I must say this is well argued. But I'm sceptical that it will stop the constant agitating of white guilt by blacks.
An offer like this I think most black people would refuse. They like the flexibility the current laws give them to always blame white people. A fair trade would require repealing Title II and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and taking strong and harsh action against any anti-white rhetoric in the public space, which I don't think they'll ever accept.
It's an interesting idea, but I think the past 60 years shows that black demands only grow with white accommodation. A better approach might be showing the 'reparations' they've already got through affirmative action and disparate impact.
This approach definitely won't stop black nationalist agitation, but it doesn't need to. It just needs to create a world where white moderates find black nationalism as annoying as we do, and where black conservatives stop feeling like Uncle Toms for voting GOP.
I definitely agree that grifting Kendi types would refuse this offer, as would most black elites, and it would likewise have no appeal to the criminal underclass. But if you make it lucrative enough I don't think the middle 60-70% of black people would turn it down at all. Lots of "minor elites" like black pastors with 105 IQs would be militantly in favor of this, and you can use them to pressure the real black elites into signing the forgiveness statement.
For the 95 IQ black guy with 70th percentile conscientiousness and a lower middle class job this is a fantastic path to establishing generational wealth and securing some parity with White America. If Jay Z and Obama shoot down the plan because it hurts the political clout of black elites this type of guy will be absolutely furious at them. That's what you rely on to jam it through Congress.
I agree in theory. The problem is that this deal, to be acceptable to me, would be unacceptable to most blacks. Here would be the deal.
- Losing all rights to affirmative action, disparate impact, and racial quotas, including in education and in the private sector.
- Repealing Title II and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
- Agreeing to close various pro-black advocacy groups like the NAACP and BLM.
- Abolition of formal race categorisation in statistical gathering, and complete legal colorblindness.
I just don’t think most blacks would ever accept this. But this would be the only reparations agreement I would accept. Without this, what’s to stop those 60% to 70% of blacks taking the money yet still complaining?
It could only work if each black person receiving reparations signed an agreement to not engage in anti-white rhetoric, with reparations cut off and additional damages if they break this, which would be seen, perhaps rightfully, as a means to control speech.
I think the assumption I would question here is that "squishy whites" would stop being vulnerable to race-baiting after this. The Civil Rights Movement was already something like this. We re-structured society in unprecedented ways to accommodate black people and try to undo the wrongs of slavery and such. Blacks were given lots of explicit handouts such as welfare and affirmative action. The whole thing was sold on a notion of "colorblindness" and moving forward to a post-racial society. And yet 60 years later none of it was enough.
The issue is that generations of white people were indoctrinated with the religion of Civil Rights in which black racial grievance is America's original sin--something that was only made possible by the Civil Rights movement itself! There's a big contradiction in asking white people to stop caring about black racial grievances, on the one hand, and then legally formalizing those grievances and paying them all these huge symbolic quasi-religious respects on the other.
I think this would also cause quite a lot of bitterness among the right-leaning half of the white population, especially the working class. After witnessing all of the nonsense that has already been perpetrated on behalf of black tribalism, I'm being asked to sit here and watch as they are given $250k+ for their skin color, meanwhile I still have to get up and go to my shitty thankless 9 to 5 every day? That's going to be an impossible sell to a certain segment of white people, possibly a very large segment, and rightfully so in my opinion.
"That's going to be an impossible sell to a certain segment of white people, possibly a very large segment, and rightfully so in my opinion."
Not just white people, but Hispanic and Asian people as well, who would almost universally vote Democrat. Republicans would lose more voters than they would gain.
It would also cause an intense demand from non-Blacks to receive the same "universal basic income" that Blacks do.
That said, this could have been a great idea if it was implemented in 1965.
This is a suicidal proposition. We are already going to be a minority in less than a generation. Any idea that we can "platinum plan" our way out of being a hated minority has been thoroughly debunked by the examples of every other White nation which has had proximity to blacks. Rhodesia, South Africa, every major city, etc all feature anti-White blacks who still resent after given substantial freedoms and reparations. Even White nations who never engaged in slavery or colonialism, like Ireland, are quickly being driven to a hated minority status. WN has pointed out again and again that because of the reality of race, inequality will always exist. Therefore blacks will always have poorer outcomes than Whites, and so we will always be hated by them so long as we aren't being specifically disadvantaged by the regime. You have somehow forgotten or decided to ignore this lesson that is central to WN.
This is a 21st century version of paying tribute to a competing ethnic group. It doesn’t work. The payee doesn’t learn anything other than that the payer can be squeezed in order to extract resources.
Realistically, what will happen is 1) the Blacks will piss away their tribute, and after a few years it will just end up in White hands again (seen this happen IRL in South Africa and Zimbabwe under various wealth and land redistribution schemes), and then 2) we are back to cries of “discrimination” and “inequality” and whatever contract was signed with the Whites will be forgotten. It’ll never be enough.
Your #2 there is why I would say that's why it's better to do this now, while black people are only 13% of the population. The point isn't to make it enough for black people, the point is to make it enough for a certain type of white people. To get *them* to "say enough!" as it were.
It still peels the high performing blacks off the permanent Democrat tit, and likewise peels some chunk of the emotional driven whites off of it too. "Look, we already fucking paid reparations. Get over it already."
Or maybe as a logic driven person, I overestimate the effect that would have in the long run.
What would stop this from becoming Civil Rights Act 2.0, whereby it begins in an innocuous manner and ends up weaponised by future Dem administrations, breaking the symbolic absolution document, much like they do with the Constitution already?
How would the GOP cope with the backlash from working class Whites/Asians/Hispanics, resulting in low turnout and a diversion between the base and the GOP establishment that would threaten GOP electoral success?
Symbolically isn’t this caving to the principle that whites have something to be guilty for, surrendering the moral ground to the left who have been droning on about this issue for ages?
In the article you say that this could reduce the scope of the welfare state much like UBI could, but UBI is universal this would not be, and thus wouldn’t cutting welfare solely for blacks be electoral suicidal amongst cucked whites and blacks or if you universally cut welfare, wouldn’t there be a white/Asian/Hispanic backlash like there currently is with the potential Trump entitlement cuts?
Would this actually statistically reduce racial socioeconomic inequality in any way? I doubt it because it’s likely mostly biological, therefore this would still give the Dems a ton of political fodder about racial inequality. The war on poverty spent trillions on black families and communities and didn’t reduce racial inequality much and thus we still deal with black nationalism. How would this be different?
How long would such a program go on for and how would one know when it is finished? Also, what’s to say that it would cause the white backlash that you say, you rightly point out that cognitive elites would likely pick up on the true purpose behind such a policy, why wouldn’t they radicalise university students/media/major institutions like they currently do against it. Anecdotally, I attend Oxford and despite the UK’s history that hasn’t had Jim crow and was the first country to abolish slavery, we still see the same black nationalism and anti-white discourse that is present in the US. Whites are still emasculated and are actually more anti-conservative than in the US, I don’t see how this would magically solve a racial issue that is predicated on inequalities that are impossible to get rid of in a free society.
Very interesting article though and I appreciate the contrarian perspective to racial politics that you present! Your articles are very insightful, I think you will grow a following and be able to do this full-time, I wish you the best :)
Yeah, well. How about we don’t do any of that, and just tell poverty pimps and grifters to gfy.
At no time, and in no other place in the recorded history of man have blacks had more opportunities than right here, right now.
Preferential treatment in hiring and education, ridiculously generous government subsidies that generations of black families have counted as their family traditions, audacious criminal activity overlooked, and worse, excused…none of that satisfied the grasping hands.
If you don’t think it will all start all over again the day after that last dollar is spent, you’re utterly blind.
That's a lovely poem. But in practice paying the Danegeld DID get rid of the Dane.
It bought the Saxons time and space to consolidate their forces. Meanwhile it softened the Dane and created an infrastructure for peaceful relations that ultimately left him susceptible to conversion into Christianity, which is ultimately what ended the Viking Age.
Number I reparations is another scam which the government of the United States has implemented in many areas like grants and subsidies for electric vehicles. The list of scams and waste of public funds is endless. Since that nut Lyndon Johnson’s presidency the U.S. government has spent many trillions of dollars on social and economic programs for all Americans including African Americans. The case has been made that reparations have not only already been paid but continue. The federal government is subsidizing many black colleges and has done so for generations. The role of government needs to be limited because even social security and medical are going bankrupt, which means we have incompetent government now and have had for generations as the national debt spirals into infinity resulting in not only crushing inflation but impending national economic collapse. The real question is when will the U.S. government become competent? Mark Twain said astutely , “There is no distinctly American criminal class - except Congress.”
You, who set out to revive the Alt-Right, have ended up with something more like the 'cuckservatism' it was reacting against. Obviously the anti-white grievance machine would just gulp down your BASED slavery reparations and chug right along to the next race riot; same goes for your idea of BASED Victorian-era anti-seduction laws, to slow down the fape-accusers by giving them more cakes to eat and have than they know what to do with.
If you want to accelerate the democratist regime into a ditch, the best way would be to take the blackpill and abandon its politics entirely. Get enough of of our people to do that (while we still have the demographic strength to make it count), and the conservatives who have betrayed us will sink first, followed sooner or later by much of the regime's legitimacy. This is really the last political option available to us (given that we do not get what we vote for); it involves doing what the right excels at, namely nothing; and yet it involves too much discipline, so most of us would sooner entertain any number of serpentine cunning plans that amount in the end to less than nothing.
Putting aside the arguments for or against, I don't think that this will have the specific impacts you describe. I would imagine you'd see a decline in white guilt, but probably a bit less of a corresponding rise in explicit white identity politics.
Instead, I think that you'll start to see non-whites and whites having more if a political convergence. The experience of Hispanics and Asians are, respectively, more akin to the historical experiences of Poles and Jews than it is to blacks, and it has the same implications for the possibility of assimilation. If you created a program where Asians and Hispanics had to pay into just the same as whites without being able to receive benefits like blacks, you're probably going to see a corresponding decline in racial solidarity between these groups.
As such, instead of moving towards an explicit white identity politics, you'd probably move towards a more black/not-black politics, with far less sympathy for claims of racial harm for black Americans.
Well it's an innovative proposal i'll give you that. You hit hard especially when you talk about the liberal housewife and the communist college youth who live in fairytale-land and vote with their emotions, those emotions being dictated by the eternal grievances media. Unless we get these people out of the voting block (ending Universal suffrage) there will always be more of them to make sure democracy becomes even more broken. The larger issue was always giving women the vote. White Women got the vote and they immediately got rid of alcohol and prostitution, did and continue to do support civil rights legislation and make about a good 60% of the those insufferable people who push for more "equality" and "diversity". You can convince women of everything.
Imo there is three ways to go about ending the black problem. One is full on repression. It would work but it would require a suspension of democracy and some ceasar-like figure who would be powerful enough to bypass the constitution at its face. The second would be ending Universal Suffrage, and i don't see that working at all. We are too far gone for this. The third way is by trickery as you suggest. I think it may be the safest and most efficent option, althou i wonder that if it were so simple, someone would have played that angle already.
I didn't need to read much to see it was a bad idea. Bad ideas are not made good, by another idea, that an irrational party is going to accept any negotiated, agreed-upon, conditions. Instead, what happens, is you feed the insatiable beast of irrationality, and you get endless calls for more appeasement. Additionally, you have legitimized such calls to the detriment of the next generation- a grave injustice. So you are cutting your own throat because you are a child who thinks the beast can be appeased.
This is why, if you have a brain, you never negotiate with terrorists. You can never end the calls for X,Y,Z. The fundamental problem is that human nature makes some people who are irrational.
Irrational and insane people are always clamoring for, and attain, an outsized influence on the population. Sane people are not smart enough to perceive this reality, and deliberatly, explicitly, marginalize insane, irrational people. In fact, today, the political left has exalted the insane to high status.
This is reminiscent of the Israeli, Palestinian issue. You can't appease anyone, let alone everyone.
There's so much here worth considering, and thank you for putting it out there. I'm making myself sit and really contemplate it despite my immediate emotional distaste.
What I can't get past is the idea of giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to each black person. Fuck no. I've never even had hundreds of thousands of dollars to my name, and I'm not about to see every black person in the U.S. vaulted for free-to-them into the stable middle class with the cost of a house given to them--from my pocketbook.
The fundamental flaw in your proposal is that you start out admitting that rational arguments will not work with these people, then set out to create a rational solution.
The correct response to irrationality is not wel-reasoned arguments and plans. It's decisiveness and separation. The only way forward to peace on the continent is dissolution of the United States. There has never been a time in history when multiple races and cultures lived side by side in harmony and we won't be the first.
This would have been a great idea in 1965, but it's a bad one now.
1) DeSantis may gain 20-30% of black voters, but at the cost of losing almost all Hispanic and Asian voters and causing many White voters to stay home. This is not a receipt for winning an election.
2) The non-Black working class would have intense resentment towards this policy. It would cause an anti-Black sentiment to arise and an increasing demand that every citizen (or at the very least all nonwhites) receive the same "universal basic income" that Blacks do.
I must say this is well argued. But I'm sceptical that it will stop the constant agitating of white guilt by blacks.
An offer like this I think most black people would refuse. They like the flexibility the current laws give them to always blame white people. A fair trade would require repealing Title II and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and taking strong and harsh action against any anti-white rhetoric in the public space, which I don't think they'll ever accept.
It's an interesting idea, but I think the past 60 years shows that black demands only grow with white accommodation. A better approach might be showing the 'reparations' they've already got through affirmative action and disparate impact.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment!
This approach definitely won't stop black nationalist agitation, but it doesn't need to. It just needs to create a world where white moderates find black nationalism as annoying as we do, and where black conservatives stop feeling like Uncle Toms for voting GOP.
I definitely agree that grifting Kendi types would refuse this offer, as would most black elites, and it would likewise have no appeal to the criminal underclass. But if you make it lucrative enough I don't think the middle 60-70% of black people would turn it down at all. Lots of "minor elites" like black pastors with 105 IQs would be militantly in favor of this, and you can use them to pressure the real black elites into signing the forgiveness statement.
For the 95 IQ black guy with 70th percentile conscientiousness and a lower middle class job this is a fantastic path to establishing generational wealth and securing some parity with White America. If Jay Z and Obama shoot down the plan because it hurts the political clout of black elites this type of guy will be absolutely furious at them. That's what you rely on to jam it through Congress.
I agree in theory. The problem is that this deal, to be acceptable to me, would be unacceptable to most blacks. Here would be the deal.
- Losing all rights to affirmative action, disparate impact, and racial quotas, including in education and in the private sector.
- Repealing Title II and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
- Agreeing to close various pro-black advocacy groups like the NAACP and BLM.
- Abolition of formal race categorisation in statistical gathering, and complete legal colorblindness.
I just don’t think most blacks would ever accept this. But this would be the only reparations agreement I would accept. Without this, what’s to stop those 60% to 70% of blacks taking the money yet still complaining?
It could only work if each black person receiving reparations signed an agreement to not engage in anti-white rhetoric, with reparations cut off and additional damages if they break this, which would be seen, perhaps rightfully, as a means to control speech.
I think the assumption I would question here is that "squishy whites" would stop being vulnerable to race-baiting after this. The Civil Rights Movement was already something like this. We re-structured society in unprecedented ways to accommodate black people and try to undo the wrongs of slavery and such. Blacks were given lots of explicit handouts such as welfare and affirmative action. The whole thing was sold on a notion of "colorblindness" and moving forward to a post-racial society. And yet 60 years later none of it was enough.
The issue is that generations of white people were indoctrinated with the religion of Civil Rights in which black racial grievance is America's original sin--something that was only made possible by the Civil Rights movement itself! There's a big contradiction in asking white people to stop caring about black racial grievances, on the one hand, and then legally formalizing those grievances and paying them all these huge symbolic quasi-religious respects on the other.
I think this would also cause quite a lot of bitterness among the right-leaning half of the white population, especially the working class. After witnessing all of the nonsense that has already been perpetrated on behalf of black tribalism, I'm being asked to sit here and watch as they are given $250k+ for their skin color, meanwhile I still have to get up and go to my shitty thankless 9 to 5 every day? That's going to be an impossible sell to a certain segment of white people, possibly a very large segment, and rightfully so in my opinion.
"That's going to be an impossible sell to a certain segment of white people, possibly a very large segment, and rightfully so in my opinion."
Not just white people, but Hispanic and Asian people as well, who would almost universally vote Democrat. Republicans would lose more voters than they would gain.
It would also cause an intense demand from non-Blacks to receive the same "universal basic income" that Blacks do.
That said, this could have been a great idea if it was implemented in 1965.
This is a suicidal proposition. We are already going to be a minority in less than a generation. Any idea that we can "platinum plan" our way out of being a hated minority has been thoroughly debunked by the examples of every other White nation which has had proximity to blacks. Rhodesia, South Africa, every major city, etc all feature anti-White blacks who still resent after given substantial freedoms and reparations. Even White nations who never engaged in slavery or colonialism, like Ireland, are quickly being driven to a hated minority status. WN has pointed out again and again that because of the reality of race, inequality will always exist. Therefore blacks will always have poorer outcomes than Whites, and so we will always be hated by them so long as we aren't being specifically disadvantaged by the regime. You have somehow forgotten or decided to ignore this lesson that is central to WN.
the US is not South Africa, one example does not make a pattern.
What about every major city, and Rhoedia like I used as examples?
This is a 21st century version of paying tribute to a competing ethnic group. It doesn’t work. The payee doesn’t learn anything other than that the payer can be squeezed in order to extract resources.
Realistically, what will happen is 1) the Blacks will piss away their tribute, and after a few years it will just end up in White hands again (seen this happen IRL in South Africa and Zimbabwe under various wealth and land redistribution schemes), and then 2) we are back to cries of “discrimination” and “inequality” and whatever contract was signed with the Whites will be forgotten. It’ll never be enough.
Your #2 there is why I would say that's why it's better to do this now, while black people are only 13% of the population. The point isn't to make it enough for black people, the point is to make it enough for a certain type of white people. To get *them* to "say enough!" as it were.
It still peels the high performing blacks off the permanent Democrat tit, and likewise peels some chunk of the emotional driven whites off of it too. "Look, we already fucking paid reparations. Get over it already."
Or maybe as a logic driven person, I overestimate the effect that would have in the long run.
Some Questions:
What would stop this from becoming Civil Rights Act 2.0, whereby it begins in an innocuous manner and ends up weaponised by future Dem administrations, breaking the symbolic absolution document, much like they do with the Constitution already?
How would the GOP cope with the backlash from working class Whites/Asians/Hispanics, resulting in low turnout and a diversion between the base and the GOP establishment that would threaten GOP electoral success?
Symbolically isn’t this caving to the principle that whites have something to be guilty for, surrendering the moral ground to the left who have been droning on about this issue for ages?
In the article you say that this could reduce the scope of the welfare state much like UBI could, but UBI is universal this would not be, and thus wouldn’t cutting welfare solely for blacks be electoral suicidal amongst cucked whites and blacks or if you universally cut welfare, wouldn’t there be a white/Asian/Hispanic backlash like there currently is with the potential Trump entitlement cuts?
Would this actually statistically reduce racial socioeconomic inequality in any way? I doubt it because it’s likely mostly biological, therefore this would still give the Dems a ton of political fodder about racial inequality. The war on poverty spent trillions on black families and communities and didn’t reduce racial inequality much and thus we still deal with black nationalism. How would this be different?
How long would such a program go on for and how would one know when it is finished? Also, what’s to say that it would cause the white backlash that you say, you rightly point out that cognitive elites would likely pick up on the true purpose behind such a policy, why wouldn’t they radicalise university students/media/major institutions like they currently do against it. Anecdotally, I attend Oxford and despite the UK’s history that hasn’t had Jim crow and was the first country to abolish slavery, we still see the same black nationalism and anti-white discourse that is present in the US. Whites are still emasculated and are actually more anti-conservative than in the US, I don’t see how this would magically solve a racial issue that is predicated on inequalities that are impossible to get rid of in a free society.
Very interesting article though and I appreciate the contrarian perspective to racial politics that you present! Your articles are very insightful, I think you will grow a following and be able to do this full-time, I wish you the best :)
Yeah, well. How about we don’t do any of that, and just tell poverty pimps and grifters to gfy.
At no time, and in no other place in the recorded history of man have blacks had more opportunities than right here, right now.
Preferential treatment in hiring and education, ridiculously generous government subsidies that generations of black families have counted as their family traditions, audacious criminal activity overlooked, and worse, excused…none of that satisfied the grasping hands.
If you don’t think it will all start all over again the day after that last dollar is spent, you’re utterly blind.
Nope. No.
IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: –
"We invaded you last night – we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!
It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: –
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: --
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"
That's a lovely poem. But in practice paying the Danegeld DID get rid of the Dane.
It bought the Saxons time and space to consolidate their forces. Meanwhile it softened the Dane and created an infrastructure for peaceful relations that ultimately left him susceptible to conversion into Christianity, which is ultimately what ended the Viking Age.
Number I reparations is another scam which the government of the United States has implemented in many areas like grants and subsidies for electric vehicles. The list of scams and waste of public funds is endless. Since that nut Lyndon Johnson’s presidency the U.S. government has spent many trillions of dollars on social and economic programs for all Americans including African Americans. The case has been made that reparations have not only already been paid but continue. The federal government is subsidizing many black colleges and has done so for generations. The role of government needs to be limited because even social security and medical are going bankrupt, which means we have incompetent government now and have had for generations as the national debt spirals into infinity resulting in not only crushing inflation but impending national economic collapse. The real question is when will the U.S. government become competent? Mark Twain said astutely , “There is no distinctly American criminal class - except Congress.”
You, who set out to revive the Alt-Right, have ended up with something more like the 'cuckservatism' it was reacting against. Obviously the anti-white grievance machine would just gulp down your BASED slavery reparations and chug right along to the next race riot; same goes for your idea of BASED Victorian-era anti-seduction laws, to slow down the fape-accusers by giving them more cakes to eat and have than they know what to do with.
If you want to accelerate the democratist regime into a ditch, the best way would be to take the blackpill and abandon its politics entirely. Get enough of of our people to do that (while we still have the demographic strength to make it count), and the conservatives who have betrayed us will sink first, followed sooner or later by much of the regime's legitimacy. This is really the last political option available to us (given that we do not get what we vote for); it involves doing what the right excels at, namely nothing; and yet it involves too much discipline, so most of us would sooner entertain any number of serpentine cunning plans that amount in the end to less than nothing.
Putting aside the arguments for or against, I don't think that this will have the specific impacts you describe. I would imagine you'd see a decline in white guilt, but probably a bit less of a corresponding rise in explicit white identity politics.
Instead, I think that you'll start to see non-whites and whites having more if a political convergence. The experience of Hispanics and Asians are, respectively, more akin to the historical experiences of Poles and Jews than it is to blacks, and it has the same implications for the possibility of assimilation. If you created a program where Asians and Hispanics had to pay into just the same as whites without being able to receive benefits like blacks, you're probably going to see a corresponding decline in racial solidarity between these groups.
As such, instead of moving towards an explicit white identity politics, you'd probably move towards a more black/not-black politics, with far less sympathy for claims of racial harm for black Americans.
Well it's an innovative proposal i'll give you that. You hit hard especially when you talk about the liberal housewife and the communist college youth who live in fairytale-land and vote with their emotions, those emotions being dictated by the eternal grievances media. Unless we get these people out of the voting block (ending Universal suffrage) there will always be more of them to make sure democracy becomes even more broken. The larger issue was always giving women the vote. White Women got the vote and they immediately got rid of alcohol and prostitution, did and continue to do support civil rights legislation and make about a good 60% of the those insufferable people who push for more "equality" and "diversity". You can convince women of everything.
Imo there is three ways to go about ending the black problem. One is full on repression. It would work but it would require a suspension of democracy and some ceasar-like figure who would be powerful enough to bypass the constitution at its face. The second would be ending Universal Suffrage, and i don't see that working at all. We are too far gone for this. The third way is by trickery as you suggest. I think it may be the safest and most efficent option, althou i wonder that if it were so simple, someone would have played that angle already.
What will the explanation be after blacks continue to underperform after they’ve gotten their reparations?
I didn't need to read much to see it was a bad idea. Bad ideas are not made good, by another idea, that an irrational party is going to accept any negotiated, agreed-upon, conditions. Instead, what happens, is you feed the insatiable beast of irrationality, and you get endless calls for more appeasement. Additionally, you have legitimized such calls to the detriment of the next generation- a grave injustice. So you are cutting your own throat because you are a child who thinks the beast can be appeased.
This is why, if you have a brain, you never negotiate with terrorists. You can never end the calls for X,Y,Z. The fundamental problem is that human nature makes some people who are irrational.
Irrational and insane people are always clamoring for, and attain, an outsized influence on the population. Sane people are not smart enough to perceive this reality, and deliberatly, explicitly, marginalize insane, irrational people. In fact, today, the political left has exalted the insane to high status.
This is reminiscent of the Israeli, Palestinian issue. You can't appease anyone, let alone everyone.
There's so much here worth considering, and thank you for putting it out there. I'm making myself sit and really contemplate it despite my immediate emotional distaste.
What I can't get past is the idea of giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to each black person. Fuck no. I've never even had hundreds of thousands of dollars to my name, and I'm not about to see every black person in the U.S. vaulted for free-to-them into the stable middle class with the cost of a house given to them--from my pocketbook.
No. Dead on arrival.
The fundamental flaw in your proposal is that you start out admitting that rational arguments will not work with these people, then set out to create a rational solution.
The correct response to irrationality is not wel-reasoned arguments and plans. It's decisiveness and separation. The only way forward to peace on the continent is dissolution of the United States. There has never been a time in history when multiple races and cultures lived side by side in harmony and we won't be the first.
This would have been a great idea in 1965, but it's a bad one now.
1) DeSantis may gain 20-30% of black voters, but at the cost of losing almost all Hispanic and Asian voters and causing many White voters to stay home. This is not a receipt for winning an election.
2) The non-Black working class would have intense resentment towards this policy. It would cause an anti-Black sentiment to arise and an increasing demand that every citizen (or at the very least all nonwhites) receive the same "universal basic income" that Blacks do.