Obama Vows to Keep Insipid Cuba Embargo In Place

Idiot.
That’s because, as the Republicans, White nationalists and Far Right insist, the guy’s a fucking Communist! No, wait, a socialist. No, wait, any socialist worth his salt would have chucked this BS long ago.
I’m having a hard time figuring what the game plan is here. The Embargo has always been about US politics. Do the Dems really still need Florida to win the Presidency? What happens if they lose Florida? Do they lose? The Cuban Lobby is one kickass ethnic lobby, kind of like the Jewish Lobby. As Cuban policy has been always held hostage to this fanatics, so US Middle East policy has always been held hostage the Jewish fanatics.
With the Cubans, it’s always been about electoral votes. They have said that if we don’t back their nonsense, they have enough power in Florida to throw the vote to the other candidate.
Americans are more sensible, but not by much. I haven’t read any recent figures, but polls taken in the past decade showed that 53% of Americans supported lifting the embargo. The fact that so many Americans are still behind this embargo insanity shows what the power or propaganda is all about.
This is very much a White thing. The Cuban exiles are Whites, and it’s Whites who always backed the stupid embargo. Blacks and non-Cuban Hispanics are generally hostile to it, and your average Mexican is pro-Cuban. The Mexican and Cuban governments have had a long alliance, based on the fact that Mexico’s PRI was originally a revolutionary party. On similar grounds, the PRI was allied with the Salvadoran revolutionaries, the FMLN.

Revolution in the Land of the Savior

In 1989, I was helping to run guns for the FMLN, the Salvadoran revolutionaries, Commie scumbag that I am and all. I would drive to MacArthur Park in Los Angeles and meet the FMLN agent guy in the bar or whatever and hand him the cash with a conspiratorial smile. I guess it was legal then, but now it’s 10 years in the slammer thanks to George Bush. The War on Terror in so many ways is just a War on Justice.
I remember when I was going to USC in Los Angeles in 1983 at the height of the Salvadoran Revolution, there was a Salvadoran professor in our department who would periodically take off work and go down to El Salvador to actually put on a uniform and fight for the revolutionaries!
I was eating at a Salvadoran restaurant in San Mateo, California, in 2001, and I talked to the waiter. He said he left El Salvador in 1969. His parents went to the slums of San Salvador and said there were 12 year old boys walking around with AK-47’s. Sometimes revolution is just in the air you know? His parents saw the writing on the wall and put him on a plane to the US.
Ten years later, full-scale civil war exploded, after a decade of small-scale actions, mostly kidnappings for ransom and bank robberies by the revolutionaries to raise cash, and endless forays to the villages and slums by death squads to kill the people.
It was the twilight of the 1970’s, and the people had a choice. They could sit in their homes unarmed and wait for the government to come out and kill them, or they could at least take up arms to defend themselves when the government came out to kill them. Not much of a choice there. And so the war was on.
The Commie Moscow – Cuba – Banana Republic ratline conspiracy be damned; this is how most revolutions in Latin America started. If you’re gonna get killed anyway, you may as well go down in a hail of bullets trying to take some enemies down with you.

Permanent Gangland America

I hate to be a pessimist here, but the US gang problem will never be solved in the foreseeable future. That is because Hispanic and to a lesser extent Black gang culture is for all intents and purposes permanent, as is probably their ghettos and possibly their dismal scholastic performance. I am speaking of the Hispanic and Black Underclasses here.
I don’t like Thomas Chittum one bit, but the italicized  sentence above was one great thought that I took away from Civil War II. Chittum is a nasty White nationalist bastard, but he is very intelligent and has an excellent mind. Further, he has extensive military experience. If you just want to read Civil War II as a novel alone, it’s quite a kick. You can download it on my blog here. It’s entertaining reading (thriller) if you like this sort of thing.
The conceit here is that we think that we are going to get a handle on these gangs. This conceit is based on the notion that the Hispanics and Blacks are capable of morphing into Jews, Italians and Irish and doing the the ghetto to success number. Forget it. They are not the same and they never will be. The gangs and never going to go away. When everyone of us is on their deathbed, we will be to look out the window and see an America as overrun with gangs as ever.
As far as why this is true, I am not sure. IQ’s of US-born Hispanics are rising at a dramatic pace, far more than US Whites or even Blacks. US born Hispanics have now cut the IQ differential between US Whites and themselves in half from 1960 to 2009. Where there was a 15 pt gap between the two, now there is a 6 point gap. They achieved a 10 point absolute gain over 50 years.
In US born Hispanics have an IQ of 95 now to US White IQ of 101 (or 94 to 100 by the old system). A 94 IQ would seem to be perfectly adequate to cut it in this modern world. Hispanic IQ all told is 89 because non-US citizen Hispanics (probably 80% illegals) still have an IQ of  87 or 85 by the old system. Hat tip to The Inductivist.
I don’t know why US born Hispanics have such a dismal rate of high school dropouts (40%), college graduation (10%), teen pregnancy (2.5 X the White rate and 6.5 X the Asian rate) domestic violence, gang membership (19 X the White rate) crime (3.3 X the White rate) and indifference (!) to the environment (As a Deep Ecologist, I don’t like this one one bit), but it can’t possibly be due to their lack of brains.
The brains are there; it’s something else that is missing. Culture anyone?
I speak from Ground Zero. I live in an apartment complex in Mexifornia overrun by the Hispanic Underclass and especially illegals. Many of them are not necessarily objectionable people once you get to know them. It’s Norteno territory to the extent that I prominently wear my “N” tennis shoes a lot, and I just about claim Norteno myself. It’s not cool to root for the other side.
I’ve known quite a few of these gangbanger characters personally, and though many of them are likable, their effect on society is not good.
Forget Permanent Democratic Majority.
Get ready for Permanent Gangland America.

Zionist Fire Extinguisher

antisemitismshout
Ok, that’s pretty funny.
I really object though to the continuous use by anti-Semites of “Zionists” to mean “Jews”. This is similar to what Marr did in the 1880’s when he invented the word “anti-Semitism”. The whole idea was to create an innocent-wording word to hide his anti-Semitism behind. Jew-hater or Jew-hater being a little harsh for your average civilized German, you know.
I feel a bit of sympathy for Marr. Probably few, if any, Jews died in Germany due to his words or his organization, pogroms being pretty much nonexistent in the Germany of his era. Nazis didn’t need Marr’s fake words to rise to power. Their anti-Semitism needed no cloaking. It was 100% pure, high-octane anti-Semitism, no ifs, ands or buts.
A little history is in order here. Marr used to be a Judeophile, before he had lots of experiences with Jews. Specifically, three Jewish wives, who all become ex-wives. It was after his third divorce from a Jewish wife that Mr. Marr became a virulent anti-Semite. This is a cruel bit of history, but it always makes me laugh.
I like Jewish women myself, but Jewish guys have been carping about them forever. And Jewish women are always bitching about Jewish guys.
Viva le difference, and let the glorious War of the Sexes go on!

Let's Hear It For Population Decline

Population decline in 2009 in red - purple means population decline coming soon
Population decline in 2009 in red - purple means population decline coming soon

Give it a one, give it a two, give it a three cheers for population decline!
One thing I hate about ethnic nationalists all over the world is that they are pro-natalist. Of all the horrible things on Earth to do, to cheer on women for overpopulating this ruined planet…my God. This is one thing that ultranationalists all over the Earth seem to be on the same page with, last time I checked, though maybe Chinese nationalists are immune from it.
In the 1920’s and 1930’s, a hallmark of European fascism that spread like wildfire across the continent was pro-natalism. Lamentably, even Communists like Ceausescu got into this, though hardly any Commies anywhere want to claim that monster. Stalin outlawing abortion was a pro-natalist move, but then, Comrade Stalin had some fascist tendencies sometimes.
What about Hindutvas? What’s their position on natalism? Pro or anti? I wonder what the position of say, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Filipino, Arab ultranationalists is? Ultranationalists in Russia have never seen anything so horrible. Capitalists in the West are all upset about population decline in Italy. I guess that means no more pasta and Michelangelos or Sophia Lorens.
I will say that population decline due to declining life expectancy below a certain age is not a good thing. This is what is happening in the Eastern Bloc and Russia. Life expectancy decline is occurring in Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary and Bulgaria. You idiots wanted to go from socialism to capitalism, and look what happened. Capitalism is killing you off! Fools.
In Africa, population decline is occurring in Swaziland and Zimbabwe due to AIDS and in Darfur apparently due  to genocide. Amazing, the only place on Earth that genocide is actually reducing population numbers, and the Left won’t utter a peep, because their lovable Arab and Muslim monsters are doing the Final Solutioning. If only evil Jews or Americans were doing the Holocausting, our ears would never stop ringing.
Considering that the present population density of these African states cannot be maintained without utter destruction of the natural environment, maybe there is some horrible Malthusian logic working here.

Russia Admits There Was No Holodomor

Well, of course not.
Even Solzhenitsyn, and there is no greater hater of the USSR and Stalin alive, admits that there was no Holodomor, casting the Holodomor Lie as a lie that only the West could believe.
I am uncertain about some of the conclusions of this study, that Stalin deliberately starved people to death in order to export for industrialization.
The claims of the Holodomor Ukrainian Nazis, or Ukrainian nationalists, or whatever they are, is that Stalin deliberately targeted Ukraine for genocide via famine in order to crush Ukrainian nationalism. This is exposed as the lie we always said it was.
And the true figures for the famine are looking like 3.5 million dead, 1.75 million in the Ukraine and 1.75 million elsewhere. This is looking more like what observers on the ground were estimating. Keep in mind that Western journalists traveled through Ukraine at the height of this famine. They said things were tight all right, and there was a lot of hunger and little movement in a lot of the towns, but they saw few, if any, obviously starving people. One reporter saw one boy in line in a medical clinic in a Ukrainian city was obviously underweight. Most deaths were due to disease, not starvation. Sanitation and medical care were primitive at the time. At the time, it was estimated that 1-2 million Ukrainians died.
But consider this! If Stalin’s industrialization process had not proceeeded as it did, Stalin could have never defeated the Nazis, and Russia killed 89% of the Nazi Orcs killed in the war. If Stalin did not defeat the Germans, the whole outcome of the war becomes uncertain. So, even if grain was exported for industrialization, the result was that the West and the rest of the world was saved from the Nazi menace.
Now ponder that!
Considering that under Stalin the Czarist death rate collapsed by 70%, how exactly was Stalin, and not the Czars, the worst murderer that ever lived?

Independence For Abkhazia

Note: Repost from the old blog.
The London Review of Books publishes an excellent piece by Neal Ascherson on Abkhazia advocating independence for that nation*.
The Abkhazians and South Ossetians followed the post-colonial model of separatism. A colony or de facto colony gains its independence (in this case, we are replacing the USSR’s republics with colonies, which is problematic, but the model works the same way).
As soon as independence is declared, the new nation attempts a nation-building exercise and says that it is a coherent whole, typically without consulting the parts of its own body politic.
There are parts of the new nation that may have desired independence from the colony or larger whole (But maybe not; note that Abkhazians so feared Georgian ultranationalism that they voted to retain the USSR.).
Anyway, as soon as the new nation is declared, separatists emerge and announce that they are not part of this new nation, which has barely existed in history anyway, and hence has little to no legitimacy in terms of “territorial integrity”.
The former ferocious independence fighters quickly transform into fascist-like ultranationalists safeguarding the fake sacrosanct borders of the new nation with no historical existence.
In most cases, we progressives need to side with those who chose to break away from the very start.
It is little known, but this is the typical model for separatism in the world today.
This is the model that is operative in multiple separatist conflicts in Burma, India, Pakistan, China, Sudan, Angola, Turkey, Morocco, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Ethiopia, Russia, Georgia, Moldova, and any number of other places. These movements never entered into a national compact upon decolonization. They were fighting from Day One.
The article notes that while the South Ossetians may well be comfortable joining Russia, the Abkhazians are not. The Abkhazians want an independent state and have had a de facto one for about 16 years now, but no one wants to give them one. Why not? Because Russia supports the Abkhazians. Russia opposed the Kosovars, so the West lunged to support the Albanians of Kosovo, the only reason being “screw Russia”.
As Georgia is little more than a US (and partially, EU) vassal state, it figures that neo-imperialism in its EU and NATO form are backing up this state’s fake claim to territorial integrity. The article makes clear that incorporating Abkhazia into Georgia at this late date is a lost cause.
Neither are South Ossetia and Abkhazia being colonized by Russia, which is how the idiot Western press puts it. Neither place wants any part of Georgia, and that’s that.
For the moment, they have entered into a completely free marriage of sorts with Russia. Free associational agreements are never examples of colonialism, neo-colonialism or imperialism. They are simply alliances among free actors, states in this case.
This was the error in the ridiculous Cold War model that saw a free and independent Cuba as a colony of some imperialist (to US Cold Warriors) or social imperialist (to silly Maoists) USSR. Cuba was free to leave at any time, and if anyone was exploiting anyone, Cuba (the “colony”) was making out a lot better than the “colonizer”, the USSR.
Colonialism has always been all about the loot, putting the conceit of the British-inspired White man’s burden self-serving model aside for the moment. When the colony is getting the meaty end of the deal, and there is no exploitation of the colony and no coercion by the colonizer, there can be no colonialism or imperialism. Real simple.
The article discusses a particularly idiotic instance of Cold War insanity. Poland grabbed quite a bit of Germany after WW2, to the approval of a vengeful West, who also donated bits of Germany to other states. Germany is lucky to have survived at all. Germans were ethnically cleansed from Poland, and many never lived to tell about it. All in all, it is pretty sordid stuff, but paybacks are a bitch, as they say on the street.
German revanchism would seem to be the rallying cry of the very Nazi sympathizers and German nationalists that had been smashed into discredit by the war. So who would think that as soon as Poland fell into the Warsaw Pact, the West would suddenly throw all its weight behind a German nationalist-revanchist movement with Nazi roots?
Yes, the same West that delightfully chopped up Germany and donated hunks to Poland and twiddled thumbs while 100,000’s of German Poles died in the process, now suddenly decided that the evisceration of Germany and donor operation to Poland was an outrage verging on casus belli for war. Insane? Of course. Realpolitik? You got it.
For decades, the West de facto sided with German neo-Nazism and agitated for a return of Pomerania et al to Germany. Willy Brandt finally put an end to this nonsense once and for all in 1971.
The West’s embrace of Georgian fascist-like ultranationalism falls into this same quicksand of folly.
Recognize Abkhazia.
*The article downplays the differences between the Mingrelian – Georgian languages and the Abkhazian language, describing them only as mutually unintelligible. Mingrelian and Georgian are related and are members of the same family, but they can’t understand each other at all, as Mingrelian and Georgian split 3000 years ago. Beria, Stalin’s famous assassin, was a Mingrelian speaker, while Stalin himself spoke Georgian.
The family is known as Kartvelian and has no known relatives. Abkhazian, on the other hand, is Northwest Caucasian. Northwest Caucasian also has no known relatives, but I suspect a relationship at least with Basque and Yenisien, as I did quite a bit of research on that a while back.
Despite living in close proximity to each other for centuries, Abkhazian is as different from Georgian – Mingrelian as English is from Chinese. And Mingrelian – Georgian and Abkhazian are as different from Turkish, Russian and Arabic (three closely neighboring languages) as English is to Chinese.
Georgian and Mingrelian are written in the very strange Georgian script. Here is an example of it, in this case Mingrelian. Kudos to any reader who can actually read this stuff:
რუსეთ რე ქიანა ბჟადალ ევროპას დო ჩრდილოეთ აზიას. რუსეთ ფართობით მსოფლიოშ უდიდაშ ქიანა რე. ცხოურენს კოჩი. რუსეთც გეშართუნს დიდ გეოგრაფიულ რეგიონეფ: ბჟაიოლ ევროპაშ ხორგული, ბჟადალ ციმბირიშ რზენი, ცენტრალურ ციმბირიშ ნარაზენი. ტერიტორიაშ თია უკებუ გვალამი რეგიონემც: ალტაი, ჩრდილოეთ კავკაცია, კოლიმა, საინი, ურალი. უმაღალაშ კოკი რე იალბუზ

Immigrants are the Lifeblood of the Western Economy

Note: Repost from the old blog.
And other lies. Via whom? Via the corporate media, Canadian Israel Asper version in this case.
I am curious about something. Why is it that all of the elites in the West insist that all Western nations must perennially flood their nations with immigrants? Did not the East Asian NIC’s and Western Europe rise to the top of the world’s economic heap without flooding their nations with all of these brainy professional types?
Did Japan need to flood its nation with immigrants in order to be successful? Japan flooded its nation neither with brainy cream of the crop immigrants “for the brains it did not have”, nor with bottom of the barrel dregs cheap labor immigrants “for the jobs no Japanese would do.” They did it all with their own people, who are called the Japanese, and are not only bright but willing to do all sorts of work.
This whole steaming pile of manure called “we need floods of immigrants or the economy will collapse” needs to be called out as the pile that it is.
A clue is in the article. According to this corporate hack, the success of the US dot com boom of the 1990’s was created by having a labor force made up of 90% “cheap labor, can’t code to save their lives” immigrants from India.
These same immigrants produced a Mount Everest of garbage code all through the 1990’s, almost all of which had to be recoded by the few American coders who were not forced to train their replacements and then fired.
These same immigrants destroyed the entire US IT industry and took millions of highly skilled IT workers with them. Decades worth of intellectual knowledge and skills built up in the minds of millions of our best and brightest workers were MOAB’d at the altar of cheap labor.
Furthermore, these same Hindu 1-B job thieves were never even immigrants in the first place. Instead, they were “non-immigrant guest workers”.
Someone run this by me one more time. The Hindu 1-B American Skilled Worker Destroying Device was “necessary” in what way now? The US economy would collapse without this massive job destroying machine how now?
One more thing. Read this bit of corporate bird cage lining closely. According to the lunatic rationality of capitalist thinking, the fundamentals of the Indian economy are healthier than the fundamentals of the US economy. Therefore, if you’re a capitalist, you need to put your money into India and not the US.
Wow, capitalists really are evil, aren’t they?
India, one of the worst countries on Earth, a nation where 50% of the population is malnourished, where half the population is brain-damaged by iodine deficiency, where 200 million (20% of the population) sleep, eat and I guess shit and piss on the streets, on a subcontinent where 14 million people starve to death every year, where the starvation figures, year in and year out, are as bad as North Korea (Is anyone in the world starving but the North Koreans? Answer us, corporate media?) was in the single worst year of its famine in 1996.
This 1 billion strong train wreck of a society is healthier than America?
Than America, where no one starves, where relatively few (Certainly not 60 million!) are homeless, where malnutrition and iodine deficiency brain damage barely exists?
In what crazy capitalist alternative universe does that make sense?

Blacks Couldn't Even Build a Boat to Madagascar

Note: Repost from the old blog.
This is yet another in our series of very tiresome lies that White nationalists tell about non-Whites, especially Black folks.
Some of the others are that Blacks never even developed agriculture and that Blacks never acquired iron technology. The upshot is that Blacks were “living in the Stone Age” when first contacted by Europeans. It’s not true, but it doesn’t stop WN’s from saying it.
It’s well known that Africans had not developed a very high level of civilization, but it’s certainly not true that they were living in the Stone Age. Who was living in the Stone Age? How about our very exalted American Indians?
Let’s look into the claim that Blacks never even figured out how to build a Goddamned boat to float to Madagascar, which is “just a few miles away from Africa.” A better way to phrase this claim is, “Niggers* are so stupid, they couldn’t even figure out how to build a boat!”
Truth is that Madagascar was settled by Austronesians, probably from Indonesia, around 200-500 AD.
Based on ethnographic research and Malagasy legend summarized by Roger Blench, the Mikea hunter-gatherers were already on Madagascar before the Austronesians arrived. The earliest inhabitants were a Pygmy-like people called the Vazimba. The Vazimba were probably related to the Mikea. They obviously showed up via boats.
Also, Madagascar is not “a few miles off the coast of Africa.” It’s 250 miles away. That’s pretty far! By 1600, the Falklands, 300 miles off the shore of Argentina, were not well-known to the natives of South America at that time either.
Further, it is clear that the Africans who left Africa 70,000 years to populate the rest of the world did so via the Horn of Africa and must have left by boats. The very earliest out of Africa peoples already knew how to make seaworthy vessels, so they must have learned that back in Africa.
To be honest, African cultural development upon European contact was not at a very high level. One would think that if White nationalists were interested in insulting Black folks, they could just look at the historical record.
It seems pitiful that they feel such a need to denigrate even the rather modest cultural achievements that the Africans did make. It’s as if the WN’s don’t even want to grant the Africans the most meager of accomplishments.
How sad is that?
*Used sardonically
This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

That's the Way We All Became the Brady Munch

Note: Repost from the old blog.
Or, The Lezzie Teensluts of the Brady Bunch. This is rich! I always knew Marcia Brady was a little teen ho, but I never knew Jan was one too! And that both were kinky bi teensluts! Yep, Marcia and Jan were strapping it on and munching the carpet, while at the same time maintaining a healthy appetite for getting dicked. Good for them! More women like this, please!

Marcia showing Jan how to engage in phone sex after Jan said she was bored of the kinky lezzie teen stuff. Jan, as always when she was having sex with Marcia, is eager to learn!

That’s the way we all became the Brady Munch. I like it, better than the original!

On the left, Marcia Brady as a kinky bi teenslut masquerading (poorly) as a nice high school girl on the Brady Bunch. This is a rare photo of the first time she seduced little Jan. Note the devious, lascivious look in her scheming eyes.On the right, Marcia Brady, all grown up now, still a hottie, hopefully still as perverted as ever
On the left, teenslut Jan, fresh from a wild orgy with Marcia. Note the post-orgasmic bliss on her face. Marcia always made sure she was satisfied; that was why Jan loved her so much.On the right, Jan, all grown up now and too old to play teenage girls anymore, but still a hottie.
Jan and Marcia For President!

This is a funny video. It’s Marsha Brady Teenslut, all grown up now and supposedly over her “it’s just a phase” LUG (high school LUG that is) thing, now happily het and strictly dickly. Or is she? As you can see, she is still abnormally fixated on women’s vaginas. Maybe it wasn’t just a phase? Suspicious. All women must be like this!
Dang, what we were missing behind the scenes? I think the Dad, Mike, was queer.
Great. We thought it was the most wholesome show in TV, and really it was a demon’s nest of bisexual pedophilic orgies.
Nothing is ever what it seems, eh? Western civilization continues to crash downwards. Faster, faster!

Flynn Effect in North Africans/Turks Migrated To West Europe

Note: Repost from the old blog.
From an article by Philippe Rushton, hereditarian, a revelation about yet another instance of skyrocketing IQ increases in the second generation born in the West after migrating from the less developed areas.
Previously, we noted that the children Jamaican immigrants to the UK (IQ = 71) have IQ’s of 85-86, typically within a single generation. That is a gain of 14.5 IQ points merely by being raised in the West. Hereditarians have offered many rationales for this. The usual is that the Jamaican immigrants were already very bright anyway (as we will see with Moroccans and Turks in Netherlands, this is not true).
Another is that Jamaicans in the UK are very heavily bred in with Whites to the point where they may be only 1/2 White. This is not true – UK Jamaicans are only 12% White (Jamaicans in Jamaica are 9% White).
The children of Indian and Pakistani immigrants to the UK (IQ = 81.5) have IQ’s ranging from 92 (Rushton) to 96 (a figure I prefer). Call it 94. This is a gain of 12.5 IQ points merely by being raised in the West. The counter-argument here once again is that this group is self-selected.
Taken together, the children of Jamaican and East Indian immigrants see rises of 13.5 IQ points merely by being raised in the West. It is true that beyond the initial jump, we are not seeing more rises.
However, a strong initial jump is perfectly consonant with a hyperinjection of massive intellectual stimulation, good health care, proper diet, etc. This is probably all related to a higher standard of living. Higher standards of living seem to be somehow translating into long-term rises in IQ. The mechanisms can be debated, and we have done so on this blog.
Education, a massively-stimulating environment (computers, cell phones, TV, movies), proper nutrition, good health care, and myriad other things have been suggested, but the mechanisms for the rises are still somewhat mysterious.
Now, via Rushton, we have yet more evidence of a Flynn Effect in immigrants to the West. First generation Moroccans and Turks in Netherlands had IQ’s of 81. This is low. The Moroccan norm IQ is 84 and the Turkish norm IQ is 90. So, contrary to the argument that only the very brightest immigrants are going to the West, it seems instead that the less bright immigrants are arriving instead.
The second generation has IQ’s of 89. 89 is around the Turkish average, but it is 5 points above the Moroccan average. At any rate, it shows a Flynn gain of 8 points simply by migrating to the West. Rushton tries to explain this away somehow, but he doesn’t do a good job of it.
The evidence for massive IQ gains in second generation immigrants to the West is now becoming overwhelming and it is going to be harder and harder for hereditarians to explain this stuff away.
Comparison of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants to the West and the resulting Flynn Effect gains, apparently solely by being born and raised in the West. The common factor behind rising IQ’s in the West may be related to rising standards of living.

                   1st     2nd     Gain
UK Jamaicans       71      85.5    14.5
UK East Indians    81.5    94      12.5
ND Moroccans/Turks 81      88      7
Average            78      89      11.5

This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

A Couple of Challenges to Rushton's Theories

Note: Repost from the old blog.
Use this video by J. Philippe Rushton below as a counterpoint to this post.
IQ’s of NE Asians in the US were behind those of US Whites until the 1970’s or so, when they gradually surpassed them. How does a hereditarian theory of IQ make sense of this?

Pre-1970's:
              IQ
US NE Asian   96.5
US White      100
1970's-now:
              IQ
US NE Asian   108*
US White      103*

* After renorming. Pre-renorming, the scores would be 105 and 100 for NE Asians and Whites respectively. The actual gain was 7.5 points for NE Asians in the US.
Their genes didn’t change one bit. One happened? Keep in mind that all hereditarians say that IQ differentials between races are 70% due to genes. If this is so, the initial set of figures from pre-1970’s NE Asians vs. Whites should have been should have been “intractable” as Rushton suggests, since 70% of that difference was due to heredity.
NE Asians should only have been able to move up a point or so against US Whites. Instead, they not only bridged the gap, but surpassed it. The new data, according to Rushton, is once again 70% genetic, and Whites should never be able to gain more than 1-2 points of that gap, and NE Asians should not be able to lose more than 1-2 points of that gap.
Note that each new gap automagically becomes 70% genetic, since Rushton says that all racial gaps in IQ are 70% genetic.
The facts of the NE Asian IQ change in the US over 60 years are impossible to explain according to Rushton’s theory. Conclusion: Rushton’s theory must be wrong.
Rushton notes that Whites have larger brains than Africans and that this proves that the difference in IQ between Blacks and Whites is hereditary and intractable. Further, he implies that the head size variance lines up with the IQ variance. But that does not make sense.
If brain size always lines up with IQ, explain this:
Note that Ugandans (IQ = 67) have larger brains than S. Europeans (IQ = 97). Vietnamese have some of the smallest brains on Earth, but their IQ’s are 99.5.
The head size = IQ theory needs a lot of work.
This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

Up With Blacks, Down With Illegals

Via a comment on the fascinating American Renaissance site:

Illegal immigration is Economic Genocide against low-skilled African Americans.
Currently only about 1/2 of African-Americans finish high school, and relatively few graduate from college. This means that there are millions and millions of under-educated African Americans who can only find work in low-skilled, non-professional jobs.
But these jobs do not pay a living wage, because there are millions of poor and desperate illegal aliens from Mexico, who will work for virtually nothing, and hence drive down salaries. Why would anyone hire an African-American at $15/hr, when they can hire an immigrant at $7/hr? The surest way to keep USA Blacks unemployed is to bring in an endless supply of Mexican wage slaves.
Imagine if all the illegals were suddenly sent home. Agricultural, construction, meat-plants, carpet mills, restaurants, hotels, factories, custodial services, landscaping business, etc. by the thousands would now be desperate to hire people, and at nearly any cost. Salaries for low-skilled workers would skyrocket, allowing even high school dropouts to earn a good wage.
The millions of Black kids who fail to graduate from high school are healthy, energetic, strong, and can work, if given a livable salary. However Obama would rather keep millions of African-Americans unemployed for life than protect our borders. Obama loves Mexicans more than American citizens. Obama’s change: JOBS FOR MEXICANS — UNEMPLOYMENT FOR AMERICANS!

This issue is as obvious as the nose on my face. The truth is powerful and sad. Blacks don’t have a very good reputation in the workplace, and illegals, no matter that they are criminal invaders, at least have the rep of being good, submissive, hard-working employees who show up on time and put in a full days’ work.
I was outraged after Hurricane Katrina. NOLA is normally flooded with unemployed and underemployed Blacks. After the hurricane, just about every other Black in town was out of work, if not more.
Yet the locals so hate to hire Blacks that the Bush Administration incredibly brought in 1000’s or maybe 10,000’s of fake “guest workers” on H-2B visas (the biggest scam around) from Mesoamerica to do the jobs the NOLA Blacks were perfectly capable of doing.
They also unbelievably issued proclamations that gave anyone taking government grants freedom from worry about immigration violations of their workers. What the state said was, “Hire all the illegal aliens you want and we will look the other way.” It was stupefying. Illegal aliens from all over the US poured into NOLA to do the work that NOLA Blacks and even many NOLA Whites could easily have done.
Sure NOLA Blacks have lots of problems, but surely lack of work must be high on the list of causes for the catastrophe of Black NOLA.
Why should we lift one damned finger for these damned illegals? We can’t even help our own often-pitiful and suffering Blacks, who have been here since 1619, when the first Blacks came ashore with the first settlers in the Virginia colony. Soon after, Anthony Johnson, a freed indentured servant, led a Black community of 12 homesteads and 200 acres in Northampton County. You can’t get much more red-blooded American than that.
Help Americans first. Help our Blacks first. Putting foreigners, especially illegal alien criminals who invaded our land, above our very own citizens is high treason to me.
The Black political leadership has formed a marriage in Hell with the traitor Hispanic leadership, true dual loyalists who put their own people above America. Where the interests of their own people slam into the face of the interests of the US, Hispanic dual loyalists treasonously support their own and condemn their country to misery.
I am flabbergasted that Obama says he is going to push for mass amnesty of 12 million+ illegals in the Fall, in the midst of the worst economy since the 1930’s. Outrage!
In a meeting before Black political leaders, Black construction workers lined up one after the other to tell how their dry wall and carpenter careers had been ruined by illegal aliens. The Black Congressmen listening refused to be moved by their own people and all but told them to sit down and shut up.
What’s sad is the only Blacks bitching about this are rightwing Blacks. The Black liberals and Left are silent or cheering full speed ahead for the illegal alien enemies of Black America.

A Brief Look at the History of Art in the West, 300 BC – 1350 AD

Updated February 24. I added a few more things here.
I’m just getting into the history of art, and most people don’t know the slightest thing about it either, so let’s take a little jaunt into art history and you’re welcome to come along on my journey.
This will focus mostly on the history of art in the West. This post isn’t complete at all, but at least it gives you an overview of the subject. What it does in brief is gives a list of the finest art produced in the West from 300 BC until about 1400 or so, with a brief jaunt into the 1800’s.
I only link to one of these works of art, but if you are interested in some of the greatest works of art ever produced by men, just copy paste the names of the works below into Google images and you should be able to get a look at what I’m talking about. I’m too lazy to track down links to all of these works, sorry.
First of all, a previous post that suggested that there was little art in the Dark Ages was completely mistaken. What is true is that there was a decline in the great art and architecture produced by the Romans. Roman art came from the Greeks, and I think the Greeks were better sculptors.
Great Greek buildings and statues include The Treasury of the Siphnians and Battle Between the Greeks and Giants (Delphi), Achilles or Spear Bearer, the Parthenon and the Temple of the Olympian Zeus (Athens), Temple of the Athena Nike (Acropolis), Aphrodite of Knidos, Hermes and the Infant Dionysus, the Mausoleum at Halikarnassos (out of this world), Warrior A, The Scraper, Venus de Milo, Gallic Chieftain Killing His Wife and Himself, Athena Attacking the Giants and Dying Gallic Trumpeter (Pergamon), Laocoon and His Sons, Nike of Samothrace and Hellenistic Ruler.
Statues such as the Venus de Milo are some of the finest statues, albeit classical statues, ever made. They are very realistic; one could even say that they are hyper-realistic. It is better to say that Greek art was idealized realism. That is, it is more real than real. If you look at Greek statues of humans, they are more perfect than humans actually are.
Anatomists have studied these statues and concluded that these statues are in fact more perfect than actual humans could be, down to the last detail. It’s an idealized and perfectionist vision of man and what he could be.
Greek art, and the Roman art that followed, is very secular. This sets it apart from the art that followed in 1000 years following the Fall of Rome, in which art become focused solely on religion. So in this way, the Greeks and Romans were extremely advanced for their time. In contrast to the wildly religious-obsessed art of the Middle Ages, Greek and Roman art nearly avoids religion, as if it was not important.
What was important, instead, was the secular, quotidian lives we live on Earth and all of the hopes, dreams, tragedies, comedies, joys, etc etc. of the human journey. In this crucial way, the Greeks and Romans were as modern as we were. If we could go back in time and air-drop cars and planes into their cities, I’m pretty sure they could go to town with them pretty fast. Quit thinking of these ancients as primitives. They were just like us!
Some Greek art such as Gallic Chieftain Killing His Wife and Himself and Dying Gallic Trumpeter, while secular, is also histrionic is a staged sense. These are the exaggerated emotions of our films and plays, the timeless saga of man, his travails, conflicts and emotions.
The point here is that the emotional content is wildly exaggerated in the way that it often is on stage in plays. Plays, like opera, since they lack the fancy sets of cinema, rely on exaggeration of emotion, to convey what they lack via fancy sets and multimillion dollar crews.
The Greeks made some great tile art too, like Alexander the Great Confronts Darius III at the Battle of Isos and Stag Hunt.
In a previous post I asked why the very early civilizations all built pyramids. The truth is not so surprising. A pyramid is the most basic and rational architectural structure to build. It’s a natural. If you empty salt onto a table, it ends up in a pyramid shape. A pile of about anything often ends up pyramidal. A pyramid is going to stay upright.
Building large things other than pyramids that are going to stay upright is a lot more difficult. This is why the Roman invention of the arch was so essential. In architecture, the arch is an essential ingredient to any advanced building.
If you see some of the reconstructed Roman structures in the context of the time, it’s as if they were built by aliens. That’s how far advanced they were beyond anything else of the time. I have seen interiors of large Roman structures that look like modern airport terminals (see the Central Hall of the Basilica Ulpia in Rome). Roman cities were laid out very rationally on perfect grids. They also made atriums, pillars, coliseums, on and on. Buildings had elaborate carvings made in them, often of men in combat.
Roman paintings do exist, but due to the fact that they used wood and paints that decayed, little has remained. Most remaining Roman “paintings” were done with tiles. I have seen Roman paintings that achieve a look that was not achieved again until the 20th Century (see The Unswept Floor by Herakleitos). Pompeii has many of these.
As with just about everything else, Roman art and architecture was out of this world.
Some of the great statues, tilework, carved artwork on buildings, buildings and cities are Head of a Man, Aulus Metellus, Imperial Procession, Commodus As Hercules, Augustus of Primaporta, Gemma Augustea, the House of the Silver Wedding and the House of the Vetii (Pompeii), Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius, Battle Between the Romans and the Barbarians, Still Life (Herculaneum), the Colosseum, Hadrian’s Villa in Tivoli and The Battle of Centaurs and Wild Beasts (at Hadrian’s Villa), Timgad in Algeria, the apartment blocks of Ostia, and the Arch of Titus, the Arch of Constantine and the Column of Trajan (all in Rome).
The Pantheon in Rome may be one of the greatest buildings ever made, though the competition is tight. The Dome of the Pantheon is out of this world.
It’s commonly said that Romans fell to barbarians, Germanic tribes. It’s true that they sacked the place, but it’s not true that the Dark Ages lacked art, as I noted above. What happened in the Dark Ages was a decline in the quality of art over that produced by the Romans and Greeks.
Furthermore, art became very restricted. Paintings, usually done with tiles, have a dark, depressing and Hellish theme, overridden with a harsh moralism. The world was a cruel and nasty place, and if you didn’t watch it and pray all the time, you were going to Hell.
Almost all paintings were of religious figures of one type or another. People often have a strange, otherworldly look. This is because as I noted in an earlier post on the Dark Ages, the Church had the only money at this time. If you wanted to get funded, you had to go to the Church and the Church would only fund Church-related stuff. Plus probably most art was being done in monasteries, as with most other productive activity beyond mere survival.
The people looked strange because the Church frowned on realistic looking people. That looked like real life, and the Church did not want to portray real life. They only wanted to portray the otherworldly realms of religion. In this attitude we can see the common religious attitude that the worldly life is permanently tainted with sin and must be avoided as much as possible.
Although this was a dark time for art and society, the focus on religion was reasonable. Truth was, life was so dark and dismal that the Church was where it was all going on. All art was about the Church because there was nothing else happening and life was really bad. All science, education, learning, reading, writing, wealth creation, art, architecture – it was all coming out of the Church. The money factor was crucial. Nowadays, if you want money, you go into business. Back then, you got into religion.
The reason that things fell apart so much in the Dark Ages was the collapse of urbanization. Country folks and back to the landers may not like city life too much, but when cities collapse, most everything tends to go to Hell. By contrast, the greatness of Greece and Rome was actually related to their high level of urbanization. City life seems necessary for advanced civilization to occur. With urbanization, some crucial factors probably jell together that start to mandate civilizational advances.
Characteristic of the time is large halos around everyone in the painting. It is accurate to say that art did not progress during the Dark Ages, that it actually went backwards.
Nevertheless, much fine material was produced.
Some of the excellent paintings, sculptures and buildings produced during the Dark Ages include the Church of Santa Sabina (Rome), the Church of Santa Costanza, the Mausoleum of the Galla Placidia, the Dome of the Baptistry of the Orthodox and the Church of San Vitale, the Transfiguration of Christ with Saint Apollinaris, First Bishop of Ravenna – a painting in the Church of Saint Apollinaire of Classe (all in Ravenna, Italy), the Hagia Sofia (Istanbul) – one of the finest buildings ever built, the first written Bibles such as the Rabbula Gospels from Syria, the Paris Psalter, the Ebbo Gospels and the great Crucifixion with Angels and Mourning Figures cover of the Lindau Gospels (all from France) and the Book of Kells from Scotland (Out of this world!), the Cathedral of Saint Mark (Venice), the Palace Chapel of Charlemagne (Aachen, Germany), ornaments from the Sutton Hoo burial ship (Suffolk, England), the Gummersmark brooch (Denmark), the Labro Saint Hammers (Gotland, Sweden) the burial ship from Oseberg (Oseberg, Norway), the Gero Crucifix from the Cologne Cathedral (Cologne, Germany) and the Church of Saint Cyriakus (Gernrode, Germany).
Note that fine art was even produced up in Scandinavia. These people were not primitive by any means. The problem up there is that most art was created out of wood. There was plenty of that, but it doesn’t make very good art, and most important, it doesn’t last. For really great art, it helps to have some big rocks, and I think there are a lot more trees than rocks in Scandinavia.
Greece looks like while God was creating the world, he took a break to throw rocks at Greece. The place is littered with stones. Hence all of the fine stone sculptures, buildings and cities of Greece.
Great art continues in the High Middle Ages, such as the Church of the Monastery of Christ in Chora (Constantinople) and the painting Anastasis on its apse, the Doors of Bishop Benward at the Abbey of the Church of Saint Michael (Hildesheim, Germany), Doubting Thomas in the Abbey of Santo Domingo de Silos (Castile, Spain), Christ in Majesty in the Church of San Clemente (Tahuil, Catalonia, Spain), the Borgund Stave Church (Sogn, Norway), the Durham Cathedral (Scotland), the Church of Saint Etienne (Caen, France), the Speyer Cathedral (Speyer, Germany), the Church of Saint Ambrogio (Milan, Italy), the Cathedral Complex (Pisa, Tuscany, Italy), the Church of San Clemente (Rome), printed works such as the Worcester Chronicle (Worcester, England) and the Winchester Psalter (Winchester, England), the woven Bayeux Tapestry (Bayeux, Normandy,  France) and the Portable altar of Saints Kilian and Liborius from the Helmarshausen abbey (Helmarshausen, Saxony, Germany).
The Leaning Tower of Pisa is also in the Pisa Complex. The tower is leaning not because it was top heavy, though it is, but because it was built on sand. It would have fallen over long ago without our efforts to shore it up. These efforts are vast and ongoing. We are tunneling under the building and shoring it up in various ways to keep it from falling. Right now things are so bad that it is so dangerous to be around the tower that visitors are forbidden from walking within toppling distance of the thing.
One reason that the art above is so great, even those famous Bibles, is that monks would spend 20 years, 40 years, or a lifetime making say one Bible, one treasure box, painting one church. Not only that, but a whole team might work for many years on an object or interior church design. These monasteries were like miniature factories. They weren’t producing a lot, but no one else was either. They were very inefficient, but there was no competition.
Gothic is in the High Middle Ages, and this is starting to head into the Renaissance, although everything is still about religion.
Gothic had some superb works, and now we are looking at some of the finest churches of all, including the Cathedral of Notre-Dame (Chartres, France), another of the greatest buildings ever built, the Amiens Cathedral (Amiens, France), an incredible building, another Cathedral of Notre-Dame (Paris), a competitor with the Notre-Dame in Chartres and possibly better, another Cathedral of Notre-Dame (Reims, France), possibly the best one of them all, the Saint-Chapelle (Paris), yet another awesome building, and the Salisbury Cathedral (Wiltshire, England) – too much!
Gothic architecture clearly produced some of the finest buildings that have ever been built. It’s characterized by tall, thin cathedrals with vast spires jabbing away at the sky.
The purpose of those spires was to point towards heaven. The idea of the tall buildings was to make them closer to Heaven, and also the various monasteries and bishops were in competition with each other to see who could build higher buildings. The tall, thin shape that gets more pointed towards the top is the best way to build a tall building for the same reason that a pyramid is a natural form.
A building that gets more pointed near the top is less likely to topple over than a top-heavy building that has as much weight at the top as at the bottom. One of those Gothic cathedrals actually had a building that did not get more pointed as it rose and that part of the building toppled over.
How did they build those cathedrals? They used scaffolds. Often families of men, fathers, sons, grandfathers, multiple generations, would work on the buildings.  They usually worked for free or room and board. The Church told them, “Hey, if you guys work on this church your whole life, you will go straight to Heaven.” Yeah right.
One purpose of the cathedrals was conversion. Life was pretty dismal in those days, and the life of a serf was bad. So you took a humble person and should him this wild cathedral, so beyond anything else he had ever seen that it may as well have been built by aliens, and you pretty much had a convert on your hands, so awe-struck was he.
These cathedrals show us just how much money the Church had at this time. For all intents and purposes, the Church had all the money and no one else had a dime. It’s a truism that while the Roman Empire did formally fall, really it just morphed into the Roman Catholic Church.
The fundamentalist crowd wonders why we care so much about separation of church and state. We care because back in those days, the Church was the state. English kings pondered for lifetimes ways to get the Church out of the business of running the damn country. No wonder Henry VIII threw the Church out and set up the Anglican Church. It was the only way to get free of this octopus and its tentacles.
In the Late Middle Ages, great works continue, including the Exeter Cathedral (Exeter, Devon, England), a mind-boggling structure, the Ely Cathedral (Ely, Cambridgeshire, England), the dome of which makes you wonder how they even built it, the Cathedral of Palma (Mallorca, Spain), up there with the greatest and the Church of the Holy Cross (Schwabisch Gmund, Germany), the Virgin and Saint George, the altarpiece of the Church of San Francisco, Villafranco del Panades (Barcelona), the Shrine of the Three Kings (Germany), the Florence Cathedral (Florence), an incredible building, the Siena Cathedral (Siena, Italy), another awesome structure, the Life of John the Baptist on the doors of the Baptistry of San Giovanni (Florence), Giotto di Bondone’s Last Judgment on the west wall and Life of Christ and the Virgin on the north and south walls of the Arena Chapel and Duccio di Buoninsegna’s Maesta Altarpiece for the Siena Cathedral.
Around 1340, one of the first works including landscapes and regular people with no religious significance was done, Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s Allegory of Good Government in the City and Allegory of Good Government in the Country, two frescoes in the Sala della Pace in the Pallazo Pubbico in Siena. The moving away from religion and focus on our real world shows how the Late Middle Ages were leading into the Renaissance.
The periods of the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance seem to blend together. The Renaissance ran from around 1350-1600. The Late Middle Ages are thought to be from 1300-1450, so there is definitely overlap. The truth is that the Late Middle Ages shade into and lead into the Renaissance. In the Renaissance, we get the first non-religious art since the fall of Rome.
I don’t have much to say about the art of China and Japan except that it is good. It’s difficult to compare this art with the art produced in Europe. They all had their own styles  and it’s hard to say if any one of them is better than the other, but I don’t think that Japanese art is any better than what was being done in Europe at the time.
Islamic art is actually very good, especially the tilework on the interior of mosques up on the domes. This is excellent art, and as good as what was being done in Europe. The only thing you can say about Islamic art is that their ridiculous religion bans them from drawing humans.
I have seen some early Jewish art, but I wasn’t much impressed by it. Jews are very smart and many modern artists are Jews, so Jews can clearly make great art. The problem here is that like in Islam, Jews were forbidden to make graven images, and the forbidding of idol worship means you can’t draw people, and that tends to really limit your artwork. The fact that Islam has the same prohibition means to me that Islam has borrowed from Judaism.
The art of Central America is interesting, and some of it is not bad. I don’t think it’s superior to European art, but I’m not sure if it’s inferior either. Some of the gold ornamentation is really great.
I really hate to bag on Blacks here, but I should say something about African art. I was not very impressed with it. The best building was the Great Friday Mosque in Djenne, Mali, built in the 1200’s. It’s made of mud and wood. It’s ok, but compared to what was being built in Europe and the Arab World at the time, it’s not much at all. Afrocentrists like to go on about the Great Zimbabwe built around 1300. Yes, it’s a long wall made of stones with some conical structures here and there. If this is Africa’s greatest architecture, I don’t know what to say. It’s not much.
However, I was very impressed by statue heads and masks out of Benin from 1400-1650 and continuing on to 1900. Some of that is excellent. It is usually made of brass. However, I am told that they were already coming under the influence of Europeans, especially Portuguese, and this spurred this nice art. I don’t care what influenced them. There is some cool art coming out of Benin around the time of European Renaissance.
I’m not so impressed with the earlier stuff out of Yoruba or the very early stuff out of Nok in Nigeria. However, we must acknowledge that Nok was one the flashpoints for early African civilization and more was accomplished here sooner than anywhere else in Africa.
At any rate, today Africans produce some superb art, especially African masks. Travelers to Africa with some cash often pick them up and it’s a great investment. I’d love to have one on my wall.
In the 1800’s, all art and music was in the classical traditions. If you wanted to be an artist of a musician, you had to go to school and study the classics. That was really the only way to paint or make music. Hence, art and music had stagnated. The classical art and music had been taken to the limits and the best had already been done. Michelangelo and Beethoven were not going to be surpassed. There was nothing to innovate anymore.
One of the first impressionist was Édouard Manet. His first impressionist painting, Le déjeuner sur l’herbe (The Luncheon on the Grass) (1863) was a strange painting of a two clothed men eating a meal with a naked woman in a park. It caused a scandal because the people pictured were real people, not religious, historical, mythological, political or monarchic figures (the five permitted types).
It was not really possible to paint a real person. All art had to be of one of the five types of persons above. The idea of painting a real person was ridiculous.
Manet’s painting caused a scandal not because the woman was nude. It was ok to paint nudes if they were of the five types of persons allowed. The idea that someone would paint a nude of a real life person was outrageous.
It was made even worse because people knew the names of those who were painted – the men were his brother, Eugene Manet, and his girlfriend’s brother and future brother in law, Ferdinand Leenhoff and the woman was Victorine Meurent, Manet’s favorite model and later an artist in her own right.
Further, the subject matter was seen as shocking, nearly pornographic. What were the clothed men doing eating with the naked woman? It was as if they were both going to have sex with her at the same time in a menage a trois .
What Manet did with that painting was like saying, “Screw you,” to the Art Establishment of the time. It was like punk rock, an act of artistic defiance. It was anti-art, anti-classical art, and anti-Art Establishment.
Manet many and his supporters got banned from a major art exhibition in 1863, the Salon de Paris. The jury of the Académie des Beaux-Arts, which dominated the French art scene at the time, voted to exclude his painting from the Salon, and those of many other Impressionists were also banned.
This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

Public Suicide Fad Hits Argentina

[wpvideo MC5yaPEo]
Note: Repost from the old blog.
I am looking for a translator to translate this post into Korean. Email me if you are interested.
Warning! Graphic footage! Do not watch if you are easily upset! An 8.4 MB version of the video with better resolution can be downloaded on this site here.
The public suicide fad has spread to Argentina. Above is the video of the live TV suicide of Mario “Malevo” Ferreyra, an Argentine former police official. He killed himself on live TV in Tucumán Province, Argentina.
Malevo Ferreyra was Chief of the Brigade of Investigations of the State Tucumán in Argentina in the late 1970’s at the height of the Dirty War. In 1993, he was convicted for murdering three robbers in 1991.
He escaped from the courthouse clutching a hand grenade in each hand (!) and later turned himself in after the former governor of the province reduced his sentence. He served seven years for the killings. He ruled Tucumán with an iron fist before, during and after the Dirty War.
A warrant was issued by the National Guard yesterday for his arrest for kidnapping and torture during the Dirty War. The crimes were committed when he served at a secret weapons-depot-turned-detention center during the Dirty War. Just before the police were coming to arrest him, he committed suicide in front of his wife and kids on national TV.
He had just finished an interview the TV station Cronica on top of a water tank at his rural home in Tucumán. His home was surrounded by police and he would be arrested shortly. He protested his innocence, then said, “Hasta siempre, Maria (I will love you forever, Maria),” pulled out a .45 caliber revolver from his boot and shot himself behind the ear. He died on his way to the hospital shortly afterward.
After he shot himself in the head, his son embraced him and his daughter panicked.
Families of the victims say that the suicide was part of a pact of silence that would ensure that Ferreyra would not have to testify against his former colleagues.
Argentine politics is nasty, and sometimes deadly, business, with a lot of impunity, but that seems to be changing.

A typical image if “El Malevo” with his usual sombrero. Looks like a hard-living fellow. The name may come from a famous silent movie by the well-known Argentine director José A. Ferreyra (same surname) from 1921 called, La Maleva. I’m not sure what the movie is about. Ferreyra is a common surname in Argentina. The name may also be a play on a nickname of a famous Argentine soccer player Osmar “Malevo” Ferreyra (video).
Here is another photo of El Malevo. I’m not sure what is going on here, or who the woman is. He looks like a pretty rough character. So do those guys around him. Argentine provincial politics is nasty, hardcore stuff. Sort of a cross between Sicily and Mexico. Lot of tough guys in power throwing their weight around, not much of a rule of law, political arrests and attacks, harassment of and attacks on journalists, corrupt and venal judges. The usual stuff.

Tucumán is a somewhat backwards, “provincial” province in the hinterlands of Argentina. It’s mostly agricultural back there, with a lot of sugar cane cultivation. The cops and politicians in this part of Argentina are some of the most brutal, venal, clannish and corrupt in the country.
There are still Indians living in this part of Argentina, and people are much more Mestizo here than in the rest of the country. It isn’t gaucho country, and it’s not the Pampas. More like the foothills of the Andes.
In the mid-70’s, this province was the scene of a little-known foco revolutionary movement led by the ERP (People’s Revolutionary Army). It failed, as all foco-inspired movements did. The ERP was then devastated by the Dirty War – they were history 1 1/2 years into the counterinsurgency. The ERP has long since abandoned armed struggle and now exists as a political movement.
Budd Dwyer, anyone? Video of Budd Dwyer’s live TV suicide here (warning: graphic). Jesus Christ man, the blood runs out of his nose like a waterfall.
I found the case of Christine Chubbuck, another public suicide, this time of a newscaster on live TV during her broadcast (!) to be particularly poignant.
I don’t like to diagnose the dead, but it looks like she had traits of Avoidant Personality Disorder . It’s something like social phobia, but a lot more pervasive. What’s odd is that she had such an extroverted job and most avoidants are serious introverts.
The symptoms are there: the lack of romantic relationships despite a tremendous desire for one and her beauty, good job, education and brains; the unrequited love for a colleague at work who would not reciprocate.
And at the same time, whenever people at work made friendly gestures towards her, she would blow them off. This is the “get them before they get me” mentality. I will reject them before they reject me. It’s perverse, but like a lot of perverse stuff, has its own crazy logic.
Good overview of APD. I don’t think I have ever known one. The primary symptom is extreme hypersensitivity to rejection. I’ve known people who have some of the hypersensitivity though. If you criticize them, they look like they are going to burst into tears. Then they often get really angry. These are grown “adults”, say 40 years old. I think they are babies, but maybe I should be kinder, since I’m not exactly normal myself.
I had a therapist once and I asked him if I was an avoidant. One of my games is “Psychiatric Medical Patient Syndrome” – going through the DSM and worrying I have every illness in the book. He said, no, because he had criticized me and I took it well. He said he had had 7-8 avoidants, and as soon as you criticize them in therapy, they get up and walk out of the office and never come back. That’s about the size of it.
Truth is, I really don’t care if people like me or not, as long as they hang around with me. I would be perfectly content to have beautiful women coming over here every day, screwing my brains out, pretending to like me, but actually hating my guts. As long as they pretend to like me, it’s all good. I don’t care what’s in someone’s deepest soul.
I’m also not freaked out by rejection. After about the millionth time, you pretty much get used to it. I figure if I freaked out about every little rejecting encounter I get, I’d probably be continuously suicidally depressed. You have to make it through life somehow. No one has to like you anyway; it’s a free country. Plus I’ve rejected lots of people myself, so what comes around, goes around.
Chubbuck also seemed to be awfully regressed into an almost childhood state when off work, despite being an uber-professional on the job. Strange case.
I had never heard of Dwyer’s or Chubbuck’s case until the Internet.
There are no available videos of the Chubbuck suicide, but there are five seconds of Chubbuck footage here on Youtube. There is also a Chubbuck segment on The Boulevard of Broken Dreams, a TV show (video clip). The police confiscated all of the Chubbuck suicide tapes as evidence of a crime and turned them over to the family.
In the excellent movie Network (1974) “I’m mad as Hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”, the lead, a TV newscaster, threatens to commit suicide on live TV.

Did These Guys Take Down My Blogger Site?

Keep in mind that I haven’t the faintest or tiniest idea about who reported my site for TOS violations or why it was reported. I’m only aware of one case of the site getting flagged for TOS violation, and that was by a Jewish guy in Tampa who worked for the ADL. After fighting with him for a while, the guy later sort of became my friend after I convinced him that I was just a Commie anti-Zionist and not a Nazi Holocaust Revisionist after all.
I don’t have anything against the guy right now (He is what he is) but for a while there, I wanted to strangle the guy. Slowly. Personally.
Well, that’s just one report. It takes lots of reports to bring a site down. The first shutdown resulted in an interstitial warning box, but then there was another flood of complaints and even the warning box went down, and now only I can get in, and I’m terrified they are going to delete the whole site.
So who did it and why? Who knows? There were gore videos on the site, mostly videos of beheadings released by terrorist groups or guerrillas as propaganda. That could have caused the complaints. Blogger is such a crappy platform that they take down your site and the assholes never even tell you why. You can email them a million times and they will never respond once. That’s what I call customer service!
There is an interesting group that is involved in mass reporting of TOS violations for blogs that they don’t like. They claim to have shut down many Blogger blogs, to have banned many Youtube videos and users, many Facebook groups (106 at last count) and many Wikipedia users and they have rewritten many Wikipedia articles. It was clowns like this that got me banned from Wikipedia. They work with these neocon weenies to try to get users and videos banned from Youtube. They are also going after Digg, MySpace and Google Earth. Google Earth?! Digg?!
I don’t have direct evidence that they shut down my site, but they are definitely going after Blogger sites:

BLOGGER
Report Jew-Hating Blogs in Less Than a Minute
Click here and then click “submit”. Then come back here and do the same thing with this one. Do this many times a day. Many days a week and share it with all your friends and email lists. The blogs in question are some of the most hateful sites we have seen and clearly against Blogger’s own rules.
Thanks!

On Eugenics

The post on my political resume has prompted a big comments thread on Eugenics. First of all, I would like to tackle the usual Leftist crap about Eugenics. The Left responds to not just any argument about Eugenics, but any argument about race realism or racial differentials in anything, with terrifying screams about Eugenics, usually followed by threats. They often add that Eugenics is a “pseudo-science”. One thing about Eugenics is true whether we like Eugenics or not.
Eugenics is not a pseudo-science. We breed bacteria, viruses, plants and animals. Humans are animals. If it’s possible to breed horses, dogs and cats, it’s clearly possible to breed humans for this or that. It’s solid science. Is the breeding of cats and dogs a “pseudo-science”? Of course not.
Now that that is out of the way, we can deal with the meat of the argument.
A commenter, Scott, notes that China is currently practicing Eugenics and will overtake us in a few decades if we don’t get on the Nazi breeding train too. China is not practicing any kind of real Eugenics. I defy anyone to show me how they are.
I feel that NE Asians are superior to my Whites anyway, so there’s no need to for them to improve their stock to overtake us. I’m surprised they haven’t already. I also support Whites making free choices to breed with NE Asians and even regular Asians to improve the stock. I’m even looking into it myself.
There is no nation on Earth that is presently gaining a comparative advantage over other nations due to the practice of Eugenics. Name one. When it starts to be a problem, we can start to talk about it.
How come the only people who support Eugenics are high-IQ White people who are usually very racist people? It’s not like decent, ordinary, average smarts or non-White people are promoting this. Why should I listen to them?
Embryo selection is ongoing and perfectly legal. The eggs of beautiful Ivy League women get $5000 and up.
This whole wacky Eugenics debate is based on nonsense. Mainly, that unless we act immediately, dysgenic trends are going to overtake our nation (and I guess our world, though most Eugenicists are silent about the effects on anyone other than Whites). Other nations are practicing Eugenics now (A lie!) and are going to overtake us in the future unless we act right this minute.
Eugenics hysteria is all based on the future. Guess how long Eugenics has been based on the future? Since it’s inception! They’ve been railing about future dysgenic trends for 100 years, trends that have yet to even show up anywhere!
The truth is that there are no proven dysgenic effects occurring anywhere on Earth at this moment. One might suspect that there would be, genetics being what they are, but it seems that humans still select for positive qualities and de-select for negative qualities, just as Darwinism would suggest that we do.
I assume even over in Africa mass genocides like wars and AIDS may be having eugenic and not dysgenic effects. Most Africans with 1/2 a brain would try to avoid one of their insipid wars, and it’s quite possible that in any war, the stupider soldiers die more and the smarter soldiers survive more. It’s also quite possible that in Africa, the stupider you are, the more likely you are to get AIDS.
Extremely harsh and deadly conditions anywhere tend to favor brighter folks who figure out how to survive. This probably goes for South Asia and other places with mass starvation too.
Repeat after me: Dysgenics is not occurring anywhere on Earth! Proponents of Dysgenics Theory are asked (Nay, demanded!) to name one place on Earth that is becoming stupider, more criminal or less fit due to dysgenic breeding. You can’t prove it, can you?
IQ’s are going up all over the world. From what I can tell, in the West anyway, crime rates are declining. People are getting more educated, not less. Heritable disabilities are declining. People are living longer and in general seem to be getting healthier.
All of this positive stuff flies in the face of the lies of the Dysgenics Crowd. Dysgenics is an interesting theory, but until you can show us a case of one nation on Earth getting damaged by dysgenic breeding, it’s all a bunch of talk with no examples to back it up. IOW, it’s not a problem.
Eugenics has nothing to do with my complaints about the demise of the California of my youth. The California that I grew up with was 20-30% non-White or 70-80% White. That felt good, right and normal. In California, non-Whites like Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, Polynesians, East Indians, South Americans, Blacks, Indians and Mexicans are part of the neighborhood, and Mexicans are part of the family.
If you don’t believe me, study the Gold Rush. Except for the Japanese, all those groups have been here from the start, and the Japanese started coming as early as the 1920’s.
I object to seeing my state going from 75% White to 43% White because in a lot of ways, it’s been a negative change. Almost all of this change was due to mass immigration, not breeding.
Commenter Mort Goldman, a well-known actor, says he would support paying people with high IQ’s to have kids, and he says that Singapore does this right now. The Left, and society in general, will never get on board with even the most reasonable Eugenics that Mort supports. It will never happen.
As America becomes less White, the theory gets more and more doomed. Any US Eugenics project would reward Whites and punish Blacks and Hispanics for having kids. No way will Blacks and Hispanics ever go along with this.
I would support rewarding the college educated for having kids. AA gets you some benefits. BA gets you more, Masters even more, and Doctorate the most of all. We could possibly sell this to non-Whites by phrasing it as the rewards of getting an education. Once again, though, most rewards would go to Whites, and Blacks and Hispanics would get comparatively little. I can see the protests already.
Truth is that Nazis ruined this Eugenics stuff at least for the moment and for the foreseeable future. The fact that most Eugenicists are viciously racist Whites makes the theory not only unpalatable but even less likely to fly, much less get off the ground.
I’m fascinated by the fact that so many Eugenicists are Holocaust Deniers, Holocaust Deniers in general being neo-Nazis of one sort or another. The Holocaust, in exterminating the Jews, the best and brightest of Europe, was one of the most profoundly dysgenic acts in modern history. How so many Eugenicists support the most outrageously dysgenic act of the 20th Century is a mystery, but once again implies that the “humans” who support Eugenics, if not the theory itself, are no good.
That’s all there is to it. It doesn’t matter if Eugenics is a good idea or not. It won’t fly in a democracy. You could probably only put it in a dictatorship.

My Political Resume

A commenter, Scott, has wisely summed up my views about a lot of stuff with this list:
– Socialism
– Maoism
– Pro-miscegenation
– Race realism
– Protectionist trade
– Pro-union
– Anti-immigration
– Anti-freedom of association
– Paleoconservative on issues of war
– Pro gay & women’s rights
– Strong dislike of the White power structure
– Pro Palestinian/anti-Israel
– Skeptical of Jews and their plots
I have to cringe a bit reading that stuff, but I guess the truth hurts sometimes. It’s hard to sum up someone’s views, but that’s about as good as any – not perfect, but nice.
I only support Maoists in some 3rd World ratholes like Nepal, Philippines and India. I don’t support any Maoist project in the US or the West.
I’m a big fan of Hugo Chavez and I don’t mind modern Chinese Communism (I even think it’s sort of Maoism!).
For the US, any movement towards a more interventionist state or social democracy would be great. Fully funded social programs, mass transit, government buying land for parks and wildlife, setting up free wi-fi for the people, nationalizing some banks and insurance companies in the latest mess, saving the economy with stimulus programs, etc.
I love to slam capitalism, but I admit I don’t have much good to outright replace it with. I just wish everyone would quit worshipping it like a God. It’s seriously flawed to say the least.

The Citibank Mafia

This article was written a year ago. How prophetic. And Citibank has been wallowing in the mud like this since 2001. The chickens are finally having a Homecoming party.
As of today, Obama is seriously considering nationalizing this organized crime gang disguised as a corporation. Robert Rubin and Sandy Weill (photo) are more than anyone else responsible for destroying this bank and the collateral damage to the US and world economy.
Anti-Semites may wish to note that they are both Jewish. As I noted earlier, I’m not into this Jewish Bankers Blew Up the World Economy thing, but the tribe is clearly not innocent, and they do have a role in the US banks, that, while not central, is less than trivial.
We ought to distinguish here between investment banking and commercial banking. The Jewish role in US commercial banking is not prominent. However, they do play a significant role in US investment banking. With the insane destruction of Glass-Segall, investment banks and commercial banks can now be one and the same, the firewall having been torn down.
I would like to ask you “Jewish bankers” critics just one thing. Sure, a lot of these Jewish bankers are a bunch of no-good crooked scumbags. But, honestly now, do you really think that Hank Paulson, Tim Geithner, Joe Biden and Phil and Wendy Gramm are any better? The whole damn financial “industry” (a classic parasitical industry in the true sense of the word because they create no real wealth) is up to their necks in this mess. The Gentiles are just as wicked as the Jews; no way are they any better.
Anti-Semites please prove to me that your average US top Gentile banker is a smidgen less black of a soul than the Jewish bankster criminals. One’s as bad as the other, admit it.

Contra: Capitalism Always Improves Our Lives

Let us examine for a moment the unexamined notion prevalent in the US that capitalism automatically improves our lives.
We examined earlier how US capitalism seems to be predicating its growth on forced and unnecessary upgrades of technology. If you don’t want to upgrade to the latest TV, you won’t be able to watch TV at all.
In a later post, we suggested that US capitalism, increasingly desperate to sell to increasingly savvy consumers, is resorting to the only way to fool an educated, savvy consumer – outright lying, fraud, trickery, scamming and frankly theft, exemplified by the subprime crisis.
Hence, US capitalism is becoming increasingly parasitical on the consumers it relies on. The “coercion principle” so beloved by libertarians seems to be inoperative in US capitalism anymore. If I can’t watch TV without being forced to buy the latest and greatest, that’s coercion. A thieving, fraudulent con is always coercive, as coercive as a pickpocket.
Libertarians talk a great game when they are pining away on their blogs, but I haven’t yet heard any libertarians, except maybe Left Libertarians, attack the parasitical, coercive and nearly thieving aspect of present day US capitalism. When it comes time to apply arid theory to meatspace, libertarians are no-shows, which implies to me that their moralistic theorizing is a bunch of hot air.
Some capitalist inventions are definitely improvements. Take for example stain-free and shrink-free garments. This is actually a good product. Capitalists are manufacturing something that humans actually want to buy and use, not only that but a useful product that will improve our lives.
But look at how capitalism deals with this improvements. Let’s get real. A whole lot of capitalists are going to get hurt by the new garments described above. The dry cleaners industry will go out. Not only that, but staining and shrinking is one of the annoying methods of planned obsolescence built into the garments we buy. It’s these destructive processes that force us into continual and usually unnecessary upgrades of our garments.
If people are buying fewer garments because they last longer, that’s bad for the garment industry. So a lot of capitalists are going to hate these new developments. Fortunately for us, capitalists are greedy and lack solidarity, so there will always be renegade capitalists who would go ahead with shrink-free and stain-free clothing even though it’s going to be bad for a lot of other capitalists.
But capitalism has a very creepy tendency at least here in the US. Huge corporations watch the patent offices like hawks. Whenever a new product is patented that could improve things for consumers and possibly compete negatively with their products, in particular something that might cut into the planned obsolescence of their products, and typically if the inventor is a small fry, the corporation will try to buy out the improved technology. Then they will shove into a drawer and try to bury it forever!
This happens all the time in US capitalism, but we don’t talk about it all that much. There is a clause in US patent law that says you cannot sit on a highly useful patent and refuse to market it to the public. This is sometimes applied to small inventors. The courts have forced small inventors to make their highly useful patents available to the consuming public in cases where silly inventors chose instead to stick the patent in the drawer and forget about it.
If the guy refuses to sell the patent, the court decides what it is worth and demands a sale of the patent for that price. Hardline freemarketeers decry this Commie-style intervention in the market, but I think it’s a great thing. Use it or lose it.
I feel the same way about copyrights. You can’t just let your songs, movies and books go out of print. If you do and someone wants to republish them, the courts can and do force you to license out your artistic creation to someone who wants to publish it.
The courts have fallen down on the law in terms of software though. There are all sorts of idiot software patents, and the whole concept is highly abusive. IBM has been one of the worst at this. You see those little windows that fly up in so many of your software programs? I believe that IBM has a license on that tech and anyone who makes a program with a window in it, has to pay off IBM. This is ridiculous.
You can’t patent intellectual property – forget it. That’s like patenting intellectual ideas. Can I patent the intellectual notions that I come up with here on Robert Lindsay. Great idea! Let me patent all these ideas I come up with on this blog and sue everyone who tries to say anything even remotely similar for patent infringement. You can see right now how stupid patenting intellectual property is.
There are also cases where corporations have written some really great programs that were offered for sale. Then they took the product off the market. Not only that, but they refuse to sell it. Sad thing is that there are computer users who really want to use those programs. Forget that.
Sell it or give it away! If you won’t sell your product, then you need to give it away. If you won’t sell it or give it away and it’s useful, I figure we have a right to steal your product. I’m talking software programs here. The whole idea that you can write a killer app and shove it in your drawer forever is nuts.
So what you have here in the US is that US capitalism buries great products all the time, and I think that when corporations do it, the courts don’t seem to do much. Does this benefit our lives? Of course not. It hampers our lives and deprives us of much-needed technology to improve our lives, while saddling us with inferior junk that wears out or breaks or doesn’t even work. Why? So the capitalist can continue to rake it by selling us crap.
So let’s bury once and for all the all the notion that capitalist products automatically improve our lives.
Suppose someone invents a car that runs for 500,000 miles, rarely breaks down and gets 100 miles to the gallon. My understanding is that prototypes are already available that get anywhere from 50-300 miles to the gallon. There is solar car technology with a solar roof that gets all its energy from the sun and goes up to 55 mph!
Clearly, all these cars are really bad news for lots of capitalists, from car repair shops, to auto parts stores and plants, to gas stations and oil companies. There are all sorts of huge industries that want to kill these ideas before the even see the light of day. And it would be interesting to see why cars that get 50-300 mpg are not on the market. There have been issues with making these hypercars safe in crashes (they are often quite light) but one would think that at least a few prototypes could be made.
Speaking of forced upgrades, you know that US capitalists must truly hate radio. I can go find a radio from the 1920’s and maybe with a few repairs here and there, it will pick up every local station around. The tech still works. Not only that, but horror of horrors, it’s actually free. It really isn’t free because it’s supported by advertisers and we “pay for it” by having to suffer through commercials,  but we definitely don’t have to pay $50/month to turn on the radio like we do with the damned TV.
This sends capitalists up the wall. They hate free anything. If capitalists could figure out a way to charge us for breathing air, they would buy up oxygen and start charging us right away. They are already trying to buy up the water and charge us for choosing to inject H2O in order to stay alive. They haven’t figured out a way to charge us every time we pee or crap, but I’m sure that capitalists would love to charge me 2 cents a leak and a nickel a dump if they could get away with it.
The fact that capitalists pine for a world where virtually nothing is free anymore shows that capitalists have a strong parasitical streak that is not related to producing quality useful products that improve our lives. In some ways, capitalists are just like blood-sucking vampires.
Capitalists already tried the cable TV scam with radio. The scam was to set up an alternative radio called digital radio (radio is now analog), put all the good programs over on digital and leave analog with almost no programs and a crappy signal, and soon everyone who wanted to listen to anything decent on the radio would have to shell out $30/month to Vultureco or whoever.
Digital radio, exemplified by Sirius Radio, has been a total failure. The industry has a mountain of debt has yet to make a nickel.
In other ways, new capitalist tech takes old older tech that is still quite useful. Though I love the Internet, I must say that I am sad about newspapers and magazines being taken out. Net nerds say what the heck, let the newspapers and magazines all go on the web. There are problems with this.
First of all, we need to know what is taking the print media out. It’s advertising. No way can a paper or magazine make it on subs alone. Even with a steep sub price, they need to fill it up with ads or run it at a loss. Rolling Stone is pretty nice, but probably a good 50% of the mag or more is ads, often in your face and rude, and seemingly all for super-expensive crap that no one really needs. It’s annoying to wade through that Colorado River of ad-mud to get at a few meaty articles here and there.
I think the reason that the Net ads are taking out the print ads is that print ad sellers actually sell their ad space (their product) for a fair price. Ads in newspapers and magazines are not exactly cheap. As someone who has delved into the world of Internet ads for a while (we used to carry them on Robert Lindsay), I must say that I have hardly met a tighter bunch of bastards. Compared to what you pay for print ads, advertisers or ripping off online publishers something awful. It’s a buyers market, and the sellers are being taken to the cleaners. Not only can online publishers barely survive, but the advertiser tightwads are cleaning out the print media too.
Keep in mind that there are advantages to print tech and that if we lose newspapers and magazines, we lose a valuable consumer reading experience. Can I take my computer with me to the bathroom, the next room, across the street, or in my car to the next city? In general, no. I can thumb through Time Magazine quickly and get a feel for about every article and decide if it’s worth reading or not. Can I digitally thumb through the online Time edition? Forget it. It takes so long it’s not even worth it.

Sophia Loren is 74 Years Old?

I just got a brief glimpse of her on the Academy Awards, and boy, she sure is hot. I had no idea a 74 year old woman could look so great. Sophia Loren at age 72. Hot!
Check out Raquel Welch at 67. Oh baby! Come to papa! Raquel is 1/2 Bolivian, and is considered a “Bolivian-American”. Glad to hear they export something other than tin down there.
Old age isn’t looking so bad after all.
Time hasn’t been quite so kind to Brigette Bardot though, 68 years old.

Liberals Forced Kind, Loving Bankers to Give Loans to Niggers and Beaners

Evil, scummy Big Government Liberals forced kind, loving, sweet, puppy-cuddling ultra-rich White bankers to loan out their hard-earned White cash to deadbeat idiot niggers and beaners, knowing full well that the loans would never come back, all in an insane Commie effort to help the undeserving genetically inferior minorities buy homes that they could never afford.
So the lie goes.
This is another of the big fat lies that the racists like Sailer, the Republicans and the White Nationalists are pushing.
Now, once again, if it was true, that would be one thing. Hey, the government does all sorts of stupid stuff, including liberals in government. I blast liberals on here all the time. But this time the  charge is just flat out wrong.
It’s a great big fat WN and Republican lie that affirmative action government folks demanded that minorities be given homes they did not deserve. It never happened. There is a government program that banks can enroll in that is designed to reduce the discrimination that minorities face in housing.
The banks in this program have a much lower foreclosure rate than the banks that were not enrolled in this program.
No one can force a bank to give a loan to someone who does not deserve it, and the government has never done this.
The banksters gave out these loans not because they are sweet, kind and lovable and the evil liberal government forced them to, but because they could give out loans, make a bundle off each one, and not give a damn if the loan was going to go bad or not. That’s why this whole mess occurred.
Moral risk was eliminated in those who loan money for homes.
It didn’t matter to them whether the loans went bad or not, and they made a ton of money off each loan, so they deliberately gave out bad loans to lots of people who could not afford to buy a home, further with the use of fraudulent and loan-sharking balloon payments that for all intents and purposes made the loans unpayable to many buyers.
It is true that liberals, including Democratic Party liberals, specifically multibillionaire real estate mogul Penny Pritzger of Chicago, the woman who more than anyone else made Barack Obama the politician and groomed him for power, were deeply involved in the very creation of these maddening subprime vehicles which should never have been marketed in the first place, but that is another matter altogether.
Pritzger may have played a larger role than anyone else in devising the mad, fraudulent formulas that bury the subprime balloon payments in the principal itself and make it nearly impossible to figure out without a Degree in Finance.
Other Democratic Party fat cats like Robert Rubin of Citigroup, his protege Lawrence Summers, both Cabinet officers under Clinton, and the catastrophic Timothy Geithner under Obama, are up to their necks in this catastrophe. Not that the Republicans ever raised a little finger in opposition. It’s probably true that Clinton did more to create this mess than Bush by deregulating the banks. Bush just clapped and cheered after the fact and took advantage of the Clintonian deregulation.
Especially important here was the horrible destruction of Roosevelt’s Glass-Segall Act. However, Republican Phil Gramm (and his Korean wife Wendy Gramm) is the point man here for financial deregulation here, having played the starring role for three decades.
Anti-Semites may wish to ponder that Rubin, Summers and Pritzger (photo here) are all Jewish. I don’t believe in the Evil Jewish Bankers Blew Up the Economy bit, but the Tribe is definitely not innocent in this matter. In particular, the bankster Jews around Clinton more or less deregulated the banking sector all by themselves, with the help of the Gentile Gramms and to the cheers of the Wall Street Gentiles.
Further, the programs that attempt to address the still significant discrimination in selling homes to minorities, especially Blacks, date all the way back to the 1970’s. These laws have never created any economic problems or excessive foreclosure rates. The laws stipulate that the minorities still must be credit worthy and able to pay off their loans.
The explosion in foreclosures, some of which do involve minorities it is true, began quite recently, just a few short years ago. In order for this nutty theory to work, the 1970’s laws have to work as some sort of weird time bomb and have effects for 30 years before they suddenly destroy the economy. Yeah right.
It’s shameful that this racist swill is still being peddled, but I guess racists will believe just about anything about the people they hate.

The Five Hearths of Urbanization

I never really knew much about this, but a friend of mine was taking a course in Human Geography (WTH?) and this was one of the things that they dealt with in the class.
What this really means is that these five areas were the first parts of the world to experience urbanization. Urbanization is very important. You cannot even make cities until you develop surplus agriculture. Moving agriculture from subsistence to surplus usually involves a move to some sort of large farms, orchards or plantations. These large agricultural outposts can then produce enough to not only feed the rural population, but to provide food for the urban population.
The urban population must be fed by the rural because as a good rule, people in cities just do not grow food, or, if they do, they do not grow enough to sustain the city. As long as the urban folks don’t need to worry about starving and don’t have to grow food, they can do other stuff besides growing food. This is the beginnings of civilization.
The five Hearths are the Nile River Valley in Egypt, Mesopotamia in Iraq, the Indus River Valley in Pakistan, the Mayan in Central America and the Yellow River Valley in China. No one has any idea of what the IQ’s of the dwellers of these regions were at the time, but right now they are Guatemala 79, Egypt 82, Pakistan 82.5, Iraq 87 and China 105 (I don’t accept Richard Lynn’s phony 100 figure for China).
All but China are in what is the lower half of the human IQ range. Since White nationalists are adamant that IQ has remained unchanged in all of these places, and everywhere else for that matter, in the past few thousand years, it behooves to ask how is it that these dummies showed up Homo Superiorus in Europe anyway?
Of the five, Egypt was far and away the most advanced. The latest thinking is that the pyramids were not built by slaves, but instead were built by relatively well-paid, middle-class workers. Whole cities that housed these workers have been uncovered near the pyramids. Egyptian cities are the oldest of all. I am not sure of dates, but it looks like Egyptian cities go back 6,000 years or more (YBP = years before present).
It’s odd that the earliest cities were the best of them all. The majestic pyramids were unsurpassed in the other Hearths. Although Mesopotamia had stone obelisks as tall as a man, Egypt had incredible obelisks of solid stone up to an unbelievable 100 feet tall. People to this day still wonder how the Egyptians did it, and no one quite knows.
King Tut appointed what seems to be the first, or one of the first, queens of a large society, so this was a feminist breakthrough too, not that you would know it if you went to Islamic and misogynistic Egypt today.
The next one along was Mesopotamia at 5,500 years ago. This is very, very early. They had art, aqueducts and organized religion, but no pyramids or major architectural accomplishments. There was a Great Wall of Babylon, a beautiful structure fashioned of blue bricks.
They had obelisks and statues such as the Style of Hammurabi, but that was only as tall as a man. Compare to the 100 foot obelisks of the Egyptians – no contest. The Mesopotamians were already smelting metal – this was the Bronze Age. Smelting metal is a serious advance in civilization, and it’s amazing that anyone was smelting anything 4,900 years ago, when Mesopotamian smelting began. It appears that Mesopotamia was influenced by the earlier civilization of the Egyptians.
The next is the great civilization of the Indus. This was in Pakistan, not in India as idiot Indian nationalists claim. Not quite as impressive as the first two, it did have very large cities with aqueducts for irrigation. However, they had no pyramids or other great architecture, no art and no writing. They had big cities and little else. The Indus Civilization vanished without a trace for unknown reasons. The Indus was very old, 4,200 YBP.
The fourth Hearth was the Maya Civilization in Central America. This actually goes back a long ways, all the way to 3,100 YBP at least and possibly earlier. It was characterized by a writing system, mathematics, pyramids, art and advanced astronomy. The Mayan pyramids were excellent structures. I am not sure how they compare to the Egyptian pyramids, but it is fascinating that early peoples in two completely different parts of the world both decided to build pyramids (Why?).
The Mayans also smelted metal and had a very early irrigation system.
What is odd is that neither the Mayans nor the Aztecs who came much later never managed to invent the wheel or to put it to good use. The wheel is absolutely essential for advanced civilization, and discovering it is considered a profound breakthrough for any culture.
What is even more strange is that the early Central Americans did invent the wheel, but they did not put it to good use. We have found children’s toys with wheels on them from these cultures. On the other hand, there were no pack animals to be domesticated in Central America, so it’s dubious what use you could put the wheel to, although I guess you could make a rickshaw, a bicycle or a wheelbarrow.
The early Central Americans are derided, especially by White Nationalists, for being horribly, even evilly cruel, especially in their mad, seemingly insane addiction to human sacrifice. It’s true that the Central Americans did take human sacrifice to frightfully vicious extremes, at times making it nearly an assembly line operation.
However, many early cultures engaged in human sacrifice, including Homo Superiorus over in Europe. Why, we ask? Well, these were pre-scientific folks. They did have their Gods, but as cruel and meaningless as fate often is, the Gods must have been crazy, to paraphrase a movie title.
For instance, these nutty and semi-wicked Gods would kill the hottest babe in the village along with the handsomest, smartest guy to boot, for no darn reason at all, while leaving alive the village dirtbag, who barely even deserved to be kept alive one more minute. None of it made sense. Human life is a caprice, so cruel a caprice that it can almost seem like folly or the blackest of jokes.
These Gods were clearly nuts, but they ruled our lives nevertheless. What to do? Appease the crazy bastards.
This was the meaning of human sacrifice and the more humane later animal sacrifice, taken to insane lengths of folly by the Jews of the Temple Period, where an assembly line of animals stretched for up to a mile or so, and animals were killed all day in a 9-5 operation, such that blood flowed from the Temple like a river. This is the mad period that the most fanatical Zionists wish to recreate.
Anyway, the way to appease a powerful, crazy person is to humor him, be nice to him or even bring him gifts. This was the idea behind the human sacrifices, to try to semi-rationalize the ferocious whimsy of the Gods.
The fifth Hearth is the Yellow River Valley of China. Actually, yo can’t say that anymore, as the PC-idiots take offense. Guess why? Yellow River sounds like yellow skin. Chinese are said to have yellow skins, but that’s racist and you can’t say that. So forget the Yellow River.
Instead, it’s the Huang He River, which I think means yellow in Chinese, but since mostly only Chinese know Chinese, there’s nothing to get offended about, since Chinese equating Chinese = yellow is not offensive, but if Caucasians do it, it’s mean and evil and racist. Whatever.
Anyway, the Yellow River civilization was about 2,200 YBP. I don’t know much about it except that they did have large cities and irrigation. They also had writing.
One might reasonably ask what these five Hearths had in common. We can say that they were near the Equator, but not too near. That seems crucial. They were all in the Northern Hemisphere, but I doubt if that is meaningful, except that there  seem to be more humans and more land mass in the north. And, with the exception of the Mayas, they were all in lush river valleys. The Mayas are odd man out in the jungle.
The question of YBP comes up. I don’t mind the term. Originally we had B.C. (Before Christ), and as a Christian, that’s just fine for me. Well, some folks got rid of that a while back and replaced it with BCE, (Before Christian Era), which always struck me as a cheap anti-Christian shot.
I figure Jews probably had a hand in this, since Jesus isn’t exactly their favorite guy, nor is Christianity exactly their favorite religion. The atheists and scientist types must have had a hand in it too. It surely so infuriated these poor atheist souls to have to say and write that horrible word “Christ” over and over. Non-Christians all over the world probably nodded in approval or chimed in.
YBP seems a good compromise. Neither Christocentric nor a slap in the face of Christianity, it just avoids the whole issue of Jesus and religion altogether and goes by a nice secular calendar.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Some Thoughts on the Bass in Acoustics and Music

The bass instrument, and the frequency it plays at, is interesting. It is difficult for the human ear to hear it. You will realize this if you ever put on a recording of music with electric bass guitar in it and try to listen for the bass. You can hear it best if you turn the bass up all the way, and it helps if you have a seasoned ear.
The question arises that if it is so hard to hear, why even bother to have an electric bass in rock music (I can’t speak for other forms of music)? The reason is that without a bass guitar, rock music sounds really bad. I’m not sure why it sounds bad, but it just does. You need the bass.
The bass actually has interesting effects in rock music. Although you don’t really hear it with your ears, you do feel it with your body. What is it about rock music that makes you want to get up and dance and move about, or head-bang? It’s the bass. The bass actually goes into your body, creates a strong feeling, and makes you want to react to it.
Bass waves are pretty interesting acoustic critters. While treble waves only go a few feet (Yes, it is true), bass waves can actually go for miles. Bass waves are so powerful that they can actually bring down buildings if they are loud enough.
Sounds are classed in a tripartite fashion – treble,  midrange, and bass. Bass might be necessary for rock music, but it’s nearly or totally useless for human speech. That is because human speech only operates in the treble range and in the upper half of the midrange.
Human speech does not use the bass range at all. We can make sounds in the bass range, but they won’t be normal speech sounds – they would just be weird, non-speech noises. Animals sometimes make bass sounds when they vocalize, like the low growl of the cat.
This is why if you really want to hear a speech recording well and have bass and treble knobs handy, you should turn down the bass and turn up the treble. You can turn up the treble all the way and turn down the bass all the way if you have to. The reason is that bass does absolutely nothing beneficial for human speech whatsoever in a recording – all it does it muddy things up.
You also hear difficult speech recordings better if you turn up the volume. The increased volume alone enables you to make out a difficult accent better.

The Recession and the Stimulus Bill

This is one nasty recession, the worst since the Great Depression. Truth is we are probably heading into a real Depression, not simply a recession. A Depression is when unemployment rises above 10%, and it looks like that’s where we are going, except that the government has been rigging the unemployment rate (along with the inflation rate) for many years now.
One thing we can do is what Hillary suggested earlier, an interest rate freeze. Why should we allow these criminal, fraudulent interest rate balloon payments to go on? It’s loan sharking. Loan sharking is illegal, or it ought to be.
In the comments section, James Schipper suggests nationalizing the banks. This is an excellent idea, and even Alan Greenspan and prominent Republicans are advocating nationalizing some banks. Either that or do what FDR did, and declare a bank holiday with going to back to work only on certain conditions. It wasn’t really a holiday; FDR just shut down all the banks. Then he said if you want to re-open, you need to agree to the following regulations.
As it is, we are shoveling something like $10 trillion at these banks (according to Katherine Austin Phipps and Greg Palast) and we are getting almost nothing in return. According to Palast, one bank was given $25 million of our money and almost immediately blew $15 billion of it on speculation. Would you give a gambling addict your life savings with no guarantees on how it would be spent? That’s what we are doing here.
The stimulus bill is good, but it’s not nearly enough – it will only tide us over until October or November when things will really hit the fan. Commenter Iceman notes that tax cuts are no good in a deep recession, since people will probably sock the money away as savings instead of spending it. That’s probably a good analysis.
On the other hand, taxes on the rich can surely be raised. The top end of the tax burden could be lifted from 35% to 40%, where it was before Bush took office. Obama suggested he would do this in the campaign, but now he is silent. The CEO of Netflix recently wrote an editorial suggesting lifting the top end to 50%. After all, he said, we have the money and working class and poor people don’t. We can afford to pay more. Indeed.
Commenter David Kelsey notes that Republicans cut most of the mass transit money out of the bill, so some lines will probably just have to shut down. Great thing to do in the middle of a recession – shut down mass transit lines.
I do know that something must be done soon. A friend of mine in Italy says his business is off by 70%. It’s simply devastating. All of Europe was tied into the US economy in the worst way.

Niggers and Beaners Caused the Recession, Continued

Lies are funny things. No matter how matter times you demolish them, the liars just keep on resurrecting them with new flimsy excuses. I don’t have anything against racist theory, fact or even science that makes, say, Blacks and Hispanics look bad; after all, facts are facts. But I do wonder what the utility of it is. It seems no one but a bunch of racist assholes cares about most of this. Most everyone else doesn’t want to hear about it.
The race realists protests that facts must be discussed. Oh really now?
You know, I take craps just about every day for my whole life now. That’s over 50 years worth of shits I’ve taken, and I’ve neglected to document them for posterity. Yet historians couldn’t care less about my negligence.
I could have taken pictures, conducted studies, made drawings and paintings, written non-fiction, poetry, song lyrics, short stories and Hell, even novels all about my glorious Robert Lindsay turds.
Actually, I’m fascinated about my shits like most neurotics, and I probably could write a novel about them (Hmm, well, they aren’t that interesting, so maybe a novella). But who would want to hear about it? No one in their right mind. Are my shits not factual events, and their documentation a matter of science? Sure.
Same things with racist stuff that makes Blacks and Hispanics look bad. For the most part, this stuff says that their sub-par genes are making them screw up or act bad in this or that way. So there’s nothing useful to be gained out of this. If it was something that Blacks and Hispanics could change, there would be a point to it. We could publish it and urge them to change. But it’s set in their genes and there’s nothing to be done.
First of all, Blacks and Hispanics don’t want to hear about this, no matter how true it is. They don’t want to hear about it now, and they won’t want to hear about it in the future. The Steve Sailers of the world preposterously wail about this, but that’s just the way people are. Most White people don’t seem to want to hear about it either. Hardly anyone other than a bunch of racist shits wants to hear about it. So what’s the point of it? There isn’t any.
That doesn’t stop racists like Steve Sailer (Yes, he’s a racist all right.) from pushing their crap. One of the worst lies lately is the Blacks and Hispanics Caused the Recession Lie. All of the racialists and White Nationalists across the board are pushing this lie, which is not surprising considering their low moral level, but I was surprised that more mainstream types like Sailer and even the Republican Party and Wall Street Journal would try to sell this racist sewage.
The point is that the foreclosure rates by ethnicity simply do not matter, but allow me to explain why they don’t matter.
This is what the debate hinges on. Supposedly Blacks and  Hispanics have higher foreclosure rates, though maybe they do not. The figures seem to be contradictory and confusing.
Let’s assume for a moment that the racists are right and Blacks and Hispanics do have higher foreclosure rates. According to the racists, this is because (Genetically!) stupid and irresponsible minorities deliberately took out loans that they knew full well that they could not pay.
Then they stuck the poor, innocent, angelic, mostly-White, ultra-rich bankers with the bill. The result has been disaster for the super-rich White bankers. Some have even had to sell a few of their spare yachts. There seems to be no end to the depths of the tragedy.
Look, dammit. This is the truth. I don’t have figures for Hispanics, but for Blacks, 75% of them got subprime loans. This was independent of income. Blacks got subprime loans no matter what their incomes were. Across the income spectrum, Blacks were way more likely to get subprime loans than Whites. The reason was simple racism.
The racists’ argument is that the dumb niggers and beaners, excuse me, the minorities, were supposed to be smart enough to figure out the loan terms. But the truth is that the loans were being peddled almost exclusively by criminals. When a criminal offers you a deal, he’s often pretty dishonest about it.
If what the mortgage lenders did wasn’t against the law, it should have been. The terms of the subprime mortgages were so confusing you nearly needed a degree in Economics to figure them out, and even then, you might get fooled.
The subprime loans were a flat-out scam, a case of fraud, whether legally provable or not. The formula was so maddeningly complex that the balloon interest rates (and that’s what they were) that were set to blow up in your face in the next few years were somehow factored into your principal. That’s right, your interest was somehow stirred into the casserole of your principal to such an extent that you couldn’t even see it anymore.
Those who were genius enough to figure out the balloon interest rates were nearly always assured, “Oh, don’t worry. We’ll just refinance your loan before that happens, so you won’t have to worry about it.”
This was fraud, scamming and frankly loan-sharking on a massive scale. Huge corporations like Countrywide (Why are they still in business?) were really just criminal organizations, and most or all of their loan officers were criminal foot soldiers of some sort, like the foot soldiers of the Mafia.
It’s appalling that people like Sailer want to blame scam victims for getting scammed, especially when the scam was so complex that it was almost impossible to figure out.
Why did the bankster-crooks do this? Because there was no longer any risk in loaning money. Normally, banks had to be concerned that the money was going to come back. If it wasn’t repaid, the bank took a nasty hit and lost money.
Now, the work was farmed out to mortgage loan companies, who were separate from the banks. That way the banks cut their risk out of it. The loans were then repackaged as securities (This crap has been going on for about 40 years now, and probably ought to be illegal.) to Wall Street, thus taking the mortgage loan companies’ risk out of it.
Wall Street took them, and with the help of a bunch of criminals called accounting corporations, who gave these garbage loans repackaged as securities AAA bond ratings, sold them to investors all over the world, thus taking Wall Street’s risk out of it. The investor-suckers were then left holding the bag.
Corporations like AIG then sold insurance policies on mortgage loan securities (That probably ought to be illegal too.) so the buyers of the painted turds took out insurance policies on the securities in case they went bad. Go bad they did, as anyone with half a brain could predict, and the holders of the insurance policies rushed to AIG to cash in their policies.
Insurance operates on the basis that the company will fail if everyone tries to cash in their policies at once, since they don’t have the capital on hand to cover the claims. AIG did not have the cash to pay out all of the claims, so it was about to go under. That’s why AIG got $300 billion from the US government is now a socialist institution owned by the USA.
It’s important to note that everyone along each and every step of the way here made a massive bundle of money, except maybe the investors at the held who were holding the bag. The FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) sector of the economy had an outrageous wild party for a decade or so while this crap was going on, and any tears shed for these crooks are just wasted.

Moronicans, Continued.

The evidence, no fossil record needed.
I was hoping we were sort of evolving some more sense about this stuff, but I guess not.
Particularly horrifying figures: Only 39% of Americans believe in evolution. A majority of Republicans (!) do not believe in evolution. Only 74% of Americans with postgrad degrees believe in evolution. An incredible 14% of Americans with postgrad degrees (From where? Moron U.?) are unable to associate Charles Darwin with evolutionary theory. Question was what scientific theory is Darwin associated with. Maybe it’s time we start revoking some of these “postgrad degrees.”
Unsurprising findings: The more you go to church, the dumber you are (the less likely you are to believe in evolution). Regular church-going seems to prolong life at the same time as it shrinks the brain. And the more education you have, the less stupid you are (the more likely you are to believe in evolution).
It’s too bad that fundamentalist Protestantism in the US has drawn a line in the sand at evolutionary theory. The Catholic Church, more flexible than one might think, has said that belief in evolution is compatible with Catholic doctrine. This shows that Christianity and evolutionary theory are compatible. I don’t believe Jesus uttered a word on the subject of evolution, did he? Case closed.
Hat tip to the Inductivist, an interesting, albeit rightwing blog.

Nice Timeline of the Late Roman Empire

This is a really cool timeline that I happened upon that gives a brief history of the Late Roman Empire, with specific focus on Britain. I didn’t find it on the Internet, so there is no link. I really don’t understand a lot of what is in this timeline, as I’m just learning about the Dark Ages now, but you may wish to look it over with me.
My previous post on Orthodoxy versus Roman Catholicism needs some explication. The truth is that before the split between the Roman and Eastern Church, there was only one Catholic Church.
There was no Roman Catholic Church. There was no Orthodox (Catholic) Church. There was one and only one church, the Catholic Church. “Catholic” itself just meant something like for everyone, for everyman. The actual Roman Catholic Church and the actual Orthodox (Catholic) Church only begin formally with the split in 1054.
Sometimes the head of the Church was in Constantinople and at other times it was in Rome, and sometimes it seems to have been in both places at once.
Ancient British history is much more complicated than modern British history. We can summarize modern British history quite easily. We can generalize about what Britain did in World War 2, and what it has done in the past decade. We can’t do this was Dark Ages Britain, because there was no unified Britain.
There were kingdoms, mini-kingdoms and super-kingdoms scattered all over Britain and at any given time, there were, say 10-20 different important things going on in each small bit of territory.
A friend of mine is currently taking a course in British History and he says that this period is maddeningly complex. A study of early British history is practically the tutelage of a lifetime.
Rome, in a way, continues on even after the Fall. There are post-Roman or pseudo-Roman kings after the Fall in Britain. They had Roman names, Roman values and probably even spoke Latin.
The Dark Ages were a time of a great loss of knowledge. Only the monks could read and write; even the Kings typically could not read or write! The monasteries were where it was all happening, Daddy-O. All of the art, science, education, technology, the works.
You had lots of single men here who did not have wives and kids to keep up. Your ordinary working man slaved away all day and had no time left over for study, science, technology, learning, reading, writing, anything.
This sort of tradition continued up into the modern era when the rich, the leisure class, replaced the monks. Up until recent times, nearly all science, technology, scholarly work, literature, poetry, etc. was produced by wealthy men. The working class guy simply did not have enough time to do much other than work all day and support his wife and kids.
By the same token, women were excluded from most of these roles. It was wife and mother, or get thee to a nunnery. In one area, literature, women did start to produce in late modern era. It is interesting that many of the first and best female novelists from  the era were lesbians (Yes, it is true.)
There are a couple of reasons for this. First of all, only an unmarried woman had the time to write novels. A wife and mother was too busy slaving all day to have time to write any book, much less a great novel. Furthermore, writing, even literature, was regarded as men’s work – only men were writers. This conceit survives today in the expression “man of letters.”
Writing was just not ladylike! It was downright dykey. Women were just not seen as writers. Their talents were ridiculed. If someone told you that a woman wrote a book, you might start laughing. “What about?” you might ask. “Cooking?” It was assumed that this was practically the only subject a woman could write sensibly about.
In the early days, monks did not have to be celibate, and incredibly, nuns and monks lived together in a single monastery. Some of the monks and nuns were not celibate, but most were. Those who were celibate were not so by directive but by choice. These were deeply religious people who really wanted to give up sex and leave the opposite sex alone, so enforcement of a celibacy rule was not much of a problem.
Also, there were very strict rules that they had to live under, even if celibacy was not one of them. Later, there were separate wings, one for women and another for men. At some later time, celibacy was enforced.
The horror of deflation, a terrifying spiral that is difficult to stop, is exemplified by Dark Ages economics. There simply was not much money, period, for anyone. Where there is little money anywhere, there is little money to be accumulated by would-be wealthy elites. Hence, even kingdoms, Duchys, etc. were quite weak.
The economy centered around the monasteries. This was where capital was being accumulated. You had lots of good workers who were for all intents and purposes slaves.
The monasteries produced all sorts of items and were almost the only source of industry during the Dark Ages. Where did the surplus profits produced by the monasteries go? Good question. Usually back to the Church – to the abbots, bishops and even back to Rome or Constantinople.
In those days, abbots did not have to be celibate either. An abbot was often a family man; he would just be some ordinary guy living in the area. The Church people would come up to him and say, “Hey, you’re the abbot.” It was a great job, so must assented.
There was little art produced in the Dark Ages. It was one more thing that fell by the wayside. It is little-known, but the Romans produced quite a bit of art. The painted all of their buildings in all sorts of gaudy colors. The problem was that they used inferior paints that decayed and did not last, so very little has survived. People were even making paintings in the Dark Ages, but they were using this lousy paint and, to make matters worse, they were painting on wood. Wood doesn’t last, so little of this art remains.
Much of the remaining art from the Dark Ages comes from the Byzantines. The Byzantines used tiles to make religious tile paintings. Tile, a ceramic, tends to last. Byzantine art looks strange to our eyes, almost always religious pictures of Jesus, Mary, etc., often with prominent halos. Canvas is obviously a much better choice for painting, and canvas is still used today. Canvas did not start to be used a lot until after the Dark Ages and heading up into the Late Middle Ages – probably around 1300 or so.
Timeline follows:
324 – Foundation of Constantinople (Byzantium) by Constantine.
368 – Count Theodosius routs barbarians in Britain and puts down rebellion of Valentinus.
382 – Magnus Maximus defeats Picts and Scots.
395 – Division of the Empire between the sons of Theodosius.
398 – Britain suffers from attacks by Saxons, Picts and Scots.
406-7 – Legions in Britain elect a series of usurpers – Marcus, Gratian, and finally Constantine III, who crosses to Gaul with Roman troops.
408 – Britain is devastated by Saxon incursions.
410 – Sack of Rome by the Visigoths; Rome formally renounces Britain.
429 – St Germanus visits Britain to combat Pelagian heresy.
439 – Vandals conquer Carthage and the African part of the Empire.
451 – Defeat of the Huns at Chalons.
455-485 – Ambrosius Aurelianus leads a series of victories over the Saxon invaders.
476 – End of the Roman Empire in the West (Fall of the Roman Empire.
490-526 – Theoderic the Ostrogoth rules Italy.
486-511 – Reign of Clovis, King of the Merovingian Franks.
506 – Franks convert to Catholic Christianity.
507 – Franks defeat Visigoths and annex Aquitaine.
527-565 – Justinian attempts reconquest of Italy and Roman Africa.
542-3 – Plague ravages the Empire, eventually reaching Britain in 549.
545 – St. David establishes St. David’s in Wales.
549 – Gildas writes De Excidio Britanniae.
563-65 – St. Columba establishes monastery of Iona and begins mission among the Picts.
573-594 – Gregory of Tours is bishop of Tours.
577 – Battle of Dyrham – British towns of Gloucester, Cirencester and Bath fall to the Saxons.
587 – Recared, King of the Visigoths, converts to Catholicism.
597 – Mission of Augustine to Britain. Establishes bishopric at Canterbury in the Kingdom of Kent.
600 – Invasion of Italy by the Lombards.
628 – Conversion of King Eadwine of Northumbria.
633 – Armies of Islam begin to attack Syrian province of Eastern Empire.

Very Early British History

Updated February 21: I have decided to rewrite this post and make it a bit more knowledgeable and scholarly. The previous version contained many errors of tone as well as fact and overall vision.
During the Dark Ages and prior to the Roman Conquest, England was in a state of continual chaos. There were all sorts of tribes all over Britain.
There were Kings all over the lang. If we pretend that New York is a part of Britain, there would be a King of Manhattan, a King of Brooklyn, a King of the Bronx, a King of Long Island, etc. Also, there might be an “overking” of all of New York City. And within the King of Manhattan’s realm, there might be subkings, like the King of Greenwich Village, the King of the Upper East Side, etc.
It is not correct to say that these tribes were in a continual state of warfare. In truth, they often made temporary alliances. So the Kings of Bronx and Brooklyn would get together to fight the King of Long Island. These Kings mostly just wanted “tribute.” They didn’t want slaves. They lorded over the peasantry. The peasants had crops and animals, and the Kings would collect taxes from the peasants. You did get a modicum of protection from other invading Kings by paying taxes to the King of your region.
The various tribes were scattered all over England and engaged in regular tribal warfare from their “hillforts.”
Before the Roman Conquest, the Britons, or “Brythons”, were speaking “Britonic” or Brythonic. This is a form of Celtic known as P-Celtic. It was probably many different languages and not just one. The only surviving forms of P-Celtic are Welsh and Breton, and all of the others have gone extinct. Sadly, very little remains of the dead Brythonic languages that were spoken all over Britain before the year 600.
They had some sort of runic writing, painted their faces blue and worshiped trees and built Stonehenge, but beyond that, we know little. No one really knows what Stonehenge is all about – it’s a gigantic mystery. Some of the runes seem to be poorly translated and we can’t make out much of what they were trying to say.
The wars were over tribute and slavery. Basically, you were either master or slave, like in S & M. Tribes would attack each other with the sole purpose of conquering the others so the others would be forced to “pay tribute” to your tribe. None of this endless warfare accomplished much in the way of civilizing activity.
With the coming of Rome, this chaos finally stopped. The Roman Army was so impressive it was like fighting the aliens. Most of the Britons just gave up and quit fighting. The Romans pretty much showed up, said, “Here we are, we’re the Romans, we have civilization and all this cool stuff, and we want to take over.” The Britons pretty much said, “Help yourself.” There was some opposition, but not much, and most of it was from the Britons in Scotland and Wales.
The Romans also used bribes and various other non-violent methods of conquest. As in Palestine and elsewhere in the Empire, the Romans mostly just wanted taxes and in some cases slaves. First and foremost, they wanted to avoid local rebellions.
At one point during Roman rule, a British tribe called the Briganti under the warrior queen Boudicca attacked the Romans ferociously.
This was not the first time the Romans had dealt with this tribe (Did we get the word “brigands” from them?) and the Romans massacred the Brigands, killing 40,000 people,  men, women and children. It wasn’t genocide by any means, as there were many Brigands left alive, but it was more to teach them a lesson. To describe Roman rule of Britain as genocidal is completely mistaken.
The Romans, while imperialists, also brought high civilization like flush toilets, roads, cities, advanced weaponry, the works. The advantages of Roman Civilization for primitive and barbaric British tribes were considerable. After Rome fell, Britain fell apart. Churchill said the Roman plumbing system, collapsed in 400, was not equaled again by the British until the late 1800’s. That’s pretty impressive.
There is much misunderstanding about the walls the Romans built in Scotland and Wales. The truth is that the Romans couldn’t really conquer either Wales or Scotland, so they blew both places off. Romans were smart, and they knew how to cut their losses. If you couldn’t defeat someone quickly, you shined them on and forgot about them.
But the Welsh and Scottish Britons would not stop attacking the Romans, even though the Romans were not even occupying their lands. After the Romans left, a post-Roman, “pseudo-Roman” King named Offa built a huge earthen wall 25 feet high called Offa’s Dyke that went all across Wales. This little-known structure is actually longer than Hadrian’s Wall.
Same thing up in Scotland with Hadrian’s Wall. The Romans wanted nothing to do with the Scots, but the Scots kept charging south to attack the Romans. The Romans finally built a big wall and said you guys stay over there now.
It’s important to note that the Romans also had little interest in Wales or Scotland. These areas are mountainous and were not conducive to growing cash crops like wheat. The Romans were mostly interested in flat areas where crops could be grown.
Roman imperialism was definitely exploitative. The Romans principally got metals, lead and tin, out of England. Those mines were built with slave labor. Those slaves were generally Englishmen. The life of a Roman slave, as with a Greek slave, was not so bad, as slave life goes. It was surely better than the life of a slave in the Arab World, the Americas, or Africa.
In Ancient Greece, there wasn’t a whole lot of difference between a “slave” and a “free man.” This was before unions and collective bargaining, so both worked really hard all day under less than optimal conditions. But at the end of the day, at least the slave got to go home to a nice room in his master’s house and a good square meal. God knows where the free man slept, maybe under a tree.
The Romans were quite civilized, and they had smelting metals and mining down. They used these metals primarily for making cool weaponry with which to kick ass on most of Europe. Rome’s weaponry and army was what Rome was all about. Take away that pillar, and the whole thing falls down.
English slaves were often taken to the mainland and were highly valued there. For one thing, once on the mainland, an English slave was seriously lost. He didn’t know where the heck he was at, and no way was he going to try to make it back to England. So English slaves on the mainland seldom ran away.
The Roman period was the longest period of stability that Britain had ever known. No sooner had Rome fallen and the Romans left then the British went back to their endless wars. Since these wars were fought with primitive weaponry, no one was able to get the upper hand and conquer most of the country, necessary for nation-building.
It is important to unite lands under a flag with unity and dedication to a common goal. Otherwise you just have the human equivalent of three dozen monkeys running about around every bend in the road. It’s impossible to make an economy, get an army together, or get much done as a civilization. So much for radical decentralization.
It wasn’t until the Normans conquered Britain in 1066 that the  British finally stopped their incessant tribal wars. There were surely wars under the Normans, but it was a far cry from the neverending chaos of the Dark Ages.
At this time, the Normans were able at least to engage in enough nation-building to create a semblance of a state. And weaponry was advanced enough to solidify that rule and to get the British to stop fighting amongst themselves and unite to defend the Isle against the invaders instead.
Churchill once said that the history of Britain for the first 1000 years (1-1000) was one of continuous invasion. In the second 1000 years, Britain was not successfully invaded a single time. That’s what nation-building, modern weapons and a Navy will get you, a good night’s sleep for once.

SPLC Supports American Workers Against Fake Guest Workers

One of the last things the Bush Administration did before it left, among the other horrible rules it made, was a new rule dealing the H-2B guest workers. It made it easier to bring these fake workers into the country and it also made it much easier to abuse them while they were here.
I am on the Southern Poverty Leadership Center (SPLC)’s mailing list, and I recently got a mail from them. It said, “Stop the Abuse of Workers!” Since the SPLC has never shown me that it cared anything about American workers, or Americans period, as long as they are White Americans, I figured this was some BS about stopping the “abuse” of arresting illegal aliens who have absolutely no fucking right whatsoever to be in my country.
My surprise. On opening the mail, the SPLC detalied the new Bush Administration rule that is leading to some grotesque abuse of these guest workers, who shouldn’t even be in this country in the first place.
That’s wrong right there, but what surprised me was next. The SPLC then said that the whole H-2B program is subject to outrageous abuses, in most cases being used to bring in fake “guest workers” after first firing the Americans, or brining in fake guest workers when there are plenty of Americans willing to fill the jobs.
Along with Paul Craig Roberts’ post in Counterpunch that I detailed earlier that discussed how the Stimulus Bill allows businesses to use stimulus money to fire American workers and bring in fake guest worker replacements, these are the first times I have ever heard the Left in the US actually stand up for American workers against immigrants of any sort.
There is definitely competition between US workers and refugees, guest workers and illegal aliens.
In that contest, the Left has nearly always treasonously sided with the glorious foreigners against the real Americans.
For a political spectrum that is supposed to be for American workers, I can’t hide my outrage at this.
This is because the Left in the US is increasingly made up of non-Whites. Many non-Whites are either immigrants or their children, and they automatically side with a pro-immigrant position to the point where frankly most immigrants and their children seem to be out and out Open Borders and Mass Amnesty maniacs and traitors.
So the glorious “immigrant” has become something of a sacred cow with the Left. Let’s keep in mind that most immigrants nowadays are non-Whites, and the idiot Left in the West is based on the notion perpetrated by what I call “Anti-White Studies”. Also note that most US workers are White. The US Left has a well-disguised contempt for White workers, probably because they think they are infected with “White privilege” or are a bunch of racist rednecks who need to be knocked down a few pegs.
However, I note that no one on the US Left has dared to take on the precious illegals. Fake guest workers, who are after all legal, can be slammed, but the glorious illegal alien invaders are a protected class to be cherished and promoted at all costs. The day when the US Left lifts one finger against illegals will be an interesting day indeed.