Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sat Jan 23 16:48:41 PST 2021

Utopia Talk / Politics / Biden appts black supremacist Jew hater
Tue Jan 12 10:53:02


Biden pick to head DOJ Civil Rights Division wrote Blacks had 'superior physical and mental abilities'

Joe Biden's pick to run the Justice Department's enormously powerful Civil Rights Division is a woman called Kristen Clarke. Clarke says her job is simple: End hate. But like so many in her world, Clarke is actually an enthusiastic purveyor of what she claims to fight.

n 1994, Clarke wrote a letter to The Harvard Crimson in her capacity as the president of the Black Students Association to explain her views on race science.

"Please use the following theories and observations to assist you in your search for truth regarding the genetic differences between Blacks and whites [sic]," Clarke wrote. "One: Dr Richard King reveals that the core of the human brain is the 'locus coeruleus,' which is a structure that is Black, because it contains large amounts of neuro-melanin, which is essential for its operation.

Two: Black infants sit, crawl and walk sooner than whites [sic]. Three: Carol Barnes notes that human mental processes are controlled by melanin -- that same chemical which gives Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.

"Four: Some scientists have revealed that most whites [sic] are unable to produce melanin because their pineal glands are often calcified or non-functioning. Pineal calcification rates with Africans are five to 15 percent [sic], Asians 15 to 25 percent [sic] and Europeans 60 to 80 percent [sic]. This is the chemical basis for the cultural differences between blacks and whites [sic].

"Five: Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities -- something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards."

...Just a month later, Clarke invited the noted Trinidadian anti-Semite Tony Martin to speak on campus. Martin, then a professor at Wellesley College, was the author of a self-published manifesto called "The Jewish Onslaught." In it, Martin chronicled the "escalating Jewish onslaught" against Black people.

For Martin's fans like Kristen Clarke, his speech at Harvard did not disappoint. He attacked both Jews and Judaism as a religion. Martin, who retired from Wellesley in 2007 and died in 2013, spent his final years giving speeches to Holocaust denial organizations on topics such as "tactics of organized Jewry in suppressing free speech."

Kristen Clarke strongly approved of Tony Martin, telling The Crimson: "Professor Martin is an intelligent, well-versed Black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact."

Tue Jan 12 11:04:20
Are you surprised?
Tue Jan 12 11:06:48
If anything, this person should be your hero, Rugina.
Tue Jan 12 11:12:29
Remember when I said, I don’t think Biden can fix what Obama and him couldn’t?

Partition you country now, save yourselves trouble, money and millions of lives. You already have the basic structure of 50 countries, sign the divorce papers, part amicably. I am not kidding at all. At this point I would throw all dreams of a union in the trash. Somethings will never change, politicians gonna politick, demoracy is a zero sum game and the further away governance is from the goverened, the more those things are true.

#states rights
large member
Tue Jan 12 11:20:08
Pretty weak. Black supremacy is not a thing. Besides, is not the data true? :D.

You might want to put anti-semitism in context with that other thread complaining about how many people of jewish heritage are joining the administration.

Choose what steed you want to ride into battle. The zionist-jew hating administration argument just smacks of the scattershot methods Trumpists like to employ.

Take a dump on everything. Maybe shit will stick somewhere.
Tue Jan 12 11:35:41
What do you mean black supremacy is not a thing?

5 percenters? The Nation of Islam both come to mind.

Fringe groups but it exists. Probably not in Norway because there is like black family innthe entire nation.
Tue Jan 12 12:04:48
> You already have the basic structure of 50 countries

Almost replied last time this was brought up (by Paramount?) but this seems like an impossible task to accomplish in any meaningful way that isn't just "devolve as much authority as possible to states while maintaining union" in everything but name.

According to http://users.econ.umn.edu/~holmes/data/BorderData.html and a little handy scripting, there are 21,802.4 miles of internal borders in the lower 48 states, versus 5,920 miles of US-Canada and US-Mexico border today if you exclude Alaska. That's more than 3x the amount of currently unprotected frontier (or 6x considering USians will man both sides of it) for which 50 different authorities will have to man both sides of the border. The federal government has issues securing <2,000 miles of border with Mexico, so...

Looking only at frontiers leaves aside all the other potential issues (trade, overflight, water rights, territorial waters, functions provided by federal agencies such as the FDA, interstate business would now be international business, on and on and on.

Plus, you'd be adding I don't know how many nuclear armed nations to the map, several of which look like they'd be happy to install a Trump dynasty a la North Korea.

And on top of it all, even in a red state like South Carolina >40% of the population reliably votes for the Democrats. What should they do, leave their homes and become blue state refugees? What happens when that 40% cries out for help from their former countrymen abroad?

What happens to the US' spot on the UN Security Council?

Even the most populous states are a good bit smaller than Germany or France. How many countries will even bother with relations with, say, the Republic of South Dakota?

How many of the states could maintain a powerful enough military to even remain sovereign unto themselves if push came to shove? Partitioning the US into 50 individual nations surely invites military adventurism in North America.
Tue Jan 12 12:12:15
"How many of the states could maintain a powerful enough military to even remain sovereign unto themselves if push came to shove?"

Given the distribution of nuclear technology and weapons, all of them. Plus existing national guard armories and so on. Even the weakest state would still be more powerful than say... Portugal.

And who would want to invade Wyoming, for example, and deal with thousands of Amman Bundy's taking up arms?

No, I imagine the only potential wars would be border skirmishes and maybe like Rhode Island being taken over by Massholes, or something along those lines.
Tue Jan 12 12:20:31
View this as what the EU is trying to do, but in reverse. Of course there are outstanding issues, but you also have the benefit of certain hard isssue things, like free movement, single currency and harmonized regulation where you they are sound to have a single market. Dismantling stuff is generally easier. Like the US state department, DoD, FBI, CIA, NSA, the list is long, but importantly reduce the office of the president to a symbolic one. It will take a decade tops.
Tue Jan 12 12:28:26
> Given the distribution of nuclear technology and weapons, all of them. Plus existing national guard armories and so on. Even the weakest state would still be more powerful than say... Portugal.

Forget Portugal, even Germany wasn't out there trying to go it alone if the Soviets came rolling through Fulda Gap.
Tue Jan 12 12:32:50
"How many of the states could maintain a powerful enough military to even remain sovereign unto themselves if push came to shove?"

You could ask this for many countries, not many. But considering the USA is mostly civilized, the rest of the west would never allow craziness. If Alabama tried to invade Florida, we would do to Alabama what we did to Iraq when it invaded Kuwait. Besides, every 50 country would join NATO I assume. It has kept the Greeks and Turks at bay with each other and they have 1000+ years of animosity.

Don’t look for problems that aren’t there, see the opportunity, give freedom and peace a chance :)

It is a slightly comedic ”sales pitch”, but I stand by it. Less concentration of power, more subsidiarity.
Tue Jan 12 12:33:02
Nim, that is what I mean by:

> a meaningful way that isn't just "devolve as much authority as possible to states while maintaining union" in everything but name.

If the end result is some kind of "American Union" that provides for common defense, adjudicates disputes between states, negotiates trade agreements, etc., I wouldn't really consider that "50 different nations" even if legally it were so.
Tue Jan 12 12:38:14
I mean, innthe unlikley event of a dissolution of the union, I think you would at least see groups of states like the Southern Confederacy.

Texas would probably be the best positioned though to become its own nation, who would invade TX?
Tue Jan 12 12:38:33
> If Alabama tried to invade Florida, we would do to Alabama what we did to Iraq when it invaded Kuwait.

Right. One of the great things about living in America so far is how other countries can't just show up and plunk down peacekeepers (or more ominously, "peacekeepers") here. So the proposition of independence for the people of Alabama is:

- Pro: your fellow Americans no longer get to tell you what to do
- Con: Angela Merkel gets to tell you what to do

Hard to imagine them taking that as an improvement of affairs.
Tue Jan 12 12:51:03
The Republic of Texas.

Florida may or may not join the Confederacy with the rest ofmthe South.

New England plus the tri state ( PA, NY and DE)

The socialist republik of California would consist of CA, WA and Oregon...Hawaii is a possibility to or it would go it alone since itsnsort of.an illegal occupation to begin with.

The Midwest would become The Holy Republic of of the Church of the latter day saints, or yeehaw.

Alaska may rejoin Putin.
Tue Jan 12 12:52:40
The upper Midwest would be probably.band together as well.
Tue Jan 12 12:54:59
I agree, you would be one ”Nation” tied by language, history and language. And further you would still on some level function legally as a nation. When I said ”countries” I meant legally. For me it is about reducing power.

The only problem, what to do about China, Russia, Brazil, India, etc. It needs to be done across the planet. We need to rethink and redo this way of organization.

Either that or the systems will naturally ”collapse” due to the cancer they have accumulated. Which is more probable than rethinking how we have organized ourselves.
Tue Jan 12 13:00:24
If the US did break up, it would likely be into regional blocs rather than individual states. New England, the Midwest, the mid-Atlantic, the Dakotas/Plains, the redneck South, Florida, Tejas/AZ/NM, the Mountain states, the Left Coast.

The national population would have the ability to voluntarily resettle in whichever part of the country suited them best, a la the India/Pakistan partition.

Of course resource allocation would be an issue. Good luck to New England in terms of oil procurement. Control of border waterways would be a major point of contention.

In the end though it would probably be a net good thing. Most regions have at least the GDP of minor world powers, and dissolution would cause many jobs to require duplication within each individual polity.

Not to mention I wouldn't ever have to worry again about my child's school system trying to turn him trans or having my taxes pay for free abortions of 39-week fetuses.

Fuck it, let's do this.

Tue Jan 12 13:03:03
There would be far more people than Merkel who would tell Alabama to stop invading Florida or else, the leaders of the countries New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Virgina etc. These other American countries would send the actual peace keepers as they speak a dialect of english the Floridians and Alabamans understand.
werewolf dictator
Tue Jan 12 13:05:17
The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share