BLM “Cancels” Charles Darwin?

Guest “I couldn’t make this sort of schist up if I was trying” by David Middleton

UK’s Natural History Museum to Review ‘Offensive’ Charles Darwin Exhibits, Bowing to BLM Pressure

In response to the iconoclastic Black Lives Matter movement, the Natural History Museum has launched a review into supposedly “offensive” and “problematic” collections, including exotic birds collected by English naturalist Charles Darwin.

[…]

Breitbart

What’s that? You don’t like Breitbart?

Natural History Museum to review potentially ‘offensive’ Charles Darwin collection
An internal review in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests has led to an audit into some rooms and items

By
Craig Simpson
5 September 2020 • 7:00pm

The Natural History Museum will become the latest institution to review it’s collections after an audit warned its Charles Darwin exhibitions could be seen as “offensive”.

An internal review, sanctioned in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests, has led to an audit into some rooms, statues, and collected items that could potentially cause offence.

It warns that collections which some may find “problematic” could include specimens gathered by Darwin, whose voyage to the Galapagos Island on HMS Beagle was cited by a curator as one of Britain’s many “colonialist scientific expeditions”.

Museum bosses are now desperately seeking to address what some staff believe are “legacies of colonies, slavery and empire” by potentially renaming, relabelling, or removing these traces in the institution.

The executive board told staff in documents seen by The Sunday Telegraph that “in light of Black Lives Matter and the recent anti-racist demonstrations around the world” the museum would undertake a review of existing room names and “whether any statues (or collections) or could potentially cause offence”.

One of the institution’s directors said in internal documents that new action taken to address these issues would alter “the use and display of our collections and public spaces”.

An example of the new thinking to address perceived imperial connections to science was a paper penned by a curator and shared with staff, which claimed “science, racism, and colonial power were inherently entwined”.

The work further argues that “museums were put in place to legitimise a racist ideology”, that “covert racism exists in the gaps between the displays”, and as a result collections need to be decolonised.

[…]

The ceiling of the grand Hintze Hall, where Hope the blue whale’s skeleton hangs, could also be problematic for staff.

The painted ceiling contains visual depictions of plants “like cotton, tea and tobacco” which were “the plants that fuelled the British Empire’s economy”, according to the paper shared with staff in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests.

[…\

The Telegraph

For some reason, this meme seems to fit…

https://ifunny.co/picture/hit-that-guy-with-your-skateboard-and-take-his-rifle-k9T19QXx7?gallery=tag&query=darwin

The Natural History Museum has earned a full suite of Billy Madison and Ron White awards…

A Tommy Lee Jones implied face palm…

And one of these…

224 thoughts on “BLM “Cancels” Charles Darwin?

  1. Hey,BLM tries to convince folks that the biggest threat to Blacks are White police officers, ignoring the tens of thousands of Black victims, murdered by their “brothers” in the Black sections of cities. Theose Black lives don’t matter to BLM, now do they. BLM is this generation’s racist, Ku Klux Klan org, only more violent and more stupid.

    • Some, Select Black Lives Matters is a Pro-Choice sect of the Progressive Church, rabid diversitists (i.e. color judgments), the contemporary Democratic neo-KKK, or neo-Nazis who denied individual dignity, denied individual conscience, normalized color quotas, color blocs, and affirmative discrimination. They practiced redistributive change for social justice and were staunch ethical defenders of the “wicked solution” (i.e. Planned People) for social progress, but on a smaller scale than their urbane ideological counterparts.

          • Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

          • History is definitely rhyming. We’re reaching the end of the Second Progressive Era. The first occurred between 1870-1920 and ended with a brief resurgence of individual ideology and freedom known as the Roaring 20s. The great mistake they made then was not to correct the damage inflicted during the Progressive Era, thus allowing for the policies enacted during that era to plunge the world into the Great Depression which furthered progressive policies still plaguing us.

            We shouldn’t make the same mistake of our ancestors this time. Instead of partying like we simply won, we need to recognize that the fight is not over and correct the systemic diseases that are the collectivist policies piggybacking on the free market. This starts with the education system; end the monopoly of leftist public education.

        • There is only one possible outcome in a given as far as diagnosis goes.

          If Darwin’s English is not good enough English, to any one there contemplating it that way,
          then no one else’s English will ever be good enough… ever.

          And as far as this goes, all the non happy or complainers about Darwin’s English, simply self diagnosed
          as pure insane lunatics.

          The Darwinian English will make that of William Sh. sound really like English luny tunes of the ages past… in life support.

          But hey, this “new age bravery” of the fully insane at large, got to get its own day under the sun.

          Darwinian evolution, 101.
          Where definitely, price will very well match the value… accordingly.

          So
          How does thus far my English sounds to you, whatever you be… Inglichy spraker ?
          How your day under the sun going?

          cheers

    • I wonder how long a racist cop would last in any of these problematic police forces that seem to have majority black cops and leadership spanning from Sargents to Mayors. I’m not going to be a racist and blame the black leadership, when the real problem is Democratic leadership and their systemic hate of anyone who isn’t a far left lunatic. Anyone of any race can be just as hatefully stupid as anyone else.

      • You don’t even have to show that someone is fascist, all you have to do is say it, after they’re dead, and you’re golden.

      • Mark,
        Since Pantifa is obviously an anti-free speech, fascist organization, is this professor saying that concerned citizens are morally justified in shooting them? No wonder they’ve got their panties in a wad! What about pro-slavery, Communist inspired groups like Burn, Loot and Murder?
        He’s not in favor of slavery and human trafficking is he? Then he must support ICE, one of the premier anti-sex and human trafficking fighters in the world today! I’ve been reading lots of stories recently about all the children being rescued and their abusers being arrested by ICE along our southern border! The sections of wall that have been upgraded or completed must really be starting to make a difference! Maybe Trump can get another Nobel nomination for all the rapes and abuse his policies are preventing for the women and children trying to enter our country illegally! I know it’s only like 70-75% of the women that are raped during their journey but I’m sure the feminists and the Me Too celebrities are really ecstatic about our President showing how much he cares about the common folks!
        Maybe they’ll just concede the election now before Quid Pro Joe gets all his family’s criminal behavior exposed and he blows a gasket!

      • So according to this professor Americans can start killing Democrats, Progressives, Critical Race Theorists, and all other enemies of America. Cool, professors are “experts” so we have to do what they say!

    • “Hey,BLM tries to convince folks that the biggest threat to Blacks are White police officers, ignoring the tens of thousands of Black victims, murdered by their “brothers” in the Black sections of cities.”

      Also ignoring the fact that some of those police officers weren’t white.

    • BLM does not care about blacks at all. They are all about tearing down our history, culture, and society. They are trained Marxists and the adults need to stand up to them, not kowtow to them Wow, what pansies we have in charge of our museums. Was the development of all humans throughout history supposed to wait until BLM came along before we could explore the world. What idiots!

    • We do have a systemic racism problem in this country. One cause is natural. Look up Hamilton’s rule. People prefer their kin. The other cause is political. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden put more Blacks in prison than the KKK. Is it true? Could be. End Joe Biden’s racist Drug War.

      And fighting Drugs? What if they don’t cause addiction? Addiction is a symptom of PTSD. Says Nobel Prize Winner in Medicine Eric Kandel. Dr. Lonny Shavelson found that 70% of female heroin addicts were sexually abused in childhood. Will Prohibition cure PTSD? Or prevent the sexual abuse of children?

      • “We do have a systemic racism problem in this country.” Yes, it is called the Democrat Party and it is caused by leftist political ideology.

        • Indeed, Look around the country to all the places that the “examples” of this so-called “systemic” racism are occurring. They’re all cities that have been run by Democrats for decades. Democrat run cities, with police leadership appointed by Democrats. The first step to solving the problem would be to stop voting for these far-left Democrat loons.

          • First step is to invoke the Insurrection Act, second is to arrest all elected officials in each of these cities and states where elected officials and their forces in the streets are in a state of insurrection against the United States, interrogate them all thoroughly then arrest all those connected to their acts of insurrection. Third step, try publicly, convict publicly, sentence publicly. Do this all openly, publicly and 100% transparently. This sh*t has gone on long enough, they have repeatedly and publicly declared themselves enemies of America.

  2. Darwin was an abolitionist. The Royal Navy suppressed the slave trade from 1808, maintaining its West African Squadron at great expense. Britain abolished slavery in 1833, while Darwin was at sea on HMS Beagle.

    • It’s not him, not his character, it’s his Color (i.e. low-information attributes). Diversity dogma is a fundamental principle of the Twilight faith and Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic quasi-religion (“ethics”), which denies individual dignity, denies individual conscience, normalizes color quotas (Darwin didn’t make the cut), color blocs (e.g. 1/2 Americans), and affirmative discrimination (e.g. cancellation, elective abortion). Some, Select Black Lives Matter is just the latest sect of that quasi-religious order, incorporated under the diversity racket operating under the multi-trillion dollar, global umbrella social industrial complex.

        • Planned Parenthood was founded with the idea of decreasing the number of births of babies from “undesirable” races.
          Abortion has everything to do with it, from the beginning.

          • You don’t see it because you don’t care to know the history (ignorance is not a virtue). Look up Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood). Even Planned Parenthood itself has been forced to admit her racist views after decades of denial.

        • Well, since “pro-choice” is the vehicle which has been used to kill several million black babies it has everything to do with “it”.

      • The Oscars have installed a new rule. In order to be considered for any awards, a film now has to prove that they have hired a minimum number of actors/stage hands/whatever from various minority groups.

        • Yet, they literally lighten up the skin color of the casts in their movies for Communist China. They also remove prominent actors of color from billboards placed in Communist China.
          You couldn’t make this stuff up – you’d be pilloried if you made this stuff up about the Left.

          • Indeed, even “woke” Disney alters their movie poster for China. For The Force Awakens the image of the one Black actor in the movie is minimized for the Chinese market (making his image smaller and less noticeable than that of the other white actors). At least they still kept him on the poster, The Black Panther poster in America shows the Actors face, whereas the same poster in China has the Actor’s face covered by the Black Panther mask.

      • And privateers, and not just American. Plenty of French, Spanish,Dutch, Sicilian and Corsican privateers merrily went at it once Britain declared open season on the muslim slavers, and their mercantile ships as well. Profit to be made, those seeking such flooded in. The last phase of the End of Piracy.

  3. Surely any museum that shows anything historical relating to a white person should be closed down immediately.

  4. It’s long been clear that evolution is problematic. Evolution is anti-equality, and therefore haram. It was only a matter of time before Darwin was unpersoned.

    • No. We’re living in the inevitable end times of The Enlightenment, which was based on lies from the start.

      The inevitable result of the cult of Equality, for example, is that the world ends up being run by lunatics because if everyone is equal, there is no difference between the sane and the insane. The inevitable result of the cult of Free Speech is that insane ideas take over the culture, because there are far more insane ideas than sane ideas. The inevitable result of the cult of Rationality is that the lunatics rationally decide they should simply kill the non-lunatics so they won’t have any competition, because why shouldn’t they?

      • “All men are born equal” means that everyone should be equal before the law. Obviously, people are born with various gifts in talent and ability, but each one of us is equal before God and should be before the law. Clearly, that’s a consummation devoutly to be wished, but not yet a fact, as money can still buy better treatment before the law.

        • Please be clear… what is wrong… it would appear that we agree but your post would imply I am wrong can you say what it is I said that is wrong?

  5. John Tillman; exactly what I was thinking. This is an example (the subject matter of the article) of people trying to do what they think others may want them to do, mob thinking, instead of a conscious application of rational thought.

    • While Beagle’s skipper Fitzroy argued with Darwin over slavery while in Brazil, as second governor of NZ, he favored fair treatment for Maoris, angering settlers.

    • “…an audit warned its Charles Darwin exhibitions could be seen as “offensive”.”

      Nobody took offence to it, but they’re pre-empting the offence and hiding history. How on Earth does a museum think hiding history is a good idea? These guys are seriously deranged.

      • I’ve lost track of the number of times white liberals have proclaimed that something or other must be banned because it offends minorities.

        Nobody ever bothers to check with the minorities to see if they are actually offended, or if they even care.

  6. Here’s the crackpot paper to which they alluded:
    https://natsca.org/article/2509
    https://natsca.org/sites/default/files/publications/JoNSC-Vol6-DasandLowe2018.pdf

    A lot of liberals, these days, think that science is inherently racist. (I’m using the word “think” very loosely, of course.) Here are some examples of that mindset:
    https://sealevel.info/intersectional_blah_blah_blah.html

    Note: if the last link on that page, to the tweet by NASA GISS’s Kate Marvel, does not work for you, because she’s blocked you on Twitter (me too!), then right-click it, and “Open link in incognito window,” or “Open in a new private window,” or similar.

    Unfortunately, the professional grievance-peddlers who promote this nonsense have a large, well-fortified beachhead in academia, from which they systematically pollute young minds.

    • . (I’m using the word “think” very loosely, of course.)

      Please don’t. The far left doesn’t think, they emote. Facts, logic, history, knowledge, etc don’t matter at all to them, what matters is what they feel.

  7. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. – Charles Darwin, “Origin of Species…”

    • damp,
      Pro-tip: when you post something like that, you should strive to ensure your reader knows you are quoting someone else at the outset.

    • Your misquotation is most similar to a passage from “The Descent of Man”, not “On the Origin”. In it, Darwin predicts that our nearest ape kin will be exterminated. This hasn’t happened yet, but has gotten terribly close.

      Here is what Darwin wrote in “The Voyage of the Beagle”:

      “I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country. To this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco, I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I suspected that these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that this was the case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have staid in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horsewhip (before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean; I saw his father tremble at a mere glance from his master’s eye. These latter cruelties were witnessed by me in a Spanish colony, in which it has always been said, that slaves are better treated than by the Portuguese, English, or other European nations. I have seen at Rio de Janeiro a powerful Negro afraid to ward off a blow directed, as he thought, at his face. I was present when a kind hearted man was on the point of separating for ever the men, women, and little children of a large number of families who had long lived together. I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authentically heard of; — nor would I have mentioned the above revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded by the constitutional gaiety of the Negro, as to speak of slavery as a tolerable evil.”
      — Chapter 21

      • John Tillman, thank you for the correction. “Descent of Man” is the book, not “Origin….”

        However, according to many online sources not aligned with my point of view, the quote is accurate as I gave it. The ellipsis is short, and is supplied here.

        (For the sake of Joel O’Brien, the following are the words of Charles Darwin, in quotes.)

        “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

        • Looks like the ChiComs are well on their way to having their surrogates attempt to wipe out the evil, racist whites! As the Western world slides into endless partisan fights and quarrels, the ChiComs are laughing all the way to the bank!

  8. The UK has been suffering a pandemic of acute institutional moral cowardice for at least 20 years — ever since the first police unit and office of social work closed their collective eyes to urban Muslim rape gangs for fear of being called racist.

  9. It’s comments like these that confirm our systemic racism, and reveal that we all need to do our part to eliminate all forms of bigotry & racism.

    As a start, for my part, I am going to stop wearing cotton fabric, drinking tea, or smoking tobacco (although I will still chew up the tobacco really good and use it for bee stings … unless/until, of course, someone can point out how that may be perceived/assumed/construed as a racist or offensive action).

    • Cotton fabric is systemic racism, OK.

      But aren’t petrol products against social justice or something?

      What are we going to wear?

  10. Darwin identified as Hutu, or, if Some, Select Black Lives Matter is of a competing diversity class, as Tutsi. Perhaps as a post-apartheid Progressive Black South African who lynched other Blacks in retributive change or an affirmative action to reduce to competing interests. That said, diversity (i.e. color judgments) breeds adversity. Social justice (i.e. relativistic) anywhere is injustice everywhere. #BabyLivesMatter

  11. It is tragic how stunted of an education that my children and grandchildren will have – truly tragic.

  12. How about renaming some of the key species exhibited after David Lammy? It might help and the woke wouldn’t care about anachronism

  13. If it’s bad, it’s good, and if it’s good it’s bad, and if you don’t believe it you’re a racist.

    • This is what happens when you create a nation of dweebs. Like the dodo bird, sooner or later they fall prey to an invasive ‘species’.

      Maybe the most interesting thing about this is how similar these social phenomena are to basic phenomena in ecology and biological evolution.

  14. Sorry, it is “settled science”, deal with it. By settled science I mean the scientific method in which a hypothesis is created which leads to a null hypothesis that may be rejected with a certain degree of statistical probability. Sadly this post-modern dumpster fire regards nothing as true and everything as a means by which one group oppresses the other. The mathematically provable statement of 2+2=4 is for these people some sort of oppression. I suggest that the judo should be used on these folks and simply state that their post-modern rubbish grievance theory is a form of oppression of the thinking masses and they should be immediately cancelled. I would suggest hanged from a convenient tree, but I am actually against capital punishment. Then again, capital comes from the Latin head and these people do not appear to have one, so it may be that capital punishment in their case is an oxymoron.

  15. …. it gets more and more like stories from “The Onion” every day in here, yet unlike in “The Onion”, or the late lamented “Sunday Sport” (London Bus found on The Moon … etc), how ever improbable these reports are true 😨.

    Enjoy this Justin Trudeau impersonator while you can still see it …



  16. How about letting the past be the past acknowledging they were not perfect just like we are not perfect? This rewrite of history is pure stupidity. It serves no purpose other than demonstrating how much power they are welding which is exactly what they complained happened with those in the past. Bad for those in the past but it is OK for them. Right.

  17. Black lives don’t matter to other blacks, just look at gang violence in most U.S major cities, and if that isn’t enough to prove a point then just look at the Rwanda stats. 800,000 killed by being shot/hacked/burnt. The biggest threat by far to a black man is another black man (one of a different tribe/gang/status). BLM want to portray themselves as victims when in actual fact they are the perpetrators.

  18. The museum has nothing on recent grads from my alma mater, a science and engineering school. At the beginning of the COVID lockdown in March, people speculated about what might be accomplished in science and math because all the distractions were eliminated. However by late May, there were posts about how grads needed to show solidarity by declaring math and hard sciences racist. I can’t believe how screwed up kids have gotten by SJW tendencies in most colleges.

    • If math and hard sciences are racist, then pressure must be put on universities to cancel teaching those fields. Since I will be checking out before the impact of that would affect me, that would suit me fine. Let them destroy their civilization, endure starvation and deprivations, and discover that nature doesn’t give a whit about their feelings or demands. It’s becoming clear that the herd needs to be thinned, and people who must spend every waking hour looking for food have no time to worry about what’s offensive.

      They might even learn why those who produce more, get more. In any group where food must be hunted and gathered, who gets fed first, fed the most, and why?

  19. The Victorian-throwback prudes at the UK’s Natural History Museum have been so racist for so long that they don’t know what real racism looks like.

    They invented it, after all. The entire theory that humanity can be color-coded into five primary color groups come from jolly old English Victorian days. That was back when they were building an empire on the backs of bluudy wogs.

    Modern genetic allele analysis has thoroughly disproved the old Theory of Race. If there are any, then there are thousands of races of Man. The allele diversity today is so widespread, however, that no one can claim (biochemically) to be a pure bred anything.

    But there is no science like old junk science. Victorian claptrap infects many scientific disciplines to this day. It’s cemented into their core paradigms.

    And Society-At-Large is equally infected with Victorian nonsense. It’s taught in our schools to young children, and they carry the misinformation like a virus for the rest of their lives.

    There is no such thing as black people, or Black! people, or white people for that matter. The whole kerfuffle of racial purity/diversity is a tool of powermongers and revolutionary agitators who seek chaos, not cooperation. Falsehoods, especially the old superstitious kind, serve their agenda.

    • The English invented racism?

      Looks like Mike failed in history. Racism has existed since humans divided themselves into tribes.

      • Correct. ”Racism” is quite a natural part of the human condition.
        Protest all you like. It won’t change things until we all become automatons.

      • Mark,
        He sort of forgets to mention that the Abolitionist Movement sprang from the churches of Merry, Olde England the the Northern US states! Maybe he thought it was the armies and navies of the Islamic states in North Africa and the Middle East; but they didn’t get around to abolishing slavery until well into the 20th Century. Usually under duress from the English or American military!
        Just another example of the systemic racism that pervades our liberal education system just as they must be pro-slavery because they actually promote Communism, the modern scientific slave state!

        • Whoops. I should know better than to argue with the totally indoctrinated. But here goes anyway:

          Race is a Theory, a scientific theory that purports the human species is made up of biological divisions known as “races”. The Theory of Race purports that there are 5 such races in the human species, and that these may be color-coded. It’s a zoological/taxonomic theory. Note that other animal species are not divided into alleged “races” by taxonomists, just humanity.

          It is not a Tribalism Theory. That’s something completely different.

          Race Theory purports biological differences between races. It arose in the early days of Victorian science, along with other theories such as mesmerism, phrenology, and occultism.

          Gregor Mendel founded the modern science of genetics ~1850. Race Theory was established well before then. Genetics has progressed in leaps and bounds since Mendel. Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of DNA in 1953. More progress since then has discovered the structure of genes and gene fragments known as alleles.

          Meanwhile Race Theory has not advanced one iota.

          Modern genetics has disproved Race Theory. The complexity of human genetic inheritance does not break down the human species into 5 distinct color-coded groupings.

          But I’m just whistling into the wind. There is no way to convinced stupid people that their deeply held superstitious beliefs are wrong. They simply cling more tightly. If humanity has any defining characteristic, it’s stupidity.

          • Mike Dubrasich :
            “That was back when they were building an empire on the backs of bluudy wogs.”

            From way up on your high horse, could you explain why you have the right to use racist slurs on this site?

            In your haste to cause offence and shock, you have picked a racial slur completely out of context that didn’t even exist in Victorian times, but looking at the rest of your “cut and paste” diatribe that’s not surprising.

          • Come on, Mike. The elaborated pseudoscience of “race theory” is far more specific than what most people have in mind when talking about race.
            For many (not all) purposes it’s useful to think of racism as a variety of tribalism, with identity markers that some (many?) people accept for themselves and ascribe to others. The fact that these markers are not rooted in genetics is good and important to know, but it settles only some of the issues, not all.

          • If humanity has any defining characteristic, it’s stupidity.

            And thank you for being a primary example.

          • In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies. … Races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species, or they may be defined in other ways, e.g. geographically, or physiologically.

        • “Maybe he thought it was the armies and navies of the Islamic states in North Africa and the Middle East” Don’t know where you got that idea, slavery is alive and well throughout Africa, ME, Asia, South-Central America. Slavery came to North America FROM Africa and ME and in both it still flourishes. Just under different names and the protection of islam. Children and women are held in slavery and traded as such into America. Trump Admin is making inroads against this crap even as we speak. Why didn’t the Obama Admin do so? Oh, yea, they shutdown law enforcement operations directed against such by Bush Admin. Hell, even Clintoon was active in blocking trafficking, at least as a show.

        • How typical, you assume that you must be correct and everyone who disagrees with you is therefore either uninformed or an idiot.

          How progressive of you.

          When someone shreds your pet theory, the correct response is not to double down.

    • Hello, Mr. Dubrasich. Of course there are Black people and white people, and anyone can tell them apart at a glance. Nobody cares about allele diversity. Beautiful people are virtually identical to plain people on a genetic basis, but so what? You can tell a beautiful woman from a plain woman right away, and the difference between the two is likely to affect how you respond to her, even if you believe that it shouldn’t.

      Anyway, no matter what anyone tells you, race and talent are strongly linked. Why are there no white cornerbacks in the NFL? Racial bias on the part of coaches? That would seem unlikely.

      Distinct races exist, and are also, in general population terms , linked to different innate capacities. In competitive economies, the result will inevitably be different outcomes, based on race. We can all agree that we won’t judge people by their race, but we aren’t likely to cease judging people for their talents and personal qualities. We can pass laws forbidding discrimination in housing and employment on the basis of race, but we can’t pass laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of intelligence, or even personal appearance. We can’t pass laws requiring anyone to like and trust anyone else, even if people are required to act as if they do like and trust people they really don’t. If the problem is that many white people just don’t like or trust Black people, well, that is a problem that is beyond the power of the law to ameliorate.

    • So, when anti-vaxxers or anti-evolutionists or climate change deniers point to this or that result to argue that they have….. “falsified the scientific consensus,”…. they are making a meaningless statement. What they need to do is produce a preponderance of evidence in support of their case, and they have not done so.

      falsified the scientific consensus,

      you don’t falsify a consensus.. you falsify a theory… consensus is not a scientific result and has no place in scientific reasoning.. on this alone the whole article collapses

      also.. a theory is a working result which is always up for reanalysis.. if you could design an experiment that falsified the theory of gravity we would have to reconsider what we “know” about the way the universe works.. our understanding is not static and is constantly changing as we learn more.. from what I can see Mano is simply playing semantic games in order to justify his (her) position and undermine any and all scepticism justified or otherwise of the existing paradigm.

    • Wrong.

      CACA has so corrupted science that now even the scientific method is under attack.

      The scientific method requires that an hypothesis must make testable predictions capable of being shown false or confirmed by experiment or further observations of nature.

      The CACA hypothesis was born falsified, in both senses of the term. Besides which, in its early 20th century version, AGW was correctly seen as beneficial, not catastrophic, as by Arrhenius and Callendar.

  20. It’s not really BLM that is enabling this lurch into stupidity. It is stupid white Liberals, both in the US, in Canada, and the UK. They are baizou as they are derisively called in China. The baizou on college and university campuses are pushing the critical race theory garbage, which is openly based on Marxist lines of thought. This has also manifested itself as the 1619 Project that the NY Times and white libtards are spreading like a virus through the mushified brains of white liberals. It is a bald-faced attempt to re-write history.

    The main driver for this I believe it is collision of the Cancel Culture with an attempt to erase the inconvenient history of the Democratic Party in the US. The Democratic Party’s history forms a quite severe case of cognitive dissonance for today’s liberals. Liberals who one one hand who want to tear down statues and any relics of slavery as they see it, but have seized control of the Democratic Party and pulled it leftward. One only has to look at the DNC Chairman Tom Perez to see that he obviously cultivates his personal likeness to Vladimir Lenin, the original Bolshevik. The only rule for Bolshevik Democrats is there is no rule that can’t be broken in the pursuit of power.

    But this Cancel Culture collides with the reality of the Democratic Party. It was the Democratic Party founded by openly avowed white racist slave owners like Andrew Jackson, elected as its first President. It was the Democratic Party in the South that formed the Confederacy once the states voted to secede. The entire Confederate governance were Democrats.
    After 600,000 casualties of mostly young white men, the defeated Confederacy Democrats in the South were forbidden by the 14th Amendment from holding public office again, but that didn’t stamp-out the racism in the Party and its supporters. The re-admitted states just undertook Jim Crow laws and the new Democrats were mostly indistinguishable in membership from the KKK all the way up to the 1950s. Even the US WW2 internment of US citizens of Japanese descent was pushed on Democrat President FDR by those within his party.

    So the Democrats have been faced with the increasing cognitive dissonance of squaring thier party’s past with the cancel culture. The answer has been to re-write history with the 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory brainwashing the masses into somehow believing all white people are inherently racist and that black people (or any colored people in general) by definition cannot be racist. It is huge play on the liberal white guilt angle of stupid white liberals.

    The first step the American people must do to keep the Bolsheviks-Democrats from power by voting them out and sending them in the vast emptiness of being politically powerless for at least a generation so they can reform themselves and rid themselves of the Marxist take-over that has occurred in the Democratic Party. Or they could simply disband themselves and splinter into 2 or 3 different parties.

      • If they fought that war under today’s rules of engagement, Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, et al, would be arrested for war crimes. In many cases, their forces evaded battles with the enemy military, and targeted civilian populations. The lesson the South learned, you cannot win a war playing defense, was forgotten when we fought in Nam – and lost.

        • The South’s offensive attempts at Antietam and Gettysburg were bungled.

          The CSA actually would have been better served by staying on the strategic defensive after its defensive victory at Chancellorsville than going on the offensive again into Maryland and Pennsylvania.

          • The war was lost at First Bull Run. By not pursuing the defeated Federal force all the way to Washington the Golden Opportunity was lost.

        • The US Civil War was an asymmetry of needed outcomes. Remember it was called the War of Secession then.
          For the North to win:
          The Union Army had to decisively defeat and disarm the Confederacy militarily to win. Sherman’s March to the Sea and then Grant’s defeat of the Lee’s Army was just that. Decisive. The South was utterly broken with those.

          But for the South to have won the War of Secession, all they had to do was wear down the Northern states will in enough of their sons losses to make the public tell Lincoln to let them go. The blunder Lee made was, as J Tillman points out as do most historians, was the the offensive into Maryland and Pennsylvania where Lee’s Army of Northern Virigina was decisively defeated at Gettysburg.
          The near total losses many of the divisions in Lee’s Armies incurred at Gettysburg could never be replaced with the South’s critically low manpower, manufacturing base and supplies. Every aspect of the South population in manpower and resources were all committed, so losses could not be sustained or replaced by the South. From a strategic standpoint, Lee and the Confederacy should have just stayed on a bloody defensive and worn down the North’s will to hold on to the Southern states in the Union by sending as many Union soldiers as they could to their grave. That is what war is. There is no second place medal.

          Hitler made a similar colossal blunder when he directed his Armies in the East to turn south and take Stalingrad as a symbolic victory rather than quickly capturing Moscow, and pushing Stalin for an Armistice. Without the armistice or truce in the East with Russia, the two front war the Wehrmacht faced after summer 1943 with the Allies Italy summer 1943 invasions and the Western front in France in June 1944 was certainly Germany’s downfall by dividing its resources.

          • Hitler, who acknowledged his forerunner Napoleon in Paris, made the same colossal mistake – attacked Russia in winter. Napoleon was defeated by delay and winter, and Greece delayed Hitler long enough to end up the same.
            But as von Staufenberg and others knew, they were dealing with something utterly destructive, as Heinrich Heine forecast to the year in 1834, with his Religion and Philosophy in Germany, the Romantic Movement.

            It takes a Poet, to really get at and express the truth.

            Of course the first thing Hitler ordered in Paris was the destruction of Poet Heine’s grave.

          • Longstreet’s plan for summer 1863 was correct, based upon his view of strategic defensive and tactical offensive, unlike Lee’s strategic offensives.

            He wanted to take his corps over the South’s rickety rail system to attack into Tennessee and Kentucky, drawing Union forces away from the siege of Vicksburg. Might not have worked, but the CSA wouldn’t have suffered the disastrous losses it did at Gettysburg.

            Also, Stuart let Lee down in PA, by his cavalry corps not serving as the eyes and ears of the ANV, his first mission. And, had Jackson not been killed by “friendly fire”, he would have driven fleeing Union troops off the high ground south of town late on the first day, which they fortified during the night. As per Lee’s badly worded order, the cautious, slow Ewell did not find it practicable to pursue the US corps before they could dig in.

    • “It’s not really BLM that is enabling this lurch into stupidity. It is stupid white Liberals”

      That’s right. Most of the protesters in the streets are white.

      • Not just white, white women with college educations. Oh, and massive student loan debt. That will be their next demand, bet on it.

  21. In both the USA and the UK, the black lives of immigrants from India matter because they made it matter by being outstanding citizens and by making sugnificant contributions to society.

    Regardless of skin color, the need for street protests and anti social mayhem to demand that your life matters is the confession and the evidence that your life does not matter.

    Go home, take a good look in the mirror, change your lifestyle, and make your life matter. Only you can do that. Nobody can do it for you. Being coddled does not make your life matter.

    • At least here in the US, today’s marxist-Democrats actively promote victimhood and a grievance culture. It is a purposeful division of people by Democrats into tribal groups to then exploit them pitting one versus another as a path to political power.

      Canadian clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson clearly explains in several of his interview videos of what is happening, the division of people along the promotion of grievances to seize power. Dr Peterson explains the history of the Marxist march to power in how the the 1920’s Russian Bolsheviks undertook forced collectivization of the Kulaks (kulaks were the hard-working knowledgeable peasant land owners who were the the productive bread basket of Russia and the Ukraine) by pitting agasinst them those who were the least productive parts of the Russia society to attack and seize their farms in promise of grievance re-distribution of those lands. What then ended up happening is the lands were taken by the government (collectivized), and the predictably food production plummeted, then millions starved, and the kulaks were outright beaten to death with shovels, or starved, or sent to Siberian gulags to be worked to death or frozen to death in unheated camps in the Siberian winter.

      Inciting a culture of grievances is also how Robert Mugabe seized total power in Zimbabwe 20 years after the fall of the Rhodesian government and apartheid in that country in 1980. He faced mounting criticism and a possible election defeat so in 2000 Mugabe simply promised “war veterans” that they could have the white-owned farms, Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of southern Africa, became a basket case. Most the best farms were actually then seized not by people who would work the land in agriculture, but by Mugabe and his cronies closest to him, including the generals and officers who had no interest in farming.

      And today’s US Democrats, after Hillary’s humiliating defeat in 2016 and the subsequent Trump dismantlement of Obama’s liberal project, if they ever again get the White House and control of Congress they never again will allow any other party to challenge them for total political power. They will change laws, ignore the constitution, eliminate the Senate filibuster, pack the Supreme Court if the courts try to stop them, and stomp on the People’s liberties in the name of “social justice” or even more stupid “climate justice” narratives. Just as they have done in California to ensure they can always prevail in what is becoming increasingly common voter fraud by the Democrats.

    • When work-ethic, education, the family unit, and capitalism are considered white concepts not applicable to blacks, there really isn’t much that can be done.

      We almost have to return to basics: no work, no food, with harsh punishments for those who cause problems.

    • Evolution is a theory in the same way that universal gravitation is a theory, ie a scientific fact (observation of nature) with a body of theory seeking to explain it. Ditto the germ theory of disease, atomic theory of matter, oxygen theory of combustion, heliocentric theory, quantum mechanical theory, etc.

      • I disagree with you about the validity of the theory of evolution, Mr. Tillman. It’s full of holes. There is no credible model for the creation of new species. The Darwinian version is that species change gradually over time, in a continuous process like soil erosion. This is clearly wrong, as evolution must proceed in a series of discrete events. An animal is either of a given species or it isn’t. On the day that the first hummingbird hatched from the egg, there were no other hummingbirds. It could not have mated with animals of the same species as its parents. In order for hummingbirds to appear as a new species, there had to be at least one other hummingbird, of the opposite sex to the first hummingbird, hatched during the mating life of the first hummingbird. If new species really do appear through random mutations, which are one-in-a-million (at least) events, this is prohibitively unlikely. Impossible.

        This is where I have to patiently explain that, no, I don’t think that the Book of Genesis is anything other than a legend. But I do think that organisms are here by way of intelligent design. That’s a pretty vague statement, but it is at least as likely as the theory that new species arrive as the result of discrete chance genetic events that are too improbable to have actually happened.

        • You don’t understand evolution. Sometimes it’s gradual, by natural selection, but new species also arise in a single generation, due to such processes as whole genome duplication. New species arise through a variety of evolutionary processes, both “directional”, as from selective pressure, or “stochastic”, such as genetic drift, reproductive isolation or the founder’s principle.

          There is no evidence of intelligent design, and all the evidence in the world against the anti-scientific dogma.

          Evolution is an objective scientific fact, ie an observation of nature made repeatedly and constantly, with a body of theory and hypotheses explaining how it works.

          New species can be made in the lab as well as arising naturally. Speciation in the wild has been recreated in labs. Sometimes a single point mutation makes a new species, as in nylon-eating bacteria. Species are mutable because of reproduction.

          • My own view, Mr. Tillman is that nobody understands Evolution, as I’ve never heard anyone give a credible explanation of how new species are created. Your own explanation is purely speculative. There is no way to observe it, and you are merely inferring the existence of mechanisms you can’t demonstrate. My own explanation for the diversity of life is similarly speculative, unfalsifiable and speculative, but at least I know it.

            I will admit that my objection to Evolution (which I had to pretend to accept when I took it in Zoology at the University of Alberta in 1972) is intuitive. I can no more believe that bullfrogs and tigers and my Uncle Bill were the result of a randomly acting, unintelligent process than I could believe that St. Paul’s Cathedral was a natural rock formation.

            So many Evolutionists are atheists, and I suspect that a lot of the popularity of Evolution springs from a profound need to refute religious belief. The best argument for the existence of God is the wondrous nature of the world. If you have an explanation for the wonders of the world that does not require an intelligent God, and you are hostile to religious belief (as Richard Dawkins surely is), Evolution is a lifeboat from the wrecked ship of atheism. (By gollies, that was certainly poetic, wasn’t it?)

            This is where I patiently explain that I understand that all religious believe is inherently irrational, whimsical and beyond the standards of scientific proof. My own religious belief is an inchoate, wandering, often silly contraption that frequently doesn’t work. But I cling to it anyway, as that is my nature.

          • clearly, you’ve never studied the subject upon which you imagine yourself qualified to comment. After you’ve gotten a degree in biology, you’ll have seen overwhelming evidence for the fact of speciation by evolutionary processes.

            There is nothing the least bit speculative about those processes, observed every day in every way.

            While sitting through zoology lectures, you somehow missed the simple fact that evolution is a consequence of reproduction. Natural selection is the opposite of random. Some genetic variation does arise through more or less random processes, but the fact that mutations occur isn’t random. Again, you fail fundamentally to grasp how evolution works.

            I’m not hostile to religious belief. Biology is science, not religion. “Design” in life is idiotic, not intelligent, as should be obvious to the most casual observer.

            Why did the ancestor of tarsiers, “monkeys” and apes lose its ability to make vitamin C, thus subjecting its descendants, including us, to scurvy, which doesn’t afflict our primate kin, the lemurs and lorises? Why did South American rodents and some bats also lose this ability, but due to the gene broken in different ways?

            Why do the gonads in mammals arise in the fish position, ie the chest, then migrate to the abdomen and, in the males of some species, out of it, leaving behind easily herniated holes?

            Why is the huuman foot such a jerry-rigged assemblage? A sophomore civil or mechanical engineering student could have designed a better plantigrade, bipedal foot. But when evolution had to work with a grasping foot, our easily fallen arches is the best it could come up with via natural selection.

            Why do humans and other apes retain muscles we can’t use, such as to move our immobile ears? Why do we sometimes grow tails?

            The instances of idiotic design can be multiplied at multivolume length.

            OTOH, as noted, we observe speciation in the wild and the lab all the time, both gradual via selection and sudden, via polyploidy and other processes. How can evolution not occur, given how genetics work? Again, as noted, sometimes a single point mutation creates a new species, whether a deletion, substitution, duplication or addition of a nucleobase.

            The mutation which converts sugar-eating bacteria into nylon-eaters must have occurred countless times, always deleteriously, before nylon entered the environment.

            Why did two standard great ape chromosomes fuse to form human #2?

            Why do pathogens develop resistance to antibiotics and crop pests to pesticides?

            Religious arguments aren’t science. They aren’t capable of being confirmed or shown false. That’s their whole point, if belief is to have any worth. Were there evidence for the God hypothesis, then of what value would be faith in Him?

          • But Mr. Tillman, all species must arise in a single generation. Take the hummingbird example. An animal is either a hummingbird or it isn’t. There are no near-hummingbirds. A hummingbird can produce new hummingbirds only by mating with another hummingbird. The mating lifespan of a hummingbird (I’m guessing) is maybe a few years. So, after the first hummingbird was hatched, the second hummingbird had to be hatched within a few years, and in proximity to the first hummingbird. And both of the Adam and Even hummingbirds had to be healthy. And, according to Evolutionists, both original hummingbirds had to be the result of random mutations-mutations that were so rare that they had never happened before. Now I ask you, how likely is it that that could have happened?

            Evolutionists deal with the problems of improbability by saying, well, in billions of years, improbable occurrences will happen. But the establishment of new hummingbirds does not happen over a billion years. It happens over two or three years.

            I would ask you not to bury me in jargon, but just deal with the hummingbird problem as I have explained it to you, using logical argument.

          • Again, mutations and other sources of genetic diversity are the raw material of evolutionary processes. Again, natural selection is the opposite of random.

            All evidence, to include genomes, anatomy, physiology and fossils, show that hummingbirds diverged from their closest kin the swifts more than 40 million years ago. For the past over 20 million years, hummingbirds have been rapidly evolving, as new species adapt to new niches. There was no Adam and Eve hummingbirds, but a spectacular adaptive radiation. Populations of reproducing organisms evolve.

            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hummingbird-evolution-is-booming/

            Please study the subject instead of spewing nonsense spread by professional creationist liars.

          • Mr. Tillman: I was not aware that that there are different species of hummingbirds. My understanding is that two animals, male and female, are of the same species if they can mate and produce fertile offspring. LeBron James and an African pygmy are both homo sapiens, despite their dramatic differences in physical size.

            I have also never heard of new species being created in a lab. I’m asking you for a source for that claim. I have heard of new varieties of fruit flies being created in response to designed selection pressures, but I have never heard of any instance where a new species of fruit fly was created.

            “Spectacular adaptive radiation?” That sounds like jargon to me. Did you observe this radiation? Were you there? If you have an existential fact, that there are hummingbirds, for example, but you don’t know how the hummingbirds got there because you didn’t see them get there, anything you say about how they got there is theory.

            Darwin speculated that, in the evolution of new species, animals would exist who were interspecies. That is, they could successfully mate with animals of their forebears’ species, and also with animals in the newly emerging, but not yet fully distinct, species that was to come. In all the years since Darwin first published his theory, no one has ever come across even on example of such an animal.

            And lastly, creationists are not lying any more than evolutionists are lying. They are explaining a theory that they earnestly believe. If creationists really did accept the theory of evolution and were just championing the idea of creationism for political reasons, that would be lying. But that’s not what they’re doing.

          • Here is a simple challenge for anyone who believes the Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct. Explain to me exactly how you progress from a world where there are 0 hummingbirds to a world where there are 100 hummingbirds. You have to tell me what animals mate, what their offspring are like and how those offspring mate to produce hummingbirds as a viable separate species. You can’t use baffling, esoteric jargon, or talk about periods of millions of years, or just fall back on wild claims that you can’t prove. Just lay out the mechanism for how hummingbirds suddenly came into the world.

            Every evolutionist I’ve challenged on this finally resorts to the argument that I’m just too dumb to understand the theory of evolution. Well no. I passed a Zoology course on it at the University of Alberta. I know what the theory says, and I know the evidence for it.

            And no, I don’t think that Noah built an Ark or Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt or Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. Don’t give me any of that noise about being doctrinaire religious, and therefore impossible to sway with scientific fact.

          • Okay, I went to the Wikipedia page on Evolution and read the article on speciation. New species arise from their forbears when they are separated geographically from the forbears. The divergence in environments leads to a consequent divergence in surviving phenotypes, and the eventual emergence of distinct species. That’s all it says.

            But wait a minute. There are millions of different species, but there are not millions of different environments. Ants and aardvarks and people all exist in the same environment. If it takes environmental dislocation to produce a new species, then wouldn’t all the animals in a given environment be similar, or even identical?

            See? The Theory of Evolution has all these glib, just-so pronouncements that fall apart as soon as you think about what they must mean.

            Mr. Tillman, who seems to have dropped out of the discussion, has written that there were no Adam and Eve hummingbirds. What? There was never any such thing as a first hummingbird? So there’s a first time for everything, but not the hatching of a hummingbird? That makes no sense.

            Like most people, I learned the Theory of Evolution in a classroom. It was taught me by people who had the authority to punish me (you flunk the course and they don’t refund your tuition) if I questioned the Theory. And believe me, they punish you if you question their Theory. The first thing that happens when you say you don’t accept Evolution is, the smart, smug, powerful people who do tell you that you’re too stupid to understand it. Which would have to be pretty stupid, as the Theory of Evolution is really quite simple. Well-adapted organisms reproduce, and ill-adapted organisms die out before they can reproduce. As concepts go, that’s pretty easy to understand.

          • What do you tell a man with two black eyes? Nothing, he has already been told twice and still doesn’t get it. Clearly evolution does work, otherwise there would be nothing here except rocks. Why and how I don’t really care, it works. Now, why is Black Lies Matter pissed off with Darwin? Got a convoluted and byzantine answer for that one? Long story short, because they are a bunch of angry college educated white women filled with self-hate, loathing and guilt because they are white. Got nothing to do with hummingbirds.

          • Well, Zhotel, I have made arguments and you have not. “Evolution just exists,” is not an argument. It’s a restatement of the proposition that you won’t defend.

            Most of us come to this site because we want to argue for (but mostly against) the theory of anthropogenic climate change. The climate change guys often fall back on just saying, climate change is happening, it is happening as a result of burning fossil fuels, and this is so obvious that there is no point arguing with anyone stupid enough to doubt these things. This is the same general reasoning you have applied to replying to my posts.

            If your response to honest disagreement is just to insult the people who disagree with you, well, I can’t really explain anything to you. I post under my real name, and I write what I really think, and I try to explain my reasoning to people who read my posts. I’m not a troll, and I’m not a guy with an IQ of 110 who thinks that The Bible is literally true, which is how evolutionists usually characterize anyone who doubts their precious Theory.

        • “There is no evidence of intelligent design”

          Some might claim that evolution itself is evidence of intelligent design. Not me, particularly, but if there were an Intelligent Designer, evolution, as part of the design of Creation would fit right in, I would think. Evolution would be a good way to make a universe. Set things in motion and let the future unfold as it will.

          • No one ever wants to answer whether or not God is using evolution to create the world right this very moment. Always devolves into “there is no god!!!” and “evolution is fake!!!” and demands for “proof” that only they can find or will accept. Meanwhile domestic animal breeding programs continue to produce changes, almost as if it was some sort of evolution or something. Funny how that works out.

          • But Zhotel, animal breeding farms never (as in not ever) produce new species. Only new variants of existing species. The core of the theory of Evolution is that new species arise spontaneously from existing species. This has never been observed to have happened and has never been caused to happen by human beings.

            Evolution is based on a core principle of faith: All species have emerged from a common ancestor. Bullfrogs and whooping cranes and tigers are all evolutionary biproducts of an original, founding species. Also Evolution is said to be unintelligent. The process by which animal intelligence came into the world is a big, dumb, self-winding cosmic watch. Right there, on an intuitive level, is where doubts that it is true arise.

            Defenders of Evolution love to tell us that no, evolution is not random, but a directed process, like gravity or electromagnetism. By that reasoning, nothing is random. The result of casting dice is not a random event, since the dice are subject to the laws of Physics. Of course, when laymen use the word random to describe a process, we mean that the process is so complex in its mechanisms that its results are unpredictable. And, using that connotation, evolution is random. (When you argue with evolutionists, they’re always springing these smug little pedantries on you.)

            Anyway, there are no plausible theories of exactly how new species arise. When I was taught the theory in 1971, I was taught that genetic mutations (which are random, using a reasonable definition of that word) lead to changes in phenotypes, and environmental selection pressures then endow or deny survival to the surviving phenotypes. That’s pretty much the whole story. Exactly how this transpires in terms of real events was just ignored. Because nobody knows the mechanisms involved.

      • Hello, Zhotel. You’ve got a classic tautology going there when you say that, because there are diverse species, evolution must exist. Well no. Just because there are species does not mean that they have evolved from other species. It is still possible that they were created and installed on Earth outright.

        An example of evidence for evolution is that, in animals, there are commonly five digits on a hand/paw/flipper/wing. This can be plausibly understood to support the theory that all species emerged from a common ancestor, but it cannot be taken as a refutation of the theory that they were created. Maybe God just likes the number 5.

        This discussion is moot anyway. I have never understood the claim that, unless you accept Evolution, Biology doesn’t make sense. Well of course it does. If you’re studying how kidneys work, you don’t have to consider Evolution at all. Also, you can believe in Evolution and still believe in God. You’re just quibbling about the mechanisms God uses to create the world.

        I say Evolution isn’t true, but only because, as a problem in logic, it doesn’t parse. But then, there are things about existence that are beyond the power of logic to explain. If you consider that the universe is purely physical, free will doesn’t exist, because all thoughts are the product of neurological signals that must produce predetermined results. But everyone (even strict determinists who will tell you otherwise) believes in free will, because it is impossible, except on a theoretical level, to live as if you have no free will.

        • It does exist, it is all around you. Denial, its not a river in Egypt. And again, since it works I don’t care how.

          • But Zhotel, your argument for why something exists cannot be, it exists. That’s begging the question. If you don’t care how it works, why are you in this discussion, because the question we’re addressing here is how it works. My point is that the theory of how it works is incorrect, as can be seen from a careful examination of it. Your point is what? Nyah, nyah, the Theory of Evolution is correct, and you don’t have to answer anyone’s complaints that it isn’t. It’s pretty easy to win arguments if that’s all you have to do refute other people’s arguments.

          • You claim it does not exist, prove it. I see it in action every single moment of every single day in every single living thing I encounter, so your proof it does not exist better be overwhelming. Whip it out, lets us see this life altering revelation.

          • No Zhotel, no one can see evolution occur. That is a basic tenet of the theory. Evolution happens so slowly that it cannot be observed to happen. You seem to be taking the existence of diversity as evidence for evolution- species must have evolved from existing species, or there wouldn’t be different species. I am saying that it cannot be observed that species evolve to form different species. It can only be theorized, and the theory does not come close to providing an intuitively supportable explanation for how that could happen.

            It is reasonably plausible that a creator whose presence we cannot sense made all the species on Earth and installed them here. There is no way to disprove that proposition, just as there is no way to confirm it. Well, same thing with Evolution. As far as corroborative evidence goes, Intelligent Design and Evolution are equal.

            Anyway, it’s all academic, isn’t it? Something like half of all Americans don’t accept the Theory of Evolution. There is no other scientific theory that is so widely doubted. No one doubts Gravity and, although most people don’t really understand General Relativity, they still accept it. They reject Evolution (as I do) because it just doesn’t make sense.

            I am a veteran of this argument, and I know I can’t win it. The final argument, if defenders of Evolution,which in most cases was also the first argument, is that the reason I don’t accept Evolution is that I don’t understand it. And in fact, most of the people who reject Evolution are not well-educated. They really do believe that The Bible is literally true. But I am a rare disputer of Evolution who has studied the theory, and who is also not particularly religious. When supporters of Evolution first engage with me it is usually with patient condescension. Then, when I start to raise reasonable doubts about the theory, they just lose it, call me stupid, and flee the discussion.

          • Hahahaha, you just prattle on and on and still can’t prove evolution does not exist. You must be retired to waste so much time on something you simply can’t prove. Evolution does exist, it is all around you. And the best part? The funniest part? Nothing you say or do can change that fact. It is like the statement”God loves you”, you can’t prove he doesn’t and the harder you try the more you fail and the angrier you get. In the end God still loves you, and evolution still exists. God is using evolution to create the entire cosmos right now and you denying it does not change it or stop it. And now my documents are done printing, off to be productive in the world God’s evolution provides us all. Would have been gone already, intrawebsthingy connection has been a jerk all morning. And this is a day late now, jerk intrawebsthingy!

          • I don’t have to prove that evolution does not exist. You have to prove that it does. And you can’t. The evidence for the existence of evolution is all derived from facts about nature, and all those facts can just as credibly be put down to intelligent design.

            I will leave you once again with my core challenge: Find even one defender of the Theory of Evolution who can tell you, step by step, how the world went from zero to a hundred hummingbirds. No one can do this. Evolution is explained by vague generalities and tortured logic, with very little in the way of specific detail. Darwin’s original explanation, that there are bridge species between existing species and new species, remains unconfirmed.

            I will point out, Zhotel, that I have argued with you without insulting you, and I won’t insult you now. I post under my real name. You use an alias.

          • Ah, yea, you are the one who started this idiocy, now prove what you claim, that evolution does not exist. Slap you proof on the table and lets us all look at it.

          • Oh, and save the faux outrage, just present your irrefutable proof evolution does not exist, otherwise get stuffed.

          • Zhotel: I do not think that the Theory of Evolution is idiocy. I do not think that defending the Theory of Evolution is idiocy. I do not think the Intelligent Design is idiocy. I do not think that defending Intelligent Design is idiocy.

            I am not outraged, either faux or real.

            I bear you no ill will, and if I did I would not express it in a post on this website.

            The existence of evolution can be inferred, but it cannot be proved. That’ is why it is called a theory. Newtonian Gravitation, on the other hand is called a law, because it can be proved, and no one has successfully falsified it.

          • Can not be disproved, either. Evolution simply is, I don’t care how it does its thing, just glad it does. When anyone throws out something worthy of ridicule and derision that is what I give it.

  22. “the iconoclastic Black Lives Matter movement” – LMAO

    More like the “controlled opposition BLM movement”. Go to youtube and put in this to search “Lord Jamar BLM” and look for the 2016 video. About 3:30 into the interview he starts calling out BLM and goes over the difference between it and other black civil rights movements.

  23. What an absolute shower the whole lot of the Woke Media/Politicians are. One of the principal reasons I got into the Natural Sciences, is my school day trip to the The Natural Histroy Museum and the excellent Geological Museum aroud the corner.
    It flicked a switch on in my brain and I have always loved the natural world. The only reason that we create Museums is to educate the populace. If you take away the chance to see specimens from “far away places” that explain the very fundamentals of how we exist and adapt, then we are heading to Year Zero.
    I hope that this obsession with re-writing the past to suit a narrative stops. I am beginning to feel like Michael Douglas in Falling Down….

    • Mark Whelan
      September 9, 2020 at 6:22 pm

      Unfortunately I’ve watched the steady PC decline of the formerly great Natural History Museum for many decades. It started in the 1980’s with the removal of the wonderful coal collection. Then came the purge of anything remotely radioactive. Last time I was there they had removed every trace of any mineral that might have even a minute asbestos content. This even extended to a lovely collection of cut and faceted garnet gemstones that has had the grossuar garnet removed that came from the Jeffrey Mine in (gasp!) Asbestos Town, Quebec! Stupidity has no bounds.

      I complained to them about this in writing about a year ago but absolutely no response…they know better.

  24. As someone who didn’t manage to snag a comfortable job in a government position in a nice city to live in, I do find this sort of waste of time extremely offensive. Seriously, it causes headaches and eroding of enamel.

  25. This has nothing to do with anything real. It’s about an anti-western culture, pro Marxist agenda. And the sooner people start ignoring the outrages created every nanosecond (and the people making the claims) the sooner we can get on with life.

  26. It is interesting that Christians had been ridiculed for criticizing Darwin or things that were offensive, such as a crucifix immersed in urine.

    It’s free speech we were told.

    Now the ones who praised free speech are the ones who condemn speech that does not comply with their current standards.

    • Because they never believed in free speech, they only believed in their speech being free and to hell with anyone whose speech they don’t agree with.

  27. White academics believe that,if all racist speech is ruthlessly quashed, racism will eventually vanish. Black people know from their everyday experience with white people that this isn’t so. They feel the sting of racism from white people who deny that they are racist, which is why middle class Black people get so angry about microaggressions. ( If you’re white and you tell a Black person, you speak well, this is an admission that you expect Black people to not speak well.) White people just can’t win when the defining acts of racist aggression include compliments that are obviously meant to be friendly.

    There really is standard deviation sized gap between white and Black IQ scores. No matter what the cause of the gap is (genes or environment), the gap exists, and must have a dramatic effect on race-based social and economic outcomes. IQ is strikingly predictive of achievement in education, and just about everything else. A man with an IQ of 85 (which is the median score for American Black people) has a severe handicap. No amount of white guilt or black anger is going change that. No amount of pretending that it ain’t so is going to make it so.

    • Ian
      The facts do not count when it comes to the forces driving BLM actions. There is just one overriding objective out there. The crushing of the white dominated safe civilised society.
      The IQ difference is why, there is no sane reasoning available to limit the stupidity of those who think anarchy is better than prosperity. The advocates of BLM simply do not possess the necessary level of education/innate capability, including the white supporters within BLM, to comprehend, it will be they who suffer most, in a world without sound law policed by fair officers.

      • Well Rod, the BLM people are angry. We call being angry being mad for a reason. When you’re mad, you don’t really care about much except getting revenge on the people you’re mad at.

        So many obviously well-meaning white people think that, if they’ll only be kind and forgiving of Black misbehavior, that poor Black people will then calm down and behave as if they were middle-class white people. Educated people are isolated by employment and residence from people with below-average IQs, and have no real understanding of what they’re like. I’m pretty sure Robin DiAngelo hasn’t had so much as a five minute conversation with an American with an IQ of 85 in her life. I very much doubt if Ibram X. Kendi has either, and I’d bet plenty that Mr. Kendi does not currently reside in a predominately Black neighbourhood. It is easy to pretend that there are no innate racial differences in culture or intelligence if all the Black people you meet have college degrees, and you never come near anyone who got his education in prison. I very much doubt of the white admirers of dead George Floyd would have felt especially comfortable in the presence of live George Floyd.

        Police officers, of course, meet stupid, violent predators, white and Black, on a regular basis. Jacob Blake, to take the latest example, was capable of ignoring the commands of two policemen pointing guns at his head, and calmly walk away. What normally prudent man could have done such thing?

    • There really is standard deviation sized gap between white and Black IQ scores

      Obviously because IQ scores are racist.

      IQ is strikingly predictive of achievement in education

      because education is systemically racist, of course.

      do I really need to add /sarc ? Yes, sadly, I do.

      • The unavoidable difficulty with IQ scores, Mr. Endicott, is that they are fairly reliable predictors of success and excellent predictors of failure. The United States Army will not accept recruits with IQ scores of 83 or lower, having learned from hard experience that young people with IQ scores below that threshold cannot be trained to be soldiers. The median IQ of Black Americans is 85. What this means is that there is a huge cohort of Black Americans that cannot have productive economic lives.

        You can understand Black anger. Suppose you’re a poor Black man with a TV set. You can see how affluent people live on TV, mostly in the commercials, which usually feature upper middle class people. Then somebody tells you that the reason you can’t live in a nice house among people who like you and treat you kindly is that white people are maliciously keeping you poor.

        James Baldwin said, “To be a {Black person} in this country and to be relatively conscious is to be in a rage almost all of the time.” I suspect that is very close to literally true. White people who assume a virtuous pose of racial guilt and then expect that Black people will forgive them are likely to be disappointed. They will end up doing the prudent thing, which is to separate themselves from Black people It’s a self-perpetuating problem.

        • Angry people, no matter their skin color, need to direct their anger towards those who have actively harmed them. That is the political left, no matter what they call themselves. The success of the political left in so thoroughly lying to the people they routinely f**k over is rather mind blowing. Hijacking media and academia is how they did it, with minimum effort.

        • “The unavoidable difficulty with IQ scores, Mr. Endicott, is that they are fairly reliable predictors of success and excellent predictors of failure. The United States Army will not accept recruits with IQ scores of 83 or lower, having learned from hard experience that young people with IQ scores below that threshold cannot be trained to be soldiers.”

          Where does one go to find a standard IQ test? I took an IQ test in junior high school, but I would like to take another, for various reasons.

          I did not take an IQ test when I joined the U. S. Army.

        • The United States Army will not accept recruits with IQ scores of 83 or lower, having learned from hard experience that young people with IQ scores below that threshold cannot be trained to be soldiers. The median IQ of Black Americans is 85.

          And yet, the Army has a disproportionally high percentage of Black Americans.
          29.22% of enlisted women are black
          16.82% of enlisted men are black
          while only:
          12.4% of Americans are black.
          If Black IQs a so low as to disqualify nearly half of them from serving right off the bat, how is it that the percentage of them in the service is so disproportionally high?

          BTW, I know a good number of friends, family, and co-workers who have served. None of them (not a single one) had to take an IQ test to join. You are peddling fake news. There is no minimum IQ score to join the U.S. Army. What the US military does have, however, is an aptitude test – The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) – the minimum score of which for enlistment varies according to branch of service and whether the enlistee has a high school diploma or not. If your score is too low the recruiter will tell you to receive additional schooling/training before reapplying for military service.

          • John Endicott said, “BTW, I know a good number of friends, family, and co-workers who have served. None of them (not a single one) had to take an IQ test to join. You are peddling fake news. There is no minimum IQ score to join the U.S. Army. What the US military does have, however, is an aptitude test – The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) – the minimum score of which for enlistment varies according to branch of service and whether the enlistee has a high school diploma or not. If your score is too low the recruiter will tell you to receive additional schooling/training before reapplying for military service.”

            Mr Endicott, I served in the army for four years in training and operations (S3). Every individual who makes an application for a position in the US Army must take a number of written and physical tests to ensure he/she meets a minimum standard to determine the likely-hood he or she will be able to complete both his or her basic training and then the Military Occupational Speciality (MOS) training (there are very many different types of jobs ) he or she has signed up for. These tests are part of the ASVAB.

            These tests are used to determine, among other things, IQ, adaptive behaviour, general knowledge and aptitude. Each MOS has a different minimum of what is generally called, IQ associated with it. Infantry has a minimum (when I was in the army) of 85 or 90 (can’t remember exactly which), while other MOS’s such as those associated with the law, intelligence, science based require a minimum of 100 or 110 depending of the MOS. In addition the individual must demonstrate an aptitude for the MOS he or she would like to train. To become an officer (to go from enlisted to an officer via Officer Candidate School – OCS) an individual must have a minimum score of 110.

            It is essential the individual’s IQ, adaptive skills, general and specific aptitudes, and general psychological makeup are tested and known before the individual receives a contract because after the contract is signed the Army has an obligation to train the individual in the MOS and since training costs are huge training a person who is unable to complete his or her training is a waste of money. Even with all of the testing done previous to basic and initial MOS training there are some people who end up being unable to complete his or her training.

            The use of IQ/intelligence testing in the military has been happening for decades. The following is a link to an article in Wikipedia discussing the history of IQ testing in the military.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_General_Classification_Test

          • David Kent Alexander you may have served in the army for four years in training and operations (S3) but apparently your IQ isn’t that high otherwise you’d know that “IQ test” refers to a specific set of test such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) or the Kaufman Assessment Battery the measure a persons “intelligence”. The ASVAB isn’t any of those tests nor does it include any of those test nor does it give you an IQ score, as it is a skills, and ability to learn test, not an evaluation of the subject’s “intelligence” per se.

            The ASVAB, BTW, gives you an Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score of 0-99 whereas the median raw score of the norming sample of an IQ test is defined as IQ 100. so you are already talking two different scoring systems. Additionally, the current test score is measured against other test takers whereas IQ scores are measured against the general population in total. So again, two entirely different scoring systems.

            Historically, long, long time ago, the military may have used tested that gave an actual IQ score (possibly the Army Alpha and Army Beta tests?). but they don’t currently.

            Now there is some correlation between the current AFQT and IQ scores (the higher your AFQT score the more likely is that you’ll score higher on an IQ test) such that the AFQT has been used in non-military settings as a proxy measure of intelligence, but that still does not change the fact that it is not, itself, specifically an IQ test (as contrary to what you believe that is not what it’s designed to specifically measure) nor do you get an IQ score when you take it.

            To bring this back to the original assertion: the US military currently does not use the IQ tests people refer to when talking about IQ scores nor does it give an IQ score rating, period. Hence the claim that they don’t take people below an IQ of 85 is patently false. It’s pure fake news, they don’t test for or look at IQ scores at all and AFQT scores well below 85 are eligible for military service.

          • Mr. Endicott,

            You said,

            “David Kent Alexander you may have served in the army for four years in training and operations (S3) but apparently your IQ isn’t that high otherwise you’d know that “IQ test” refers to a specific set of test such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) or the Kaufman Assessment Battery the measure a persons “intelligence”. The ASVAB isn’t any of those tests nor does it include any of those test nor does it give you an IQ score, as it is a skills, and ability to learn test, not an evaluation of the subject’s “intelligence” per se.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Alpha

            Here is a link to an article that shows the beginning of how the Army developed and uses intelligence tests. There are differences between how and what the Army focuses compared to the tests you have named but but the fact is the Army tests for intelligence but it is only one thing tests and the scores of the different tests are blended to come up with a final score, the GT score. The difference between what the Army scores (GT score) and the others is that it not only looks at what you are describing as intelligence but includes general aptitude and psychological factors; remember the test you are using as an example is not a single test but a number of tests, a battery of test. The GT score is recognized as being a legitimate indicator of intelligence and it is recognized by Mensa as a legitimate indicator of intelligence – hence a score derived from a legitimate intelligence test. There are correlations between the GT score and a score say from the tests you are naming such as the Stanford Binet.

            Quote from a Wikipedia article

          • You were doing great, then you whipped out wiki as a source. I did time in US Army and knew plenty of guys who “aced” ASVAB and were as stupid as a bucket of piss, officers and enlisted.

          • Forgot to include this.

            The ASVAB is categorized into ten sub-tests. Four of these tests, Word Knowledge (WK), Paragraph Comprehension (PC), Arithmetic Reasoning (AR), and Mathematics Knowledge (MK), are used to determine if the individual is eligible to join the armed forces, and if so, which branch. These four categories are compiled to create a composite score, and are referred to as the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT). The remaining six tests are used to identify which specialty they would be the most successful in.

            The AFQT is comparable to other popular intelligence quotient (IQ) test in the fact that is tests an individual’s base intelligence level. Common IQ tests include: the Wechsler or WISC-IV, the Stanford-Binet (SB), and the Mensa Test. All three featured IQ tests use similar subtests to determine the individual’s innate cognitive ability. For example, the AFQT measures word knowledge and paragraph comprehension, while the WISC-III measures verbal comprehension, and the Stanford Binet measures knowledge, fluid reasoning, and working memory. Each test is analyzing word recognition, retention, and reasoning by reviewing the individual’s vocabulary, and ability to identify critical information from text. Each test also measures the individual’s quantitative reasoning through arithmetic section.

            You can find this quote here: https://asvabmilitarytest.com/asvab-compared-other-iq-tests

            From this you can see that the Army definitely uses intelligence test.

          • Again, David, It’s not an intellegence test per se. As you yourself point out it measures a lot of different things and the final score you get is *NOT* at IQ score. The score isn’t even on the same scale as an IQ score (it tops out at 99, IQ scores top out much higher, for example). Call it an intelligence test all you want it will not change those basic facts. The initial assertion about not accepting people with IQ scores below 85, as pointed out is false, because they don’t even calculate IQ scores. period. No matter how you try to defend it, it’s still a false assertion because the test they give, while (as I previously pointed out) can be used as a proxy for IQ is not itself the same test as the IQ test from which IQ scores such as 85 are calculated. Those are the basic facts, contrary to whatever nonsense you may wish to believe.

    • If I screamed racism, every time somebody said or did something that offended me, I wouldn’t have enough time left to do anything else.

    • I remember a story, I’ve forgotten most of the details. The time was back in the 60’s, a young black man who was playing for some college team was travelling on a train and the porter was making his rounds collecting tickets. When the porter got to him, the porter said something like, “Can I see your ticket boy.”

      The young black man immediately started to get offended and replied, “What did you call me?”. The porter replied “I called you boy, you are under 21 aren’t you?”

    • Ian;
      I understand what you are saying about micro-aggressions, however, in order to assume it is a micro-aggression, you must also necessarily prejudge the nature of the person saying those words.

      And herein lies the problem.

      The problem as I see it is that instead of expecting others not to make micro-aggressions, and punishing others when they do, we fail to think the best of each other.

      I’m not saying that we should go through life like Neanderthals expecting that the grace of others should cover our ignorance. But holding each other to a standard of perfection is doomed to fail.

      Those who are seeking “justice” in many ways appear to be seeking vengeance.
      The people of today cannot be held liable for the sins of others dating back hundreds of years.
      Why should the descendants of Northern soldiers who fell in combat be held in contempt for the what was taking place in the south? You cannot look back on history with the moral glasses of today.
      At best we can attempt to learn from our past and work together to try and achieve a better tomorrow.

      Which would you prefer:
      A world in which equality is forced upon a people
      or one in which we strive to give each other grace?

      It was once written that grace covers a multitude of sins.

      • Hello, Jim. The punishment of microaggressions is really just bullying. The people who commit microaggressions are well-meaning white people who want to make friends with Black people, and then say awkward things because they’re trying too hard. Their willingness to be friendly makes them vulnerable, because they are afraid of being considered racist, and in fact believe racism is a sin. The people who viciously attack micro-aggressors wouldn’t dream of pulling that nonsense with real racists, who would immediately fight back hard.

        Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi get away with absurdly broad definitions of racism because kind, decent white people let them. Neither DiAngelo Or Kendi would have the guts to take on a classic racist, who would not feel guilt for his racism, and would be willing to respond to challenges from “anti-racists” with hostile aggression.

  28. Most, if not all, UK institutions have been taken over by far-left nutters. I am offended by it, so what are they going to do to stop me being offended?

    • Philip,
      That is an easy one to answer. They will simply cancel you, thereafter you don’t exist, so there is no issue to solve.

    • Yes there is Niceguy. It used to be a low key affair, back in the days when education kept the dumb idea fraternity at a low number. In recent years however, the uptick in dumb ideas has mushroomed, I blame the bull excrement forcing personally, but that’s another story.
      Now here in 2020, we have so many dumb ideas to consider on an annual basis, the field is having to be stratified into divisions Premier division dumbness down to mere forth division Sunday leaguers.
      One of the premier divisions top dumb contestants, is the idea to abandon reliable energy provision and replace it with intermittent unreliable energy, to ensure more and more people can swelter in the summer heat and freeze in the winter months than is currently the case.
      This is a championship winning idea in the dumbness league currently, because a 17 year old immature adult with reality issues, who dropped out of school at 13 thinks it’s a prize winner.
      With that kind of international endorsement what chance does any other dumb idea have?

    • I worked for a man in the Navy who was given the choice between going to jail or joining the military.
      He chose the latter as an enlisted. When I knew him he was a Captain (O6)

      He was given command of the SSBN-736 USS West Virginia.

  29. So black people are so sensitive that even a “visual depiction” of “cotton, tea and tobacco” could “potentially cause offence.”

    Firstly I would suggest stop treating black people as if they all think the same. Thomas Sowell is not Jussie Smollett.

    I would also suggest that people who are hyper sensitive to this degree stay away from museums and let the grown ups learn about the world.

    Next up on Batsh@tcrazyworld…….should we ban the use of barbed wire in case it causes offence to those of a Jewish persuasion?

    • White liberals assume that minorities are so immature and child like that they must be protected at all times by white liberals.

  30. If you focus on your own culture, you are an intolerant supremacist. If you focus on other cultures, you are an imperialist appropriator. Utterly incoherent.

  31. Dear Sir:
    I thank you for the honour which you have done me by sending me your great work on Capital; & I heartily wish that I was more worthy to receive it, by understanding more of the deep and important subject of political Economy. Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of Knowledge, & that this is in the long run sure to add to the happiness of Mankind.
    I remain, Dear Sir
    Yours faithfully,
    Charles Darwin
    Letter from Charles Darwin to Karl Marx
    October, 1873

    This throws the cat amongst the pidgeons!!

      • Yup. Darwin, as a Wedgwood, was not sympathetic to any form of socialism.

        His theory of natural selection was influenced by free market economist Adam Smith’s invisible hand.

    • Yet Marx was no Eugenicist like Darwin.
      Likely neither believed in the pursuit of happiness, which after all is the American System that Marx refused to consider, instead focusing on Adam Smith, as his handler at the British Museum, David Urquhart (known as Ali Bey in the Caucasus) guaranteed.
      How to steer Marx, with a classical education? Simple – starve him, which Engels did, and his kids died.

        • Well, with American varnish. Witness Armageddon Mike Pompeo at the In and Out Club taking tea and orders.

          “Here we go again” means this time thermonuclear war, not a jolly little World War, what?

      • Darwin was not a eugenicist.

        You have him confused with his cousin Galton, the founder of statistical analysis.

        • Darwin was not a eugenicist.

          Indeed. Interesting tidbit, the term “eugenics” was coined by his cousin Galton a year *after* Darwin died. Eugenics literally didn’t exist during Darwin’s lifetime.

      • Yet Marx was no Eugenicist like Darwin.

        Neither was Darwin. But putting aside who was and was not an Eugenicist, why don’t yo compare the body count of each. Somehow I think Darwin comes up short in that department, what say you?

        blah blah blah British blah blah blah

        It always comes back to your hate of the British, doesn’t it. Only you forgot to get your digs in at your favorite boogey man, the British banksters. Shame on you, do better next time.

  32. As BLM/Antifa is in fact the repeat of 1968 Berkeley, which some might remember with Deja-vu.
    To Destroy a Nation, Destroy Its History and Culture—The Ford Foundation’s First Violent Anarchist Street Gang
    https://larouchepac.com/20200908/antifa-back-future-1967-68-counterintelligence-primer-further-investigation-and-action

    As far as Darwin, Malthus, Eugenics, Huxley, Galton go :

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/05/13/how-huxleys-x-club-created-nature-magazine-sabotaged-science-150-years/

    Problem with BLM/Antifa is they will never attack Darwin for his Eugenics, which is after all the policy of their deep-pocketed funders.

    The Matter over Darwin’s Missing Mind :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=94zQhG9W5HY&feature=emb_logo
    Clear documentation of Darwin, quotes, on Eugenics, not a “misinterpretation”.

    Darwin, and the Huxley’s X-Club, Nature Mag, who after all were formed to cancel the new progressing American optimism for industrialization, were actually the first “Cancel Culture” , the British Empire. BLM/Antifa betray their true face in this repeat.

      • That site sounds like an EU version of Integrity Initiative, Her Majesties Institute for Statecraft.
        So now we see the EU “fact checker”, and I thought Brexit meant something…

        Darwin is indeed a touchy subject.

        • No sane person needs a pro-EU site to see through Putin fronts like RT, Zerohedge, Infowars and Strategic Culture.

    • Lyndon LaRouche, bonbon? really? That actually explains a lot about your far out conspiracy nutcase posts. Your delusional hate of the British mirrors that of LaRouche. As does a number of other things you’ve posted over the years. That you are a disciple of LaRouche speaks volumes, none of them good.

      they will never attack Darwin for his Eugenics

      Kind of hard to attack someone for something that didn’t exist during their lifetime (though that never stopped conspiracy nuts like yourself). The term Eugenics wasn’t even coined until a year after Darwin’s death.

  33. What gives BLM or any other group the right to decide what is offensive for the rest of us. Statues and displays were put there for a reason and at great expense. They, disgruntled groups, want the benefits of Western society, but none of it’s history.

    • Their self declared moral superiority gives them the right to decide for the rest of us.
      If you disagree that they are morally superior, that’s just proof that you are a fascist, and as one college professor has just declared, there is no moral problem with killing fascists.

  34. For actual Darwin quotes, diary entries, see Paul Glumaz’s thorough research :
    T.H. Huxley’s Hideous Revolution In Science
    https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2015/eirv42n24-20150612/18-29_4224.pdf
    Notable is Darwin’s amusing diary entry of October 1838, 21 years before publication of Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, or Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

    As for Darwin’s family values, well, Darwin’s first cousin and brother-in-law, Hensleigh Wedgwood (1803-1891) was a well-known legal figure and historian, who wrote a book, On the Origins of Language, that sought to prove that language evolved from animal grunts.

    The Wedgewood’s were immensely wealthy, part of a tiny oligarchy, rather like today’s billionaire luminaries.

    Perhaps the BLM/Antifa will cancel speech altogether, for random selection of grunts? That would please their funders.

    • Of course you’d fall for LaRouche as well as Putin. Now I see where the psychotic anti-British lunacy comes from.

  35. Looks like Saturn, the (R)evolution devours its children.

    Social Media mobs. Cancel culture. Campus speech policing. These are all part of life in today’s America. Freedom of expression is in crisis. Truly open discourse—the debates, exchange of ideas, and arguments on which the health and flourishing of a democratic republic crucially depend—is increasingly rare. Ideologues demonize opponents to block debates on important issues and to silence people with whom they disagree.

    We must ask ourselves: Is this the country we want? Surely not. We want—and to be true to ourselves we need—to be a nation in which we and our fellow citizens of many different faiths, philosophies, and persuasions can speak their minds and honor their deepest convictions without fear of punishment and retaliation.

    Philadelphia Statement

    • “The lesson the South learned, you cannot win a war playing defense, was forgotten when we fought in Nam – and lost.”

      The U.S. military did not lose the Vietnam war. The U.S. military defeated the enemy in South Vietnam and sent them packing.

      Then, the Radical Democrats in the U.S. Congress sold South Vietnam down the river by forcing the pullout of all American combat troops, which just encouraged North Vietnam to resume the war.

      Then the radical Democrats refused to honor the treaty that ended the war, which obligated the U.S. to intervene if North Vietnam attacked again. The Democrats told South Vietnam to go to hell, and that’s what happened.

      The U.S. military had everything under control in South Vietnam, despite the efforts of the radical Democrats to hamper their activities at every occasion, such as preventing the U.S. miltiary from invading North Vietnam and ending the war quickly, which caused the war to go on for many years, when it could have been ended six months after an invasion of North Vietnam. Instead, we spent over 10 years in a war of attrition, which we won anyway. At the end, the North Vietnamese were putting 15-year-old boys in the front lines.

      And then the radical Democrats threw it all away with a wave of their hands like the fools they are. All that blood, sweat and tears thrown away for nothing. As a result, millions of South Vietnamese died or where displaced.

      You don’t want Democrats defending you. Because they won’t do it. They prove it everytime they are put in charge. Look at Obama: He is given an Iraq in good shape after the war, and he turns it into a fiasco by promoting Iranian control of Iraq and allowing the Islamic Terror Army to rampage all over the Middle East. It was only after Trump took over that things settled down in the region.

  36. Just put up a statue of the black man who invented the light bulb. Creepy Joe Biden can give you his name.

  37. I can readily understand why BLM would find something wrong with the theory of evolution, and it has little to do with colonial history.

Comments are closed.