Mark G.
    @Truth

    The cost of corporate welfare has been estimated at between $90 and $170 billion per year while social welfare costs $50 billion. However, you have to consider that corporations paid $440 billion in federal taxes last year. So they are actually receiving much less in benefits than they are paying in taxes. Poor people on welfare don't pay anything close to that in taxes so social welfare is much more of a drain on society.

    Replies: @Talha, @Truth

    My friend, you have fallen for this ridiculous, make-believe libertarian foolishness.

    Someone a few years ago came up with the brilliant idea of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax so that “everyone will pay his fair share…” Ok, so I will leave it up to you; what is the upshot of this plan?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Truth

    Illegal aliens have to pay more in taxes than they do now? Saving favored over spending?

    Replies: @Truth

  103. @Truth
    @Talha

    Bread and circuses and then they rob you blind.

    Replies: @Talha

    They used to have more obvious schemes in the past, you know, like clipping the edges of coins and stuff. Now they just have money they can float in and out of the ether and inflate in “derivative” and speculative markets that nobody but they pay attention to until the SHTF and then…well, we can just have the money run into some commodity or currency as a safe-haven and who cares if some South American country goes up in flames because its people can’t afford bread – they’re just lesser men anyway.

    “Mighty indeed were the plots which they made, but their plots were (well) within the sight of Allah, even though they were such as to shake the mountains.” (14:46)

    Peace.

  104. @Talha
    @Mark G.

    The corporation is comprised of many composite parts; shareholders, employees, officers, etc.

    Which of the parts is paying the cost of the taxes and which of the parts are receiving the benefit of the welfare? Is there an official breakdown somewhere (even something showing averages across industries) or is this all a black box and we are supposed to trust that the ones who pay into the cost of the taxes are the same ones that benefit from the welfare?

    Peace.

    Replies: @Mark G.

    The corporations who are receiving the benefits are not always the same ones who are paying the taxes. I would be against corporate welfare. The ones who benefit would be the ones with the best political connections. Those would usually be the largest ones so it would make it more difficult for small businesses who were competing against them. You would have situations where corporations in the same industry are competing against each other but one has an advantage over the other because the government is giving it tax breaks or subsidies. That seems unfair to me that someone would get something like that just because of political pull. In the case of social welfare, whites receive more than blacks along the lines of 60% to 30%. However, whites make up 63% of the population versus 14% of blacks so, per capita, blacks receive twice as much as whites. People who say whites get more than blacks are just looking at the total amounts involved. Also, blacks are more likely to vote for politicians who are pro-welfare and whites are more likely to vote for politicians who are anti-welfare. If it was really true that whites get more welfare do you really think it is plausible that whites and blacks would be voting for the opposite of their own self-interest? I don’t think so. I think that both blacks and whites correctly perceive that blacks get more welfare than whites.

  105. @Mr. Rational
    @Achmed E. Newman

    When mystified about a slang term, Urban Dictionary is your friend.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    I’ll make an effort to remember that site, Mr. R. Thanks.

  106. @Truth
    @res

    Well no, Old Sport, my comments are "snark filled" because that is the level of intellect that tyour comments demand.

    I posted two links earlier, one that white people collect more social welfare than blacks, one that corporate welfare far exceeds social welfare $. Corporate welfare is close to %0 black.

    With this is mind, I guess my one leg is doing me fine.

    https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-flamingos-stand-one-leg

    A wise professor made one of the brilliant statements of our time that I have adopted into my personal canon:

    I only debate my equals, all others, I teach.
    -John Henrik Clarke

    If you want serious debate, prove that you are an equal.

    Replies: @Talha, @Mark G., @res, @Reg Cæsar

    If you want serious debate, prove that you are an equal.

    I think my comments on unz.com do a quite good job of demonstrating that I am an equal (well, at least if you add the proviso “or better”). For some reason I don’t think I have ever seen you engage with one of my substantive comments with anything other than snark.

    Perhaps I would be well advised to take Clarke’s quote to heart. Thanks for the tip.

    • Replies: @Truth
    @res

    Well my friend, sometimes, and this may be my personal problem, but sometimes, what one man thinks is "substantive" is, to others in viewership, somewhat derivative.

    The point is that for every mouth-breathing talking point, there is a level of depth well beneath it, that only some are equipped to, willing to, or interested in accessing.

    But this is what I will do, I will make a mental note of your handle, and we will play this game for a while.

    Remember, you asked for it.

    Replies: @res

  107. The only reparations I support are a one way cruise ship back to West Africa. But make it a nice ship, unlimited fried chicken included.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Marty T

    Americans would NEVER go for that because it's unfair, and whites hate unfairness. Descendants of slaves didn't choose to be brought to North America so it is not fair to force them to leave.

    Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter, @Mr. Rational, @MikeatMikedotMike

  108. @iffen
    That's not a bargain. The Americans that do not qualify get nothing in exchange for reparations. The rest of America should get quotas, affirmative action set-asides and all proactive attempts at “diversity” by any governmental unit made illegal. The use of disparate impact as a legal doctrine should be prohibited. Actually, we need a constitutional amendment that prohibits the collection or use of data by any metric of group characteristics by any governmental unit of any kind.

    You did not address the non-enforcement of immigration laws which is what the Republican Party sewer pond scum leaders (most) prefer. We should also get immigration law reform, for instance, a sane policy with regard to “refugees.”

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Audacious Epigone

    The moratorium legislatively enacted first, then the reparations, with said reparations being stipulated as such rather than as tribute. IOW, the putative debt owed to blacks is considered to have been made good on twenty years on.

  109. @Prodigal son
    Would the reparations payments result in many blacks no longer qualifying for welfare ?

    Would Blacks under the age of 18 qualify for reparations ? A mother with 3 kids would be raking in 3,000 per month...could she still live in public housing ? Still collect welfare and food stamps ?

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @SunBakedSuburb, @Audacious Epigone

    It’d have to be for those aged 18+ or it’d be considerably more expensive.

  110. @Robert S
    There was a third party candidate who advocated slavery reparations funded by a financial transaction tax combined with a moratorium on immigration.

    https://www.starktruthradio.com/?cat=618

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Interesting, thanks.

  111. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    @EldnahYm

    I'm not saying out of cruelty, but out of necessity.

    Treat the African American group (and most sub saharan africans) the way you would treat a dog.

    If you give a dog scraps he will beg at the table every night. If you don't train your dog he will be rambunctious and destructive. If you don't assert yourself as master, he will not listen to you.

    You have to tell blacks to fuck off, essentially. They can't do facts or logic. It's either give them what they want, or tell them to take a hike.

    Replies: @anon, @Audacious Epigone

    They did well enough even vis-a-vis whites in the middle part of the 20th century. Certainly better than dogs could ever do.

  112. @Rosie
    @216


    Get off of Big Social
     
    I'm proud of you, 216, for not saying...

    Thot status: patrolled

    BTW, something I've been wondering, how does schoolmarm feel about the term "thot"?

    Replies: @216, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Audacious Epigone

    It’s trashy but it’s not dehumanizing so she tolerates it.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Audacious Epigone


    not dehumanizing
     
    Orly?

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  113. @anon
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian


    If you give a dog scraps he will beg at the table every night. If you don’t train your dog he will be rambunctious and destructive. If you don’t assert yourself as master, he will not listen to you.

    You have to tell blacks to fuck off, essentially
     
    not just blacks, we have to say it to all non-whites except NE Asians, who are the one group that's not a huge drain on us

    jews, black, brown, mooslims - all got to go

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Not going to happen. Possession is 9/10ths of the law, as they say.

  114. @Rosie
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    Yes, what we need are more banned words because shut up.
     
    Actually yes, some words should be banned because they have no intellectual content. They don't advance the argument in any way, but only hinder it by allowing loudmouth bullies to run off any commenters whose arguments they find inconvenient.

    All that said, it's AE's blog. He can choose to moderate or not, ideally in a principled, consistent manner. There is no argument for banning n***** and k*** but allowing t***.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Audacious Epigone

    Does “thot” run people off the same way N- or K- does? I don’t think so, but I may be incorrect.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Audacious Epigone


    Does “thot” run people off the same way N- or K- does? I don’t think so, but I may be incorrect.
     
    I don't know if it does or not, but it seems well worth it to avoid the term and see if some more womenfolk don't show up around here. I suspect certain people use the term precisely to avoid that outcome. They would prefer to lose than to win with the cooperation women of their own stock. All that said, I trust your judgment. Lord knows, it's difficult to get along in our circles if you're civil to women.

    Replies: @Talha

  115. @216
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    The media narrative says otherwise, regardless of what you personally believe.

    https://twitter.com/10M_a_day/status/1115327359094280192

    BTW, dehumanization is a bad look.

    Replies: @EldnahYm, @Audacious Epigone

    The “white nationalist” hearings were probably an own-goal by the left, fortunately. I’ve talked to normies about it over the last couple of days and it has been 100% lampooning.

    Candace Owens did a great job. Anytime antifa is called out is good, and she’s laid the groundwork for people to start responding to “white nationalist!” with “nice campaign slogan, good luck with that”. It’s already lost its sting.

  116. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Rosie

    THANKS.

    That Hot-Assed Nubile Kinky Skank (?)

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Oh brother.

  117. @Mr. Rational
    @Wolverine

    One good place to start is The Racial Tithe, which found that each black in the USA received an average of no less than $7700 per year in taxpayer-paid benefits not including the benefit of military defense.  That only counted welfare programs and taxes paid, I believe.  If the burden of the criminal justice system on non-blacks was added I'm sure it would top $12,000 per head per year.

    Note that said essay does not come up in most search engines and has been purged even from the Wayback Machine.  So much for preserving history!  Read it if you can find it.

    Replies: @res, @BengaliCanadianDude, @Truth, @Audacious Epigone

    Was it originally Ryan Faulk’s?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Audacious Epigone

    Yes it was.  His updated replacement article is here (thanks to whoever dug it up for me).

  118. @Truth
    @Mark G.

    My friend, you have fallen for this ridiculous, make-believe libertarian foolishness.

    Someone a few years ago came up with the brilliant idea of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax so that "everyone will pay his fair share..." Ok, so I will leave it up to you; what is the upshot of this plan?

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Illegal aliens have to pay more in taxes than they do now? Saving favored over spending?

    • Replies: @Truth
    @Audacious Epigone

    Yes, and what about or the other 90% of the American population?

    Now, if you are only taxing on consumption, who do you think is benefited more by this, the billionaire with the Ferrari and the Lake house in Colorado, or the plumber with the Ford and the condo?

  119. @res
    @Truth


    If you want serious debate, prove that you are an equal.
     
    I think my comments on unz.com do a quite good job of demonstrating that I am an equal (well, at least if you add the proviso "or better"). For some reason I don't think I have ever seen you engage with one of my substantive comments with anything other than snark.

    Perhaps I would be well advised to take Clarke's quote to heart. Thanks for the tip.

    Replies: @Truth

    Well my friend, sometimes, and this may be my personal problem, but sometimes, what one man thinks is “substantive” is, to others in viewership, somewhat derivative.

    The point is that for every mouth-breathing talking point, there is a level of depth well beneath it, that only some are equipped to, willing to, or interested in accessing.

    But this is what I will do, I will make a mental note of your handle, and we will play this game for a while.

    Remember, you asked for it.

    • Replies: @res
    @Truth

    Bring it on. I have been aware of your handle for a while (your comments are...distinctive, and we had a couple of exchanges recently). There is also plenty of comment history to work with if we want to play this game looking backwards as well as forwards.

    If you were serious about only now making a note of my handle you might want to revisit this exchange for some perspective.
    https://www.unz.com/article/captain-marvel-hates-you/#comment-3081380

    This is a good example of how you deal with substantive comments (not mine in this case):
    https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/more-race-denialism-the-poor-old-nyt-they-shoot-horses-dont-they/#comment-3068253
    Along with your followup:
    https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/more-race-denialism-the-poor-old-nyt-they-shoot-horses-dont-they/#comment-3068347


    The man was talking science, but I don’t come to a chatboard to read books. I have books for that.
     
    That whole exchange gives a decent idea of what a "debate" (more a discussion) between us looks like. Do you really not think I demonstrated I am at least an equal there and in the rest of that thread?

    P.S. That exchange also shows that my "I don’t think I have ever seen you engage with one of my substantive comments with anything other than snark" above was unfair. You made a serious point there (even if framed in a snarky fashion), but just without much support.

    Replies: @Truth

  120. @Truth
    @res

    Well my friend, sometimes, and this may be my personal problem, but sometimes, what one man thinks is "substantive" is, to others in viewership, somewhat derivative.

    The point is that for every mouth-breathing talking point, there is a level of depth well beneath it, that only some are equipped to, willing to, or interested in accessing.

    But this is what I will do, I will make a mental note of your handle, and we will play this game for a while.

    Remember, you asked for it.

    Replies: @res

    Bring it on. I have been aware of your handle for a while (your comments are…distinctive, and we had a couple of exchanges recently). There is also plenty of comment history to work with if we want to play this game looking backwards as well as forwards.

    If you were serious about only now making a note of my handle you might want to revisit this exchange for some perspective.
    https://www.unz.com/article/captain-marvel-hates-you/#comment-3081380

    This is a good example of how you deal with substantive comments (not mine in this case):
    https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/more-race-denialism-the-poor-old-nyt-they-shoot-horses-dont-they/#comment-3068253
    Along with your followup:
    https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/more-race-denialism-the-poor-old-nyt-they-shoot-horses-dont-they/#comment-3068347

    The man was talking science, but I don’t come to a chatboard to read books. I have books for that.

    That whole exchange gives a decent idea of what a “debate” (more a discussion) between us looks like. Do you really not think I demonstrated I am at least an equal there and in the rest of that thread?

    P.S. That exchange also shows that my “I don’t think I have ever seen you engage with one of my substantive comments with anything other than snark” above was unfair. You made a serious point there (even if framed in a snarky fashion), but just without much support.

    • Replies: @Truth
    @res

    Well, regarding the Flynn effect thing, I asked "was Quantavious smarter than your Grandparents?" to follow a simple thread of thought to it's conclusion.

    The Flynn effect says that over the last 100 years the average (white) person has achieved an increase of IQ of roughly 30 points. That would mean that in 1918 the average white person had, what would be today, an IQ of 70. Your average black person today ("Quantavious" for illustrative purposes) has an IQ of 85, therefore one could make a fair assumption that if we were to put your fine, Oklahoma-farmer, salt-of-the-earth Grandfather in a time machine and bring him to our current age, he would not be as smart as Quantavious.

    Now I could be wrong, this is why I ended my querry with a question mark, and invited a response, but the data seems fairly certain here.

    As for your other point with substanitive comments, I think one thing many people do (not just you) is to conflate activity with achievement. If one can't make your point in 500 words or less, one is, generally, the literary equivalent of an uninteresting blowhard who likes to hear himself talk.

    Hemmingway, here, gives a good example on why he feels brevity is important in communication.

    https://writingcooperative.com/the-hemingway-rule-ffab4851be80?gi=b909d1aa5c96

    Now, my friend, I am sorry if you feel that I insulted you and you are probably a smart man. However to be perfectly frank, your comments have not, in the past given me cause to bookmark your name in for future discussion, or individual snark, although I will spend more time with your comments now.

    All that I do on this site is try to educate people in the art of logic. It is sorely lacking here. I tend to use Socratic responses in order to bring forth real thought. I am generally unsuccessful as for the hoi-polloi here, it is too late. They are too arrogant, too brainwashed from 30, 40, 50, 60 years of TV, public education, and American life. It's pointless and I realize it, so I entertain myself by making jokes.

    But, the young guys here that just peek in from time to time... still potential.

    Replies: @res

  121. @Priss Factor
    Associate and tie Immigration with 'Genocide' of the Indians.

    And do the same with Hawaii, a very blue state that takes pride its Diversity.

    Tie Diversity with Imperialism. Native Hawaiians lost their beloved homeland to whites and Asians who came as immigrant-invaders. Worse, these degenerate whites and their imitative yellow dogs have spreads globo-homo PC garbage all over.

    Also, mention what became of Palestine due to endless Jewish immigration.

    Even though a great nation was created by Immigration-Invasion, its great victims were the indigenous folks of America and Hawaii. THEREFORE, all immigration-invasion must be halted and the main mission of America must be to revive the Indian and Hawaiian communities.

    It's about time to associate immigration with shame and blame. Immigrant-Guilt. Emma-Lazarusism or Emma-gration led to Indians being reduced to wretched huddled masses in Reservations.

    At least white immigrant guilt was mitigated by having created a great nation. So, whites have earned some right to the New World.

    But all these non-white losers coming to mooch off Indian lands and White achievement, they must be stopped. Immigrant-Moocher Guilt.

    Replies: @tamo

    What a stupid comment from an asshole who might be a low-iq subhuman Armenian monkey who tries to pass himself as whitey, LOL !!!

  122. @Audacious Epigone
    @Mr. Rational

    Was it originally Ryan Faulk's?

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Yes it was.  His updated replacement article is here (thanks to whoever dug it up for me).

  123. @Audacious Epigone
    @Truth

    Illegal aliens have to pay more in taxes than they do now? Saving favored over spending?

    Replies: @Truth

    Yes, and what about or the other 90% of the American population?

    Now, if you are only taxing on consumption, who do you think is benefited more by this, the billionaire with the Ferrari and the Lake house in Colorado, or the plumber with the Ford and the condo?

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  124. @res
    @Truth

    Bring it on. I have been aware of your handle for a while (your comments are...distinctive, and we had a couple of exchanges recently). There is also plenty of comment history to work with if we want to play this game looking backwards as well as forwards.

    If you were serious about only now making a note of my handle you might want to revisit this exchange for some perspective.
    https://www.unz.com/article/captain-marvel-hates-you/#comment-3081380

    This is a good example of how you deal with substantive comments (not mine in this case):
    https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/more-race-denialism-the-poor-old-nyt-they-shoot-horses-dont-they/#comment-3068253
    Along with your followup:
    https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/more-race-denialism-the-poor-old-nyt-they-shoot-horses-dont-they/#comment-3068347


    The man was talking science, but I don’t come to a chatboard to read books. I have books for that.
     
    That whole exchange gives a decent idea of what a "debate" (more a discussion) between us looks like. Do you really not think I demonstrated I am at least an equal there and in the rest of that thread?

    P.S. That exchange also shows that my "I don’t think I have ever seen you engage with one of my substantive comments with anything other than snark" above was unfair. You made a serious point there (even if framed in a snarky fashion), but just without much support.

    Replies: @Truth

    Well, regarding the Flynn effect thing, I asked “was Quantavious smarter than your Grandparents?” to follow a simple thread of thought to it’s conclusion.

    The Flynn effect says that over the last 100 years the average (white) person has achieved an increase of IQ of roughly 30 points. That would mean that in 1918 the average white person had, what would be today, an IQ of 70. Your average black person today (“Quantavious” for illustrative purposes) has an IQ of 85, therefore one could make a fair assumption that if we were to put your fine, Oklahoma-farmer, salt-of-the-earth Grandfather in a time machine and bring him to our current age, he would not be as smart as Quantavious.

    Now I could be wrong, this is why I ended my querry with a question mark, and invited a response, but the data seems fairly certain here.

    As for your other point with substanitive comments, I think one thing many people do (not just you) is to conflate activity with achievement. If one can’t make your point in 500 words or less, one is, generally, the literary equivalent of an uninteresting blowhard who likes to hear himself talk.

    Hemmingway, here, gives a good example on why he feels brevity is important in communication.

    https://writingcooperative.com/the-hemingway-rule-ffab4851be80?gi=b909d1aa5c96

    Now, my friend, I am sorry if you feel that I insulted you and you are probably a smart man. However to be perfectly frank, your comments have not, in the past given me cause to bookmark your name in for future discussion, or individual snark, although I will spend more time with your comments now.

    All that I do on this site is try to educate people in the art of logic. It is sorely lacking here. I tend to use Socratic responses in order to bring forth real thought. I am generally unsuccessful as for the hoi-polloi here, it is too late. They are too arrogant, too brainwashed from 30, 40, 50, 60 years of TV, public education, and American life. It’s pointless and I realize it, so I entertain myself by making jokes.

    But, the young guys here that just peek in from time to time… still potential.

    • Replies: @res
    @Truth


    If one can’t make your point in 500 words or less, one is, generally, the literary equivalent of an uninteresting blowhard who likes to hear himself talk.
     
    You must love Twitter. Making a detailed argument with supporting references (and much of my word count is quotes from those) requires words. I generally try to make my point up front in relatively few words and then support and expand on it further down. Perhaps I should include an abstract for people who don't like to read?

    BTW, I suspect this helps explain why you don't find my comments memorable. You either don't read or don't understand the most useful ones.

    Regarding:

    The Flynn effect says that over the last 100 years the average (white) person has achieved an increase of IQ of roughly 30 points. That would mean that in 1918 the average white person had, what would be today, an IQ of 70. Your average black person today (“Quantavious” for illustrative purposes) has an IQ of 85, therefore one could make a fair assumption that if we were to put your fine, Oklahoma-farmer, salt-of-the-earth Grandfather in a time machine and bring him to our current age, he would not be as smart as Quantavious.

    Now I could be wrong, this is why I ended my querry with a question mark, and invited a response, but the data seems fairly certain here.
     
    Let's see, I made some responses to that point in the original thread. For example see this one (only 300 words, most of that quoting my source):
    https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/more-race-denialism-the-poor-old-nyt-they-shoot-horses-dont-they/#comment-3068882

    Salient point being (this is the Cliff Notes version since that seems to be what you prefer): "Some studies have found the gains of the Flynn effect to be particularly concentrated at the lower end of the distribution."

    So assuming the Flynn Effect applies full strength to my grandparents might not be a good assumption. Remember, IQ is heritable and I (unlike you) know what my grandparents did in life.

    In the original thread I stated that your estimate of 15 points per generation was high, but did not offer support (probably because it was covered by the link I gave for my previous point). So let's correct that omission. The wiki page on the FE looks like a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

    Two of the more useful data points there are:

    a study published in the year 2009 found that British children's average scores rose by 14 IQ points from 1942 to 2008.
    ...
    Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997, the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80.
     
    So to expand a little (I guess the terse answers I gave in the earlier thread weren't detailed enough for you to get my points, funny how that works).

    Based on the data above (and note that that data covers 3 generations, not 2) I would estimate the full FE operating between my and my grandparents generations was about 15 points (and since we are not at the low end, probably lower, but let's be conservative). I seemed to be a bit of an outlier so for the sake of argument assume their mean was another SD (15 points) lower. This would mean Q would have to be within 2 SD (30 points) of me to be smarter than a reasonable estimate of the mean for my grandparents.

    As I said before, I think that is unlikely if Q is near the black average. As I also said before, you would have a better chance.

    One thing I think is interesting is how so many here seem to assume anyone who talks about issues like this is simply a mouth breathing, low IQ racist. I can tell the difference between you and Q. That you can't do the same with me says a great deal about you IMHO.

    Replies: @Truth

  125. @Truth
    @res

    Well, regarding the Flynn effect thing, I asked "was Quantavious smarter than your Grandparents?" to follow a simple thread of thought to it's conclusion.

    The Flynn effect says that over the last 100 years the average (white) person has achieved an increase of IQ of roughly 30 points. That would mean that in 1918 the average white person had, what would be today, an IQ of 70. Your average black person today ("Quantavious" for illustrative purposes) has an IQ of 85, therefore one could make a fair assumption that if we were to put your fine, Oklahoma-farmer, salt-of-the-earth Grandfather in a time machine and bring him to our current age, he would not be as smart as Quantavious.

    Now I could be wrong, this is why I ended my querry with a question mark, and invited a response, but the data seems fairly certain here.

    As for your other point with substanitive comments, I think one thing many people do (not just you) is to conflate activity with achievement. If one can't make your point in 500 words or less, one is, generally, the literary equivalent of an uninteresting blowhard who likes to hear himself talk.

    Hemmingway, here, gives a good example on why he feels brevity is important in communication.

    https://writingcooperative.com/the-hemingway-rule-ffab4851be80?gi=b909d1aa5c96

    Now, my friend, I am sorry if you feel that I insulted you and you are probably a smart man. However to be perfectly frank, your comments have not, in the past given me cause to bookmark your name in for future discussion, or individual snark, although I will spend more time with your comments now.

    All that I do on this site is try to educate people in the art of logic. It is sorely lacking here. I tend to use Socratic responses in order to bring forth real thought. I am generally unsuccessful as for the hoi-polloi here, it is too late. They are too arrogant, too brainwashed from 30, 40, 50, 60 years of TV, public education, and American life. It's pointless and I realize it, so I entertain myself by making jokes.

    But, the young guys here that just peek in from time to time... still potential.

    Replies: @res

    If one can’t make your point in 500 words or less, one is, generally, the literary equivalent of an uninteresting blowhard who likes to hear himself talk.

    You must love Twitter. Making a detailed argument with supporting references (and much of my word count is quotes from those) requires words. I generally try to make my point up front in relatively few words and then support and expand on it further down. Perhaps I should include an abstract for people who don’t like to read?

    BTW, I suspect this helps explain why you don’t find my comments memorable. You either don’t read or don’t understand the most useful ones.

    Regarding:

    The Flynn effect says that over the last 100 years the average (white) person has achieved an increase of IQ of roughly 30 points. That would mean that in 1918 the average white person had, what would be today, an IQ of 70. Your average black person today (“Quantavious” for illustrative purposes) has an IQ of 85, therefore one could make a fair assumption that if we were to put your fine, Oklahoma-farmer, salt-of-the-earth Grandfather in a time machine and bring him to our current age, he would not be as smart as Quantavious.

    Now I could be wrong, this is why I ended my querry with a question mark, and invited a response, but the data seems fairly certain here.

    Let’s see, I made some responses to that point in the original thread. For example see this one (only 300 words, most of that quoting my source):
    https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/more-race-denialism-the-poor-old-nyt-they-shoot-horses-dont-they/#comment-3068882

    Salient point being (this is the Cliff Notes version since that seems to be what you prefer): “Some studies have found the gains of the Flynn effect to be particularly concentrated at the lower end of the distribution.”

    So assuming the Flynn Effect applies full strength to my grandparents might not be a good assumption. Remember, IQ is heritable and I (unlike you) know what my grandparents did in life.

    In the original thread I stated that your estimate of 15 points per generation was high, but did not offer support (probably because it was covered by the link I gave for my previous point). So let’s correct that omission. The wiki page on the FE looks like a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

    Two of the more useful data points there are:

    a study published in the year 2009 found that British children’s average scores rose by 14 IQ points from 1942 to 2008.

    Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997, the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80.

    So to expand a little (I guess the terse answers I gave in the earlier thread weren’t detailed enough for you to get my points, funny how that works).

    Based on the data above (and note that that data covers 3 generations, not 2) I would estimate the full FE operating between my and my grandparents generations was about 15 points (and since we are not at the low end, probably lower, but let’s be conservative). I seemed to be a bit of an outlier so for the sake of argument assume their mean was another SD (15 points) lower. This would mean Q would have to be within 2 SD (30 points) of me to be smarter than a reasonable estimate of the mean for my grandparents.

    As I said before, I think that is unlikely if Q is near the black average. As I also said before, you would have a better chance.

    One thing I think is interesting is how so many here seem to assume anyone who talks about issues like this is simply a mouth breathing, low IQ racist. I can tell the difference between you and Q. That you can’t do the same with me says a great deal about you IMHO.

    • Replies: @Truth
    @res


    The Flynn effect says that over the last 100 years the average (white) person has achieved an increase of IQ of roughly 30 points. That would mean that in 1918 the average white person had, what would be today, an IQ of 70. Your average black person today (“Quantavious” for illustrative purposes) has an IQ of 85, therefore one could make a fair assumption that if we were to put your fine, Oklahoma-farmer, salt-of-the-earth Grandfather in a time machine and bring him to our current age, he would not be as smart as Quantavious.
     

    Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997, the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80.
     
    So I am assuming an IQ gain of 30 points from 1918 to 2018. The honorable Mr. Neisser estimates an IQ gain of 20 points between 1932 and 1997. So what's the problem?

    You must love Twitter.

    Perhaps I should include an abstract for people who don’t like to read?

    I can tell the difference between you and Q. That you can’t do the same with me says a great deal about you IMHO.
     

    So you seem to be taking personal offense to something; Again, my original post:

    As for your other point with substanitive comments, I think one thing many people do (not just you) is to conflate activity with achievement. If one can’t make your point in 500 words or less, one is, generally, the literary equivalent of an uninteresting blowhard who likes to hear himself talk.

     

    Now I would profer here that there was no personal reference to you, so why are you taking offense?

    There is a old southern saying, maybe you heard it growing up; "if you throw a stick into a crowd of dogs, the only one who squeals is the one who got hit.

    Lesson #1, men confident in their abilities are not sensitive. I didn't insult your intellect, say anything about you being a racist or anything else. I just siad that your input is "undifferentiated." Not bad, racist or dumb, just not setting themselves above the rest of the stuff here; and there is a lot of stuff here. You being "racist" is totally and completely insignificant. You are who you are. You being "unaware" is what I am concerned about. And this is our greatest problem in the world and is setting us up for ruin.

    I'll give you an example: Do we live on a flat-plane earth that stays in place and is circumnavigated by the sun and the moon, or do we live on a baal-earth that is bounding randomly through the universe, at 67,000 mph with a bunch of other concentrations of rock, gas, and whoever-else knows, while rotating at 1,220 miles an hour?

    Accepting the latter means that you belive that mountins whipping through the atmosphere, continually at 1,200 mph would not create any winds. and that when you stand on the equator you are somehow standing at a 180 degree angle...without noticing it.

    So the question here is, why (and I am assuming that you do) do you believe the latter? The answer is "because someone told you to."

    These are the questions in life that I am hoping to answer, I come here and read this 1940's era racist silliness for relaxation. It doesn't offend me in the least, I know who I am. I know of my capabilities. The question that you must ask is "am I confident of my capabilities?" But stick with me here, and maybe something will come of it.

    OK, My Friend, you asked for substanative response, did you receive it?

    Replies: @res, @iffen

  126. @res
    @Truth


    If one can’t make your point in 500 words or less, one is, generally, the literary equivalent of an uninteresting blowhard who likes to hear himself talk.
     
    You must love Twitter. Making a detailed argument with supporting references (and much of my word count is quotes from those) requires words. I generally try to make my point up front in relatively few words and then support and expand on it further down. Perhaps I should include an abstract for people who don't like to read?

    BTW, I suspect this helps explain why you don't find my comments memorable. You either don't read or don't understand the most useful ones.

    Regarding:

    The Flynn effect says that over the last 100 years the average (white) person has achieved an increase of IQ of roughly 30 points. That would mean that in 1918 the average white person had, what would be today, an IQ of 70. Your average black person today (“Quantavious” for illustrative purposes) has an IQ of 85, therefore one could make a fair assumption that if we were to put your fine, Oklahoma-farmer, salt-of-the-earth Grandfather in a time machine and bring him to our current age, he would not be as smart as Quantavious.

    Now I could be wrong, this is why I ended my querry with a question mark, and invited a response, but the data seems fairly certain here.
     
    Let's see, I made some responses to that point in the original thread. For example see this one (only 300 words, most of that quoting my source):
    https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/more-race-denialism-the-poor-old-nyt-they-shoot-horses-dont-they/#comment-3068882

    Salient point being (this is the Cliff Notes version since that seems to be what you prefer): "Some studies have found the gains of the Flynn effect to be particularly concentrated at the lower end of the distribution."

    So assuming the Flynn Effect applies full strength to my grandparents might not be a good assumption. Remember, IQ is heritable and I (unlike you) know what my grandparents did in life.

    In the original thread I stated that your estimate of 15 points per generation was high, but did not offer support (probably because it was covered by the link I gave for my previous point). So let's correct that omission. The wiki page on the FE looks like a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

    Two of the more useful data points there are:

    a study published in the year 2009 found that British children's average scores rose by 14 IQ points from 1942 to 2008.
    ...
    Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997, the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80.
     
    So to expand a little (I guess the terse answers I gave in the earlier thread weren't detailed enough for you to get my points, funny how that works).

    Based on the data above (and note that that data covers 3 generations, not 2) I would estimate the full FE operating between my and my grandparents generations was about 15 points (and since we are not at the low end, probably lower, but let's be conservative). I seemed to be a bit of an outlier so for the sake of argument assume their mean was another SD (15 points) lower. This would mean Q would have to be within 2 SD (30 points) of me to be smarter than a reasonable estimate of the mean for my grandparents.

    As I said before, I think that is unlikely if Q is near the black average. As I also said before, you would have a better chance.

    One thing I think is interesting is how so many here seem to assume anyone who talks about issues like this is simply a mouth breathing, low IQ racist. I can tell the difference between you and Q. That you can't do the same with me says a great deal about you IMHO.

    Replies: @Truth

    The Flynn effect says that over the last 100 years the average (white) person has achieved an increase of IQ of roughly 30 points. That would mean that in 1918 the average white person had, what would be today, an IQ of 70. Your average black person today (“Quantavious” for illustrative purposes) has an IQ of 85, therefore one could make a fair assumption that if we were to put your fine, Oklahoma-farmer, salt-of-the-earth Grandfather in a time machine and bring him to our current age, he would not be as smart as Quantavious.

    Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997, the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80.

    So I am assuming an IQ gain of 30 points from 1918 to 2018. The honorable Mr. Neisser estimates an IQ gain of 20 points between 1932 and 1997. So what’s the problem?

    You must love Twitter.

    Perhaps I should include an abstract for people who don’t like to read?

    I can tell the difference between you and Q. That you can’t do the same with me says a great deal about you IMHO.

    So you seem to be taking personal offense to something; Again, my original post:

    As for your other point with substanitive comments, I think one thing many people do (not just you) is to conflate activity with achievement. If one can’t make your point in 500 words or less, one is, generally, the literary equivalent of an uninteresting blowhard who likes to hear himself talk.

    Now I would profer here that there was no personal reference to you, so why are you taking offense?

    There is a old southern saying, maybe you heard it growing up; “if you throw a stick into a crowd of dogs, the only one who squeals is the one who got hit.

    Lesson #1, men confident in their abilities are not sensitive. I didn’t insult your intellect, say anything about you being a racist or anything else. I just siad that your input is “undifferentiated.” Not bad, racist or dumb, just not setting themselves above the rest of the stuff here; and there is a lot of stuff here. You being “racist” is totally and completely insignificant. You are who you are. You being “unaware” is what I am concerned about. And this is our greatest problem in the world and is setting us up for ruin.

    I’ll give you an example: Do we live on a flat-plane earth that stays in place and is circumnavigated by the sun and the moon, or do we live on a baal-earth that is bounding randomly through the universe, at 67,000 mph with a bunch of other concentrations of rock, gas, and whoever-else knows, while rotating at 1,220 miles an hour?

    Accepting the latter means that you belive that mountins whipping through the atmosphere, continually at 1,200 mph would not create any winds. and that when you stand on the equator you are somehow standing at a 180 degree angle…without noticing it.

    So the question here is, why (and I am assuming that you do) do you believe the latter? The answer is “because someone told you to.”

    These are the questions in life that I am hoping to answer, I come here and read this 1940’s era racist silliness for relaxation. It doesn’t offend me in the least, I know who I am. I know of my capabilities. The question that you must ask is “am I confident of my capabilities?” But stick with me here, and maybe something will come of it.

    OK, My Friend, you asked for substanative response, did you receive it?

    • Replies: @res
    @Truth


    So I am assuming an IQ gain of 30 points from 1918 to 2018. The honorable Mr. Neisser estimates an IQ gain of 20 points between 1932 and 1997. So what’s the problem?
     
    1. I am using my own IQ as the comparison point so the relevant correction is only two generations. Say ~50 years. 50/65 * 20 = 15.4
    2. During the latter part of your time frame the FE seems to have stopped or reversed.
    https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2016-dutton.pdf

    I was quite clear about estimating the FE as 15 points over two generations in my earlier comment.


    So you seem to be taking personal offense to something; Again, my original post:
     
    Not so much offence as commentary on your lack of observational skills. And you actually included the more relevant part in your earlier excerpt:

    fine, Oklahoma-farmer, salt-of-the-earth Grandfather
     
    and trying to disavow your generic commentary which was obviously directed at me is weak.

    As for the rest (i.e. the bulk of) your comment, see "lack of substance" below.


    OK, My Friend, you asked for substanative response, did you receive it?
     
    I don't think so. Lots of words, but little substance (and the word is "substantive "). Who is conflating activity with achievement now? It is amazing how well projection explains statements like the one you made about that.

    Replies: @Truth

    , @iffen
    @Truth

    Truth: There is a old southern saying, maybe you heard it growing up; “if you throw a stick into a crowd of dogs, the only one who squeals is the one who got hit.

    Mark Twain: "the hit dog hollers."

  127. @Truth
    @res


    The Flynn effect says that over the last 100 years the average (white) person has achieved an increase of IQ of roughly 30 points. That would mean that in 1918 the average white person had, what would be today, an IQ of 70. Your average black person today (“Quantavious” for illustrative purposes) has an IQ of 85, therefore one could make a fair assumption that if we were to put your fine, Oklahoma-farmer, salt-of-the-earth Grandfather in a time machine and bring him to our current age, he would not be as smart as Quantavious.
     

    Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997, the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80.
     
    So I am assuming an IQ gain of 30 points from 1918 to 2018. The honorable Mr. Neisser estimates an IQ gain of 20 points between 1932 and 1997. So what's the problem?

    You must love Twitter.

    Perhaps I should include an abstract for people who don’t like to read?

    I can tell the difference between you and Q. That you can’t do the same with me says a great deal about you IMHO.
     

    So you seem to be taking personal offense to something; Again, my original post:

    As for your other point with substanitive comments, I think one thing many people do (not just you) is to conflate activity with achievement. If one can’t make your point in 500 words or less, one is, generally, the literary equivalent of an uninteresting blowhard who likes to hear himself talk.

     

    Now I would profer here that there was no personal reference to you, so why are you taking offense?

    There is a old southern saying, maybe you heard it growing up; "if you throw a stick into a crowd of dogs, the only one who squeals is the one who got hit.

    Lesson #1, men confident in their abilities are not sensitive. I didn't insult your intellect, say anything about you being a racist or anything else. I just siad that your input is "undifferentiated." Not bad, racist or dumb, just not setting themselves above the rest of the stuff here; and there is a lot of stuff here. You being "racist" is totally and completely insignificant. You are who you are. You being "unaware" is what I am concerned about. And this is our greatest problem in the world and is setting us up for ruin.

    I'll give you an example: Do we live on a flat-plane earth that stays in place and is circumnavigated by the sun and the moon, or do we live on a baal-earth that is bounding randomly through the universe, at 67,000 mph with a bunch of other concentrations of rock, gas, and whoever-else knows, while rotating at 1,220 miles an hour?

    Accepting the latter means that you belive that mountins whipping through the atmosphere, continually at 1,200 mph would not create any winds. and that when you stand on the equator you are somehow standing at a 180 degree angle...without noticing it.

    So the question here is, why (and I am assuming that you do) do you believe the latter? The answer is "because someone told you to."

    These are the questions in life that I am hoping to answer, I come here and read this 1940's era racist silliness for relaxation. It doesn't offend me in the least, I know who I am. I know of my capabilities. The question that you must ask is "am I confident of my capabilities?" But stick with me here, and maybe something will come of it.

    OK, My Friend, you asked for substanative response, did you receive it?

    Replies: @res, @iffen

    So I am assuming an IQ gain of 30 points from 1918 to 2018. The honorable Mr. Neisser estimates an IQ gain of 20 points between 1932 and 1997. So what’s the problem?

    1. I am using my own IQ as the comparison point so the relevant correction is only two generations. Say ~50 years. 50/65 * 20 = 15.4
    2. During the latter part of your time frame the FE seems to have stopped or reversed.
    https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2016-dutton.pdf

    I was quite clear about estimating the FE as 15 points over two generations in my earlier comment.

    So you seem to be taking personal offense to something; Again, my original post:

    Not so much offence as commentary on your lack of observational skills. And you actually included the more relevant part in your earlier excerpt:

    fine, Oklahoma-farmer, salt-of-the-earth Grandfather

    and trying to disavow your generic commentary which was obviously directed at me is weak.

    As for the rest (i.e. the bulk of) your comment, see “lack of substance” below.

    OK, My Friend, you asked for substanative response, did you receive it?

    I don’t think so. Lots of words, but little substance (and the word is “substantive “). Who is conflating activity with achievement now? It is amazing how well projection explains statements like the one you made about that.

    • Replies: @Truth
    @res

    OK my friend, it seems that, in my humble opinion only, you are not ready for this. This sort of "I'm so hurt" reaction is anathema to intellectual discourse, again IMHO only, obviously most of the Unzistas would disagree here, as that is all they do.

    If your grandfather is, in fact, from Oklahoma, I guess that makes me a psychic as well (I do not work with the CIA, it was merely banter), I did not know so no offense to the Oakie side of your family.

    I guess all that I can say is, keep swinging, and good luck.

    Replies: @res

  128. @res
    @Truth


    So I am assuming an IQ gain of 30 points from 1918 to 2018. The honorable Mr. Neisser estimates an IQ gain of 20 points between 1932 and 1997. So what’s the problem?
     
    1. I am using my own IQ as the comparison point so the relevant correction is only two generations. Say ~50 years. 50/65 * 20 = 15.4
    2. During the latter part of your time frame the FE seems to have stopped or reversed.
    https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2016-dutton.pdf

    I was quite clear about estimating the FE as 15 points over two generations in my earlier comment.


    So you seem to be taking personal offense to something; Again, my original post:
     
    Not so much offence as commentary on your lack of observational skills. And you actually included the more relevant part in your earlier excerpt:

    fine, Oklahoma-farmer, salt-of-the-earth Grandfather
     
    and trying to disavow your generic commentary which was obviously directed at me is weak.

    As for the rest (i.e. the bulk of) your comment, see "lack of substance" below.


    OK, My Friend, you asked for substanative response, did you receive it?
     
    I don't think so. Lots of words, but little substance (and the word is "substantive "). Who is conflating activity with achievement now? It is amazing how well projection explains statements like the one you made about that.

    Replies: @Truth

    OK my friend, it seems that, in my humble opinion only, you are not ready for this. This sort of “I’m so hurt” reaction is anathema to intellectual discourse, again IMHO only, obviously most of the Unzistas would disagree here, as that is all they do.

    If your grandfather is, in fact, from Oklahoma, I guess that makes me a psychic as well (I do not work with the CIA, it was merely banter), I did not know so no offense to the Oakie side of your family.

    I guess all that I can say is, keep swinging, and good luck.

    • Replies: @res
    @Truth

    I'm not hurt. Just bemused by the way you respond (or not) to the informative parts of my comments. It is quite telling that virtually all of your responses are focused on either me personally or the trivial parts of what I say.

    And if you think you won that round...I guess we are using very different metrics. Which is kind of my point about contrasting snark with substantive.

    Cheers.

  129. @Truth
    @res

    Well no, Old Sport, my comments are "snark filled" because that is the level of intellect that tyour comments demand.

    I posted two links earlier, one that white people collect more social welfare than blacks, one that corporate welfare far exceeds social welfare $. Corporate welfare is close to %0 black.

    With this is mind, I guess my one leg is doing me fine.

    https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-flamingos-stand-one-leg

    A wise professor made one of the brilliant statements of our time that I have adopted into my personal canon:

    I only debate my equals, all others, I teach.
    -John Henrik Clarke

    If you want serious debate, prove that you are an equal.

    Replies: @Talha, @Mark G., @res, @Reg Cæsar

  130. Really? And how many of these Hatians have filed for articles of incorporation?

  131. @Truth
    @res

    OK my friend, it seems that, in my humble opinion only, you are not ready for this. This sort of "I'm so hurt" reaction is anathema to intellectual discourse, again IMHO only, obviously most of the Unzistas would disagree here, as that is all they do.

    If your grandfather is, in fact, from Oklahoma, I guess that makes me a psychic as well (I do not work with the CIA, it was merely banter), I did not know so no offense to the Oakie side of your family.

    I guess all that I can say is, keep swinging, and good luck.

    Replies: @res

    I’m not hurt. Just bemused by the way you respond (or not) to the informative parts of my comments. It is quite telling that virtually all of your responses are focused on either me personally or the trivial parts of what I say.

    And if you think you won that round…I guess we are using very different metrics. Which is kind of my point about contrasting snark with substantive.

    Cheers.

  132. @Audacious Epigone
    @Rosie

    It's trashy but it's not dehumanizing so she tolerates it.

    Replies: @Rosie

    not dehumanizing

    Orly?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Rosie

    You think it is? Explain.

    Replies: @Rosie

  133. @Audacious Epigone
    @Rosie

    Does "thot" run people off the same way N- or K- does? I don't think so, but I may be incorrect.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Does “thot” run people off the same way N- or K- does? I don’t think so, but I may be incorrect.

    I don’t know if it does or not, but it seems well worth it to avoid the term and see if some more womenfolk don’t show up around here. I suspect certain people use the term precisely to avoid that outcome. They would prefer to lose than to win with the cooperation women of their own stock. All that said, I trust your judgment. Lord knows, it’s difficult to get along in our circles if you’re civil to women.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Talha
    @Rosie


    more womenfolk don’t show up around here...They would prefer to lose than to win with the cooperation women of their own stock.
     
    Very interesting research that has come out (from Germany, at least) that focuses on some of the points I have been making about the nexus between females and spirituality and the need for any movement to provide a successful spiritual program to attract them:
    "People who feel a sense of oneness with something outside of themselves are more likely to be satisfied in life, according to a study....Those who believed in oneness were more satisfied with life, the study suggested. The data also revealed women were significantly more likely to believe in oneness than men."
    https://www.newsweek.com/life-satisfaction-boosted-sense-oneness-regardless-religion-study-finds-1391618

    Not surprisingly, Muslims topped the survey (the term Tawhid [the core pillar and coctrine of the religion] - translates pretty forwardly into "Divine Oneness" or "Divine Unity"):
    "Muslims, on average, had the highest mean value of oneness beliefs, followed by Christians who don’t identify as Protestant or Catholic. This was followed by Buddhism, Hindu, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, other non-Christian and finally atheists."

    This would go fairly well in explaining why our converts skew so heavily toward females (between 2/3 to 3/4).

    Again, any successful and long-term movement needs to be able to attract females. Of course, making a space where they feel welcome is a great start.

    Peace.
  134. @Rosie
    @Audacious Epigone


    Does “thot” run people off the same way N- or K- does? I don’t think so, but I may be incorrect.
     
    I don't know if it does or not, but it seems well worth it to avoid the term and see if some more womenfolk don't show up around here. I suspect certain people use the term precisely to avoid that outcome. They would prefer to lose than to win with the cooperation women of their own stock. All that said, I trust your judgment. Lord knows, it's difficult to get along in our circles if you're civil to women.

    Replies: @Talha

    more womenfolk don’t show up around here…They would prefer to lose than to win with the cooperation women of their own stock.

    Very interesting research that has come out (from Germany, at least) that focuses on some of the points I have been making about the nexus between females and spirituality and the need for any movement to provide a successful spiritual program to attract them:
    “People who feel a sense of oneness with something outside of themselves are more likely to be satisfied in life, according to a study….Those who believed in oneness were more satisfied with life, the study suggested. The data also revealed women were significantly more likely to believe in oneness than men.
    https://www.newsweek.com/life-satisfaction-boosted-sense-oneness-regardless-religion-study-finds-1391618

    Not surprisingly, Muslims topped the survey (the term Tawhid [the core pillar and coctrine of the religion] – translates pretty forwardly into “Divine Oneness” or “Divine Unity”):
    “Muslims, on average, had the highest mean value of oneness beliefs, followed by Christians who don’t identify as Protestant or Catholic. This was followed by Buddhism, Hindu, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, other non-Christian and finally atheists.”

    This would go fairly well in explaining why our converts skew so heavily toward females (between 2/3 to 3/4).

    Again, any successful and long-term movement needs to be able to attract females. Of course, making a space where they feel welcome is a great start.

    Peace.

  135. No reparations for blacks or indians ever. NOT ONE CENT. As far as I am concerned they owe Whites for allowing them access to a level of civilisation they could never manage on their own.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  136. @Marty T
    The only reparations I support are a one way cruise ship back to West Africa. But make it a nice ship, unlimited fried chicken included.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Americans would NEVER go for that because it’s unfair, and whites hate unfairness. Descendants of slaves didn’t choose to be brought to North America so it is not fair to force them to leave.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter
    @Audacious Epigone

    The alternative might be a lot worse ...

    , @Mr. Rational
    @Audacious Epigone

    Felons chose to commit crime, so it's fair to force them to leave.

    Blacks can choose to accept "reparations" for the "historical crime" of bringing their ancestors here, and it's eminently fair for the ones who accept to return to Africa in exchange as this reverses the "historical crime".  Those who stay implicitly agree that White America is a better place to live than Africa even with a pocket full of money, so the notion of "reparations" is BS.

    Actually, it would be fair for blacks to have what amounts to a plebiscite on this issue:  if more than 50% rejected the deal of "reparations" plus repatriation, the whole thing is scrapped... and any talk about reparations for or oppression against blacks is banned henceforth.  (Punishable by repatriation WITHOUT compensation.)

    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Audacious Epigone

    "Descendants of slaves didn’t choose to be brought to North America so it is not fair to force them to leave."

    Disagree. Those descendants are attempting to enslave the white population (most of who's ancestors were either not in the US or had no connection to slave owners) for eternity.

    A battle for survival will ensue. That is the only alternative.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  137. @Rosie
    @Audacious Epigone


    not dehumanizing
     
    Orly?

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    You think it is? Explain.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Audacious Epigone


    You think it is? Explain.
     
    The trouble is that I can't really say one way or the other without actually knowing what these words mean. Again, they clearly don't mean "prostitute." They are thrown about far too casually for that. Asking men who use the term what it means might be a better place to start. Of course, they won't answer you, because terms of abuse, like "racist," work better when they are vague. My suspicion, to be perfectly honest, is that "thot" means an unmarried woman with a job, though the thot-screechers would never admit as much.

    Now, you have to understand that women take the whole matter of prostitution very seriously. It is an internal revulsion that most of us have in the fiber of our being. Indeed, it's quite remarkable that only circumstances of extreme deprivation will push more than 2% of women into prostitution. That is quite remarkable when you think about it. Here we are sitting on this tremendously valuable (ahem) asset, and yet precious few of us consider selling it absent the utmost desperation, such as drug addiction or hunger. We think of it as near total degradation to sell our bodies. It goes without saying that we are going to be offended by these terms of abuse.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Truth

  138. @Audacious Epigone
    @Marty T

    Americans would NEVER go for that because it's unfair, and whites hate unfairness. Descendants of slaves didn't choose to be brought to North America so it is not fair to force them to leave.

    Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter, @Mr. Rational, @MikeatMikedotMike

    The alternative might be a lot worse …

  139. @Audacious Epigone
    @Rosie

    You think it is? Explain.

    Replies: @Rosie

    You think it is? Explain.

    The trouble is that I can’t really say one way or the other without actually knowing what these words mean. Again, they clearly don’t mean “prostitute.” They are thrown about far too casually for that. Asking men who use the term what it means might be a better place to start. Of course, they won’t answer you, because terms of abuse, like “racist,” work better when they are vague. My suspicion, to be perfectly honest, is that “thot” means an unmarried woman with a job, though the thot-screechers would never admit as much.

    Now, you have to understand that women take the whole matter of prostitution very seriously. It is an internal revulsion that most of us have in the fiber of our being. Indeed, it’s quite remarkable that only circumstances of extreme deprivation will push more than 2% of women into prostitution. That is quite remarkable when you think about it. Here we are sitting on this tremendously valuable (ahem) asset, and yet precious few of us consider selling it absent the utmost desperation, such as drug addiction or hunger. We think of it as near total degradation to sell our bodies. It goes without saying that we are going to be offended by these terms of abuse.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Rosie

    https://www.thecut.com/2016/03/women-judge-prostitution-more-harshly-than-men.html

    My sense is that men and women have very fundamental disagreements about "whoredom," and whether and how it is wrong. Many men don't actually have any moral objection to prostitution as such. They see it as merely transactional fornication, no better or worse than any other kind. Women see it much differently. We see it as a kind of self- abasement, rather like a politician who sells out his principles for votes or funding, whom we often refer to figuratively as "whores" of a kind.

    , @Truth
    @Rosie

    LOL It is sometimes difficult to translate ebonics propperly for white folks, but the général meaning of THOT is a woman of no particular distinction who's goal in Life is to be attractive to men.

    For instance, if you and your husband go to the Honky-Tonk and Beckie is half naked, with bleached- blonde hait and is flirtinh with je and other shamelessly, she's a THOT.

    The word is genergenerally preceded by 'random' to give yoi an idea.

    Replies: @Talha

  140. @Rosie
    @Audacious Epigone


    You think it is? Explain.
     
    The trouble is that I can't really say one way or the other without actually knowing what these words mean. Again, they clearly don't mean "prostitute." They are thrown about far too casually for that. Asking men who use the term what it means might be a better place to start. Of course, they won't answer you, because terms of abuse, like "racist," work better when they are vague. My suspicion, to be perfectly honest, is that "thot" means an unmarried woman with a job, though the thot-screechers would never admit as much.

    Now, you have to understand that women take the whole matter of prostitution very seriously. It is an internal revulsion that most of us have in the fiber of our being. Indeed, it's quite remarkable that only circumstances of extreme deprivation will push more than 2% of women into prostitution. That is quite remarkable when you think about it. Here we are sitting on this tremendously valuable (ahem) asset, and yet precious few of us consider selling it absent the utmost desperation, such as drug addiction or hunger. We think of it as near total degradation to sell our bodies. It goes without saying that we are going to be offended by these terms of abuse.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Truth

    https://www.thecut.com/2016/03/women-judge-prostitution-more-harshly-than-men.html

    My sense is that men and women have very fundamental disagreements about “whoredom,” and whether and how it is wrong. Many men don’t actually have any moral objection to prostitution as such. They see it as merely transactional fornication, no better or worse than any other kind. Women see it much differently. We see it as a kind of self- abasement, rather like a politician who sells out his principles for votes or funding, whom we often refer to figuratively as “whores” of a kind.

  141. @Rosie
    @Audacious Epigone


    You think it is? Explain.
     
    The trouble is that I can't really say one way or the other without actually knowing what these words mean. Again, they clearly don't mean "prostitute." They are thrown about far too casually for that. Asking men who use the term what it means might be a better place to start. Of course, they won't answer you, because terms of abuse, like "racist," work better when they are vague. My suspicion, to be perfectly honest, is that "thot" means an unmarried woman with a job, though the thot-screechers would never admit as much.

    Now, you have to understand that women take the whole matter of prostitution very seriously. It is an internal revulsion that most of us have in the fiber of our being. Indeed, it's quite remarkable that only circumstances of extreme deprivation will push more than 2% of women into prostitution. That is quite remarkable when you think about it. Here we are sitting on this tremendously valuable (ahem) asset, and yet precious few of us consider selling it absent the utmost desperation, such as drug addiction or hunger. We think of it as near total degradation to sell our bodies. It goes without saying that we are going to be offended by these terms of abuse.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Truth

    LOL It is sometimes difficult to translate ebonics propperly for white folks, but the général meaning of THOT is a woman of no particular distinction who’s goal in Life is to be attractive to men.

    For instance, if you and your husband go to the Honky-Tonk and Beckie is half naked, with bleached- blonde hait and is flirtinh with je and other shamelessly, she’s a THOT.

    The word is genergenerally preceded by ‘random’ to give yoi an idea.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Truth

    https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/226/766/491.jpg

    Peace.

  142. @Truth
    @Rosie

    LOL It is sometimes difficult to translate ebonics propperly for white folks, but the général meaning of THOT is a woman of no particular distinction who's goal in Life is to be attractive to men.

    For instance, if you and your husband go to the Honky-Tonk and Beckie is half naked, with bleached- blonde hait and is flirtinh with je and other shamelessly, she's a THOT.

    The word is genergenerally preceded by 'random' to give yoi an idea.

    Replies: @Talha

    Peace.

  143. @Audacious Epigone
    @Marty T

    Americans would NEVER go for that because it's unfair, and whites hate unfairness. Descendants of slaves didn't choose to be brought to North America so it is not fair to force them to leave.

    Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter, @Mr. Rational, @MikeatMikedotMike

    Felons chose to commit crime, so it’s fair to force them to leave.

    Blacks can choose to accept “reparations” for the “historical crime” of bringing their ancestors here, and it’s eminently fair for the ones who accept to return to Africa in exchange as this reverses the “historical crime”.  Those who stay implicitly agree that White America is a better place to live than Africa even with a pocket full of money, so the notion of “reparations” is BS.

    Actually, it would be fair for blacks to have what amounts to a plebiscite on this issue:  if more than 50% rejected the deal of “reparations” plus repatriation, the whole thing is scrapped… and any talk about reparations for or oppression against blacks is banned henceforth.  (Punishable by repatriation WITHOUT compensation.)

  144. Affirmative Action

    I am zipping this off . . .

    I had intended to take a break, but I opted to address this question, Which if examining the submitted data took more time (is taking) more time than I’d like. I have no idea why they would use a multiple regression when they don’t know the corresponding variables actually are or such a simple goal why it would matter.

    There’s a simple solution to my comments. If there are a problem for you don’t read them.

    I have read this research. I am going to reread a couple of times. There are problems with some methodologies to the outcomes, but in order to keep my comments brief I will immediately note a couple.

    Simple answers:

    1. There colleges are not a representative example of not only AA policies and practices among elite colleges, they are even less an example among colleges in general and they become further insignificant to national policy that addresses not only education but employment as well. Three schools of the 5300 colleges and universities is roughly 0.0566%. How much of that would reflect the policies of the other 5000 plus is questionable and almost useless when considering the vast scope of the policy we are talking about. Now the article notes that all other colleges other than elite schools admit everyone who applies. I would need to look at that source material. But it is a dubious suggestion.

    Some Elite Schools: https://www.ivywise.com/ivywise-knowledgebase/admission-statistics/
    Schools in general: https://www.collegesimply.com/guides/low-acceptance-rate/

    So what constitutes and elite school is questionable. And though it is a side issue leaves serious doubt about whether these schools in this study spanning several years are representative of the whole.

    2. You might want to read the conclusion as well as the other narratives. The researchers admit that even they are speculating about AA programs even among these three schools because as is the case among most schools the selection process is by design intended to be kept private because in selection there are various measures that do not include statistical measures, ie. SAT, ACT, Grades, what have you. But not having that data, it’s virtually impossible to determine how many whites were admitted via other variables besides their score.

    3. But the conclusion in the research itself suggests your contention is nonsense because they indicate two very distinct variables outweigh all other preferences legacy and athletics. I suspect the legacy (preference) applicants Both programs exceed AA policies.

    4. And I think you are missing this very important outlier, and where across the board, makes my case. Women are part and parcel the largest demographic of AA and most of those women by far are white. That alone surpasses the the black population admitted in total, even among these three schools.

    ____________________________

    The area in which whites own AA is when one examines the demographic regarding gender. And that is where in college. employment and other areas they outstrip any other demographic. I have provided multiple sources for this and not inclined to dig them up again. White women to AA benefits 60% plus. Considering that in survey data both asians and hispanic populations are noted or note themselves as white that number shoots up to more than seventy. But taking those two groups, that’s another bite from the whole. Leaving the other 30% or so to be divided up among all other representative groups in which same sex practitioners qualify and whatever proportion of them are white would go in the white plus column, as would mental and physical disabled applicants.

    There are a lot more issues with the study you intended to make your case, But on its face and by the conclusions and data in the research itself — even without a counter data sets. It is insufficient and in many ways contradicts you.

    Your slide in by proportional measures is upended when looking at the sex and other preferences such as legacy and athletics. Note: any attempt to highlight black athletes would have to take into account that preferences to athletes existed long before the first black ever attended and institution higher learning. And for most higher education learning, that only included whites.

    I have some other concerns, but the above is sufficient for now.

    At the end of the day what matters is final count not proportionality. I remember when the annual police deaths increase by homicide were an issue. The percentages were high. I think they were as high as some 50%. That’s a shocking percentage, until you look at how many actual deaths that represented. I think the highest increase was five officers from one to another. Suddenly, that number was brought into relief (reality) out of nearly 900,000 officers the average number killed by homicide is about 100. And that number drops when considering how many of those killed are killed by an assailant. No less tragic, but the gambit of percentages to advance an agenda is often lost when it gets applied to outcomes. In the case of police the number of officers killed is roughly 0.0011%. That does not make deaths any less tragic. But it matters when designing policy.

    So when people get to pushing proportional arguments about human constructs to behavior, I walk to actualities not merely proportions. What these schools are attempting to do is rebalance an artificial imbalance. But because AA as it was intended has included unexpected populations it has continued to benefit the dominant population on the matter of color.

    There are other issues, but for now . . . that’s it.

    • Replies: @res
    @ElitecommInc.

    Who are you replying to?


    There’s a simple solution to my comments. If there are a problem for you don’t read them.
     
    That's a good idea. I don't believe in ignoring commenters in general (even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes, and it's good to rebut the most obvious nonsense), but perhaps I should make an exception in your case.

    I took a quick look at your two links and I see nothing about AA.

    Do you think your word salad "arguments" are the least bit persuasive?
  145. @ElitecommInc.
    Affirmative Action

    I am zipping this off . . .

    I had intended to take a break, but I opted to address this question, Which if examining the submitted data took more time (is taking) more time than I'd like. I have no idea why they would use a multiple regression when they don't know the corresponding variables actually are or such a simple goal why it would matter.


    There's a simple solution to my comments. If there are a problem for you don't read them.

    I have read this research. I am going to reread a couple of times. There are problems with some methodologies to the outcomes, but in order to keep my comments brief I will immediately note a couple.


    Simple answers:


    1. There colleges are not a representative example of not only AA policies and practices among elite colleges, they are even less an example among colleges in general and they become further insignificant to national policy that addresses not only education but employment as well. Three schools of the 5300 colleges and universities is roughly 0.0566%. How much of that would reflect the policies of the other 5000 plus is questionable and almost useless when considering the vast scope of the policy we are talking about. Now the article notes that all other colleges other than elite schools admit everyone who applies. I would need to look at that source material. But it is a dubious suggestion.

    Some Elite Schools: https://www.ivywise.com/ivywise-knowledgebase/admission-statistics/
    Schools in general: https://www.collegesimply.com/guides/low-acceptance-rate/

    So what constitutes and elite school is questionable. And though it is a side issue leaves serious doubt about whether these schools in this study spanning several years are representative of the whole.


    2. You might want to read the conclusion as well as the other narratives. The researchers admit that even they are speculating about AA programs even among these three schools because as is the case among most schools the selection process is by design intended to be kept private because in selection there are various measures that do not include statistical measures, ie. SAT, ACT, Grades, what have you. But not having that data, it's virtually impossible to determine how many whites were admitted via other variables besides their score.

    3. But the conclusion in the research itself suggests your contention is nonsense because they indicate two very distinct variables outweigh all other preferences legacy and athletics. I suspect the legacy (preference) applicants Both programs exceed AA policies.

    4. And I think you are missing this very important outlier, and where across the board, makes my case. Women are part and parcel the largest demographic of AA and most of those women by far are white. That alone surpasses the the black population admitted in total, even among these three schools.


    ____________________________

    The area in which whites own AA is when one examines the demographic regarding gender. And that is where in college. employment and other areas they outstrip any other demographic. I have provided multiple sources for this and not inclined to dig them up again. White women to AA benefits 60% plus. Considering that in survey data both asians and hispanic populations are noted or note themselves as white that number shoots up to more than seventy. But taking those two groups, that's another bite from the whole. Leaving the other 30% or so to be divided up among all other representative groups in which same sex practitioners qualify and whatever proportion of them are white would go in the white plus column, as would mental and physical disabled applicants.

    There are a lot more issues with the study you intended to make your case, But on its face and by the conclusions and data in the research itself -- even without a counter data sets. It is insufficient and in many ways contradicts you.

    Your slide in by proportional measures is upended when looking at the sex and other preferences such as legacy and athletics. Note: any attempt to highlight black athletes would have to take into account that preferences to athletes existed long before the first black ever attended and institution higher learning. And for most higher education learning, that only included whites.

    I have some other concerns, but the above is sufficient for now.

    At the end of the day what matters is final count not proportionality. I remember when the annual police deaths increase by homicide were an issue. The percentages were high. I think they were as high as some 50%. That's a shocking percentage, until you look at how many actual deaths that represented. I think the highest increase was five officers from one to another. Suddenly, that number was brought into relief (reality) out of nearly 900,000 officers the average number killed by homicide is about 100. And that number drops when considering how many of those killed are killed by an assailant. No less tragic, but the gambit of percentages to advance an agenda is often lost when it gets applied to outcomes. In the case of police the number of officers killed is roughly 0.0011%. That does not make deaths any less tragic. But it matters when designing policy.

    So when people get to pushing proportional arguments about human constructs to behavior, I walk to actualities not merely proportions. What these schools are attempting to do is rebalance an artificial imbalance. But because AA as it was intended has included unexpected populations it has continued to benefit the dominant population on the matter of color.

    There are other issues, but for now . . . that's it.

    Replies: @res

    Who are you replying to?

    There’s a simple solution to my comments. If there are a problem for you don’t read them.

    That’s a good idea. I don’t believe in ignoring commenters in general (even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes, and it’s good to rebut the most obvious nonsense), but perhaps I should make an exception in your case.

    I took a quick look at your two links and I see nothing about AA.

    Do you think your word salad “arguments” are the least bit persuasive?

  146. The data that blacks are benefited more by AA than whites is nit supported.

    It’s that simple.

    Laugh. As I noted. I am off to other issues.

    You can complain about the writing as you like. The problem with the study to make your case remains.

    Further reasons why I left the default anti- AA bandwagon.

    ————————–

    As for the hated of unfairness.

    • Replies: @ElitecommInc.
    @ElitecommInc.

    Emphasis on the Dr. Reeves data


    And I support and vote conservative

    , @res
    @ElitecommInc.


    The data that blacks are benefited more by AA than whites is nit supported.
     
    Let's revisit some evidence. In comment 97 I linked to https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/files/webAdmission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004.pdf

    That is data for 10 elite universities. Table 2 indicates that the odds ratio for African Americans being admitted (compared to whites) is about 5 in all of their models which include both SAT scores and race.

    I also alluded to Harvard data I presented in another thread (this is a product of the lawsuit over Asian admissions). That data is available at http://www.ceousa.org/attachments/article/1237/CEO%20Study%20Harvard%20Investigates%20Harvard.pdf
    and I discuss it in this comment:
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/why-are-people-paying-bribes-to-get-their-kids-into-usc/#comment-3138219
    That model indicates the odds ratio for African Americans being admitted (compared to whites) is about 10 (e^2.37).

    Those references seem far more persuasive to me than anything you have presented. And the odds ratios are very large.

    I am pretty sure you neither know nor care what an odds ratio is, but for those interested here is an explanation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2938757/

    Also worth repeating from my comment 97:

    1. Learn what per capita means.
    2. Learn what net means. White women may benefit, but white men most certainly do not.
     
  147. @ElitecommInc.
    The data that blacks are benefited more by AA than whites is nit supported.


    It's that simple.


    Laugh. As I noted. I am off to other issues.


    You can complain about the writing as you like. The problem with the study to make your case remains.

    Further reasons why I left the default anti- AA bandwagon.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaObfhJUt18
    --------------------------


    As for the hated of unfairness.

    Replies: @ElitecommInc., @res

    Emphasis on the Dr. Reeves data

    And I support and vote conservative

  148. @ElitecommInc.
    The data that blacks are benefited more by AA than whites is nit supported.


    It's that simple.


    Laugh. As I noted. I am off to other issues.


    You can complain about the writing as you like. The problem with the study to make your case remains.

    Further reasons why I left the default anti- AA bandwagon.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaObfhJUt18
    --------------------------


    As for the hated of unfairness.

    Replies: @ElitecommInc., @res

    The data that blacks are benefited more by AA than whites is nit supported.

    Let’s revisit some evidence. In comment 97 I linked to https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/files/webAdmission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004.pdf

    That is data for 10 elite universities. Table 2 indicates that the odds ratio for African Americans being admitted (compared to whites) is about 5 in all of their models which include both SAT scores and race.

    I also alluded to Harvard data I presented in another thread (this is a product of the lawsuit over Asian admissions). That data is available at http://www.ceousa.org/attachments/article/1237/CEO%20Study%20Harvard%20Investigates%20Harvard.pdf
    and I discuss it in this comment:
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/why-are-people-paying-bribes-to-get-their-kids-into-usc/#comment-3138219
    That model indicates the odds ratio for African Americans being admitted (compared to whites) is about 10 (e^2.37).

    Those references seem far more persuasive to me than anything you have presented. And the odds ratios are very large.

    I am pretty sure you neither know nor care what an odds ratio is, but for those interested here is an explanation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2938757/

    Also worth repeating from my comment 97:

    1. Learn what per capita means.
    2. Learn what net means. White women may benefit, but white men most certainly do not.

  149. @Audacious Epigone
    @Marty T

    Americans would NEVER go for that because it's unfair, and whites hate unfairness. Descendants of slaves didn't choose to be brought to North America so it is not fair to force them to leave.

    Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter, @Mr. Rational, @MikeatMikedotMike

    “Descendants of slaves didn’t choose to be brought to North America so it is not fair to force them to leave.”

    Disagree. Those descendants are attempting to enslave the white population (most of who’s ancestors were either not in the US or had no connection to slave owners) for eternity.

    A battle for survival will ensue. That is the only alternative.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    With birthrates below replacement for both white and black Americans, why must this be the case? Absent immigration, there is more than enough room for everyone.

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike, @iffen

  150. Laughing. After a browse through the study

    The first thing one tackles in reviewing a research is the methodology. And there are major problems as the researchers themselves admit.

    Second, your choice of a study that comprises three schools simply has no little value because the sample size is to small and the sample is of a category that would not be consistent to the entire policy administered across the country, i.e. for employment. You are talking about two vastly different constructs. And as is clear even in the study provided even in the elite construct of academia the factors in relationship to explicating AA differ. If the methods of applying AA policy varies from school to school that impact results. Making the leap from the academic to hiring practices which will vary from employer to employer is in a word — bizarre.

    Not even the researchers attempt such a leap.

    One of the responses I left out and will include in a different response are the break out of women who are AA recipients. That number could be as high 100%. That seems to be the assumption regarding anyone who is not white. I would have to go back and take another look. But if your the paper there’s a reference to AA also being applied to low income populations. Given that whites make up a sizable portion of low income demographic. I would be curious to know how many whites were provided preferential status.

    And the authors use a reference that is rather odd when indicating what elite schools do regarding acceptance. The reference says that all non-elite colleges accept essentially every candidate. That’s why I looked at the other schools acceptance rates — that contention is incorrect.

    But at the end of the day the numbers matter and it’s pretty clear that even to this study when considering all variables — whites benefit the most. But in order to get that, one has to actually read the study, not merely look at the graphs and charts.

    I tell you what, describe the non-statistical data, SAT scores, grades, etc. and give me me how they were rated for just the white students. I already know the answer.

    ——————————————-

    “2. Learn what net means. White women may benefit, but white men most certainly do not.”

    Laughing. Well, You are welcome to tell white women they are not white. I would love to hear that conversation. It would be worse than whites in congress telling their wives, girlfriends, mistresses, daughters, and granddaughters why the included women as an attempt kill the civil rights legislation.

    You are also welcome to tell millions of men how their wives and daughters as primary recipients of AA policy don’t benefit them as well. I would include girl friends and mistresses, but that might be crossing the line.

    AA action benefits whites more than blacks and has from its inception. You might want to do some homework on what AA was created to do and how. The AA policy you complain about which benefits whites more than blacks is not the policy intended. Not by a long shot.

    As to your inclusion of ten elite school studies, since the policy is to 5000 plus other schools are far short. As for your tiresome per capita assail, most of the population of the US have not gone to college much less an elite college, if you think a per capita assessment is applicable across the board, well, let’s just say apples and oranges is not two peas in a pod.

    Good grief.

    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @res
    @EliteCommInc.


    After a browse through the study
     
    Which one? Did you fail to notice I linked two?

    And where is your data?

    Replies: @iffen, @EliteCommInc.

  151. @Truth
    @res


    The Flynn effect says that over the last 100 years the average (white) person has achieved an increase of IQ of roughly 30 points. That would mean that in 1918 the average white person had, what would be today, an IQ of 70. Your average black person today (“Quantavious” for illustrative purposes) has an IQ of 85, therefore one could make a fair assumption that if we were to put your fine, Oklahoma-farmer, salt-of-the-earth Grandfather in a time machine and bring him to our current age, he would not be as smart as Quantavious.
     

    Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997, the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80.
     
    So I am assuming an IQ gain of 30 points from 1918 to 2018. The honorable Mr. Neisser estimates an IQ gain of 20 points between 1932 and 1997. So what's the problem?

    You must love Twitter.

    Perhaps I should include an abstract for people who don’t like to read?

    I can tell the difference between you and Q. That you can’t do the same with me says a great deal about you IMHO.
     

    So you seem to be taking personal offense to something; Again, my original post:

    As for your other point with substanitive comments, I think one thing many people do (not just you) is to conflate activity with achievement. If one can’t make your point in 500 words or less, one is, generally, the literary equivalent of an uninteresting blowhard who likes to hear himself talk.

     

    Now I would profer here that there was no personal reference to you, so why are you taking offense?

    There is a old southern saying, maybe you heard it growing up; "if you throw a stick into a crowd of dogs, the only one who squeals is the one who got hit.

    Lesson #1, men confident in their abilities are not sensitive. I didn't insult your intellect, say anything about you being a racist or anything else. I just siad that your input is "undifferentiated." Not bad, racist or dumb, just not setting themselves above the rest of the stuff here; and there is a lot of stuff here. You being "racist" is totally and completely insignificant. You are who you are. You being "unaware" is what I am concerned about. And this is our greatest problem in the world and is setting us up for ruin.

    I'll give you an example: Do we live on a flat-plane earth that stays in place and is circumnavigated by the sun and the moon, or do we live on a baal-earth that is bounding randomly through the universe, at 67,000 mph with a bunch of other concentrations of rock, gas, and whoever-else knows, while rotating at 1,220 miles an hour?

    Accepting the latter means that you belive that mountins whipping through the atmosphere, continually at 1,200 mph would not create any winds. and that when you stand on the equator you are somehow standing at a 180 degree angle...without noticing it.

    So the question here is, why (and I am assuming that you do) do you believe the latter? The answer is "because someone told you to."

    These are the questions in life that I am hoping to answer, I come here and read this 1940's era racist silliness for relaxation. It doesn't offend me in the least, I know who I am. I know of my capabilities. The question that you must ask is "am I confident of my capabilities?" But stick with me here, and maybe something will come of it.

    OK, My Friend, you asked for substanative response, did you receive it?

    Replies: @res, @iffen

    Truth: There is a old southern saying, maybe you heard it growing up; “if you throw a stick into a crowd of dogs, the only one who squeals is the one who got hit.

    Mark Twain: “the hit dog hollers.”

  152. @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Audacious Epigone

    "Descendants of slaves didn’t choose to be brought to North America so it is not fair to force them to leave."

    Disagree. Those descendants are attempting to enslave the white population (most of who's ancestors were either not in the US or had no connection to slave owners) for eternity.

    A battle for survival will ensue. That is the only alternative.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    With birthrates below replacement for both white and black Americans, why must this be the case? Absent immigration, there is more than enough room for everyone.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Audacious Epigone

    In a homogeneous country, declining birthrates might not necessarily be a bad thing, as long as an increase in birthrates compliments it down the line.

    Declining birthrates in the US are an artificially manufactured event. Black birth rates may be declining, but their total population continues to increase every year. It is the white population that is receding.

    As for why it must be the case, where do we see blacks functioning autonomously within the US? Baltimore? Detroit? The correct answer is nowhere. Blacks require the presence of the white population to subsidize them with infrastructure, policy, economy, and order. This is the unfortunate reality. Which means the white population will never be free to find a nice place in the US where they can just be left the hell alone, plenty of room notwithstanding. Blacks will always seek out the whites.

    Now, it has become apparent that I must add a disclaimer to these comments, because it seems that absolutism always gets assigned to them. Leaving the other factors aside for the moment, the US would largely return to its former levels of functionality if whites (and by whites I mean Western European) resumed 85% (90% would be better) of the total population. If the black population was returned to under 10 million of only their very best, who adopted the understanding that Heritage American culture and policy were dominant (as legacy Chinese Americans did, for example,) then we would have many fewer issues concerning race, identity, criminality, and policy. Until that happens (and it won't) then we should be preparing for the worst.

    So for the record, I am not calling for (and never have,) the absolute entirety of every non white occupant of the US to be forcibly expelled.

    , @iffen
    @Audacious Epigone

    there is more than enough room for everyone.

    Sure, there's "room," but not enough elbow room.

  153. @EliteCommInc.
    Laughing. After a browse through the study

    The first thing one tackles in reviewing a research is the methodology. And there are major problems as the researchers themselves admit.

    Second, your choice of a study that comprises three schools simply has no little value because the sample size is to small and the sample is of a category that would not be consistent to the entire policy administered across the country, i.e. for employment. You are talking about two vastly different constructs. And as is clear even in the study provided even in the elite construct of academia the factors in relationship to explicating AA differ. If the methods of applying AA policy varies from school to school that impact results. Making the leap from the academic to hiring practices which will vary from employer to employer is in a word -- bizarre.

    Not even the researchers attempt such a leap.

    One of the responses I left out and will include in a different response are the break out of women who are AA recipients. That number could be as high 100%. That seems to be the assumption regarding anyone who is not white. I would have to go back and take another look. But if your the paper there's a reference to AA also being applied to low income populations. Given that whites make up a sizable portion of low income demographic. I would be curious to know how many whites were provided preferential status.

    And the authors use a reference that is rather odd when indicating what elite schools do regarding acceptance. The reference says that all non-elite colleges accept essentially every candidate. That's why I looked at the other schools acceptance rates --- that contention is incorrect.

    But at the end of the day the numbers matter and it's pretty clear that even to this study when considering all variables -- whites benefit the most. But in order to get that, one has to actually read the study, not merely look at the graphs and charts.

    I tell you what, describe the non-statistical data, SAT scores, grades, etc. and give me me how they were rated for just the white students. I already know the answer.

    -------------------------------------------

    "2. Learn what net means. White women may benefit, but white men most certainly do not."

    Laughing. Well, You are welcome to tell white women they are not white. I would love to hear that conversation. It would be worse than whites in congress telling their wives, girlfriends, mistresses, daughters, and granddaughters why the included women as an attempt kill the civil rights legislation.

    You are also welcome to tell millions of men how their wives and daughters as primary recipients of AA policy don't benefit them as well. I would include girl friends and mistresses, but that might be crossing the line.

    AA action benefits whites more than blacks and has from its inception. You might want to do some homework on what AA was created to do and how. The AA policy you complain about which benefits whites more than blacks is not the policy intended. Not by a long shot.

    As to your inclusion of ten elite school studies, since the policy is to 5000 plus other schools are far short. As for your tiresome per capita assail, most of the population of the US have not gone to college much less an elite college, if you think a per capita assessment is applicable across the board, well, let's just say apples and oranges is not two peas in a pod.

    Good grief.

    Replies: @res

    After a browse through the study

    Which one? Did you fail to notice I linked two?

    And where is your data?

    • Replies: @iffen
    @res

    You should go back to debating Truth.

    Elite is a bot that can't spell, doesn't know the difference between elude and allude and tirelessly (AI attribute) writes vapid sophisty for our entertainment.

    (BTW, I think that you likely have 10-15 points on Truth, but he probably has 1 to 2 inches on you, so it is a wash.)

    , @EliteCommInc.
    @res

    I have only read the first.


    But as I noted the second has the same prime issue. AA is national and it is nit limited to academia.

  154. @Audacious Epigone
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    With birthrates below replacement for both white and black Americans, why must this be the case? Absent immigration, there is more than enough room for everyone.

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike, @iffen

    In a homogeneous country, declining birthrates might not necessarily be a bad thing, as long as an increase in birthrates compliments it down the line.

    Declining birthrates in the US are an artificially manufactured event. Black birth rates may be declining, but their total population continues to increase every year. It is the white population that is receding.

    As for why it must be the case, where do we see blacks functioning autonomously within the US? Baltimore? Detroit? The correct answer is nowhere. Blacks require the presence of the white population to subsidize them with infrastructure, policy, economy, and order. This is the unfortunate reality. Which means the white population will never be free to find a nice place in the US where they can just be left the hell alone, plenty of room notwithstanding. Blacks will always seek out the whites.

    Now, it has become apparent that I must add a disclaimer to these comments, because it seems that absolutism always gets assigned to them. Leaving the other factors aside for the moment, the US would largely return to its former levels of functionality if whites (and by whites I mean Western European) resumed 85% (90% would be better) of the total population. If the black population was returned to under 10 million of only their very best, who adopted the understanding that Heritage American culture and policy were dominant (as legacy Chinese Americans did, for example,) then we would have many fewer issues concerning race, identity, criminality, and policy. Until that happens (and it won’t) then we should be preparing for the worst.

    So for the record, I am not calling for (and never have,) the absolute entirety of every non white occupant of the US to be forcibly expelled.

  155. @Audacious Epigone
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    With birthrates below replacement for both white and black Americans, why must this be the case? Absent immigration, there is more than enough room for everyone.

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike, @iffen

    there is more than enough room for everyone.

    Sure, there’s “room,” but not enough elbow room.

  156. @res
    @EliteCommInc.


    After a browse through the study
     
    Which one? Did you fail to notice I linked two?

    And where is your data?

    Replies: @iffen, @EliteCommInc.

    You should go back to debating Truth.

    Elite is a bot that can’t spell, doesn’t know the difference between elude and allude and tirelessly (AI attribute) writes vapid sophisty for our entertainment.

    (BTW, I think that you likely have 10-15 points on Truth, but he probably has 1 to 2 inches on you, so it is a wash.)

  157. @res
    @EliteCommInc.


    After a browse through the study
     
    Which one? Did you fail to notice I linked two?

    And where is your data?

    Replies: @iffen, @EliteCommInc.

    I have only read the first.

    But as I noted the second has the same prime issue. AA is national and it is nit limited to academia.

  158. The problems with the first study are internal. No amount of rhetorical repositioning is going to resolve the misapplication to AA nationally or even to the constructs they chose.

    Having me look at the Harvard study about Harvard is again a doubling down on the same errors as before.

    You cannot make per capita assessments on compositions so vastly different.

    Women carry the day in reaping the most from AA. And in this case it’s white women. A look at that history demonstrates that it was not an accident. Across the board whites continue to be the primary beneficiaries of AA. A look at the first study makes the case with along legacy and athletics. And then compounded by the number of women given preferential treatment, and then there are poor whites, which are not calculated.

    Whites own AA. As I say, the numbers tell the story. Not the agenda.

    • LOL: res

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS