Massachusetts
Marc Ferguson has responded to my post about him on this website.
He seems to want to be included in the pantheon of anti-Southern bloggers like Brooks D. Simpson, Kevin Levin, Keith “Cosmic America” Harris, Andy Hall, Rob Baker, Connie Chastain, and Corey Meyer.
Personally, I think he is going to have to try a little harder. Nothing about Ferguson suggests to me that he has accumulated as many reputation points in this debate as Brooks D. Simpson.
Just the other day, I was in Tuscaloosa walking through the aisles of the Barnes and Noble. I spotted a book that looked interesting called “The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History.” Browsing through the pages, I found an essay by none other than our friend Brooks D. Simpson about Ulysses S. Grant.
I noticed that “The Myth of the Lost Cause of Civil War History” was being sold alongside “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History” and “Lincoln Unmasked” and “The South Was Right.” That said, Brooks D. Simpson is the only one of your number who has managed to project himself into the physical environment of the local bookstore here in Alabama.
Marc responds:
“He is right about the commitment of these countries to the equality of blacks and whites, though while he sees this as a problem, I, of course, do not, and think that opposition to the pursuit of social equality for blacks is vile.”
I see it as a problem because from where I am standing “racial equality” is on the same level as belief in Big Foot, the Abominable Snowman, the Loch Ness Monster, Ancient Aliens, Leprechauns, Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter, etc. Yet every Western country has managed to reconstruct itself around this utopian delusion which is discredited over and over on a daily basis.
I find that to be incredibly dangerous because, well, it is not true. We can’t observe this “racial equality” for some mysterious reason. It doesn’t exist in experimental conditions like integrated public schools. It doesn’t exist any more than luminiferous aether or the celestial spheres. It is far less plausible than geocentrism.
The existence of racial equality requires nothing less than divine intervention. It requires a miracle to suspend the natural laws that have operated throughout all of human history to create this magical condition of “equality” between populations across such disparate environments.
“Some of Mr. Wallace’s followers regularly refer to blacks as “subhuman… evolutionary throwbacks.” And because I believe that American, indeed all, blacks are human beings, and as such deserve full human and civil rights, that makes me a N***** lover. Nice, eh!
Are there morphological similarities between African-Americans and archaic humans like Homo erectus? What about Australian aboriginies?
We’re not operating within the Enlightenment paradigm anymore. There is no reason to believe in “sacred humanity.” There is no reason to believe that “all men are created equal.” There is no reason to believe that men are born “free and equal.” There is no reason to believe in “human dignity.”
Feel free to call this “racist garbage” … but remember, we are required to believe that “racist garbage” is the mechanism of speciation, which has produced over billions of years every species on this plant, including our own, until for some inexplicable reason it stopped in our case alone.
Liberalism requires a creation event 70,000 to 50,000 years ago to create “equality” between human populations and to preserve “equality” between human populations across all the centuries that has elapsed since then.
Note: If you want to rise to the Brooks D. Simpson level, you are going to have to try harder than this. You got to come up with something beyond the old stale “OMG, racist” to get noticed around here.
You should put Ferguson’s picture down below next to the picture of the Homo Erectus. They look remarkably similar. I think Erectus was more evolved, though. He probably had more regard for his own kin.
He keeps quoting ME – but the little bitch won’t post my comments.
Negroes ARE subhuman evolutionary throwbacks. And I know how to make thme obey me.
Macie Ferguson is somethng far worse. He’s not merely a Nigger Lover (he actually HATES them) – he’s a complete genetic degenerate.
He allowed one post to go through, and he whined about the fellow questioning his manhood. I don’t know why; he does not possess something as sublime and essential as manhood. He cannot defend that which he’s never possessed. He’s a defective neutered little widget. A Darwinian sinkhole.
I pray he is Eve Carsoned sooner than later. And may he think of us, in his last moments.
“that makes me a N***** lover. Nice, eh!”
Gee, Ferg, you seem awfully defensive about being accused of loving them.
Ferg, you’re saying you’re NOT a nigger lover? You are a nigger hater, then, huh?
****
Here’s MY post, Denise, that the coward refused to put up:
So, I dare to type the letter N, and next to it the letter i, and next to that a g, and next another g, and next an e, and lastly, an r, on the website Occidental Dissent.
Meanwhile, we see near daily posts on world star hip hop of videos of vicious crimes by Blacks committed against Whites.
(50% of the murders in America are committed by Black men, who are only 7% of the population.)
But *I* am the poisonous one?
*I* caused them to commit these crimes because I dared to type the letter N, alongside the letter i, next to the letter g…and etc., etc., etc.?
Really?
Seriously?
Please.
Is to laff.
I highly doubt these Black thugs can read, much the less are reading what I post on Occidental Dissent.
Denise, you have been quoted at Daily Kos.
I think they are adapted to a tropical environment. In the Northern hemisphere, we take spring, summer, fall, and winter for granted. In the tropics, there is a dry season and a rainy season, and the same crops grow all year long.
There are differences in the types of plant and animal species found in the tropics. The tropical environment has influenced human evolution too. Why wouldn’t it?
It sounds pretty racist to say, “niggers are used to sitting around all year long eating bananas and melons,” but there is actually a lot of truth to that statement. It is not far off the mark.
He’s been challenged will historical accounts of massacres by blacks on white population centers. He’s not fit to debate.
That reconstruction of a face that starts off this post, is demonic, through and through. For it has the eyes of a sentient being, yet the physiognomy of a mental retard, or an ape- a mere beast.
Those eyes speak hatred. And not a rational, white man’s hatred for honor lost, or virtue stained. It is the hatred of Satan; it is a look of envy.
It reminds me of pictures of Anon LaVey or Alestair Crowley (sp?)… i.e, demon possession- of a race, and of a species.
Hunter!!! Woo hoo! I saw. Where’s Svigor. He got quoted, too. That was a great thread!
Barb,
I just asked him why he is very quick to hurl tired, cliched insults at We Virulent Racists, yet will not cite specific reasons for his defense of Negroes, and his reasons for insisting on “racial equality”. What are his standards for doing so.
I then told him that he luvs us – but he’s fighting it.
I wasn’t rude at all. I didn’t even say that Niggers are savage violent evolutionary throwbacks, that destroy every place they infest, which the do:
http://upressonline.com/2012/03/fau-student-threatens-to-kill-professor-and-classmates/#comment-4164
Hey! Marcie looks like he’s in need of a little luvin’ – let’s set him up on a date with Jonatha.
“You got to come up with something beyond the old stale “OMG, racist” to get noticed around here.”
Considering this is the second post devoted to me, it would appear that I have been noticed around here. “Pantheon of anti-Southern bloggers?” None of the people you mention are “anti-Southern.” In fact, some of them are Southern. I suspect that the crime of Prof. Simpson, Andy Hall, Keith Harris, and Corey Harris is that they can actually think, and that they understand something about history.
“I suspect that the crime of Prof. Simpson, Andy Hall, Keith Harris, and Corey Harris is that they can actually think, and that they understand something about history.”
Wrong Marcie. Their crime is that they don’t.
Hey – I thought you weren’t going to soil yourself with any more contact.
But you couldn’t resist coming back, and reading what we had to say……
The Allure of the Forbidden Fruit is irresistable, is it not?
See – you never got ANY comments on your blog until you made conract with We Virulent Racists (FYI – that’s a trite phrase. I am a Virago Racist. Or a Virtuoso Racist. There! That’s better. From now on refer to us as Virtuoso Racists – or get out. )
Now – ask yourself, at 3AM this next morning, if you are more moved and thrilled by we Virtuoso Racists – or Jonatha Carr?
You will have to choose, Marcie.
Afternoon Mr Ferguson I presume…
Welcome. I’m glad to see you.
What about the Haitian Massacre then? The Haitians pass a perfect anti racist constitution…three years later they butcher 5,000 remaining whites foolish enough to trust the laws passed by Toussaint. Men, women and children.
Same thing basically happened in Rwanda.
Same thing on another level in Detroit, riots in 67 (2,000 properties burned, 100 whites killed. ) triggered the transformation of a 90 percent white city into a 90 black city.
A city now facing bankruptcy. 21,000 murders since the riots in the 60s. 21,000.
Downtown Detroit is not that different to Port Au Prince. The blacks are a transhistorical transglobal blight. The evidence is in. I don’t hate them either. I simply find the excuses for their failure to be dishonest.
Brooks doesn’t argue with me about history. He knows that I am right on that score. The Confederacy was based on racialism and white supremacy. Blacks were excluded from citizenship as they were in the Antebellum era.
Shall we send Jonatha to Massa Simpson’s classroom, after she does “Marcie”?
Mr. Ferguson: We’re all still waiting for you to tell us why you believe so dearly in equality. Mr. Wallace has provided his rationale already. You condemn but provide no rationale.
“In fact, some of them are Southern.” Let us not cheapen “Southern” as we have “American”, ok?
Chastain, Harris, Hall, and Baker are Southerners In Name Only. Their racial and cultural views are non-traditional. They were controversial into the 1970s. Objectively, their racial and cultural views are derived from non-Southern sources.
Do you think Marion Barry was the equal of Rudy Giuliani?
Merely as administrators mind you. Barry drove DC off a cliff. Bradley nearly imolated LA. Thank god the Mexicans colonized Compton!
Whose the Mayor of Detriot who presided over its absolute decline? Who took Haiti from the most prosperous colony in the Western Hemisphere to the poorest?
Blacks who were granted Equality.
No thoughtful person believes in racial equality. It is as non-existent as pink unicorns. The only reason ever offered to believe in racial equality is that other people believe in it and you should also, or that you are required by law to believe in it. Otherwise, you are immoral.
That’s the thought process which is always explained to us. Those are not valid reasons to believe in racial equality. It is a purely factual question, so the popularity and/or moral status of racial equality is irrelevant to whether it is true or false, and the people who make those arguments only expose how irrational and unfounded their beliefs are.
I don’t believe in racial equality. I don’t believe in racial equality because it cannot be observed or shown to exist under experimental conditions. The evidence shows nothing but racial inequality, consistently, which requires the adherents of the dogma of racial equality to deny reality.
For what it’s worth, I appreciate this blog and it’s commenters because of their honesty. No minced words, no air of superiority, just honest thoughts and fears. It’s a shame this college history professor will not lay out an argument to support his rationale for us, as we have for him. Sadly, this is probably typical of your average American college level pc spokesmouth (professor). What I wouldn’t give to be one of his students for a day!
Awww, fergie says he will allow posts on a case by case basis. I guess that means the only way to ensure your post will get through is to include lots of spelling errors so he will have something he is knowledgeable on to critique.
He deleted my contribution. I’ll share it with ya’ll here instead.
“Dear Fergie,
If you want an honest debate, you can start by unbanning all of the responses to your post that initialized this teacup tempest.
The lack of any new arguments on your part implies you have nothing but the typical liberal shaming techniques to fall back on. Unfortunately for you, you are not debating men with low T, so your well practiced shaming tactics are unlikely to succeed.
I think I know the true reason for this post. You received more hits in one day after your initial post lashing out at OD, than you have all year. All the attention has gone to your head! You wanted to stay away, but you couldn’t. You are the ugly desperate girl who runs back to the man who treats her bad, because at least he will knowledge her existence.
Dr. Ferguson, we are attacking all the pillars upon which your false world-view is based. We are pro-white in a way not even our ancestors could have been, for we stand on the precipice facing annihilation if we do not resist. We are a young and growing movement. Abandon your empire of lies before it is too late. Hey, look at Dr. Kevin McDonald, he still makes a living after unplugging from the matrix. Who knows, maybe you can be the “ugly girl” who just needs to take off her glasses and let her hair down!
Sincerely,
Your friendly white patriarchal archetype
“
Sadly I sent one off. Plenty of spelling errors. Damned iPhone.
This is what pedants do though. They hit on style rather than substance. Then pat themselves on the back.
@ John
“Whose the mayor of Detroit who presided over it’s absolute decline?”
That would be Coleman Young. Detroit’s first nigger mayor, incidentally.
Wayne – we love you, too.
Frederick,
“I think I know the true reason for this post. You received more hits in one day after your initial post lashing out at OD, than you have all year. All the attention has gone to your head! You wanted to stay away, but you couldn’t. You are the ugly desperate girl who runs back to the man who treats her bad, because at least he will knowledge her existence. ”
Indeed – but we are treating Marcie rather well. Oh – we are giving him blowback, and are calling him out on hs nonsense (we are only really trying to help him come into the light) – but we are treating him much better than he’s been treating us.
Should he condescend to attend one of our gatherings – he’d have a grand time!
“Should he condescend to attend one of our gatherings – he’d have a grand time!”
See, that’s it, exactly. You’ve hit the nail on the head, Denise.
Us virtuoso racists are the Fun Guys.
We are the cool, naughty boys, freely running and yelling and hooting our real thoughts with joyful abandon that poor widdle Goody-Two-Shoes Fergie, sitting in his short-pants’d Sunday best enduring the oppression of yet another stifling sermon at his fundamentalist Church of Anti-Racism, gazes so longlingly after, for so long his Mommy Professors’ eyes are averted, anyway, only to obediently rearrange his facial features into a suitably horrified expression when she turns to scold.
Two points.
1. “all men are created equal” is a political assertion, not an across-the-board morphological, biological, existential assertion. In its actual original context (which is the only source of its meaning), it is merely Step One in a Lockean argument about the sources of legitimacy for a just government. “All men are created equal” is not a controlling claim for every human situation under the sun, nor was it ever meant to be.
2. “Racial equality/inequality” is ultimately a meaningless term. While it’s objectively observable that mean Black IQ is substantially lower than other races, and that mean Black criminality and sociopathy are observably higher than other races, it is _also_ objectively observable that large, large numbers of Black people are highly intelligent, ethical, hard-working and socially cooperative. So for political purposes, classification by race can make few to none moral claims. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make clear-eyed public policy based on statistically observable racial/group trends, but it does mean we can’t justly formulate an absolute political theory based on a questionable taxonomy.
Which is to say, I am quite comfortable denying cats the right to vote, because all observable data shows that cats can’t vote meaningfully. OTOH even though large numbers of Black people probably shouldn’t be qualified to vote in a realistic, sanely ordered polity, many or most of them should be; and moreover there are plenty of whites, Asians, Hispanics, Arabs and Jews who ought not to be permitted to vote. So a strict racial taxonomy could never be a just criteria.
Our big problems are that we (as a society) presently define “civil rights” too broadly, incoherently, and vengefully, and that we don’t speak of these matters with greater precision and with less sanctimoniousness.
Mr. Ferguson is not, apparently, discussing racial inequality, but “opposition to the pursuit of social equality for blacks…”
Wiki defines ‘social equality’ as:
“a social state of affairs in which all people within a specific society or isolated group have the same status in a certain respect. At the very least, social equality includes equal rights under the law, such as security, voting rights, freedom of speech and assembly, the extent of property rights, and equal access to social goods and services. However, it also includes concepts of economic equity, i.e. access to education, health care and other social securities. It also includes equal opportunities and obligations, and so involves the whole of society.
Social equality requires the absence of legally enforced social class or caste boundaries and the absence of unjustified discrimination motivated by an inalienable part of a person’s identity. For example, gender, race, age, sexual orientation, origin, caste or class, income or property, language, religion, convictions, opinions, health or disability must not result in unequal treatment under the law and should not reduce opportunities unjustifiably.
Social equality refers to social, rather than economic, or income equality. “Equal opportunities” is interpreted as being judged by ability, which is compatible with a free-market economy. A problem is horizontal inequality, the inequality of two persons of same origin and ability.
Perfect social equality is an ideal situation that, for various reasons, does not exist in any society in the world today. ”
Perhaps he can explain why, if social equality is an ideal that, because of de facto differences on an individual level (i.e the Bell Curve) cannot be achieved, pursue it?
Oscar, I want to know where you are hanging out. Apparently the blacks in my neck of the woods are an anomaly (if your assertions are true). Either way, your arguments are neither here nor there. I want a white ethnostate. I don’t give a FLYING FUCK what niggers do or do not do. Let them vote, IN THEIR OWN FUCKING LAND. I don’t give a shit. I just don’t want them choosing MY leaders. No equivocation. I am done with them, have no use for them. Lets compare. Hundred years of white ethnostate, hundred years black ethnostate. Wanna place a bet on which will be the preferable living space?
Jim — First of all, I myself would also prefer a white ethnostate (and I’ve given a great deal of thought to the practical geographical and demographic conditions for such a state), but you have to consider the practical cost, in blood and lives and gold (and it wouldn’t come without those costs), as well as the How To Do It. Ask me some time, maybe I’ll share my conclusions.
But right now, here we are on planet Earth, living in this dimension, and we have to be realistic. Black sociopathy is extremely high and extremely significant, but the simple mathematical truth is that it doesn’t account for the majority of Black people. Roughly one in three Black men is a convicted criminal; that still means that two in three are not.
This is still a group/racial fact too large to be ignored, and the incidence of low Black IQ paired with high Black sociopathy needs to be justly considered in the light of making sane public policy, BUT…
In the absence of actual, sustainable White secession, what does one do? Without going to the extreme of ethnic cleansing, we need a practical modus vivendi, and that involves acknowledging that a large, in fact majority percentage of Black Americans are sane and civilized, and cannot be justly excluded from civic participation on the basis of racial taxonomy. (In the absence of a White ethnostate.) That’s not bleeding-heart liberalism, it’s just the-sky-is-blue realism.
There’s more to say about all this (and again, I am NOT mounting a defense of BRA here), but my comment is already long, so I’ll continue further if this thread does.
This racial equality debate is fascinating, firstly because of the magic thinking on the part of white people and secondly because it is such unprovable nonsense these white anti-whites have to isolate themselves from blacks, they never ask blacks what they think.
Blacks are racist and they want racial benefits for being nothing but black, but our white anti-whites have to use the professional silence on these blacks so they don’t ruin the rackets these halfwits have created, its hilarious.
Thank god for youtube where blacks can end run the white anti-whites and really tell us what they think.
Marc,
Not nearly so much as that “the crime” of Hunter Wallace and co is that they can actually think and understand something about life. That is, they correctly identify the ruinous impact that blacks have on white countries, white communities and white individuals (and, though they don’t say it, by implication on any group of non-blacks); and they correctly identify the (varying) reasons blacks have brought such devastation in the past, why they bring it today, and why they can be expected to continue bringing it in the future.
Another of their crimes is noting your side’s complete failure to identify any real benefit that accrues to whites from allowing blacks to live among them, and certainly no such benefit that outweighs the awesome cost (present and future) it imposes. Instead, not content with propagating the falsehood of racial equality, you create and propagate another falsehood: the “benefit” of racial diversity. (In reality, there is not a group of people on earth whose lives are improved by the presence of blacks.)
Simmons,
If the consequences weren’t so serious it’d be riotously funny. He balks at it, but it’s unclear to me just how is it that a Marc Ferguson can possibly think he deserves to be called anything but an anti-white niggerlover. (Everything for blacks! Elevate the saintly black man! Nothing for whites! Destroy the wicked “racists”! Hence: anti-white niggerlover.)
Oscar, I’ve posted this in a couple other articles here at Occidental Dissent. But it is on point to achieving a white ethno-state. I apologise Hunter for the repeat posting. This is an plausible framework.
1. Eliminate democracy. The franchise must be weighed according to the amount of taxes paid. Not only is it just but it will also greatly reduce the political influence that blacks and Hispanics have.
2. Stop subsidising blacks and Hispanics through free education, health care, welfare and etc. An acceptable subsidy would be sterilisation or long term birth-control treatments.
3. Strict law enforcement but provide a escape hatch of minorities through self-deportation without the right of return. How many prisoners will choose serving 20 years for drug trafficking when they can not serve a day so long as they leave the South. Several African countries offer citizenship to American blacks. The reduction of of the prison population through self-deporters will allow longer prison sentences for violent offenders.
4. Obviously tight control of the border through militarisation and surveillance of the border through satellite and drones.
5. Absolute legal protection for the freedom of association. If a firm doesn’t wish to hire minorities or serve minorities then they should have that right. After all no one forces homosexuals to eat at Chick-Fil-A for instance.
6. Stringent enforcement of immigration laws against employers who hire illegals.
7. English as the official language for all government.
8. Expedited citizenship for white Southerners living outside the South. Basically so long as they do not have a virulent communicable disease they have citizenship.
9. Streamlined citizenship for non-Southern whites particularly those fleeing persecution in Africa.
10. Favourable tax treatment for marriage and large families. Southern whites need to have large families.
Any other suggestions? The idea is to free the South of unwanted racial minorities but to maintain world opinion. South Africa could not stand alone against world opinion and neither could the South.
None of the people you mention are “anti-Southern.” In fact, some of them are Southern.
And Uncle Toms are Black. What’s your point?
I suspect that the crime of Prof. Simpson, Andy Hall, Keith Harris, and Corey Harris is that they can actually think, and that they understand something about history.
There’s that shorthand again. But Ferg, you haven’t displayed any thinking or understanding at all. All you do is cut and run. Why bother?
You going to explain to me why men (even White men!) should be denied their God-given right to choose with whom they form neighborhoods, communities, schools, churches, businesses, and institutions? Or are you going to keep whistling past the graveyard (and tacitly supporting this ongoing denial of human rights)?
Indeed – but we are treating Marcie rather well. Oh – we are giving him blowback, and are calling him out on hs nonsense (we are only really trying to help him come into the light) – but we are treating him much better than he’s been treating us.
Too true. I didn’t say that Ferg should be stripped of all of his civil and human rights because of a word he used, that I found “dirty,” or because of beliefs I falsely attributed to him via straw man argument. But that’s precisely what he did to me: he used a straw man attack to invent beliefs for me (that I assume he’d prefer I held, with total disregard for the consequences toward Blacks, natch – I mean, what kind of leftoid wishes for more White racism?), then he used that straw man as the basis for the assertion that I had no claim on any civil or human rights.
Not the nicest guy in the world, our Ferg.
Lets compare. Hundred years of white ethnostate, hundred years black ethnostate. Wanna place a bet on which will be the preferable living space?
That’s not the comparison you should be offering. You should be offering a comparison between a multiracial state and a Whites-only state (or between multiracial states and monoracial states).
But I’d be happy with Freedom. With the law finally respecting man’s God-given right to form neighborhoods, communities, churches, schools, businesses and institutions as he pleases. Without the nanny-state deciding how we may form them.
Leftoids are fond of this one, right?
First they told the racists they didn’t have the right to choose their associations, and I didn’t speak out.
Then they told the Christians they didn’t have the right to choose their associations, and I didn’t speak out.
Then they told the conservatives they didn’t have the right to choose their associations, and I didn’t speak out.
Then they came for me, but there was no one left to speak out.
If we let the nanny-state tell the racists they don’t have the right to choose their own associations, then we’ve all given up the right to choose our own associations. Just like freedom of speech is the right to say things that may offend, and is destroyed once we start taking away the right to offend with it, the right to choose our own associations is the right to make choices that may offend, and is destroyed once we start taking away the right to offend with it.
Anti-Freedom laws (so-called “anti-discrimination” laws) are offensive to righteous men. There’s no getting around this – one can only abide them by joining the unrighteous.
Another of their crimes is noting your side’s complete failure to identify any real benefit that accrues to whites from allowing blacks to live among them
Exactly. Well, more like “allowing their gov’t to force Blacks in amongst them,” but yes. What’s in it for me, as a White man? There’s no internal (inherent) upside to allowing my Freedom, my rights, to be taken away. The best they can do is externalities (“Blacks will smash you,” “Jews will smash you,” “Leftoids will smash you,” etc.). It’s the kind of thing I’m sure slave-masters would say to their uppity slaves (“Now, you’d better think twice about what you’re doing, boy”).
Excellent comment Svigor. The so called ‘Civil Rights’ laws were never about ending discrimination. Such a thing is impossible at any rate although there are enough fools in the world to attempt the impossible. They were instead about what forms of discrimination will be permitted or even required by the government. Discrimination against blacks is out. Discrimination against whites is now required. Now after a few decades discrimination against sodomites is out. Discrimination against Christians is now becoming required.
Oscar: “In the absence of actual, sustainable White secession, what does one do? Without going to the extreme of ethnic cleansing…”.
Ah, I think I see where you’re going wrong…
“The so-called civil rights laws were never about ending discrimination…”
I do believe that the sainted Thurgood Marshall was quite clear and explicit that it was all about Revenge.
“But I’d be happy with Freedom. With the law finally respecting man’s God-given right to form neighborhoods, communities, churches, schools, businesses and institutions as he pleases. Without the nanny-state deciding how we may form them.”
This is why I still support Ron Paul. Ending government sponsored anti-white policy under the guise of “civil rights law” should be our number one priority, since unconstitutional civil rights laws keeps us from freely associating with our own kind.
I usually browse with images turned off, on account of my horribly crappy 20th-century dialup connection. So I didn’t see the pic of Ferg until I accidentally loaded this page with images turned on.
I’m done. (that’s not ad hominem, that’s mercy)
“Brooks doesn’t argue with me about history.”
Why would someone as knowledgeable about history as Brooks Simpson lower himself to argue with such an ignorant, racist, moron as you? You know less about history than you do about evolution and genetics. You embarrass yourself every time you post something, here or on Brooks’ site.
Brooks has already said that he disagrees with me about values, not about history.
Feel free to challenge anything we say here, whether it is about history, evolution, or genetics. Let’s see the anti-racist argument. Oh wait … there isn’t one.