Repost: A Skunk and Potatoes Man

Repost from the old site.

When I was working as an anthropologist for a local Indian tribe, I had to go through all of the anthropological literature about the tribe. This took quite some time. There was quite a bit of hostility from the Indians towards the anthropologists, which is stupid, sad, and mostly just ignorant.

The legend had grown up among many of the Indians that the anthropologists who had come through were the “enemies of the Indian people.” I researched the folks who had come through and it didn’t seem to fit.

We are talking some of the biggest names of all like Alfred Kroeber. Kroeber and his wife loved the Indians in a time at the turn of the century when Indians were not so popular. The legend continued that the crafty Indians, in order to fool the wicked White men, had concocted lies to tell the anthropologist.
Anthropological field work is hard enough without having to deal with this kind of crap, but it does come up at times.

Fieldwork manuals will tell you, first of all, that you need to develop a strong sense of cultural relativity if you are going to do fieldwork.

You have to decide that whatever it is these folks do in terms of their culture and values, no matter how weird, stupid, horrible, or noxious, it’s ok. You aren’t going to make any judgments about it.

You want to chop off little girls’ clits? Ok, no big.

You put grandpa on an ice floe when he gets old? Understandable, I’d do the same with my own Dad.

You treat your women like shit? Hey, I can understand, in dating countless women over a lifetime, I’ve built up a nice boiling witches brew of hatreds and grievances myself. Keep them ball-breaking bitches down! You go, guys! Show them cunts who’s in charge! Damn right they better put out or else! They owe us! We rule!

I think you get the picture.

This sort of thing may prove difficult for many folks.

In fieldwork, you need to do this to get along properly with your subjects. If you don’t accept their lifestyle with “unconditional positive regard,” it’s probably not going to work very well. You get subjects lying to you like they did with Margaret Mead and all sorts of stuff.

I actually spent a lot of time on this agonizing question, and I called up famous anthropologists all over the country in trying to solve this empirical question. Had the evil White anthropologists really been had by these crafty noble savages, fresh out of Paleolithic?

Turns out they probably had not. Further, I uncovered a lot of data that suggested that all of the anthros had a good relationship with their informants.

Another thing you can do is go through all of the old data and see how well it all lines up. Turns out that all of the data I had from 1873 through 1970 lined up very well.

There were times when I spotted some lying. Indians said that wild horses and buffalo used live in Central California, and they used to hunt them. The last wild horses lived here 10,000 years ago, and buffalo never did. The anthro himself wrote in his field notes that he thought they were lying to him.

There are several ways to test this. One thing you can do is to interview informants over a period of time, say weeks or months. You can work with a single informant any number of times over that period. You can ask the same question over and over a few times and see if the answers vary.

Another thing you can do is go around to different informants and ask the same question. If only one informant says, yeah, we ate vultures for breakfast, and the others say, “Hell no, we did not, he’s lying,” then vulture-eater is probably lying.

You can interview informants alone and with others, changing the others around, and see if their stories change when they are with various others compared to what they say when they are alone. You can shoot questionable material to others and see if they back it up. In fact, you need to try to back up all of your data. One informant is pretty shaky.

It all rests on the sort of relationship you have with your informants. Bad relationship = possibility of poor data. Good relationship portends good data.

I decided that there was some tragic reason why the Indians harbored this hatred for the anthros. Obviously, the anthros just represented Whitey.

Plus many of them had this crazy idea that all the anthros had used the Indians, gone back to Berkeley or wherever and used this illustrious knowledge to write famous books about the Indians and got rich. The anthros got rich, and the Indians never saw a dime. It’s not true, but it felt good to them.

There was a sadder aspect to this anger. All of the great stuff on these Indians had been written by White people. Everything on the language, the culture, everything.

Why couldn’t the Indians write down about their language and culture themselves? The suggestion is that they are too stupid to do that, so they have to have the Smart White Man come and do it for them, and that’s totally humiliating. A reaction to humiliation is rage.

I went through Sylvia Broadbent’s Grammar of Southern Sierra Miwok as part of my work. One informant, who worked as some sort of “House Indian” in Yosemite National Park, was well-known for being a showman, liar, and teller of tales. He also knew a lot of language, but he threw in lots of other words that other informants had never heard before. She ended up rejecting a lot of his data as spurious.

As you can see, this is not exactly hard science. Where do you think “physics envy” comes from? It gets hard to get mathematical proofs of much of anything in the social sciences, which is why the physicists sneer that our sciences are “soft sciences”.

So much of our judgments in these tough cases in fieldwork is play it by ear, seat of the pants, I know it when I see it intuitive stuff.

Unfortunately my project floundered over some of the Indians’ rage at the anthropologists. I had gathered this data and was set to write it up, and the whole thing got shot down.
Because elders said that the Indians had lied to the anthros, every word of the notes was up for grabs. There were known knowns, known unknowns, and worst of all, unknown unknowns, the last category being what the otherwise non-empirical Indians deemed the notes.

I was on a salary anyway, so it really didn’t matter. One of the amusing things was the sort of things that they disputed. They were livid about the notes that reported that these Indians tole the anthros that they used to eat skunks, rattlesnakes, and gopher snakes.

Their rejection of this food, of which the rattlesnakes at least are proven to taste precisely like chicken (of course), is based on a primitive but common mode of thinking. Rattlesnakes are poisonous, so they are evil, so they should not be eaten. The suggestion is that the meat is poison too. Only an idiot would eat poison meat.

Skunks smell horrible when you piss them off, so obviously their meat must taste like their horrid odor. Someone else opined that their meat is “probably pretty oily.”

Turns out, according to the New York Times in 1913, skunk is one of the delicacies of the woods, right up there with possum, deer, and bear. The main obstacle in the way of proper enjoyment are the speed bumps of human psychology. As long as you associate the meat with skunk-stink, it might taste pretty bad. Convince yourself it’s really fillet mignon and you can dig in for a hearty meal.

Tender eating, skunk meat tastes like either chicken (obviously), goose, duck, or rabbit, depending on your powers of dissociation. You really need to figure out how to dress skunk meat properly in order to keep the stink away from the choice cuts. Baked skunk recipe here.

As I feel I’ve been figuratively eating skunk most of my life anyway, I may as well take the plunge some day. If it’s really as good as they say it is, I assume it will be coming to Chez Panisse or Spago anytime now.

The gopher snake was also rejected as food, but I have often wondered what they tasted like. A while back, I was catching them by the side of the road a lot. If they were near dead, I’d bring them home and throw them on the lawn for my cats to play with, or drag them around on the lawn and let the cats chase them.

Of course I washed the snake blood off my hands and my car. People who saw me doing that still think I’m a really weird person.

After the gopher snake died, I brought it inside and seriously thought about figuring how to cook the sucker. I finally gave up and threw it out in the woods in back. One cool thing about living in the woods is any small dead animal you toss into the woods will always vanish within 1-2 days max. Carrion doesn’t stick around long in nature; it’s the feral equivalent of dumpster-diving.

I later asked some people how to slice up and cook a gopher snake, and everyone thought it was one of the most outrageous things they had ever heard. I guess they still think I’m weird too.

Anyway, the Indians insisted that they never ate gopher snake. “Ugh!” One Indian said, “They taste like dirt. It lives in the ground!” He curled up his nose.

I’m told this is more erroneous thinking, and the guy’s probably never chowed down one anyway. This cognitive error states that a thing tastes like what it lives in. Gopher snakes spent a lot of time in subterranean mode pushing up daisies but living to tell about it, so therefore, they must taste like dirt. It lives in dirt; it tastes like dirt. Probably not. By this logic, pork tenderloin ought to taste like mud, and it doesn’t.

Of course, inquiring minds the world over (Well, at least me anyway) are dying to know the ins and outs of how to hunt, kill, and skin skunks. Forget the kitchen for now. Procurement and dressing are tough enough.

Try here. Turns out skunks may be trapped, shot, killed by bow and arrow, drowned, or asphyxiated with car exhaust. Clearly the trick is to kill em without getting sprayed. This ends up being quite the challenge. Skunk dressing is so involved that colleges ought to offer six-month courses for certificates in it. The first story here is quite amusing. It’s pretty much skunk-skinning gone wrong about every way it could. I got a kick.

Game/PUA: Our Ancestors Were Raping, Murdering Sex Slavers and Women’s Ancestors were Masochistic Sex Slaves Who Loved Sadistic, Evil Men

In a lot of cultures, no one particularly cares what postmenopausal women do. They are often allowed to drink and take drugs, while this may have been banned earlier for obvious reasons.

And perhaps the sexual prohibitions come off because once a woman can’t have kids anymore, who the Hell cares what she does sexually, right? Control of female sexuality is all wrapped up in paternity and childbearing. Briefly, you always know who your mother is. Not so with your Dad! Your Mom might be pointing the finger at the wrong guy. Men are loath for obvious reasons to invest time and money taking care of some other guy’s kid, so they really want to make sure the baby is theirs. Hence the strict controls over female sexuality in post-hunter-gatherer societies.

Incidentally, a man who is with a woman who has a child by another man is ~70 times more likely (!) to kill the kid  than if the kid was his. Typical situation is man hooks up with woman who has a kid by another guy. Then he kills the kid. You’ve got to think there’s some caveman logic working there.

Male mountain lions and possibly grizzly bears will often kill any kittens a female lion or bear had with another male. The female goes along with this – just lets him murder her kids and then hooks up with him for sex and babies. I guess something similar may have happened in caveman days. You wonder why women love serial killers so much?

Furthermore, we evolved in brutal times. Many times in tribal warfare the conquering tribe would kill many if not all of the men and teenage boys of the other tribe. Then they would enslave all the women and children. So the women would all become sex slaves of some maniac who just murdered their husbands and  son(s). Women apparently just went along, though you wonder how they could. Perhaps many women could not tolerate this and escaped or suicided out to avoid the situation. Here we come to our selection.

The women who remained and had kids were ones who could tolerate some maniac coming along, murdering her husband and her son(s), and then turning her into a sex slave for life. If you want to know why so many women are attracted to BD/SM dom/sub sex slavery and being owned by a “master,” this may be why. It’s a mystery to me and I think the whole thing is sick.

But some sort of masochism or even love of degradation seems to be inherent in the female sex drive. There are women who hate this sort of thing, but I can’t tell you how many women I’ve met who expected or demanded this sort of treatment. Of course I take requests, so it was no big deal. Not into hurting them physically though, and you’d be shocked to know how many of them request or demand even this. Spanking is fine (and you’d be shocked at how many women love this) but beyond that, yuck.

So the women who survived were ok with murdering sex slavers and the men who survived (remember, the defeated men got murdered) were not only serial murderers but were willing to murder women’s husbands and kids by other men (sort of like lions and bears) and sexually enslave her and enslave her kids. Not very nice guys. So we men are descended from sadistic, raping, murdering, enslaving, sexual psychopaths and women are descended from masochistic sex slaves who love murderers, rapists, slavers, sex slavers, and sexual psychopaths.

If you know much about that BD/SM scene, it is overflowing with male “doms’ who proudly describe themselves as sadists. Of course they are sexual sadists, but many men are a bit, no? But it’s beyond that. They’re just sadists period because once you get into the “dom owns her as a slave” thing, it’s 24-7, which almost all of this scene is. It’s almost all 24-7 dom/sub, master/slave nonsense.

Well, the number of men who leap at the possibility of being sadistic sexual maniacs with willing women is shocking, and it’s enough to turn you off to the male gender. I’ve been studying these relationships for some time. The males are, well…a lot are more pleasant than you think, but the women…they seem like battered women.

They almost all have terribly low self-esteem. In fact, these sadistic men deliberately seek out women with low self esteem as easy prey. If they’ve been raped or molested before, this makes them easy targets, as apparently this sets them up for further abuse because women tend to sexualize everything.

A dirty little secret. Women sexualize their abuse. Women who got molested often…yep, end up sexualizing the sexual abuse. They turn it into something that turns them on. Further, women who get raped…you guessed it. It’s not PC to say so, but a lot of women got aroused during the rape and orgasm is not uncommon. That doesn’t mean it’s right or she wanted it, but our bodies are reactive organisms.

And after women have been raped, I hate to say it, but many of them sexualize the rape and start wanting very rapey-type sex. And they incorporate the rape into their masturbation repertoire. That’s not PC either but I’ve seen it happen so many times that I know it’s true. It’s weird, but women are weird. And there is nothing weirder than female sexuality. It’s a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

If you study these SM/BD relationships, it looks exactly like an abusive relationship. Precisely. Down to the letter. So BD/SM is simply an abusive relationship. However, it is a consensual one.

So a lot of men are apparently more than willing to get into a relationship where they can abuse the woman like Hell and not only get away with it but have her enjoy it. And a lot of women apparently really enjoy the battered woman role. The former statement may not be controversial but the latter is surely not PC. Nevertheless, it looks like it might be true. Not that woman abusers are good men. And not that battered women who don’t like it don’t deserve our sympathy. But as is common, things are more complex than they seem.

Furthermore, I know people who study these relationships and they say that all women who come out of these relationships are damaged. And the damage looks exactly like…yep. What a battered woman or a woman in an abusive relationship looks like. So this crap isn’t as innocent as everyone thinks.

An Interesting Mostly Southern Chinese Phenotype

A good friend of mine who resides in Singapore. He is very interested in his background and gave me his photo to analyze.

Looking at it, I believe he is definitely Southern Chinese fore the most part. His father is Hainanese and has a rather distinctive genotype that looks something like his son’s. His mother is a certain type of Malay that dates back to the 1400’s and is significantly mixed with European blood, mostly British and Dutch, as Europeans have a presence in the area dating back centuries. I believe that they are called Pernakans. He also has some female relatives that look very Malay. I do not know who the older man to the right is, but he looks quite Malay to me.

I think my friend ended up looking more Chinese than Malay. The Hainanese are definitely a Chinese type people. Whether they also have a Vietic type SE Asian component is not known as I do not know the history of Hainan.

Although my friend definitely has a strong Southern Chinese look, he also has another component that makes him look, well, different. I’m not going to attempt to describe this element, but it does make him look somewhat “odd,” “interesting,” or “unusual, ” from a Southern Chinese POV. A typical Southern Chinese would say that he looks like a Southern Chinese, but he’s not like us. A Southern Chinese has more of a Modern Mongoloid look. My friend is mostly modern Mongoloid, with some elements of transitional Mongoloid or archaic Mongoloid – this is what the Malays are after all – added in.

The evolution from Negritos to moderns occurred much later in Malaysia, much taking place in only the last 5,000 years. The Senoi are an example of an archaic group that is definitely Australoid yet nevertheless more progressive than the Negritos. These are the “dream people” of psychological and anthropological literature, though modern research has shown that they do not incorporate dreams as much into their waking lives as we previously thought and that the extent to which they do this was much exaggerated.

There are also Negritos (or original Asians) in Malaysia. In fact, there is a group in Malaysia that genes that date back to 72,000 YBP. This is actually before the main Out of Africa event, yet is has now been shown that other small groups went out of Africa before then.

Most of these groups were devastated by the vast Toba volcanic explosion in India 72,000 YBP that exterminated almost all humans in South and Southeast Asia. It is thought that only 1,500 of this group survived the explosion. This means that humans went through a severe genetic bottleneck no doubt accompanied by massive selection pressure and huge genetic effects. Whether this explosion’s effects extended to Central Asia (probably), the Middle East (maybe), or East Africa (unknown) is not known. At any rate, this original group departed from East Africa near Somalia and Djibouti.

The main OOA group left out of here too. No one quite knows what these people looked like but they have appeared somewhat Khoisan. The Khoisan are the most ancient group in Africa with genes dating back 52,000 YBP. Further, their click language to me seems like a good candidate for the original human language. It does seem to be quite primitive. Before that, we clearly used sign language. Neandertals could not speak due to their hyoid bones. The great apes also have this problem. So when Neantertals vocalized, they may have sounded like great apes.

The Sasquatch, which I believe is an archaic hominid related to Heidebergensis which somehow survived, has a very odd speech pattern (it speaks on the inhale, bizarrely enough – try it sometime) and a friend of mine who shot and killed two of them told me that the juveniles were using extensive sign language. They ran half the time on all four and half the time on two legs, which is very odd. Sasquatches can run up to 30 mph on all fours. That must be quite frightening to watch but it can be seen in the Port Edward Island Sasquatch footage. Anyway, enough about Bigfoot for today!

It’s not known how far modern human language dates back. Sergei Starostin feels it cannot date back more than 50,000 because so many cognates remain that we can actually construct a bit of Proto-World. One Proto-World term is “tik” meaning one, to point, index finger, etc. From this comes our word to teach. Imagine a teacher pointing at a blackboard with his index finger. I worked on an Indian language a while back and they had a very archaic word found only in the earliest vocabularies – tik, meaning “the point of a spearhead. I cannot prove it but I believe deep down inside that this is from the same root. I

It’s more of a gut feeling or intuitive thing, and intuitions are often wrong because they overgeneralize, throw out logic altogether, and rely exclusively on notoriously unreliable and subjective (the very word subjective implies emotional response) feelings, especially deep or gut feelings that can be described as “Gestalt.” I’m a birdwatcher and we use something called Gestalt to identify fleeing glimpses of a bird.

All we can see is what philosophers like Heidegger might call “the essence” or essential nature of the bird rather than it’s surface characteristics which are too fleeting to identify. Heidegger discusses surface versus essence interpretations of objects a lot. It seems hard to figure out but it’s easier than you think.

Logic relies on surface or appearance, including the human definition we have given to the object.

Intuition on the other hand pretty much throws out the surface stuff and looks for the “essence of the thing” or the “deep meaning” or “true meaning” of the object. We are getting into Plato here with the concept of “pure objects” that actually do not exist in reality.

An example of Platonic pure objects would be what I call the Masculine and Feminine spirit (see the brilliant and wrongly derided Otto Weininger’s “Sex and Character” for more. And Weininger comes from Nietzsche in my opinion and leads to Heidigger, also in my opinion. He seems to be a sort of a bridge between the two. Note that all were Germans, Weininger an Austrian, but oh well.

The Masculine Spirit and the Feminine Spirit is one way of dividing the universe or world in a binary manner. Not that there are not other binary methods of chopping the world into opposite halves, but this is just one of them.

I would argue that the world is half Masculine principle and half Feminine principle and that neither is better than the other and the marriage of the two opposites creates a whole that is bigger than the sum of its parts, hence the human pair bond where each pair of the male-female couple fills in the missing blanks or parts of the other one, each creating a whole person in the other where only a “half person” had existed before.

We are also getting into Taoism here, but the ancient Chinese were awful damn smart, so you ignore them at your peril in my opinion. Furthermore, the Taoist maxim of how to live your life – “moderation in all things” is an excellent aphorism, not that many of us ever do it. It’s clearly the route to a long lifespan.

To do the opposite is to burn candles at both ends, life fast, die young, and leave a pretty corpse, which sounds very romantic and appealing when young (it did to me) but which sounds increasing idiotic and even suicidal for no good reason with each advancing year past 30. I now find it laughable, pathetic, and openly suicidal and delight in mocking the concept. But I survived another 30 years past the expire date on that concept, so perhaps my new attitude is simply the inevitable product of living out that maxim twice and hence nullifying it.

There are a number of Southern Chinese groups with more of an indigenous look, sometimes prognathous. These date back to the original indigenous elements in Southern China and SE Asia, who all date back to the Negritos. The Montagnards of Vietnam are definitely one of these indigenous types. The indigenous went from

Indigenous (Negrito) -> Proto SE Asian (with Melanesian component) -> modern SE Asian (Modern Mongoloid with archaic components. This effect is quite pronounced in the Vietnamese, who were completely overrun by a Chinese invasion 2,300 years ago after which there was much interbreeding and a huge infusion of Cantonese words, which now make up 70% of Vietnamese vocabulary.

However, the core vocabulary of of Vietnamese remains Austroasiatic (a language family nevertheless with Southern Chinese roots derived from the archaic Mongoloid peoples of the region 5-7,000 YBP, who later moved into SE Asia. This core vocabulary is shared by the Munda branch of Astroasiatic, completely isolated India, particularly Eastern (Mongoloid) India. The fact that Vietic shares a common core vocabulary with the geographically separated Munda proves the existence of Austrasiatic.

In fact, it is the final convincing argument. Anyone who says that Austroasiatic does not exist is a fool.

Further, the evidence for Austroasiatic, a proven family, is no greater than the existence for Altaic, and in fact Altaic may be better proven. The “numerals” argument against Altaic is belied by the 13,000 year old Afroasiatic language, the numerals of which are a complete disaster.

Numerals are more often innovated and replaced than people think. Often the old cognates survive in archaic words or words used for related concepts, but it’s not unusual at all for the main term to be an out and out innovation. Most Altaic numerals are innovated, but there are a few cognates. Further most of the numerals have cognates in related or archaic words.

This is the most archaic layer of Austroasiatic. Some of these peoples are archaic Mongoloids with a strong Australoid component. A branch of these Australoids called Carpenterians went from India to Australia 11,000 YBP and become part of the Aborigines. Another group of archaic Australoids were called Murrayans. They came from Thailand 17,000 YBP and went to Australia. It is not known what Australians looked like before that but no doubt they were quite primitive. It’s long been thought that they have more Erectus component than the rest of us, but I’m not sure that is proven. Certainly their appearance resembles that.

The Murrayans are the core element of the Ainu, who went to the Philippines 16,000 YBP in an unusual, Caucasian appearing type, and then moved to the Southern Japanese islands north into Japan 13,000 YBP, quite possibly replacing an ancient Negrito type already there. This Negrito type definitely existed in Southern China and may well have existed in Korea. Some Australoids or especially Australoid-Mongoloid mixes can have a superficial “Caucasian” appearance, but that’s just parallel development, coincidence or more probably the fact that the possible human phenotypes is only a small subset of the possible ones.

It is this coincidentally “Caucasoid” appearance that led many observers to believe that the Ainu were somehow ancient Caucasians (Norwegians, joked one anthropologist was) that got stranded from the rest of Europoid flock way over on the other side of Asia. In fact, the Ainu are Australoid by skull and Mongoloid by genes. Their language, like the Japanese language, has an ancient Austronesian layer that has led many to falsely conclude that the Altaic Japanese language is actually an Austronesian one. The argument is even better with Ainu, the deeper group of which has not been shown to my satisfaction.

Alt Left: Myths about the Coronavirus – Eating Bats

Um, eating bats didn’t cause the COVID virus. Eating anything probably doesn’t cause any virus. The virus started in bats and then jumped to pangolins, but those are Malaysian pangolins from Malaysia imported for food and medicine.

But if you have all of those things together alive in crowded, stressed, Hellish conditions in that market, perhaps the virus could have jumped from bats to the pangolins there.And perhaps from there onto the humans in the very same market in the same conditions. We’re not sure.

We’re not even sure that the virus started in the market. The first cases in November had no connection to the market. The first market case was on December 1 and there were a number of cases before that. But it definitely went wild when it hit that market all right.

Nevertheless, I firmly believe that those markets need to be shut down.

These markets may not even be necessary to spread these diseases. The real problem is the loss of wild areas and humans moving into areas where wildlife live to where people and wildlife have much more contact now than they used to.

Alt Left: No Virginia, There Are No Gay Animals

For reference.

Any animals have a strap-on equivalent? I doubt there are fake dicks in nature. Lesbians are just low. They want to strap it on and be a man, but this is all imaginary. They are really only good for licking. All they can really do is lick pussy and ass, so those are the cards they play.

In nature, a strong man would penetrate the pussy. What male could the weaker female overpower? She’d take on a submissive role like all women, with the only trace of her lesbianism existing in her proficiency in licking a mans ass.

Of courses there are no aminals that strap it on or do anything equivalent. In fact, in most animals including mammals sex is for procreation, not for pleasure. Only chimps and bonobos have sex for pleasure.

There are no lesbian animals no matter what the Gay Agenda (Gay Identity Politics) tells you. There are few gay animals. There are cases of two female birds guarding an egg together, but that is because there was no male around. Likewise for male penguins guarding an egg. They don’t fuck in either case.

There are no gay reptiles, amphibians, insects or birds. Zero.

And only one species of mammal has gay males, sheep, and even they don’t fuck. They just try to mount each other, but nothing happens. Maybe they should send those sheep to Frisco to show ’em how it’s done.

Sometimes female mammals will try to mount a female animal that is in heat. I had a cat that was going into heat (their vaginas get wet, which is very interesting, like human females). This other female cat I had got this weird look on its face and tried to mount her. Not sure what’s going, but it ain’t lesbianism.

Gay IP says that stupidest stuff, like “10% of all animals in every species are gay!” The 10% of people are gay lie is one of the biggest lies of all told by Gay IP.

Alt Left: Repost: Why Are Some Animals Gay? Are There any That Do Not Reproduce Due to Being Gay? Wouldn’t That Be an Evolutionary Disadvantage? If It’s Just a Selected Few in a Group, How Do You Know That It’s Not an Anomaly?

Posted last year. Updated and reposted as it’s getting some comments lately.

Answered on Queera, I mean Quora.

The PC line is that homosexuality is widespread in the animal kingdom. “All animals are gay!” is how Gay Politics propaganda goes. Actually it’s not.

This line is taken to extremes recently, and it is not uncommon to hear PC types say that 10% of all types of birds and mammals are gay. That’s clearly nonsense.

Both claims are simply examples of the typical retarded lying that Gay Politics constantly engages in. It shares this with other forms of Identity Politics, all of which are forms of chauvinist propaganda for various groups based on massive retarded lying and victim worship for the identity group along with demonization and irrational, often bizarre and extremely dishonest propagandized hatred of out-group “oppressors” of the same group.

There are cases of two same sex birds incubating an egg, but apparently there was a shortage of the opposite sex that gave rise to this. Also they didn’t have sex with each other.

I had a cat once that went into heat. You can hear and even observe when a cat is in heat. I won’t go into details. You will have to figure it out for yourself. When this cat was in heat, one of my female cats tried to mount the female in heat!

If you drive mice crazy enough in the lab or subject them to very crowded conditions, male mice will attempt to mount each other. They don’t actually have sex. This is called lordosis. This pseudo-homosexuality is a side effect of the mice being driven crazy by overcrowding or whatever. This suggests that homosexuality may be a psychological or sociological behavioral disturbance in some cases.

Bonobo chimpanzees (at least the females) are apparently often bisexual, but I am not aware of any gay or lesbian bonobos, nor am I aware of male bonobos having sex with each other.

However, sheep are a good case for homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Approximately 6% of male sheep prefer to mount other male sheep. I am not sure what they accomplish when they do that, but that’s what they do. They don’t have sex with female sheep. That is quite an excellent analogy in the animal world to male homosexuality among humans. As far as why sheep are like this, I have no idea at all.

Bald Eagles In North America

Polar Bear: Just woke from a dream pondering why bald eagles favor North America? Well, they favor Alaska specifically. The last remnant of old untapped forests that was the early North American frontier.

Those birds favor colder areas for the most part, I believe. Anyway, they only evolved in North America. I believe there are other types of large eagles down in South America. There are definitely warm weather jungle eagles in the Philippines, but they are almost extinct.

Bald eagles are actually water birds that tend to be fish eaters, specifically favoring dead fish. They’re basically scavengers – not very dignified animals. It’s weird how we think of our national bird as this proud, dignified creature because they’re not. They simply look regal and impressive  – they don’t act that way.

They’re found around large bodies of water – lakes and large rivers. Alaska is wild, yes, but it’s also full of large rivers and lakes, especially in the southern part. They especially favor the large rivers which often have huge salmon runs. Large numbers of eagles congregate on these rivers to feed on the salmon.

We actually have bald eagles in the local area in the Sierra Nevada at a lake called Bass Lake. They’re been breeding there for years. I went one time to a bar on the shore of the lake and looked at a couple of bald eagles on a nest on a treetop. There’s been a pair breeding there for years.

They’re very rare down here in the Central Valley. I finally saw a bald eagle here locally after we had a huge amount of rain, and there were small lakes formed all over the local grazing land. I looked out at this huge flooded area and saw a huge animal. At first I thought it was a cow, except it wasn’t a cow. Next I thought it was a dog, except it was way too big to be a dog.

I pulled over, confused, and got out of my car. Sure enough, it was a bald eagle! The thing was absolutely huge, one of the most massive birds you will ever see. It took off when I pulled over, as other animals like coyotes usually do if you pull over and look at them. It was a damned impressive sight, man.

Game/PUA: One Sex Has to Dominate the Other

…we either have male dominance and violence, or gentle female dominance.

First of all,  you’re going to have male violence (and female violence too for that matter) in either one. Actually the men might be more violent if they were being dominated by women because being dominated by women is one thing that pisses real men off more than anything else.

First of all, female dominance of men will never be gentle. Women are never gentle with the men that they dominate, in relationships or otherwise. It just doesn’t work that way. I think it is not possible for a woman to dominate a man in a gentle way. Women will always be cruel, vicious, and even evil with the men they are dominating.

On the other hand, I think we men can dominate women in a civilized manner. First of all, we men evolved to be dominant, to dominate women and children, and to fight for dominance with other men. The fact that dominance was bred right into us means that we can choose to implement our inborn trait either nicely or cruelly. It is certainly possible for men to dominate women in a non-harmful way. I’ve done it in most of my relationships.

Sadly, one gender has to dominate the other. The reality for most men is that most women expect the man to dominate. Women come into the relationship specifically expecting to be dominated by the man. Now, in their minds this is not a bad thing, as they like being submissive, and their view of male dominance often does not involve harm.

Men realize that if we don’t dominate our woman, she is going to take those pants right off of us and dominate you! It’s like someone has to dominate – it’s either him or her, take your pick.

I used to believe that full equality between the sexes was possible, but after 45 years of experience with women, I no longer believe this. Complete equality between men and women is simply not possible – it’s folly, a fool’s errand, an unwinnable war.

Gay male relationships are full of dominance and submission, tops and bottoms, bears and twinks, in full imitation of heterosexuality.

Lesbians like to think they are beyond this, but how many times you have seen a lesbian couple where one was butch (the man) and the other was more femme (obviously the woman)? So they’re imitating heterosexuality too. And you can’t tell me there’s no dominance-submission stuff going on in that butch-femme relationship either.

From the lesbians I read on the web, I have learned that there is quite a bit of dom-sub type sex going on with them as a matter of course, especially with the young ones, 18-30. I hate BD/SM but I know a lot about it. The number of female subs who have dom “mistresses” is very high, and the setup is about the same as with male dom-female sub relationships.

If you look at mammals, it is quite typical for male mammals to not only be much more aggressive but also to keep harems, fight over females, etc. And in mammalian sex the male often acts quite dominant, and the female acts…you guessed it – submissive.

I am reading a book about grizzly bears, and the author witnesses a rare mating. Yes, the male bear is acting very aggressive and dominant, and believe it or not, the female grizzly bear of all things is acting…yep – submissive!

Ape sex is often about rape. In chimps and baboons, a male will literally terrorize a female ape for some time, chasing her, hitting her, scaring the living crap out of her. He acts extremely mean towards her. And guess which male she picks to mate with come mating time? Yep, the rapey, female-beating, stalking, creepy, abusive male ape, the same one who terrorized her her before.

I think the best we could hope for would be one sex dominating the other, but in the mildest and kindest way possible that does the least harm to the more submissive partner. And we should hope for submissive partners who don’t like to be hurt or abused.

Game/PUA: Everyone Loves the Player

At least in any normal society, that is. As in, every single non-feminist-fucked society on Earth.

A Hero among Men

If the Player is very humble or even acts embarrassed of his success, other men will respond very well. In Man World, Players are often treated as sort of heroes for some reason.

This goes for men of all ages and even boys, teenage boys, and even prepubertal boys. And it goes for all ages of men – young men of course, but also middle aged men think Players are hilarious and heroic figures. Oddly, even elderly men fall into convulsive laughter over the Player’s exploits, pat him on the back, and treat him like a hero.

In fact, humor is a typical reaction to the player. Males of all ages will roll on the floor laughing at the antics of the Player. For some reason, he’s absolutely hilarious.

And a Hero among Women, Too

Many adult women also treat Players this way. A lot of women think Players are funny. They burst into laughter when they meet one or hear of his exploits.

Girls, even prepubertal girls, act rather amazed, amused, and giggly about the Player. This applies especially when they are 10-12, when they are starting to get a bit curious about boys. Younger girls don’t understand male-female dynamics very well.

Married women chuckle and think he is funny. Oddly enough, most old women also find him absolutely hilarious. Once again, as we see with men, the Player is an object of comedy and hilarity. Why?

A Hero in Most Traditional Cultures, Too

I figure that this is the normal way that any society treats the Player. Traditional societies apparently are a bit in awe of him, and the men quite possibly treat him as some male hero figure. The women are stunned by him, some want to date him, and most think he is humorous or hilarious. This seems to be the natural, normal way that most human societies treat the enigma known as the Player.

Keep in mind that Players are basically Alphas by default. On one Manosphere site, one man said if you have had sex with 100 females, you are an Alpha period – no ifs, ands, or buts about it. If you have a high enough lay count, you cannot not be an Alpha. That’s probably correct. Only 6% of men have three-figure laycounts. I would wager that most if not all of them are Alphas.

Furthermore, I doubt if there are many Beta Players out there. The nature of the Beta seems to imply that he’s usually not a Player. An Omega Player is literally not even possible due to the nature of the Omega. Alphas are 15-20% of male society, and that’s probably the maximum number of males who are Players in any age group.

You can’t have a society where every man, or even a majority of men, are Players. Well, you could. That would be gay male culture. But I do not think that straight society will ever resemble gay male culture. If anything, it’s the opposite, as the growth of hypergamy and the damage left in its wake such as incels show us.

It’s Human Evolution Talking – the Voice of Hundreds of Thousands of Years

The normal society reaction to the Player is probably rooted in evolution. See the elephant seal, buck, or stallion with his harem. Get it? It’s evolution in action. The Player is a male two-legged ape with a harem. We are mammals after all.

If you really want to understand human males and females, study those female deer, elephant seals, and sheep. Study those male elk, seals, and horses.

I have learned more about human males and females by studying the so-called lower mammals than from studying humans. Everything starts to add up and finally make sense. We are doomed to be mammals no matter how hard to we try to escape the bestial trap. We cannot not be mammals. As with everything else, when it comes to mammalian behavior in humans, Nature bats last.

Case History: Boy, Age 15, Killing Puppies

In my peer counseling practice, I have so far had two animal killers. One was a 16 year old boy in Germany. He came to me about violent thoughts but he didn’t and couldn’t pay. Nonetheless he was so profoundly disturbed (killing puppies) that I felt that he needed an immediate intervention so I simply worked with him for free. Also I sometimes work with teenagers for free as they can never pay.

This boy had rescued a dog and made a pet out of it. It was a female and soon enough it had puppies. The boy then strangled all of the puppies one by one.

I was very alarmed by this, but I had to tread very carefully. I did not get angry at him for killing the puppies, nor did I act shocked. My attitude was just, “Ok, so you killed some puppies.” I told him that killing puppies was wrong, and he should not have done that. This prompted a weepy apology session where he tried to defend himself by saying it wasn’t his fault. I accepted his apology and didn’t bother him about killing the puppies.

However, I did say that I wanted this puppy-killing to stop, and I didn’t want to hear about him killing any more puppies. I was emphatic about this. He readily agreed.

A lot of clinicians will freak out and get very angry at a client who is killing mammals, but I think that is the wrong approach. The client is just going to get his back up at best, and he may well get up and walk out of the room at worst.

Even if you are shocked and horrified by the mammal-killing, it is important to not show your feelings. You can raise your eyebrows, suck in your breath, say, “Wow”, things like that, but don’t get mad at them. However, you need to throw down a hard limit of no more mammal-killing at least while the client is talking to you.

Not all mammal-killers are bad human beings. A lot of them are but not all of them. Some of them are good people who are simply ill. Also it’s just a lower mammal. Killing a dog or a cat, as much as we love them, is simply not the same as killing a human, sorry.

I finally figured out that he was probably hallucinating voices although he denied that he was, as he called them thoughts and not voices. But you can tell through careful questioning and listening carefully to their answers whether you are dealing with thoughts or hallucinations. Sometimes what people describe as “thoughts” are actually auditory hallucinations. He was getting command hallucinations telling him to kill the puppies, and he was acting on them.

He also had some other problems. His mother was dead. At age 13, his mother had taken him and herself to the railroad tracks in order to get hit by a train and commit dual suicide. At the last minute the boy ran away from the train. The mother stayed on the tracks and was killed. That’s a pretty traumatizing experience!

He had a flat attitude about him where he was always saying, “I don’t care.” It seemed a bit odd how he seemed to not care about so many things.

He kept to himself at school and drew pictures a lot. For some reason his behavior was odd enough that his schoolmates bullied him. They often hit him. He would fight back vigorously, so he was getting into fights all the time. I didn’t think this was pathological, as he was just defending himself.

After he killed the puppies he felt so guilty that he put his hands in boiling water for a long time to punish himself. This had caused some injuries to his hands.

He also didn’t get along with his father at all for whatever reason.

He was extremely confused sexually and most of his early sexual experiences from 13-on had been with other boys. But now he had a girlfriend with whom he was having regular sex, and he said he had discovered that he liked sex with women just fine. I figured he was probably straight or at least not gay. He was one of the most sexually confused people I have ever dealt with.

He also told me that he had killed a pet rabbit when he was five years old. After a bit I figured out that this was in response to a command hallucination also.

I relayed the case to a former therapist, a clinical psychologist, and he told me that mammal killers are often either psychopaths or psychotic. He also suggested that this boy may be on the track to develop Borderline Personality Disorder. He was a Pre-Borderline if you will.

We have to say this because we cannot diagnose personality disorders in people under 18 because personality often changes quite a bit, especially in adolescence. In particular, a lot of adolescents appear psychopathic but then they age out of it as they become adults. A lot of juvenile delinquents are actually just “temporary” criminals.

The BPD did fit with the self-harm (Borderline men, like Borderline women, often self-harm), the constant fighting (Borderline men often pick fights a lot), the identity confusion, and the sexual confusion.

Borderline men are bad. They’re much worse than Borderline women.

I told him it was absolutely imperative that he get to a psychiatrist and find out what was going on with his head. His father convinced him to go to a psychiatrist, and he was diagnosed with schizophrenia as I suspected.

He had a rather apathetic and “so what?” attitude about that too.

People can be apathetic for various reasons. I had an OCD man who wrote to me once with a 10 page long history of his illness. He was from India.

He worried about every stupid thing under the sun, but he also kept saying, “I don’t care” through the paper. In this case, obviously he did care and in fact, he cared way too much. So the constant “I don’t care” was probably a defense against his over-caring and the illness that developed out of it. It was a thought compulsion to counteract the excessive caring that was causing the obsessions.

However, in this case, the apathy made sense to me after his diagnosis because schizophrenics often seem apathetic, and one of the symptoms of the illness is flat emotions.

So you see not all mammal-killers are psychopaths. There can be other things going on too.

However, I must say that this boy was one of the most seriously disturbed clients I have ever had.

Stray Cats in the US

While there are few stray dogs in White areas, there are some stray cats in these places. We don’t really like them, but we tolerate them. Some people trap them and pay to have them neutered, which is the best policy. Also a lot of people feed them. I don’t really like it as those wild cats kill an awful lot of rodents, small reptiles like lizards, and especially birds.

Cats kill an incredible number of birds in the US every year. There’s a town called Antioch in Northern California where there are supposedly 26,000 cats and they are hammering the birds something awful. Sorry, you have to start killing them when it gets like that. The town are trying to kill a lot of those cats, but the cat-lovers are up in arms over it.

Animal control goes out, catches a dog or cat, and brings it to the “pound.” The dog or cat stays in the pound for a week or two, at which time anyone can adopt it assuming it’s not totally wild. Wild cats cannot be adopted at all, and if they have been wild even for a short time at the beginning of their lives, say 2-3 weeks, there is a wildness that gets imprinted on them that stays with them for the rest of their lives – could be 18 years.

If no one adopts the pet after a week or two, they take the animal and put it in a chamber that has some strong tranquilizing gas pumped into it. The pet more or less falls and asleep and dies soon after.

There are now no-kill shelters, which I think are irrational. My Mom loves them, as she is a cat-lover. These places somehow just house all these stray cats forever. There is one near here called Cathouse on the Kings. My Mom and sister have been there a few times. There are literally hundreds of cats on a small enclosure.

These cat-lovers don’t make sense. They’re irrational. They’re mostly women, so of course they’re irrational, right? They think we can solve the stray cat problem with catch and euthanize. It’s a great idea except it doesn’t work. We catch and euthanize lots of them, but the numbers still don’t go down, as the others are breeding, or the numbers of stray cats are always being replenished by new stray cats.

A lot of stray cats are former pets. I adopted one once. This is a part of White culture that is no good. It’s ignorant working class White culture. People move and when they move, they usually don’t take their cats. For one thing, cats don’t travel well at all.

A lot of Whites like this turn their cats loose in the wild instead of taking them to the pound and killing them as you are supposed to. They think it’s more humane to turn the animal loose in the woods somewhere than to take it to the pound and kill it.

Except it’s not, really. Most former pets turned loose die horrible deaths maybe a week or two after being abandoned. I have seen what appear to be former pet cats when I was out walking in the woods. One was emaciated and looked ill. But it wouldn’t let me near it. Most former pets don’t know how to hunt or survive in the wild very well.

Or these working class Whites refuse to fix their female, so it has kittens. $25 is just too much money. She has kittens a lot and they just take the kittens out and abandon them somewhere. I have no idea if other ethnicities do this. I know that middle class Whites think working class Whites are disgusting morons for throwing their cats out to the wild like that.

Boys Who Kill Animals: A Hierarchy of Animal Victims

Same here. But, I don’t ever recall hurting a kitten or pup. Even as a toddler, I always loved cats and dogs. What is it really about them that children love so much? Maybe that they’re mammals?

I think the children who abuse cats and dogs are violent psychopaths in the making. I’d have never ever imagined hurting these creatures.

First I would like to point out that animal-killing is something boys do, and it’s very common. Girls generally speaking simply do not kill any kind of animals, even insects. They’re too tender-hearted for that sort of thing.

Sure, there is a hierarchy to this sort of thing. Most all boys kill insects and that’s no big deal really.

Next is fish. Yes, some boys kill fish for kicks, especially boys who fish for sport, but a fish is a primitive organism. To me though, killing fish is more serious than killing insects. A fish is larger and you can really see it suffer if you kill it. Bugs just die right away and they are so small that it is hard to empathize with them if you kill them.

Next up are amphibians like frogs. For some reason this is a bit more serious than killing fish. Nonetheless, quite a few boys kill frogs and other amphibians. President George Bush did as a boy.

Next up would probably be reptiles. For some reason, I think this is a bit more serious than killing amphibians, mostly because I’ve rarely heard of boys killing reptiles.

It’s rare for boys to kill reptiles because they’re a bit dangerous. Also boys love to catch snakes and make pets out of them. My friends caught kingsnakes and made pets of them. You had to feed them live mice! Our friends cackled with glee watching their pet snakes eat a live mouse. I told you boys are evil. Lizards will also fight back and a lot of them bite, especially those nasty alligator lizards we have here in California.

Next up would be birds. Now we are getting serious because birds are warm-blooded. Killing cold-blooded creatures is not that big of a deal, as they are all extremely primitive creatures far removed from us. The closer the animal gets to a human, the more of a serious matter the animal killing is.

But humans are warm-blooded, so killing warm-blooded creatures is a big deal. The Mexican Indian man next door told me that as a boy in Mexico, they used to kill birds! I could not believe he did that, and he was a bit defensive about it. He came out fine though. There’s nothing wrong with him. But I like birds so I won’t look fondly on bird-killers.

I am just guessing, but I think bird-killers might be older than killers of cold-blooded creatures, who tend to be young boys. As boys become teenagers, most of them start to think that killing bugs, fish, amphibians, etc. is childish and stupid. If they still want to kill animals, I imagine that they graduate on to birds and mammals. But most boys who killed animals as boys simply stop killing creatures when they become teenagers. They simply mature out of it.

Next up of course is mammals. Mammals are warm-blooded, and humans are mammals. If you are hunting mammals for sport with a gun, that is one thing, especially if you are going to eat the animal you kill. But if you are just killing them for kicks (typically by torturing them to death), you’ve got problems, especially if you are killing dogs and cats, as we humans love these animals and make pets out of them.

Yes, many serial killers start out killing mammals as boys. It’s more or less practice for killing humans, which they will do later on. I have no idea if mammal-killing boys can turn out ok. Perhaps some of them can. But if you know of a child or adolescent who is killing mammals, some intervention is needed. As soon as possible. This is a serious matter not to be trifled with.

Also I would like to point out that mammal-killers tend to be older than the other animal-killers listed above. They are usually teenagers aged 14-16, and they can be both boys and girls, but they are mostly boys.

My Life as an Evil Young Boy

My brothers and friends and I were all wicked little shits as young boys.

We stole things.

We tortured and killed bugs and fish, and it was all a big blast.

We even had industrial mass murder facilities to kill the pillbugs because they ate our strawberries.

We poured salt on snails because they were pests.

We had “gladiator” fights or “bullfights” with these caterpillars called wollybears. There’s nothing wrong with these caterpillars. We simply killed them for sheer kicks.

We would clear out a circle on the dirt and that would be the arena. We would  put the caterpillar in the arena. Then we got these huge nails and threw them at the caterpillar. Every time we did it we shouted “Picadors!” or “Picadores!” (I love these hilarious names boys come up with for their evil games.) If you watch bullfights those are the guys on horses who ride up to the bull and stab it with spears to make it easier for the bullfighter.

We used to go fishing for smelts at this place called “The Smelt Place.” Original name, huh? It was in an estuary called the Bolsa Chica. There were fish called smelts there (Pacific smelts) and we could not catch enough of these damned things. We mostly just released them. We would catch up to 100 of them in a day.

Finally we got mad at the fish for, frankly, being such morons as to let us catch 100 of their kind every day without every figuring out that the Velveeta was nothing but a scam with a hook in it. We lost respect for them. I also think we got bored of catching them all the time.

So we started this game called “Acapulco Cliff Divers” (I love these hilarious names boys make up for their wicked games) where we would catch a smelt and then cast it over onto the rocks. The fish would land on the rocks, injuring it. Then we would reel the poor fish in over the damned rocks, which of course hurt them even more. They’d be dead after a couple of casts. I’m not sure how many days we did that, but it was not a lot.

One boy, TM, who had a diabolical laugh, tied a live smelt to a rope to the back of his back and then took off on his bike via the drainage ditch we used to access the place. The fish was dead shortly after. I remember he was laughing like a maniac the whole time he did this. We all thought that was pretty damn funny – tying a live fish to a rope and dragging it to its death! Ha ha! Good times!

Alt Left: The Left Hates Me Far More than the Right Does

SHI: Funny thing I am hated by the Hindutvadi morons more than they do Muslims. Something about me sets a TRIGGER and they react crazily.

They probably think you’re a traitor. You used to be one of them and now you went over to the other side. Few of them will admit it, but a lot of the hatred towards me is coming from that same point of view. Some of them are almost heartbroken. Heartbroken that this good liberal man has turned into such a vicious, evil, racist brute. Except I’m not really racist at all.

The Left hates me for more than the Right does. Most rightwingers are actually quite pleasant. The Left on the other hand has been vicious, destructive, and even evil, waging a campaign of personal destruction and character assassination against me. The take-down of my blog has been only part of that.

I’m lucky I don’t have an academic job, or any job, that these psychos could connect me with because they have openly stated that they will find out my job and try to get me fired on some SJW bullshit charge (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.).

It might be nice if there were a few employers in this country who reacted to this garbage with, “So what! So my employee is a racist, sexist, homophobe, whatever! In your highly subjective opinion, that is. I got some news for you. I don’t care! People like that are more than welcome to work for me!”

But no one has the balls to do that. I know you would though, SHI, if you were an employer. That’s why I like you.

On the other hand though that employer might get a boycott against him. But if we had enough employers doing that they might stop boycotting because how can you boycott thousands of businesses at once. It’s boy who cried wolf and people would just throw up their hands and say, “Forget it! I’m buying whatever I’m buying!”

I must say though that the liberal-Left is not alone in this insane, destructive, fanatical hate.

I got the exact same thing from the Bigfooters (some of the most vicious and downright wicked and sociopathic freaks I have ever encountered) and the true crime crowd, where a group of people, mostly women waged an all out war on me for  some things I wrote when I was reporting a crime.

From the True Crime Crowd it was basically coming from a total feminist POV, but it also picked up a lot of retarded Middle American monkeys from the Midwest, fundamentalist Christian redneck Trump-lovers.

A friend of mine refers to the enemy of the men as femiservatives. There are many conservatives out there who hate us men just as much as the feminists do. He uses some word like Feminist/Conservatives – I forget the actual terminology. A lot of this enemy is made up of conservative Republican fundamentalist Christian White women, part of the Trump coalition.

They’re the worst enemy I ever met. They tried very hard to dox me, and they reported me to the police probably 50 times. I even got a call from a detective who told me I was a suspect in a terrible crime because so many people had called me in.

Before that it was Jews, mostly super-Jews and Zionist Israel-reporters.  They doxed all of their enemies and contacted their employers and tried to get them fired as “anti-Semites.” Utterly vicious people with a black hole where their heart should be.

Is it something about the Internet and the anonymity of it that brings out the Secret Psychopath in so many people? Is it Snark Culture on the Net, exemplified by Reddit?

In fact, recently I found that people on Breitbart of all places were far more open-minded about US foreign policy, government lying, and media lying and bias. A lot of them are very cynical and they hardly believed anything the state or media said about anything anymore, which is a good idea because 50% of what they say is either lying or biased anyway.

One Brietbart commenter said that whenever the government says anything, your first assumption should be that they are lying. I’m not sure about that but on foreign policy it is absolutely. Disinformation, outright lying and blatant propaganda have essential tools of US foreign policy forever now, going back to the Spanish Civil War and the yellow journalism and state-sponsored hate campaigns that accompanied it.

I was shocked at how antiwar (in an isolationist way) they were. Half of those Brietbart commenters sounded exactly like me!

Then I went over to Daily Kos (the left wing base Democratic Party) headquarters, and they had swallowed all of the media and state lies about that refinery attack whole.

I will say that the Left (Alternet) has a very open mind, except on SJW crap, but a lot of the Alternet crowd are open-minded about that too, and a lot of them are starting to rebel against SJWism which they see as puritanical, prudish, uptight, priggish, party-pooping no-fun people. Others just think it is a silly and petty distraction.

Actually over on Daily Kos (liberals) the SJWism is vastly worse. That’s a brainwashed horde over there. And on the actual Hard Left (actual Communists and antifa anarchists) is where you will find the worst SJWism of all.

I think it is because both the Breitbart crowd and the Alternet Left have gone over to a “conspiracy theory” view of the world for some time now. At times this is quite wrong, but at other times, it is flat out true.

The Democratic Party though says that every time you question the media or state on anything foreign policy or some other things, it’s “conspiracy theory.” All “conspiracy theory” is banned on Daily Kos, for instance. Ok, now right off the bat you can’t talk about 50% of what the media or state is telling you because those are lies that can only be explained by,  frankly, conspiracy theory.

On the other hand though, even Kosnicks have come a long way. The early articles on the refinery attack were very skeptical, with 80% of them saying the government is lying. Now they are all saying the government is telling the truth.

It’s really pathetic when liberals of all people (we came out of the Vietnam War era, remember?) buy the foreign policy lies of the state and media far more than conservatives do, as conservatives have always been more likely to believe this propaganda crap.

Modern liberal Democrats are utterly pathetic. They’re better than they used to be, but they are still a huge clusterfuck.

One thing that particularly galls me is that conservatives are far friendlier, nicer, and more decent to me than the Left is. And I am a Leftist! I am supposed to be one of their sworn enemies! They are supposedly full of hate, viciousness and outright evil, but when you meet them, they’re so nice and pleasant, even to an out and out Leftist!

On the other hand though the SJW Left are utter monsters – savage, destructive,, and vindictive freaks. I always thought we on the liberal-Left were the nice and compassionate ones and the Right was where al the haters and hate was. Now it’s the other way around.

It’s so discouraging and disappointing. In a way, it breaks my heart. I have been a man of the Left my whole life, and now it feels, just as I feel about my country, that the love of my life (the Left) has ripped out my heart and crushed it on the ground like a bug. So I’m also heartbroken. Heartbroken at both my country and the liberal-Left, two things I once held near and dear to my heart.

Repost: What Are the Odds of a Human Surviving a Wolf Attack?

This is a repost of a very nice earlier post from four years ago that is being posted around the Net right now.
From the Internet. Fascinating stuff.  A number of respondents said they would bet on the human or said that a smart human can indeed take out a wolf, although your odds are a lot better if you are armed with anything.
However, many other respondents said if you a wolf attacks you, and you are unarmed, get ready to die. You’re gone. Overwhelmingly, your chances of survival are near zero.
First thing to note is that they are extremely intelligent, far smarter than a dog.

I raised many hybrid wolves, mostly German Shepherd breeds, and one 80% wolf that was awesome with me and my partner, but no one else dared go near it – luckily it never really wanted to mess with people, but if you picked a fight with it, you picked the wrong one to fight with…
The thing with wolves is the intelligence and the chess match you are involved in from first encounter. They are always thinking two steps ahead and know what to do, even as youngsters…
…If you are in a fight with a wolf, I’d give you less than the minute it took for them to down a pig, and unless you’re some kind of ninja, you’d never remember what happened. They know where and when to strike you, know how to do it, and are so smart.

99% of the time, you are going to die.

Maybe if you knew some kind of special wolf triangle choke where you could incapacitate the wolf, but just like everyone else says, you’ll lose that fight 99 times out of 100.

A wolf is not a dog.

You wouldn’t stand a chance in Hell against an adult wolf.
Oliver Starr has dozens of accounts of living with wolves, including several on this very subject, and one thing that is quite clear is wolves are not just wild dogs.

Wolves chew right through solid metal objects. Think of what they could do to your measly flesh.

My friends had a part wolf dog. The most noticeable difference was the mouth. That wolf dog was very friendly, but he had a long head and was all teeth. Having read Oliver Starr’s story I would not give myself good odds of surviving if he had ever tried to take me down. He once chewed through a metal cooler to get some lunch meat and routinely chewed open food cans.
Wolves are not dogs, and it only takes two dogs to kill an adult human.

Even if you do live and kill the wolf, you might wish you had not survived:

If you do manage to fight the wolf off, you could be hurt really bad, possibly sustaining life-threatening wounds. A bite can tear open major veins, crush bones, and rip open your abdomen or throat.

Police are allowed to use deadly force against even large dogs that seriously attack them. It is considered a deadly force encounter.

That is why I as an officer am allowed to shot a wolf or dog that I feel is going to attack me. It is considered a deadly force encounter.

If you don’t have a gun, the best thing to do is to climb a tree, but that probably won’t work, as wolves are fast as lightning.

A wolf will kill most adult humans easily. That is why if  you fight a wolf, you must always presume it will be a fight to the death, and you had better want to live. Yes, some people have hysterical/psychotic strength, but that happens rarely and cannot be depended on. Best advice is to climb a tree (if you get the chance, good luck with that) if unarmed, otherwise shoot it if you have a gun.

 

Alt Left: Are Males Violent Because of Patriarchy?

The feminist argument is that males are violent due to patriarchy. They say this because all feminists reject biological gender and think that gender is a social construct. So you deconstruct gender, get rid of masculinity, and wa-law, males are as pacifistic as females.
I have said for a while now that if you want to understand men and women, study mammals, especially the higher-order ones. The males are always far more violent than the females. They fight, sometimes to the death, for access to females. The most Alpha male mammals end up with entire harems of females. The rest of the Beta male mammals are resigned to bachelorhood and probably never breed.
It’s even true with cats. I have had many cats in my life. The males were far more aggressive and even violent than the females. And these males had been castrated for Chrissake. Many of them seemed to have an almost wild, restless energy about them such that they never seemed to calm down much.
One thing I learned that in general you cannot have more than one male cat in a household. Most times I got more than one male, they fought like maniacs. They almost tried to kill each other. The theory is that the males are territorial. The other male is encroaching on the first male’s territory. At the moment I have only female cats. They are so much calmer. In case anyone is wondering, humans are mammals. If male mammals are a lot more violent than female mammals, wouldn’t it be logical to assume the same is true in humans?
I am indeed a biological essentialist. I think the feminists cut us men way too much slack. The feminists are Utopians. They think that if they can just fix up society enough, we men will stop being so aggressive and violent. If only it were that easy.
I’ll take the feminists one step further: Males are innately violent. I would even expand that to males and humans who behave like males.
Masculinity is not a requirement. Gay men are quite violent. Gay male relationships are more violent than relationships between men and women. Further, transwomen are extremely unmasculine in behavior (they behave like ultra-feminine women), but we can see how violent and dangerous many transwomen are – probably more so than cisgender men. I think this is the autogynephile group. The true transsexual group, mostly homosexuals, is probably less violent than cisgender men and probably even less violent than cisgender gay men.
It is from this evidence that I would say that the problem is something inherent in us men – in our minds – and just waging war on masculinity won’t get rid of it.

Even Ducks Don't Like Indians

You Indians better work on your personalities! You’re even starting to piss of the birds for Chrissake, and birds are pretty stupid. Where do you think birdbrain came from? And ducks are some of the dumbest birds of them all.
My high school biology teacher once told us that ducks were very stupid.
On her farm where she grew up, there was this path they walked down every day, and the path turned sharply into a low spot where a pond of water had collected in the trail.
The pond was easily avoided if you knew it was coming. The ducks would walk along the path and then turn the corner and land right in the water, upsetting and surprising them. They never learned anything from one day to the next, like a lot of humans I know. Every day they made the same damned mistake and fell into the pond squawking again. They simply could not recall that there was a bend in the trail and a hidden pond after it that they had fallen into the day before.
I guess these London swans* are not too stupid though! They seem have figured out like so many of us in the West that Indians are lousy people!
*If you are interested, there are three types of birds: ducks, swans and geese. They are all related as members of the larger Duck Family. Swans and geese are separate genera, something I was not aware of (I just learned that today!). Swans and geese are larger than ducks. They must be closely related though because swans and geese can interbreed to form hybrids (I just learned that today too!). Isn’t life cool? Here I am at 60 years old and I am still learning new things, even new basic facts about our world, almost every day! I don’t know about the rest of you, but I think that’s really neat. H who is not busy growing is busy dying.

I’m confused. Sure, humans have racist impulses; Ballets like Swan Lake are said to be ‘racist,’ but…UK Swans Hate Ethnic Minorities (right click to open in new window):
(Birds have more acute eyesight than human I check).

“Angry ‘Racist’ Swans are Terrorizing Students at Warwick University

The bullying birds have been spotted standing guard at a campus footbridge to stop humans from crossing. Students say they are being continually confronted on their way to lectures. And the birds – who are currently in their breeding season – are said to be particularly aggressive towards Indian students. One victim, a 24-year-old student who asked not to be named, said:
“I am from India, and they attack me especially – they focus straight on me. We have been warned that the swans will be a bit feisty at this time of year, but they go for me all year round. I think they don’t like too many Indians in England – maybe the swans here are a little bit racist.”
……………….
When the yanks pick an African ballerina to play Odette, the swan queen, they picked one with fairer skin and without peppercorn hair.

https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/55819a8c320a56cf4241308a/master/w_768,c_limit/tchaikovskys-new-queen-misty-copeland-01.jpg

Why Are Some Animals Gay? Are There any That Do Not Reproduce Due to Being Gay? Wouldn’t That Be an Evolutionary Disadvantage? If It’s Just a Selected Few in a Group, How Do You Know That It’s Not an Anomaly?

Answered on Queera, I mean Quora.

The PC line is that homosexuality is widespread in the animal kingdom. “All animals are gay!” is how Gay Politics propaganda goes. Actually it’s not.

This line is taken to extremes recently, and it is not uncommon to hear PC types say that 10% of all types of birds and mammals are gay. That’s clearly nonsense.

Both claims are simply examples of the typical retarded lying that Gay Politics constantly engages in. It shares this with other forms of Identity Politics, all of which are forms of chauvinist propaganda for various groups based on massive retarded lying and victim worship for the identity group along with demonization and irrational, often bizarre and extremely dishonest propagandized hatred of out-group “oppressors” of the same group.

There are cases of two same sex birds incubating an egg, but apparently there was a shortage of the opposite sex that gave rise to this. Also they didn’t have sex with each other.

I had a cat once that went into heat. You can hear and even observe when a cat is in heat. I won’t go into details. You will have to figure it out for yourself. When this cat was in heat, one of my female cats tried to mount the female in heat!

If you drive mice crazy enough in the lab or subject them to very crowded conditions, male mice will attempt to mount each other. They don’t actually have sex. This is called lordosis. This pseudo-homosexuality is a side effect of the mice being driven crazy by overcrowding or whatever. This suggests that homosexuality may be a psychological or sociological behavioral disturbance in some cases.

Bonobo chimpanzees (at least the females) are apparently often bisexual, but I am not aware of any gay or lesbian bonobos, nor am I aware of male bonobos having sex with each other.

However, sheep are a good case for homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Approximately 6% of male sheep prefer to mount other male sheep. I am not sure what they accomplish when they do that, but that’s what they do. They don’t have sex with female sheep. That is quite an excellent analogy in the animal world to male homosexuality among humans. As far as why sheep are like this, I have no idea at all.

In Social Species Considered to Be More Intelligent, Are Females or Males Likely to be Dominant?

Answered on Quora: 
In most mammals, males are far more aggressive and even violent than females.
Take cats. I have had many cats in my life, sometimes whole herds of them, up to five at a time. Male cats are far more aggressive and violent than female cats. And they are so territorial that I can never have more than one male cat in a house. Frankly even one is an issue. The more I study male and female cats, the more I think they resemble male and female humans.
If you study other mammals – seals, elk, deer, etc., you will find much the same thing.

"Fishing on the Big Black," by Alpha Unit

The Big Black River, flowing southwest across Mississippi, is the site of a pivotal battle during the Vicksburg Campaign of the Civil War. After a decisive loss at Champion Hill, the Confederates reached the Big Black River on the night of May 16, 1863, under the command of Lt. Gen. John Pemberton, commander of the Confederate Army of Mississippi.

The Confederates constructed earthworks on the river’s east bank and placed 18 guns behind the works. Large sections of Pemberton’s line were protected by a bayou of waist-deep water. A planked-over railroad bridge and another makeshift bridge provided access to additional artillery overlooking the river on its west bank.

Union forces led by Maj. Gen. John McClernand encountered the Confederates early on the morning of May 17. It just so happened that the men led by Brig. Gen. Michael Lawler actually got to the Rebels first, wading through the bayou to overrun the Confederates on the east bank of the river. Inspired by Lawler’s attack, other Union formations surged forward.

Overwhelmed, the Confederates broke for the makeshift bridges to get to the west bank. Most of Pemberton’s men made it across, but Pemberton’s chief engineer set fire to both bridges to cut off any Union pursuit. Many of the Confederates tried to swim across the river and drowned. About 1,700 Rebels were stranded on the east bank and subsequently captured. It was the final battle before the Siege of Vicksburg.

After floods you can still sometimes find artifacts from the gunboat battles that took place on the Big Black River during the War. But most people on the river nowadays aren’t really interested in Civil War artifacts. The big payoff during springtime on the Big Black are flathead catfish – also called tabby cats, shovelhead cats, yellow cats, flatties, and who knows how many other names. The Big Black River will overflow her banks that time of year. As Cliff Covington tells it:

Foraging catfish move into the flooded timber in large numbers. Catfish anglers take advantage of this feeding frenzy by setting multiple trotlines in likely spots along the main channel. Chicken livers, cut skipjack, live goldfish, and pond perch are the baits of choice when a boatload of catfish is the big objective.

Muddy and slow-flowing due to the large amount of sediment it carries, the Big Black River is renowned for yielding blue, channel, and flathead catfish of what Covington calls “mythical proportions.” It is one of the premier handgrabbing destinations in the South. A handgrabber catches fish by placing his hands directly into a catfish hole, and some anglers are very good at it. Covington refers to Woodie Reaves, who says there is no better place for handgrabbing catfish than the shallow waters of the Big Black.

While Reaves’ personal best is a 93-pound whale of a catfish that he wrestled from its underwater bed just a few years ago, his group routinely lands up to 25 big cats, averaging 50 pounds each, every time they venture out on this stream.

Sportsmen say that the Big Black River is also a good place for bowfishing. Bowfishers use highly specialized bows to catch fish, usually on a boat set up just for bowfishing. Hunting fish using a bow and arrow isn’t new at all and is a traditional way of fishing all over the world. Bert Turcotte of Vicksburg has been an avid bowfisher since high school and says that anyone with a regular bow can also fish this way. As he told Phillip Gentry:

All kinds of bows can be used for bowfishing. People who like traditional archery can easily equip a recurve bow for fishing. Any compound bow can also easily be set up, but the range of draw weight is the key. Forty pounds of draw weight or less will get the job done here in Mississippi.

Unlike hunting bows, fishing bows come with reels for retrieving your prey.

In Mississippi you can legally catch carp, buffalo, gar, shad, bowfin, and catfish with a bow. There are restrictions, however, on when and where you can catch catfish in this way.
Gentry says that nearly all bowfishing is done at night when carp, buffalo, and gar can be found hiding in extremely shallow water. Buffalo and carp feed on aquatic vegetation and are especially fond of newly planted areas that have recently flooded from spring rain. Gar are the most commonly sought daytime species, he says, and can be found “sunning” in shallow water or lurking near the surface in deeper water.

Sean Ford of Madison, Mississippi, uses a gas generator on his bowfishing boat to power either sodium or halogen lights for night fishing. He says:

The platform will allow two of us to fish at the same time from the front as we ease along in shallow water with the trolling motor, looking for fish to shoot.

An angler will use a trolling motor on his boat in order to move quietly through the water. You don’t want to spook the fish.

A Bit about the Sasquatches

Paul C.: Also, what other secret information do you have?

I know this sounds absolutely insane, but I was selling the directions on how to get to one of the hottest Sasquatch Habituation Sites in North America. That would be the Alberta Habituation Site. It was a closely guarded secret and the information was almost impossible to come by, but a lot of people wanted to go out there and see if they could find the Sasquatches.
If you wanted directions to that site, I sold the directions for $100. And I had a number of buyers too.
It’s amazing all the ways you can make money if you just put your mind to it.
There are those of us who are absolutely certain that these things are real, and there are lots of us out there working on this. If we ever prove these things are real, it’s the story of the century. The are definitely shot and killed from time to time, and I know of a few cases. In fact, a good friend of mine shot and killed two of the damn things! And I believe him too. There’s no way he is lying about this. I know people who knew him before he shot these things and they said he never believed in them and laughed at and ridiculed people who believed in them. Do you have any idea how many stories like this I have of people who thought Bigfoot was the stupidest thing in the whole world right up until the day when the 9 foot tall thing ran across the highway in Oregon? Or whatever your story is. I cannot even count how many stories like this I have heard.
I believe they are real because my good friends told me that they saw these things. They told me with a straight face and there’s no way they are lying. They told they saw them as clear as air just like you were standing in this room next to me right now. The people I know who have seen them were nurses, university biology and anatomy professors, college professors, schoolteachers, authors, you name it.
They can ridicule us all they want to. We know these damn things are real. I just hope I do not die before we unveil these damned things.
I have heard of three shootings in recent years. A body was almost surely recovered in one of them as I know an impeccable source who saw a photo of it. In the other case, I am not sure if they got a body or not. The problem is that when you kill one of these things, you go over to look at it and it looks like an 8 foot tall Paul C. covered with hair. Everyone completely flips and thinks they have killed a person. Every single person who kills one is afraid of going down on homicide. Hence the bodies are left there or buried. Some seem to be retained but those have a very nasty habit of disappearing. The last I heard about the most recent is that the government was in possession of it for a while.
Even if you can keep the government from stealing it, these bodies have a way of disappearing. God knows where they go. They’re red hot dangerous to hold onto, so I suspect people dispose of them. Dump them in the ocean, set them on fire, who knows?
One more problem: if it ever gets out that you have a body, the government usually comes out and steals it. They come in black vans or helicopters and they are dressed in all black and they carry automatic weapons that they point at you. Seriously. The “men in black” come out and steal them. We have since learned that US military intelligence dresses in all black. We think these people are maybe with DARPA.
You are thinking cover-up. Yes there has been a longstanding government cover-up of these things since the Patterson film at least. The Smithsonian is very deep into this and has been covering this up for over a century. It all goes back to Powell Doctrine.
You are asking me where the bones are. We have them. They are in university collections, but they are all labeled “Indian.” Sasquatch bones look like human bones except they are much larger. Any strange ancient bones found in the US are automatically labeled “Indian.”
If you are wondering what they are, they are not apes. They are actually human beings. Sasquatches are people. Thing is they are not human beings like you and I. We are Homo sapiens sapiens. They are something else, perhaps something like Neandertalis or Heidelbergensis. You know those subhumans like Neandertal, Denisova, Flores Man, Sulu Man, Red Deer Cave Man? Well, guess what? They never went extinct! A few of them survived and that is exactly what these Sasquatches are. They are simply prehistoric men. It’s not as insane as it sounds if you think about it.
Just imagine if Neandertal or some of those other subhumans never went extinct. Well, this is the remains of them, the Sasquatches. Yetis and the other similar things are all the same creature, and Yetis exist too, just like Sasquatches. And those Orang Pendeks in Indonesia absolutely exist. I know people who search for them almost full-time and they swore up and down that these things are real. And a quite famous US journalist and environmentalist saw one in 1995. I think they may be related to Flores Man. Orang Pendeks are like the Flores Men that did not die out.
If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

"Old-Fashioned Pig Farming," by Alpha Unit

Woodlands are a pig’s natural habitat. But pigs are adaptable to just about any environment. They live on every continent (except Antarctica).

In the forests and woodlands where wild pigs live, trees and vegetation provide them with shelter and their preferred foods. They like places where they’ll have year-round access to water and moist ground for wallowing, such as swamps and marshes.

In spring they graze on grasses and clover. Throughout the year they’ll forage for berries, nuts, acorns, mushrooms, insects, and sometimes small rodents. But one thing a pig was designed to do is root. A pig’s snout allows it to navigate and interact with its environment – sort of like a cat’s whiskers.

The nasal disc of a pig’s snout, while rigid enough to be used for digging, has numerous sensory receptors. In addition to being useful as a fine and powerful tool for manipulating objects, the extensive innervation in the snout provides pigs with an extremely well-developed sense of smell.

Pigs can smell roots and tubers that are deep underground and in the wild can spend up to 75 percent of their day rooting and foraging. Some homesteaders put pigs’ rooting instinct to work for them and use pigs to “till” garden plots.

Daniel MacPhee and his wife use Guinea Hog piglets on their New England farm, but unlike some farmers, they don’t plan to eat their pigs.

Instead, the piglets are meant as an environmentally- and -budget-friendly cleanup crew of sorts, rooting around to clean out tough, tangled roots after a small flock of sheep has grazed at the couple’s farm, Blackbird Rise in Palermo [Maine].
By having the animals do the work, “we’re not buying machinery and we’re not wasting fossil fuels,” said MacPhee, 35. “They’re eating the roots and vegetable matter, processing that and putting nutrients back in the soil through manure. They’re doing all the same things a tractor does but without the environmental impact.”

The Guinea Hogs on their farm are a “heritage breed,” the name given to any of the distinct breeds that can be traced back to the period before industrial farming. Generations ago, there were hundreds of pig breeds on homesteads in Europe and the United States. But a lot of the historic breeds fell out of favor as the pork industry moved toward leaner carcasses and began large-scale confinement operations. This was in part the result of corn production.

As the larger settled farms of the Midwest began to produce excess corn, the availability and low cost of this feed attracted pig production and processing to the region. By the mid-1800s the states that produced the most corn also produced the most pigs, and production declined in the East and New England. The industry was becoming geographically centralized as well and the number of breeds of pigs began to decline. Several breeds became extinct by the early 1900s.

Pigs are for the most part no longer produced and sold by independent producers on open markets. Since the late 20th century, pig production in the United States has come to be dominated by a few large, vertically-integrated corporations that control every step along the way from the selection of breeding stock to the retailing of pork. A lot of the farmers who are still in the business are contract growers for the corporations. But there are independent pig farmers who are dedicated to bringing back the old breeds and are raising them in the traditional way, on pasture and in woodlands.

Some heritage breeds are very rare and are listed as critically endangered by the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy. Among heritage breeds is the very popular Berkshire pig, a black pig designated “first class”. Farmers say that Berkshires have an excellent disposition and are very friendly and curious.

The Tamworth is a golden-red pig and a direct descendant of the wild boars that roamed the forests of Staffordshire. They are considered very outdoorsy and athletic. (They make the best bacon in the United States, according to some fans.)

The Large Black retains the traits of its ancestors that lived on the pastures and woods of England in the 16th and 17th centuries. They are hardy animals that can withstand cold and heat. They are well-known as docile hogs.

The Hereford is a medium-size pig that is unique to the United States. Its name is inspired by its striking color pattern of intense red with white trim, the same as that of Hereford cattle. These pigs also have a reputation for being easy-going.

The Red Wattle is especially in danger of extinction. It is a large red hog with a fleshy wattle attached to each side of the neck. These pigs are very hardy with an especially mild temperament.

There are other heritage breeds, some of which number as low as a few hundred worldwide. Heritage pig farmers want to increase demand for their breeds, because to eat them is to preserve them, they say. There is, in fact, a growing market for heritage pork, which is more tender and tastes much better than mass-produced pork. Just looking at a cut of heritage pork you see a striking difference. It’s typically darker than pork from industrial farms, some as red as beef.

Of course, there are heritage pig farmers like the MacPhees, who just like having pigs on the farm, performing those unique tasks that pigs do.

If you’ve got children, there are heritage pig breeds they would easily get along with. Brian Wright raises heritage pigs and says that some are considered docile while others are seen as “evil, killer hogs” – in other words, very aggressive. You’ve got to do your homework before picking a breed.

The Rossi Farm in Rhode Island began breeding Gloucestershire Old Spot pigs several years ago and the pigs have become a favorite. Nicknamed Orchard Hogs, these pigs originally foraged for windfall apples and are distinguished by the black spots on their white coats.
The Rossis say Gloucestershire Old Spots are extremely friendly and laid-back. When the pigs are in the pasture, the children are often out there with them. And the pigs love having their ears scratched by the kids.

Bigfoot News Bastille Day Edition, 2016

Finally, a new Bigfoot news! This long awaited edition will consist only of some very interesting photos that I have found, including one from Fallbrook, California which is being presented to the public for the very first time. Hopefully, I will have another edition coming out soon with more photos and some text too because I definitely have a few things to write about.
I really think I have writer’s block about these Bigfoot posts. I always say I am going to write one, and then I never do it for some reason. I think I associate them with a lot of anxiety due to all the Hellish controversy they inevitably spawn from the semi-human inhabitants of this ghastly field of Earthly Hellions and assorted lowlifes, cranks, fools, idiots, out and out jerkoffs, loudmouths and belligerent know-nothings.

unnamed
Photo from Fallbrook, California, submitted to me. I do believe that that is a Sasquatch in the background.

This photo was submitted to me by a regular housewife from Fallbrook, California who knew nothing whatsoever about Sasquatches and didn’t even necessarily believe in them. It would be hard to find a more naive submitter. She took a photo of her daughter, and when they went to look at the photo, there was what appeared to be a Sasquatch in the background. This happens so many times. She also sent me another photo of the same area, and the Sasquatch looking object was not there.
Do these things make themselves invisible to the photographer somehow (by cloaking?) but somehow they are not invisible to the camera? In other words, you can’t see them with the naked eye for some reason but the camera can pick them up? It might make sense because a camera is not an eyeball. Yes, they both see things, but you eye is an organ in your body that has one way of seeing things, and your camera is a mechanical object that uses a different way of seeing things than your eye uses. Cameras surely do not have irises, optic nerves and an occipital sector in their memory bank.
She was dumbfounded as to what this creature was. She said she was going to France for vacation but would be back in a while. She also said that her dogs had been acting very strange recently, and no one could figure out why. She described the land in the background as “wasteland.” As you can see, the Sasquatch is frozen in some sort of leaning over position. I cannot tell you how many photos I have seen where these things freeze like this. I suppose it is one of their ways of sort of going invisible when they feel they have been seen (freezing). A lot of mammals (and even insects) freeze when spotted by a potential predator. It is a classic means of predator defense to freeze in place.
Thermal-Bigfoot-Face-240x300
A great closeup of the famous Ridge Watcher shot by Derek Randles Olympic Project. Note the two eyes, the nose and what looks like a mouth. Note in the chest area what looks like two breasts.

This is one of the greatest Sasquatch photos that have come out recently. Randles runs a tip-top shape outfit called the Olympic Project. He is a bit controversial in the field, but one thing I know about him is that he is absolutely above hoaxing in any way, shape or form. And the team has some quite professional procedures that they follow. They even have a forensic guy, Rich Germeau, a police officer. Germeau is a very nice guy. I have spoken with him. All in all, I would say that Randles, despite a bit of controversy around him, is one of the best and most ethical people in the field today.
The Olympic Project got a call about suspected Sasquatch activity on the property of an elderly couple who lived on the Olympic Peninsula. It’s hard to say whether they believed in these things before all manner of weirdness began happening on their property. Anyway, they were baffled, and called in the Olympic Project to investigate. The team worked the site for a while and at some point, they set up a night vision camera in a spot and left it on for the night.
There are cows visible in some of the video because the owners run some cattle on their property. Skeptards have been dismissive of this video simply because of the presence of cows! How ridiculous. When the team went back to review the footage later, they saw this obviously alive object peeking over the ridge in the direction of the camera. We know it is alive because it is lit up by the infrared camera, and only living things light up the camera.
The skeptards were once again contemptuously dismissive, and a lot of them claimed the object was obviously a raccoon. Well in that case, it is a raccoon that is quite a bit larger than a man!
It’s not a raccoon. And the shape of the image very much resembles a Sasquatch, which is what the couple suspected was on their property.
Ridge watcher
The Ridge Watcher, a blow up of the original photo. That’s thermal imaging lighting up the image, the lightened areas indicating body heat of a living creature. And no, that’s not a raccoon. Can you believe the skeptard argument is that this thing is a raccoon? WTH.

It’s not a raccoon, no. As you can see in the blowup above, you can make out the shape of a human shaped living object with two eyes, a nose and a mouth. The eyes, nose and mouth are all a lot larger than those of a human. Note also the wide shoulders, maybe 40 inches wide. No human has shoulders that wide. Note also the lit up area around the breasts. I strongly suspect that this creature, like Patty, is a female.
remake
Comparison photo showing a human standing at night in the exact same spot where the Ridge Watcher photo was taken. As you can see, this living creature is massive, much larger than the human. You’re telling me that’s a raccoon?! A raccoon that is much larger than a human?! Where, on Star Trek? Think of something else. How do you get a human to fit into a huge suit like that that is far larger than any human could be and still light up the whole suit with heat imagery? Hint: You can’t, so you don’t. There’s no way to fake that photo, and Randles doesn’t hoax anyway. I know him pretty well.

Here is a comparison shot with a human standing in the same place that the Sasquatch was standing in the photo. As you can see with the superimposition, the human shaped creature is quite a bit larger than the man used as a comparison prop. And it’s no raccoon, unless it’s a raccoon as big as a gorilla.
Ok, then maybe it was a man in a suit. Well first of all, who put a man in a suit out there? Randles doesn’t hoax. This naive elderly couple is sneaking around in a suit in the middle of the night so they can pull off a Bigfoot hoax? Get real. Furthermore, it can’t be a man in a suit because suits cannot expand the size of the human body. Note the size of the body as lit up by the infrared. Your body is as big as it is, no matter what sort of over-fitting suit you put on. The biggest suit around doesn’t make your body any larger, and the suit doesn’t show up on infrared. Only living entities and their components light up on infrared.
mqdefault
Yet another photo of the Ridge Watcher. It looks like this is the actual original Flir image. The skeptards have never been able to dismiss this photo, even though most Bigfooters are now convinced that it’s a hoax. The skeptard argument: That’s a raccoon. I am serious. They really are that stupid. Skeptards are dumber than Alt Righters.

Once again, it’s a raccoon. A raccoon the size of Andre the Giant. Uh huh. This is actually the argument by the “science” side that this photo is not real. The “science” guys say it’s a raccoon. An eight foot tall, 800 pound raccoon. So much for “science.”
Stacy brown human-and-sasquatch-superim-copy1
The great Stacy Brown Flir photo. I forget how they took that. That thing is running through the woods very fast in the pitch black dark night with no flashlight. Now tell me how a guy in a monkey suit does that. The body proportions and running style are perfect. That’s exactly what these things look like when they run, swinging their very long arms and with their legs kicking way up in back. Humans have tried to imitate the way that they walk and run, and no one has been successful yet. The skeptard argument is that this is either Stacy, his father or one of his friends running through the woods at night. Lame. And Brown doesn’t hoax to my knowledge.

The lame skeptard argument here is that either Stacy or his father ran through the deep woods of Florida in the middle of the night without a flashlight extremely fast and using the exact same gait as a Sasquatch does. But humans cannot reproduce the gait or a Sasquatch. It can’t be done. No one can do it. And the Browns are not hoaxers. Stacy Brown is a bit of a controversial figure, but he is no hoaxer, and neither is his father. If you see the original video, this thing is running incredibly fast. How does a human run in the deep woods with no flashlight? It doesn’t. It doesn’t run at all. People cannot run fast in the middle of a thick forest at night with no flashlight. Not possible.
Note also the superimposition of an infrared photo of a human taken in the same where the original was taken imposed on the photo. Look at how much larger the object is than a human. That thing is lit up by infrared on Flir. Even if you put a massively over-fitting suit on, you still can’t light up your body any larger on infrared because the suit won’t show up on infrared. Only your body will. You could put a suit as big as a Volkswagen on, and assuming you did not suffocate in it, your image would not show up in infrared any larger than your body.
Capture
I think this is from the Idaho footage that some skiers shot of something running on a hillside in winter. It’s part of a video. I liked this video, but it is very short, and it is hard to see the object well. That thing was running extremely fast though in deep snow on top of a mountain. You telling me a friend of those skiers put on a monkey suit, climbed a mountain and then ran very fast in deep snow so his skier friends could photograph it? That didn’t happen.

This is one of Meldrum’s favorites. That thing sure is fast. The skiiers seem pretty naive.
Let’s see. The skiiers got their friend to put on a monkey suit, no wait, carry a monkey suit up that very steep hill in the deep snow (How does he do that even?) up to the top of that ridge and then put that monkey suit on and run extremely fast through 2-3 feet deep snow. How does anyone do that?
Furthermore, the thing is only there for 2-3 seconds. Why would anyone hoax for 2-3 seconds? Hoaxes usually last a lot longer than that.
Dogman east texas
All right, this is one of the most out and out weird crypto photos I have ever seen. This photo was shot in Texas and that, folks, is reportedly a Dogman. Yes that’s right. A Dogman. They supposedly do exist. It is some sort of insanely bizarre Sasquatch-type creature the existence of which makes no sense to me at all. That thing has supposedly killed some wild animal, and I believe it has the dead animal draped over its shoulders. Or else it is eating the animal. Or something. Someone needs to get out a pen and draw some lines around this thing so we can see what’s going on here. These Dogmen things scare the living crap out of me!

I have no idea what in the Hell that thing is, but that is one of the most out and out freakiest and most disturbing crypto photos I have ever seen. It has a dead animal draped over its shoulders. Why would a hoaxing human kill a big animal and hang it over this shoulders to hoax a what? A Dogman video. A Dogman video? What the Hell is a Dogman? No one has even heard of these things? Who ever hoaxed a Dogman video? No one did ever. Most people don’t even think they exist, including me (sort of).
And look at the way that freaky thing looks. Someone made a Dogman costume? What? Who did that and why? No one has ever made a Dogman costume. No such costume is known to exist. Anyway, most people don’t have the faintest idea of what these freaky things even look like.
How many people sling dead animals over their shoulder to make Bigfoot hoax videos? No one does ever.
Dogman
An artist’s rendition of one of those Goddamned Dogman things. I know it makes no sense that they exist, but supposedly they do anyway. Melba Ketchum has gotten into studying these things lately, and she has supposedly observed some down in Texas. There is a radio interview of her talking about her experiences with them. These things are way too weird. Let’s prove the Sasquatches exist first, ok? Then we move onto the Dogmen and whatever else weirdness might be out there. One freakshow at a time please.

Ok, these things are just way too frightening. Sasquatches vary in their temperament, with maybe 75% being pretty easy-going, another 20% being pretty mean and bad-tempered and maybe 3-4% being what experts call “pure evil.” Sort of like humans, right?
But what we hear about these Dogman freaks is that 100% of them are stone evil to the core. There are even reports that they have murdered humans by ripping them to shreds. There is a report out of Appalachia of a Dogman invading a camper parked at a lake and killing everyone in it by tearing them to shreds. Sheriffs came out later but called it a homicide (by a human). Know any killers that rip human beings to shreds? Neither do I. I don’t mind Sasquatches, but I must say that I hate these Dogmen. Kill em all. Let God sort em out.
Bigfoot-Photographed-In-Hutchinson-Kansas
I always liked this photo. It was taken in Hutchinson, Kansas. That thing in the photo is huge. There are other photos of the same area from the same distance in which this object is not present. That is exactly the body shape of these damned things, and that’s something the hoaxers never get right because you can’t put a suit on a human that gives it nonhuman body proportions. Think about it. If you put a tiger suit on a man, does it really look like a tiger? If you put a deer suit on a man, does it really look like a deer? Of course not in both cases, since in each case, the man retains a human body shape even though he’s wearing a funny costume. There’s no costume out there that changes the actual proportions of the human body. Think about it. Real hard.

Ok, that’s weird. This has supposedly been debunked by the skeptards, and almost everyone believes their verdict. The verdict is that that weird object (once again frozen – note that it is frozen in the exact same pose as the Fallbrook creature above) is a cow. Yes, a cow. Isn’t that lame? Well folks, science has spoken, and that creature in that photo is a cow. That’s right, a cow. Does that look like a cow too you? Me either. But hey, science has spoken folks, so the debate is over, science being infallible and all that. All bow down to the Great God of Science!
Skunk-Ape-Bigfoot-Caught-On-Video-In-Mississippi
I like this one too. This is a Skunk Ape shot on video in Mississippi. The actual video is very nice. The man who took it was hunting, and he had no idea what he photographed. Further, he didn’t even believe in Skunk Apes. He thought they were a myth. That’s exactly the way these things look from behind, and I haven’t seen a fake as good as this photo yet. Notice the shape of the hands. Not human.

This is a cool video. The guy who shot is some good old boy who went hunting one day. He had no idea what this is, so he put it up on Youtube saying what the Hell is this? It’s a Skunk Ape. A skunk ape is just a Sasquatch. That’s the name for the ones that live in the Deep South. Look at the shape of the hands on that thing. Those hands are not human. Ever seen a Bigfoot hoax with hands like that? Me either.
See that sheen glowing off the coat of that thing? That means it’s real fur on a real living object. The sheen is from the oils on your skin. They come to the surface and give animals’ coats a sheen in the sun. No hoaxer has ever been able to reproduce this sheen. Actually, they never even try. Furthermore, I have seen many costumes that our Glorious Special Effects Gods have made, and I haven’s one single costume that had a sheen like this on its coat visible in the sun.
But these Special Effects Gods can do anything, right? No really, they can. Go ask them. They can make a costume that perfectly reproduces any living thing on Earth. No really. I’m not kidding. They all say this. All of them, arrogant-as-Hell bunch that they are. And the vast majority of people believe the Special Effects Liars when they say this. One born every day.
Temagami
The Temangami Sasquatch from Ontario. Looked at the domed head, the two deep holes for the eye sockets, the philtrum and the mouth. This is a rather unusual look, but I have seen another Sasquatch photo from Ontario that looked exactly like this. There is another photo that goes with this one, a photo of the rear that shows this very shaggy creature standing there seemingly frozen. Good backstory too.

The skeptard argument about this one is truly stupid. This very old couple, who have a vacation home far out in the wilds of Ontario, somehow hoaxed this video! These are old people, in their 70’s. There’s nothing weird about them. Everyone says they are upstanding folks. But an elderly couple in their 70’s hoaxed a Bigfoot video! Never mind that has never happened. There’s never been one case of an elderly couple doing a Bigfoot hoax, but no matter. Science has spoken, folks! Listen up, the Almighty God of Science has spoken, and the scientific fact is that these old people hoaxed this Bigfoot video.
Look at the very weird way that thing looks. I have seen another photo of a Sasquatch from Ontario and it looks exactly like this one, with the deep-set eye-holes and the very tall domed head. Note the philtrum. That head does not even have human proportions. See those eye holes? The hoaxer goofs have never reproduced that, probably because they never even try. And I’ve never seen a face as good as that one, with a philtrum no less.
That face is way too large for a human. How does a human put on such a large mask and still retain the obvious bone and muscle structure that one can obviously see in the shot. You can’t. A mask too large for your face, if it would even stay on, would droop all over the place and would look very fake. Plus it would probably be falling off all the time if it was way too big for your head like that. And your eyes would not fit in the eye holes, your nose would not fit in the nose protuberance, and your mouth would not fit in the mouth hole. Look at that wild fur. There is another shot of this bizarre creature that shows this fur in much wilder shape. That photo was taken by the same couple. It is a back shot.
The back story. The couple lives part time way out in nowhere in Temangami, Ontario. Temangami means “way out in the sticks so far no one ever goes there.” Or something. Well, that’s what it means to me anyway. The couple were hearing a lot of weird noises, and apparently they started taking some photos of the area outside of the cabin.
One argument is that this is Photoshopped, but very good Ontario researchers did a good job of thoroughly investigating this couple and concluded that they were not hoaxing. Furthermore, it’s not Photoshopped because the photos were still in the camera when the investigator came out to look at the case. Anyway, since when does some ordinary couple in their 70’s have such advanced Photoshop skills that they can make a Bigfoot hoax with Photoshop? And you can’t use Photoshop if the file is still in the camera. Photoshop doesn’t work on images that reside only inside of cameras.
I believe once again, the couple thought they were just taking photos of the outside of their cabin, and they only saw the Sasquatch when they were reviewing the photos in the camera. How many times do we hear this? What the Hell is going on?
Bigfoot-Photod-In-Southern-California-480x270
Well-known fake that fooled a lot of people for a long time. Back story seemed good. Once again from Fallbrook, California, supposedly after major flooding. Photo was taken of twisted branches after flooding and Sasquatch was not noticed until the photo was viewed afterwards. Problem is that’s not a Sasquatch. That’s a gorilla Photoshopped into that photo. The guy who put this up has a Youtube page with a lot of gorilla videos and some “Bigfoot” videos. Obvious hoaxer. I am pretty angry at this moron.

Yep, it’s a gorilla all right. Look closely at the head, face and especially ears. He sure fooled a lot of people though. I am pretty mad at this idiot though because hoaxes are not funny, and the hoaxing ruins this whole field of research because we have to sift through all sorts of hoaxed crap to find anything real. Further, it throws up the spectre of “hoax” in front of every bit of evidence that we have. So far, “science” has proven that 100% of the voluminous evidence for the existence of Sasquatches is all nothing but hoaxes. Thank God for science! Science to the rescue again!
Ontario screengrab controversial
Very strange photo out of Ontario. This is part of a video. The quality is not very good, but that thing is absolutely huge! Look at the massive shoulders and the very long arms. It looks like some sort of a gorilla! Skeptards say this is a gorilla, but I do not think so. A gorilla running around in the Ontario woods? No.

That thing is massive, and if you see the video, it moves in a very bizarre way that does not even seem human. But I have seen other Sasquatch photos and videos with this exact same bizarro movement going on, which I cannot describe here in words.
Also the video is very poor quality. Why would anyone make a hoax of such awful quality? That makes no sense. All known hoaxes are clear as air. That’s the purpose of the hoax. A hoax with very poor visual quality doesn’t even work as a hoax. Hoaxes must be clear, or they are useless.
Look at the size of that damn thing. It looks like a gorilla! These things are not gorillas or even apes anymore than we are, but it’s quite common for people who get a quick look at one to describe them as gorillas. I remember one famous photo out of Maine where a Sasquatch was raiding an apple tree. In that case, the man who owned the property where the photo was taken said he had spoken to some people who asked him if there was a traveling zoo in the area because the man said he saw a gorilla run across the road. Another man fishing on a lake said he saw a gorilla by the shore of the lake. So you see these things are often mistaken for gorillas, which they superficially represent.
The photo is a female Sasquatch kneeling down in front of the motion activated camera. There is apparently a baby Sasquatch hanging onto her back, but that’s what the babies do – they hang onto the backs of the mothers.
See the famous Memorial Day footage of an adolescent female Sasquatch running across a field, picking up a baby halfway, and putting it on her back. The baby rides on her back for most of the rest of the run until it gets up on her shoulders.

Grizzlies Kill Another Human in Montana

Here.
Sorry. These things are like Great White Sharks. They are pretty much incompatible with humans. That doesn’t mean we should drive that shark species extinct, but it does mean that swimming humans should not share the water with these particular sharks. It’s humans over here, Great White Sharks over there, and never the twain shall meet! Separation. Divorce. Boundaries. Borders. And on land, fences and walls.
I did a lot of research on these bears recently for a big article I wrote. They had maps showing human-bear conflicts in the last 10 years. The conflicts were red circles on the map. Everywhere there were Grizzly Bears, there were red circles. Where there were lots of Grizzly Bears, there were lots of red circles. Lots of red circles. I mean you could barely even see the map anymore.
So in other words, whenever you have Grizzlies and humans, you have these things called “Grizzly-human conflicts.” And the conflicts are pretty serious. “I saw a Grizzly Bear and got scared and ran away,” doesn’t count. Like ghetto Blacks, these things can’t really live with (other) people without causing a lot of problems, if not a bit of mayhem.
Yes, there are ways around it. Pepper spray works great, if you can get it out and hit the bear fast enough with it. Problem is these huge animals are stealthier than you think, and you would be surprised how many times the damn things come out of nowhere charging at you from way too close.
Guns are even better. I know people in Alberta, Canada who tell me that they do not even go outside their homes without a loaded gun. Why? To concealed carry to protect themselves from criminals? Hell no. There are hardly any criminals up there anyway except for Indians and they’re usually too drunk to commit a violent crime against you. There are Grizzly Bears all over where these people live in rural Alberta, and they tell me it’s not even safe to go outside your backyard without a gun. Even with a gun you might get nailed if you can’t get it out fast enough. Quite a few hunters get mauled or even killed.
I was shocked at the number of actual bear attacks in the US in recent years and stunned at the number of fatal attacks. I cannot give you any figures, but it’s not unusual at all up there to have people killed by Grizzlies. Maybe one a year in Montana and Wyoming each.
What happens when they kill you? Well it’s pretty awful, but let’s face it, it doesn’t matter to the dead person how they died, and it surely does not matter to them what happens to them after they check out. Well, you get eaten. The bear has you for dinner. Ugh. Gross.
For instance, a hunter went missing southeast of Yellowstone (northeast of Lander) recently. That’s not a good sign up there. They searched for him for a while, and finally they found his partially eaten body. That means he got killed by a bear because no other animal out there is going to kill you and munch on you for lunch.
I do not mind these bears expanding out of their habitat though. If they want to expand, let them expand. Wyoming officials are trying to draw some lines beyond which bears may not cross in their state, but it’s not working. The Yellowstone population is at capacity, so that means that the population is expanding outwards. It’s not so easy in the modern West to keep a wild animal from expanding their range. If they want to do it, they will do it. I realize that means more problems, but I am in favor of wild animals doing whatever they want to in the US within reasonable means.
Bears are collared up there and most of them have numbers. Managers know each bear individually. If a bear gets into a conflict, managers often trap it and put it somewhere wild a ways away. If it meanders out again and gets into more conflicts, this is considered to be the bear equivalent of a hardened criminal, a bear that has not learned to stay away from humans. These bears are often killed by managers.
Some misguided persons want to put these Great White Land Sharks back in California because they used to live here. I am dead-set against that. If they want to wander back on their own, they are welcome to, but that may take decades. They will not make it here in my lifetime. Grizzly Bears expand their territory rather slowly. They are not wolves.
But putting them here is a mistake. I have spent a lot of time in the wilds of California hiking, and the woods are dangerous enough as it is. There are plenty of ways to get in trouble out there, not including wild animals. There are not many wild animal dangers in California, but there are bears and mountain lions, and they are not harmless. Every time I go hiking in California, I carry a very long wooden stick in case I meet up with a mountain lion. I’ve been in the woods my whole life, living and hiking in the wilds, and I haven’t seen a mountain lion yet. They’re all around, but you never see ’em, even when you live right in their midst. They don’t like people much and unlike Grizzlies, they tend to avoid us.

Bigfoot News September 9, 2015

Great news! Melba Ketchum’s DNA results independently confirmed! Apparently another lab operating completely independently of Melba Ketchum’s group has independently confirmed her much-criticized results on Bigfoot DNA. Now we have two completely independent science groups who have replicated DNA for Bigfoots, first Ketchum’s and then Ketchum’s result was replicated by another group. Reportedly, the other team replicates Ketchum’s results in their entirety.

If you read me on here, you would know that I always said that Melba was right. In part that was due to my good friendship with Richard Stubstad, who assured me that Melba’s methods were good and that there was no way on Earth she would engage in scientific fraud. Also I know a scientist who ran all of her data and said that it looked out to him. Another scientist also run her DNA and said that all the results checked out. I told you so. You guys should listen to me? Why don’t you listen to me?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0zMZ6RtiZc&spfreload=10

Best version of Prince Edward Island Bigfoot video ever released! After months of hard work, Nominay has just released the finest version of the PEI Bigfoot ever. This is a legendary Bigfoot film. An indie film producer was shooting a monster movie on Prince Edward Island. As one of the actors was running across a clearing, a Bigfoot suddenly ran out of the woods behind him to the right of the viewer.

The Bigfoot then races across the clearing, partly on two legs and partly on four, at an amazingly fast speed. The speed of the Bigfoot has been calculated and it is running as fast as a competitive sprinter. The speed is even maintained when it goes effortlessly on all fours. There is no way on Earth that a competitive sprinter could run that fast or go down on all fours without slowing up in a bulky monkey suit.

Furthermore, the size of the Bigfoot has been calculated at ~9 feet tall. It also appears to have a massive weight. How do you get a stunt actor to put on a bulky monkey suit, run across a clearing as fast as a competitive sprinter, go down on all fours without losing speed, all the while somehow being 9 feet tall. How do you find a 9 foot tall stunt man. How do you make a shorter stunt man appear to be 9 feet tall. How do you make this stunt man appear so bulky that he appears to weigh 700 pounds?

None of this makes any sense.

Of course, most Bigfoot footage released by indie film producers turns out to be hoaxed, usually in a sleazy attempt by the director to gain publicity for themselves. Many have been much less than forthcoming with investigators. The famous Redwood footage comes to mind. The director, now in film school, simply refuses to discuss the movie at all. It seems almost certain to be a hoax. And many of these film industry hoaxes come to light after a while; that is, the director fesses up that it was a hoax.

None of that seems to be the case with this video. The directors were apparently making cheap straight to video movies and have no need or desire for publicity. They have cooperated completely with investigators. Investigators felt that they were credible. The attitude of the filmmakers towards the even in the footage seems to be utter bafflement. They have no idea what ran across that clearing that day.

Nominay has improved this video so much that it is nearly a brand new video. All serious Bigfooters need to check this new video out.

The original version on Nominay’s fine site is here.

Bigfoot hairs for sale. I have a few Bigfoot hairs gathered in the Michigan Peninsula a while back. They look exactly like those crinkly, pubic hair-type hairs that Erickson collected for Melba’s project. I also have a photo that seems to prove that they are Bigfoot hairs. I used to have a similar photo of a human hair for comparison that showed that this hair is absolutely not a human hair. The only thing it remotely resembled is bear hair, but the hair is lighter brown and all of the bears in the UP have dark brown or black hair.

The man who sent it to me is a very good researcher and he spent a long time studying these hairs. He is quite an expert on Bigfoot hairs. Photo comes with it. I haven’t the faintest idea what to charge. Make offer.

2015: Science amidst the rubble. The response of the mainstream scientific community to Melba’s paper was simply despicable. They refused to even consider it, read it or see if the results were right or wrong. They dismissed it out of hand without even checking to see if the results were right or not.

I know some of the scientists and science writers who engaged in this nonsense, and they are very famous people. They all have Wikipedia entries and are considered top scientists in their field, mainly Paleontology. The science writer is one of the top science writers in the US. The fact that all of them simply dismissed this report out of hand shows us that something is horrifically wrong with science in the West.

Not only are almost all of the biggest scientific figures massive asshats, blowhards, and all-round horrible human beings, but the very structure of scientific inquiry itself seems to be compromised by a new mentality I call Scientific Fundamentalism.

Scientific Fundamentalism, which almost all modern scientists practice, elevates science into a religion itself. The revealed truths are whatever scientific consensus is. Anything attempting to overthrow consensus is treated as apostasy or heresy is in religion. I am surprised the scientists have not tried to kill some of the fringe science guys who are trying to topple these idiotic Edifices of Consensus.

Scientific consensus operates on the utterly insane notion that whatever the scientific consensus is at the moment, these are the facts for any and all of time. This once again is similar to religion in which the revealed facts in the holy books are true for all of time when they were written down and can never be changed, updated or modified.

I know, I know…

Scientists are always lying and saying that all scientific consensus is open to inquiry, that nothing is really true, that everything is just true for now, that all consensus is up for grabs and only a paper away from being toppled, and that science is all about perpetual doubt and endless inquiry. Those are their glorious mantras they repeat to make themselves look good but none of them are true.

But the truth is that all of this is lies. Scientific consensus is indeed treated as Truth with a capital t, and no it is not up for grabs, and no it’s not even just true for now. Go find some scientists and talk to them. Throw out some scientific consensuses and see how many are “true for now” and ready to be toppled at any time, if only disproving conclusions are presented. It’s about 0%.

Another fake mantra of scientists is all about perpetual doubt. Oh really now? And is scientific consensus open to being doubted? Are you kidding? Anyone who tries gets burned to death at one of their “empirical” witch trials. Is science really all about endless inquiry and curiosity? Hardly. When most consensus is walled off from further inquiry, and there’s nothing to be curious about anymore as the consensus has been proven true, there’s not a lot of curiosity or even inquiry going on in science anymore.

What is going on in science nowadays? A lot of conservatism. Granted a certain amount of conservatism is warranted, as we would not want rational science to be overrun with nutcases and their pseudoscientific nonsense. But scientists are already 100X more conservative than they need to be. Surely we could let up on the conservatism a bit and still be rigorous enough to keep the nonsense out?

There is also a serious problem with the abuse of the term pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is probably best described as scientific inquiry that does not even follow the scientific method. If a scientist uses proper method but simply comes up with false results by accident, overeagerness or misinterpretation, that’s hardly pseudoscience. He simply got the wrong result. Happens all the time. So what?

If a scientist is promoting a theory that seems to have good evidence yet the evidence is not yet of sufficient quality or quantity to convince the Vatican of Science, that’s hardly pseudoscience. A more proper term might be Fringe Science. The data and evidence have been assembled, hypotheses have been tested, studies have been undertaken, and conclusions have been reached, often in a high-quality manner. But it’s just not good enough for science, often because science has its eyes shut and its fingers in its ears. Just because science won’t accept the conclusions of something doesn’t mean it’s pseudoscience. And what of that term pseudoscience? Why such an arrogant, snide and vicious term? What’s the point of that? Are the scientists trying to start a war?

There is yet another problem with this loopy notion of pseudoscience for unproven theory. I am 100% certain, and I will swear over my dead body that I know for a fact that certain things that are now called pseudoscience are actually true. And you are reading a column about one of those things right now. These things simply exist, full stop, and it will be proven soon enough. There’s absolutely no doubt about that. If they exist, they will be revealed. There won’t be any way to stop that.

And when they are revealed, then what? Then automagically “pseudoscience” gets elevated to proven scientific fact. There’s something wrong with that model right there. Pseudoscience ought to be the realm of the wreckage of theory, hypotheses and inquiries that are bad more because they are not following scientific model than anything else.

Anything in pseudoscience should be so bizarre, idiotic or unscientific that it could never make it to proven fact. When you start having “pseudoscientific” theory elevated to proven fact, you’ve got an awful problem with your whole notion of pseudoscience, and you need to send it back for a rewrite or trash it all together.

Yet another problem is that modern scientists have turned into Douchebags with a capital d. Practitioners of modern science are some of the meanest, most vicious and downright evil people out there. This petty evil-mindedness stems completely from pride and from nothing else. Science has decided to invest its very self when arrogance such that the two are one and the same. To be a scientist nowadays is to be an arrogant ass. Humble scientist is an oxymoron.

Scientists behave this way supposedly because they are “waging war” against some Evil Entity called Pseudoscience. In order to put on battle gear to fight this war against Existential Evil, many scientists have armed themselves with vast amounts of Douchebaggery. What’s the point of that? Why be a Douchebag?

Yet when it comes to Fringe Science (a valid subfield of science by the way) we see scientific Assholery around the globe, from sea to scientific sea, from snide lab workers to snarling university professors to sneering lecture circuit celebrities. I am having a hard time understanding this. This war against the Evil of Pseudoscience is so important that in order to fight it, scientists must act like the worst people on Earth and engage in behavior that is low, depraved, disgusting and even embarrassing? Why? Is it really that important?

We have yet another problem and that is arrogance. Sooner rather than later, some of these “pseudoscientific” claims will become proven science. Do you think that even one of these scientific Beavis and Buttheads who nearly drove fringe scientists to nervous breakdown and suicide will apologize?

Are you kidding? Science is now the realm where arrogance crowned supreme. It’s worse than Hollywood. Even more appallingly, increasingly, science is Hollywood, and that’s probably the root of a lot of the problem right there. Once again we see a parallel to religion. Ever noticed how arrogant the believer is, how certain he is of his Truth. This is the way the scientist acts towards his precious Consensus.

What do you think will happen when, in the future, some of this pseudoscience is proven fact, which of course we know will happen with 100% certainty? Do you think even one of these strutting jerkoffs will apologize for even one second? Will you hear a single, “Hey, we were wrong. We’re really sorry about that. You guys were right along.”

We will never hear this. Not one scientist on the face of the Earth will ever say this to us. Why not? Because they’re not human enough. Science lost its human face some time past, and it’s gone all asshattery all the time for decades now. In order to practice mainstream science nowadays, first you must lose your humanity. That’s the first thing that has to go. We can’t have any of those measly, petty human emotions getting in the way or Revealed Scientific Truth, now can we?

Sheep Are Fags

Via the execrable Steve Sailer.

Let’s clone a gay sheep! Greg Cochran’s come up with a way to test the popular but almost untested Gay Gene theory: clone a homosexual ram. Although you hear a lot about homosexuality in animals, most of that is actually bisexuality. There is very little in the way of exclusive homosexual orientation among male animals — but sheep are a clear exception, much to the frustration of sheep ranchers who find that a noticeable percentage of their rams won’t pay attention to a ewe in heat even if you tie her to a fence for his convenience.
Since we’ve known how to clone sheep since the 1990s, it would be straightforward to clone a number of exclusively gay rams and see how many of their clones turn out to be gay as well.

Wow, that is so fascinating. Some sheep are simply homos, alone among all mammals other than bipedal apes. All my whole, I never had any idea that sheep were queer.

Two Americans Infected with the Ebola Virus!

Two American health care workers, a physician and another volunteer, have become infected with the Ebola virus while working with Ebola patients in Liberia. The physician, D. Kent Brantly, is in very serious but stable condition, and the woman, Nancy Writebol, is in serious but stable condition. For a lot of conditions such as war wounds, serious condition is often something you will survive. But for Ebola, serious to very serious condition is quite grave because it is a bird of a different feather altogether.
Ebola has a mortality rate of up to 90%, but the chances of surviving are higher if the disease is caught early. They are not the first Americans to come down with Ebola. The first American to come down with the disease is already dead.
The recent Ebola epidemic has hit Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. It has killed 672 people so far, making it the deadliest Ebola outbreak so far. One of Liberia’s top physicians recently died of the disease. Ebola is harbored by some sort of an animal, possibly a bat or rodent. To date, no animal carrier or reservoir for Ebola has yet been found.
Destruction of jungle and especially the killing of large fauna, much of which has already been exterminated in West Africa for something disgusting called “bush meat,” has the effect of radically increasing rodent populations in disturbed habitat in which megafauna have been removed. Man’s encroachment into the jungles of Africa and especially the disturbance of intact jungle habitat and ecosystems is thought to play the most important role in the emergence of these new diseases.
For instance, HIV jumped from the chimpanzee SIV virus to humans, in turn transforming itself to HIV, via the stupid practice of slaughtering monkeys and apes for bush meat. In butchering up bush meat from these animals, bush meat hunters invariable get monkey or ape blood all over their hands and arms at the very least. It was in this matte that HIV moved into the human population.