Apparently, boomers still don’t really have a very good grasp of where we are right now, in terms of the religion of black worship. Or, maybe they just don’t understand that Zoom isn’t a private conversation. Either way they just don’t get. They’re boomers, after all. They’ll look at a Playstation 5 and call it a computer.

Of course, maybe they understand both, and we’re all just barely holding it together under this virus regime.

Here’s what’s clear: you can’t say anything, in public or in private, about black people. It doesn’t matter if it’s a fact, and it doesn’t matter what you mean by it. You can’t say it.

The Hill:

Georgetown Law has fired a professor for “reprehensible” comments about Black students that were shared online.

Dean of Georgetown Law Bill Treanor said he was “appalled” by the “reprehensible” statements made by former professor Sandra Sellers and David Batson, another professor who was placed on administration leave, in a letter to the Georgetown Law community on Thursday.

Treanor said he spoke with both professors while reviewing the incident for further context.

“I informed Professor Sellers that I was terminating her relationship with Georgetown Law effective immediately. During our conversation, she told me that she had intended to resign. As a result of my decision, Professor Sellers is no longer affiliated with Georgetown Law,” Treanor said.

Batson has been placed on administrative leave pending an investigation by the school’s Office of Diversity, Equity and Affirmative Action. Batson will not be involved in courses while the investigation is being conducted.

“This is by no means the end of our work to address the many structural issues of racism reflected in this painful incident, including explicit and implicit bias, bystander responsibility, and the need for more comprehensive anti-bias training,” Treanor added.

“Bystander responsibility” is a new term you’re going to really start hearing a lot. This is the end of the project of “white silence is violence.” It basically means that if anyone says anything against the official state dogma in your presence, you have to attack them on the spot, and then tattle on them.

Here is the video.

Sellers says:

You know what, I hate to say this, I end up having this angst every semister that a lot of my lower ones are blacks. Happens almost every semister, and it’s like, oh come on. There’s some really good ones. But there are also some that are just plain at the bottom. It drives me crazy.

Batson replies “em-em.”

It’s a noncontroversial fact that blacks as a group score significantly lower in every academic field. The mainstream explanation for this is that it’s because of slavery, and because people hate them because of the color of their skin.

The scientific explanation of course is that blacks have lower IQs, due to evolutionary biology. Obviously, blacks are better at basketball than whites, and they run much faster, so I think it is accepted that there are physiological differences between blacks and whites, but those differences can only be mentioned if they are about blacks being better at something than white people.

The situation is not really confusing in any way. Blacks come from a continent that is fertile and lush, and does not have winter. This means that they did not have to plan out complex systems to keep from starving to death. There are fruits and vegetation everywhere in African jungles, and fish are plentiful.

Meanwhile in Europe, people had to hunt mammals, and they had to plan for the winter months. (So, too did Eskimos, but their IQs are in the 90s; below average intelligence).

What this means is that if you were born in Europe with a lower IQ, you would be much more likely to end up dying in the winter from the elements. That means that over the course of thousands of years, people with higher IQs were breeding with each other, which led to whites developing much higher average IQs.

This same thing is true of people from Central and South America. If you look at a map of global average IQ, you find that it is very correlated to the climate and ecological factors.

(South America is lighter because it was heavily colonized by Europeans.)

What this means, unfortunately, is that blacks are never really going to get along with white society, at least not if they are expected to compete as equals.

It doesn’t mean that blacks are “bad” or anything else. As I said, there are things that blacks are better at than whites. They are very fast runners, because there were a lot of large cats in Africa, which would semi-regularly eat humans.

Although it is uncomfortable to say it, it is also a fact that cannibalism was a big part of many West African cultures. There was also a lot of war. All of the early missionaries and explorers described this, including David Livingstone. Livingstone was very fond of the Africans, and certainly had no reason to make this up. So were, Du Chaillu, Speke, Ogilby, Clapperton and many other explorers and anthropologists who were the first to traverse the hinterlands of Africa in the early nineteenth century.

The Emin Pasha Relief Expedition in the 1880s was led by Henry Morton Stanley, a journalist and lunatic who I have a lot of respect for as a writer and as a man. Stanley famously met Livingstone on the journey, and finding him as the only white man in the middle of Africa, said “Dr. Livingstone, I presume.” During that expedition, James S. Jameson of the Jameson Whiskey family bought an 11-year-old slave girl and gave her as a gift to a cannibal tribe because he wanted to document the process of killing and eating a human.

I’m just trying to find some information about this online, and it’s hard to do, it seems to have been largely cleansed, but if you read the works of any of the early explorers of Africa, you’re going to find out about cannibalism as a widespread phenomenon. For example, this is from Burton’s Africa:

"The guide, attached to the expedition on return from Ujiji,had loitered behind for some days, because his slave girl was too footsore to walk. When tired of waiting he cut off her her head, for fear lest she should become gratis another man's property."

Here’s another account:

"Tembandumba, the Amazonian and cannibal queen of Congo, commanded that all male children, all twins, and all infants whose upper teeth appeared before their lower ones,should be killed by their own mothers. From their bodies an ointment should be 
made in the way which she would show. The female children should be reared and instructed in war; and male prisoners, before being killed and eaten, should be used for purposes of pro-
creation, so that there might be no future lack of female warriors. Having concluded her harangue, with the publication of other laws
of minor importance, this young woman seized her child which was feeding at her breast, flung him into a mortar, and pounded him to a pulp. She flung this into a large earthen pot, adding
roots, leaves, and oils, and made the whole into an ointment, with which she rubbed herself before them all, telling them that this
would render her invulnerable, and that now she could subdue the universe. Immediately her subjects, seized with a savage enthusiasm, massacred all their male children, and immense quantities of this human ointment were made. It is clear enough that Tembandumba wished to found an empire of Amazons, such
as we read of as existing among the Scythians, in the forests of South America, and in Central Africa. She not only enjoined the
massacre of male children, she forbade the eating of woman's flesh. But she had to conquer an instinct in order to carry out her views; she fought against nature, and in time she was subdued." Readers Savage Africa, page 292.

Yet another:

"Until today I never could believe two stories, both well authenticated, but seeming quite impossible to any one unacquainted with this people, which are told of them on the Gaboon. A party of Fans, who came down to the seashore once to 
see the sea, actually stole a freshly-buried body from the cemetery, and cooked it and ate it among them; and another party took another body, conveyed it into the woods, cut it up, and smoked the flesh, which they carried away with them. The circumstances made a great fuss among the Mpongwe, and even the missionaries heard of it, but I never credited the stories till now, though the facts were well authenticated by witnesses. In fact, the Fans seem regular ghouls, only they practise their horrid
custom unblushingly and in open day, and have no shame about it. These stories seem so incredible, and even the fact that these people actually buy and eat the corpses of their neighbor resting as it does upon my statement alone has excited so much evident disbelief among friends in the country, to whom I have mentioned this custom, that I am very glad to be able to avail
myself of the concurrent testimony of a friend, the Rev. Mr. Walker, of the Gaboon mission, who authorizes me to say that he
vouches for the entire truth of the two stories above related."
Du Chaillu's Equatorial Africa, page 120.

Last one. I promise:

"The butchers' shops of the Anziques are filled with human flesh, instead of that of oxen or of sheep. For they eat the enemies whom they take in battle. They fatten, slay, and devour their slaves also, unless they think they shall get a good price for them. There are indeed many cannibals, but none such as these, since the others only eat their enemies; but these eat their own blood relations." African Explorations by Eduardo Lopez, quoted by Huxley, in Man's Place in Nature, 
page 55.

As we know, cannibalism still happens in Africa. We have probably all seen the old VICE documentary “Cannibal Warlords of Liberia.”

Cannibalism as a cultural norm is going to lead to high levels of aggression and violence, as well as good running skills.

So, this sort of background is very much different than that of Europeans, and these differences, over thousands of years, shaped the genetics of the populations.

Expecting equal outcomes in academia is no different than expecting whites to compete well, on average, in sprinting.

The question is: who does it help to claim that blacks are just as capable as whites in academic performance?

Does it help black people to tell them they are just as likely to become successful in academia as whites, and that the only reason they are doing poorly is because of a conspiracy against them by white people?

How on earth does that help the blacks?

The fact is, some blacks are uniquely intelligent, and can do well in academia, just like some whites are uniquely fast, and can compete in certain black-dominated sports, but we’re talking about statistics here, which are not in question.

Telling blacks to go to universities that are built for whites, then telling them that any trouble they have with learning is white people’s fault, is simply cruel to everyone involved, not least the blacks themselves.

This is why, as a matter of principle, I have always promoted the concept of “black self-determination.” I think they need their own institutions, run by their own people, which are designed for their own specific needs.

James Watson, the “Father of DNA,” communicated this same concept.

Here’s from an article from The Independent, January 13, 2019:

The greatest upset came when Dr Watson told an interviewer from the Sunday Times in 2007 he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – where all the testing says not really”.

He added that while he would like everyone to be equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true”. These remarks, which have been universally derided as based on incredibly shaky scientific foundations, led to a forced retirement for Dr Watson from his chancellor role at Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory.

In the new documentary on PBS celebrating his life, an interviewer asks the 90-year-old scientist if, given the backlash he suffered after his comments about race and intelligence, his views had changed. His answer leaves no room for uncertainty: “No, not at all,” he says. “There’s a difference on the average between blacks and whites on IQ tests. I would say the difference is genetic.

This man won the Nobel Prize for literally discovering DNA.

The media of course framed him as a hater, but his entire point was that trying to force Africans to follow the same system as whites is only going to lead to misery, as they are genetically different.

There are blacks that would agree about this. In fact, I’m not aware of any blacks currently who actually believe in the Martin Luther King Jr. idea of “we’re all the same and it’s just the color of the skin.”

Joe Biden’s pick for the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has written that blacks are genetically superior to whites. If they want to frame things that way, that shouldn’t offend whites personally, because the important thing is that they recognize the differences are genetic, and understand that whites and blacks need different systems, and that above all, they need to divorce the two races. Whites and blacks have tried integration, and it has failed miserably. If all of this energy has been put into a functional system of segregation, everyone would be a lot happier.