Peter Singer on Darwinian Liberalism

Following on my previous post about the Liberal Race Realist movement, a commenter links to an article by the very liberal philosopher about what he proposes, a movement called the Darwinian Left. He is a much better thinker than I am, so I will just quote him:

A Darwinian left would not:• Deny the existence of a human nature, nor insist that human nature is inherently good, nor that it is infinitely malleable;
• Expect to end all conflict and strife between human beings, whether by political revolution, social change, or better education;
• Assume that all inequalities are due to discrimination, prejudice, oppression or social conditioning. Some will be, but this cannot be assumed in every case;
A Darwinian left would:
• Accept that there is such a thing as human nature, and seek to find out more about it, so that policies can be grounded on the best available evidence of what human beings are like;
• Reject any inference from what is ‘natural’ to what is ‘right’;
• Expect that, under different social and economic systems, many people will act competitively in order to enhance their own status, gain a position of power, and/or advance their interests and those of their kin;
• Expect that, regardless of the social and economic system in which they live, most people will respond positively to genuine opportunities to enter into mutually beneficial forms of cooperation;
• Promote structures that foster cooperation rather than competition, and attempt to channel competition into socially desirable ends;
• Recognise that the way in which we exploit nonhuman animals is a legacy of a pre-Darwinian past that exaggerated the gulf between humans and other animals, and therefore work towards a higher moral status for nonhuman animals, and a less anthropocentric view of our dominance over nature;
• Stand by the traditional values of the left by being on the side of the weak, poor and oppressed, but think very carefully about what social and economic changes will really work to benefit them.
In some ways, this is a sharply deflated vision of the left, its Utopian ideas replaced by a coolly realistic view of what can be achieved. That is, I think, the best we can do today – and it is still a much more positive view than that which many on the left have assumed to be implied in a Darwinian understanding of human nature.

There is not much I can add to this fine piece of eloquence and brilliant thinking, so I will just leave it at that and let the commenters go at it. Singer is definitely a major thinker who is no stranger to controversy.
Also, I would like to reiterate once again that we liberals do not subscribe to all of our crazy views just because we are self-hating Whites or because we are evil or anything like that. As philosopher Michael Levin notes, we believe all this crazy stuff because we want to be good. We want to be nice, and we don’t want to hurt people’s feelings. With all of the other problems Blacks have, why bring up the IQ gap? It’s like kicking a man while he’s down. “Oh yeah, and one more thing, jerk! You’re stupid too!” Even if it’s true, why bring it up? It’s unseemly and mean.
I’m not even sure liberals believe all the crazy stuff we say. Get a liberal alone when no one is listening, and a lot of surprisingly race realist stuff comes out of his mouth. We’re just too nice to talk about it company, and we really want to believe all the crazy alternatives, so that’s what we believe.
Look at the responses of Blacks to my race realist stuff. They come here to the comments section and they’re all huffed up and pissed. They’re also really hurt. We liberals don’t like to make people mad, especially Blacks. We don’t like to hurt their feelings.
And especially, we don’t like the implication in all of this that we are racists. We liberals hate being called racists. It makes us mad and especially it hurts our feelings. We are not racists, so it hurts us and bewilders us to be called that. It’s like calling a thin, pretty woman fat and ugly. She knows it’s not true, but it makes her mad anyway.

Spot The Language 22

Identify the language.
Say where it is spoken (what country, continent or area). Say who speaks it (what race, people or ethnic group). Say what type of language it is, if you can identify it. Extra points for precision.
Example: Basque, spoken in NE Spain by Basques, language isolate not related to anything.
I picked out some easy ones on purpose for starters. All these languages or peoples are fairly well-known, at least to me anyway.
1. Abenaki
2. Afar
3. Akan
4. Alsatian
5. Amharic
6. Aramaic
7. Asturian
8. Assamese
9. Assiniboine
10. Aymara
11. Balinese
12. Baluchi
13. Bikol
14. Brahui
15. Buryat
16. Burushaski
17. Cahuilla
18. Chamorro
19. Chickasaw
20. Choctaw

Liberal Race Realism Starting to Grow

I could not be more happy. This is a movement after all, that I am trying to birth myself. Hell, I may have even founded it.
It’s amazing that more people haven’t come around to it, but the PC Police are very threatening, at least here in California. Voicing the tiniest bit of racial heresy can have consequences such as being threatened with being thrown out businesses, threats and menacing looks from Hispanics, being openly shouted down in public by Hispanics and Blacks, loss of employment, loss of friends, and being labeled as a public pariah.
As far as being threatened with being thrown out of businesses, this has happened to me twice, both times on the most bizarre and ludicrous grounds.
On one occasion, I was accused of “distributing White Supremacist propaganda,” for showing folks a printed out post from this website. On another occasion, once again showing someone a printed out post from this site, I created a strange uproar and was politely told to never utter the word “race” in the place ever again. Such a dirty word!
In both cases, the posts were grotesquely misunderstood because the people reading them were too stupid to figure out what I was trying to say.
I’ve been told by my friends to never mention anything about this site to anyone around here, ever, other than to close friends. Likewise with printed out posts from the site. The reason given is that most people around here, including the Whites, are too stupid to understand this website, hence they will misunderstand it and get all sorts of weird ideas about it and me.
I’ve been stared down, threatened, menaced and spit at by Hispanics for daring to suggest that illegal aliens should take off. I’ve been told to “tone it down” by frightened Whites when discussing the illegal alien problem. Talking shit about illegals is downright dangerous in this town, seeing as they and their Frankenstein anchor baby offspring are probably about 1/2 the population.
I’ve been told that most of the Hispanics around my apartment complex regard as some sort of a virulent White Supremacist neo-Nazi skinhead type. I’m not really sure why they think this way, but that’s how these morons judge you if you’re not 100% in favor of America-suicide Political Correctness. In their own way, these Hispanics as bad as the worst Jews.
Given all this PC thuggery, it’s no wonder that White liberals are still drinking the PC Koolaid. Nevertheless, there does appear to be some hope. Check this out: Scroll down to “By elitist on 1/17/09 at 12:33 pm.”

DESPERATELY NEEDED are fora/support groups for progressives/moderates who are waking up to the reality of racial difference, but are not in the least attracted to white supremacy, antisemitism, climate change denial, hatred of Modern Art etc., guns, Neanderthal “barefoot and pregnant” anti-feminism, homophobia, medieval religiosity, etc.
Who do sincerely wish blacks, mulattoes and members of all races well, but who want an end to mass immigration, quotas, race blackmail, and speech censorship.
Speaking as a lifelong (and still) liberal, I maintain that it is wrong for progressives to cede a monopoly on the science of race to genuine racists and to work to maintain a firewall between science and public domain, all the while isolating themselves from the black community because they are frightened and intimidated, frankly, by the aggression and unthinking, superstitious mentality of most blacks, and by their astoundingly crude and bizarre ideological prejudices, and most of all by their open hostility toward whites and their boundless sense of entitlement.
We need an enlightened discourse on race that is free of all the above baggage, and that denigrates no one group but is based on a healthy dose of realism and skepticism, and on a robust pride in the achievements of European civilization.
Given the very real dangers to the livelihoods and social statuses of individuals who explore these “dangerous ideas,” we need a “RACE REALISTS ANONYMOUS,” a safe space for people to discuss their fears openly and without risk of exposure.
Whites are totally exhausted with being blamed for the seemingly intractable problems of the Black community in the US and elsewhere, and given the widening pathologies of that community, are tired of pretending to see a light at the end of the tunnel.
Race difference is indeed the great taboo in our culture, but under the sheer weight of reality, it is starting to break down.
Impossible and oxymoronic as it sounds, liberal race realists need to develop a coherent progressive discourse about racial difference – and fast!!
This does not mean “making racism respectable,” it means giving the majority of whites a coherent position that is both realistic and respectful of all races.

What’s fascinating is that I have just now started to see some more folks refer to themselves as “liberal race realists.” It’s like a whole new movement coming out of the woodwork.
And indeed, the pro-White movement reeks of White Supremacism, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism, gun nuttery, homophobia, lunatic anti-environmentalism to the point of Climate Change Denial and hatred of Modern Art, Modern Music, Modern Literature, Modern Culture and indeed Modernity itself. To this I would add hatred for any kind of Left economics.
The whole movement is just reactionary to the core. It ranges from Paleocons to Neocons like Guy White to Libertarians like the “cognitive elite” HBD bloggers like One STDV and Half Sigma. Liberals just want to throw up their arms and run away screaming.
More importantly, we leftwing idiots, as the author points out, have effectively ceded this entire issue to the Right. We have no position on race realism, other than liberal thuggery, contempt for and demands for censorship of science (!!), threats, career destruction, and just shouting, “No! No! No!”
It’s true that race realism, due to the nature of its facts, tends to feed automatically into conservatism, not to mention reactionary views and out and out fascism. But it need not be this way. If race realism, is, after all, simply the truth, then liberals out to be able to fashion some sort of liberal discourse out of this difficult position. Why not? We can come up with a liberal position on just about anything, why not race?
For starters, as the author points out, a position statement could be opposition to:
Mass immigration
Quotas
Race blackmail
Speech censorship
I’m actually somewhat agnostic on affirmative action, but it sure has lots of problems. The public seems to be against it, and initiatives all over the US are killing it off anyway. It’s sort of a non-issue that seems to be taking care of itself.
Race blackmail is something that gets little discussion. I’m not sure what exactly he’s referring to here, but I don’t like the sound of it. I think I’m against it too. Is it something like, “Don’t you dare deport those illegals, or we will riot and burn down L.A. again?”
Speech censorship should be the last thing that true liberals are doing, but here we are, wielding the black pen, deleting, shutting down, burying and gagging speech everywhere in sight. Why? We don’t want the truth getting out! How cowardly can you get?
Anyway, it’s nice to see that this movement is finally getting some legs. I thought I was alone for a while.

More On Who Were the Ancient Romans

A new comment on the previous post offers the best explanation yet.

The statues and paintings do not look like Meds or anyone else it seems. Their facial appearance was not as attractive as Meds or modern Italians (who are an extreme mixture of everything).
They were a bit shorter than the German/Celts but were much more muscular. The few bones (ancient original Romans used cremation) showed heavy muscularity, much greater even than Moderns.
My premise is that the Roman style of fighting served the infantry well, and their battles were of brute strength. Their sword the Gladius used was not as good as the Celtic sword in many ways. The Celtic sword has been shown superior in computer tests. However, the Roman style was to fight in a compact manner and use their superior physical strength it seems.
They were even outnumbered by great margins it just about all battles. This fact seems to not to carry much weight, but in hand to hand combat it does. How the Romans won these battles was in part organization, but the endgame was really genetics.
Where they came from is anybody’s guess. They do not appear to be like anyone but Romans.
Of course in the later stages they were just a mix, sort of like modern day Italians.

Well, sure. It’s all starting to make sense now. Along with the earlier post, We Are Not Our Ancestors , it’s all starting to come together. The Romans, like many other ancient peoples of Europe and probably of other places, were part of a race or ethnic group that no longer exists.
This is why the Meds and Nordicists have been fighting so long about whether the statues and paintings are Meds or Nords. The reason it’s controversial and hard to figure out in the first place (hence the debate) is that the Romans were neither!
They were not Nordics or Germans, nor were they Italians or Meds. They were an extinct race, vanished from the Earth. It’s nice the way some unknown commenter comes along and so neatly ties together loose ends.
I found it very interesting that the Romans were outnumbered in almost all their battles but won most of them anyway. The commenters theory sounds better than any others out there. Most combat was indeed hand to hand back in those days. What a terrifying way to fight a war!. Can you imagine having to go hand to hand with a deadly enemy in a kill or be killed battle? I’d rather take my chances in modern way any day.
As a side note, I am really getting tired of all of these races and ethnic groups claiming the achievements of ancient folks as their own. In many cases, the great ancients do not seem like the ancestors of those puffing their chests.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (1932-2009)

RIP Teddy Kennedy.
He authored of the 1965 Immigration Act that got rid of quotas that mandated that 90% of our immigration should come from Northern and Western Europe, for which he is hated by White nationalists. This bill was written to keep out Eastern and Southern Europeans, not Mexicans and Chinese.
At the time, the nation was full of hatred for Eastern and Southern Europeans, who were regarded as grossly inferior to the Nordic founding stock of America (of which I am a member – 5/8 British, 1/4 German, 1/8 French). Even Jews were regarded as inferior. IQ tests were showing Italians and Jews with IQ gaps as large as that between Blacks and Whites. Italians in particular (and to some extent Jews) were associated with crime, social decay, gangs, ghettos, etc. the same way that Blacks and Mexicans are now.
Considering all this, it’s interesting that these groups are now fully integrated into the US middle class. There is little to no evidence that they are inferior to Nordic Whites. The ghettos, squalor, crime and gangs are a memory.
At the time, the nation was so nuts about these groups that a proposal was made to sterilize them and to put them into camps to deal with them later. The model was eugenics, the same theory that drove the Nazis to their mass murder. The camps could have conceivably been used to kill these White inferiors, though that would have been odd. The nation was so in thrall to eugenics at the time and so contemptuous of these so-called inferior Whites that the only reason the proposal was shot down was that it would cost too much and require too much outlaw in manpower and materials.
When Calvin Coolidge signed the bill, he made a remark about how the US was a Nordic nation and commented on the necessity to keep out these European “inferiors.”
So given the stupid Nordicism behind that bill, it’s a good thing that it finally did get amended. Supposedly, the quotas were changed so that 90% of the immigration was supposed to come from non-White areas instead of White areas, but I’m not sure if this is true. It would seem reasonable to make immigration quotas much the makeup of the state – that is, if the US was 90% White in 1965, 90% of quotas should have been reserved for Whites, broadly defined.
Anyway, according to White nationalists, this bill sealed the doom on White America. They may be correct, but I don’t really care that the US will eventually become a non-White country. I’m more concerned about the rate at which the non-Whites come here and the quality of the non-Whites and their assimilation potential. After all, I grew up in a California that was 20-30% non-White, and that was fine with me.
On the other hand, I don’t even recognize my state anymore. Immigration is more a problem of too much, too soon and way too many low quality Third World peasants and urban poor types who offer no benefit to the US and lots of downside.
On top of that, it’s true that Teddy was behind the latest Amnesty bill too, along with Juan McCain. This one failed, and it would have amnestied in 20 million illegals and then, via chain immigration, would have allowed 60-80 million more relatives in. This is the outrage that Obama is determined to pass. If this bill passes, America as we know it will be gone forever and we will have to decide which type of Latin American country we are going to be.
Teddy was also involved in the Chappaquiddick outrage, where a drunken Teddy drove his car off a bridge into a river, then made his way out of the car to the shore while his young female passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne, drowned.
For this, amazingly, he apparently served no time at all. It was clearly a case of vehicular manslaughter. He delayed showing up at the police station until the booze had worn off. For this, he was hated forever by the Right, but you know if one of their heroes had done it, the Right would have supported him anyway and not trifled a second over it.
Despite the Amnesty outrage and Chappaquiddick, I still don’t hate Teddy Kennedy. Maybe I should. But he was one of the greatest modern US liberal senators, always solid in his principles, and rarely selling out to the Right or Far Right the way so many of these fake liberals like Chris Dodd, Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama do.
He was a real liberal, always great on health care, the environment, gay rights, civil rights, you name it. He always stood up for and fought for poor, low income and working class people. I suppose that his immigration craziness was just part and parcel of his liberal. There is an interview with Michael Levin in a recent issue of American Renaissance where he says something very sensible about liberals. Liberals are wrong on race, he says, but they mean well. They have good intentions, in contrast to conservatives who are just flat out mean.
This is important to note. Liberals like Kennedy honestly do not think or realize that legalizing 20 million illegals followed by 80 million chain immigrants is bad for America. They still believe in the Emma Lazarus and Statue of Liberty myth – “Give me your tired, your poor. Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.” They don’t do it because they are White self-haters or anything like that.
A Teddy Kennedy Presidency would have been a very interesting one, but after Chappaquiddick it was doomed. Teddy may have even been so liberal as to scale back US imperialism, something no liberal US President has ever done.
Kennedy was an inveterate womanizer and tales about him are legendary. Once in the Senate Dining Room, a young female dived under the table to service him, hidden by the draping tablecloths. He especially loved young women, even into middle age and possibly beyond. I don’t care about this, and I wish I could emulate him. Teddy was a heavy drinker too, an Irishman. You could see the damage the booze had done to him later in his puffy and reddened face. Nevertheless, he lived to age 77, and was finally killed by a brain tumor, not booze.
He was ill in recent days, and last week, he took time off from the Senate for medical reasons. In less than a fortnight, he was gone, dead 11 PM PST last night. Teddy was well-liked by all of his fellow Congressmen, even his conservative enemies. He was part of their club. He apparently had a warm, charming, engaging and charismatic personality.
Teddy was of course related to John F. Kennedy, assassinated US President and Robert F. Kennedy, assassinated US Presidential candidate front-runner. He was the Great Little Brother.
RIP Teddy Kennedy.

Comments Deleted on Great Article on Black Crime

Black Crimes are Foundation of Whites’ Fears.
This fascinating article by an apparently non-racist Yale English professor which ran recently in the New Haven Register generated an incredible number of comments.
It included the usual crap from PC anti-racists. One Jewish guy demanded that the article be censored and removed, and then demanded a law forbidding all publication of “hate speech”, which presumably this article would fall foul of. Of course the usual crap from Black commenters was also on display. And sadly the piece did generate some racist comments, probably due to it being widely posted to White nationalist fora.
However, many of the comments were very reasonable and spot on, in line with the article.
They simply stated the obvious.
Whites flee as areas become too Black not because they hate the way Blacks look, or they hate the color of their skin (This is the typical conceit of Blacks – you hate us because of the color of our skin!), or they just hate Blacks for no good reason at all, apparently just because they are different or because they are just not White folks. Sure, some Whites hate Blacks for these reasons, but most do not.
How do I know this? I’ve lived around White people my whole life, and I know my people very well. I have heard Whites expressing negative comments, including racist ones, about Blacks more times than I can count.
I’m convinced that if Blacks acted more like Whites or Asians and less like Blacks that not too many folks would have issues with their skin color or their facial structure or what not. A few would, but not most.
The truth is that what Whites really hate about Blacks is crime. As the % of Blacks in an area goes up, so does the crime rate. It doesn’t go up much up until 20% or so (This implies that most 1-20% Black cities and towns ought to be fairly tolerable), but it really starts to go nuts around 30%. From there on out, with each decimal increase in the % of the area that’s Black, the crime rate flies up again, often at astounding rates.
We can go on and on about how Black criminals target mostly Blacks, but that’s not what matters. They target Whites too, and White towns and cities tend to be fairly low crime (I’ve lived in several, and that’s been the case every time).
In addition, it really doesn’t matter what’s causing Black crime. If they’re just born that way, or if poverty does it, if Black culture does it, or if racism does it, none of this matters. This is why the usual liberal-Left screeching about how all Black crime is caused by poverty or crime is irrelevant. One brings up Black crime and the Leftie starts screaming that it’s all caused by poverty or racism or whatever, as if this is supposed to end the discussion and negate the reality of the subject.
Suppose Black crime is all caused by mean Whites (racist theory) or poverty? What relevance does that have to Whites deciding on which town to move to, or watching nervously as their town slowly darkens? None whatsoever. The damned crime rate is going to go up come Hell or high water no matter what’s causing it, and that’s all that’s important to the Whites living there.
All that matters to White crime victims is that they got victimized. Let’s ask the victims. So racism made the mugger do it. So what? They still got mugged, dammit, the victims think. Assuming racism really did do it, then they should stay in this town to get mugged again then?
As the White person is getting mugged, they are supposed to think, “Wow, this guy is mugging me due to racism. That means I’m going to stay here and maybe get mugged again. But if he doing it because he’s an evil criminal instead, I would fly out of here tomorrow!”
This is why the liberal/Left derailing of all of these conversations into irrelevancies like, “Whites are twice as likely to molest kids,” “Whites commit the majority of crime in the US,” and other Tim White-isms is ridiculous. Have you ever heard of a White person, or any person for that matter, say, “No way am I moving to that White town! Whites commit most of the crime in the US!” Or, “No way! I will never live in a White area! Whites molest children!”
Just to show you the power that PC still holds over us, the 100’s of comments that this article quickly generated have now all been deleted, and are not even available on cache. That’s typical, but do you think this PC censorship is going to be able to go on forever? How long before people have had enough of it?
That’s right, Lefties. Censor all talk of Black crime. That’ll make it go away.
Not.

Why Do Women Orgasm?

Here.
Along with lots of other questions. Evolutionary biologists are looking into these matters, which all evolved in Africa, so we get to blame or praise Blacks for all the stuff below. For big tits on women, I say thank YOU Blacks! For female orgasms, women the world over, even Aryan women I suppose, stand up and throw a deafening shout out to Black folks. Who says Blacks never gave us anything?
For prolonged periods, many women will find one more thing to curse those darn Negroes about
Such as, why are females’ boobs so huge? No other mammal has such huge and basically useless boobs. There’s no reason for them to be so massive, and most of the tissue is just fat that serves no purpose. Many explanations are offered for huge tits, but none of them seem to make much sense.
Why do women bleed so much when they menstruate? Only a few other mammals bleed much. A few bleed a bit midcycle, but none do like human women. What’s the purpose of sloughing off the entire uterine lining every month? To me, the best explanation offered was that females that sloughed off the entire lining and grew a fresh new one every month had the best chances of implanting an egg. Many would-be pregnancies fail due to failure of the sperm to implant in the embryo. Nothing is noticeable, it just looks like another period at the end of the month. But conceivably an older lining is more likely to fail.
In our nearest relatives, the Great Apes, it is quite clear when the female is ovulating and available for pregnancy – her backside swells up like a balloon basically saying, “Come fuck me guys! All the fucks you want, no charge until the sale ends!” In contrast, it is either impossible or nearly impossible for others to know when a woman is ovulating. I assume it’s totally impossible for a male to figure this out.
Even more bizarre is that the time of fertility is hidden even to the woman. Women have no idea when they can get knocked or not, really, despite what the Catholics say. It’s a mystery hidden even to the woman herself. Why? Many explanations are offered for concealed ovulation, but none of them seemed to make much sense to me.
Same thing with female orgasm. Guys need to come. If we don’t, no babies get made. But female orgasm does not seem to serve any purpose. Orgasm serves no fitness purpose in females and other a few other female mammals do it too. There is another issue, and that is that female orgasm has unfortunate tendency in quite a few women to be notoriously unreliable – a 44 year old girlfriend of mine, who loved sex, by the way, despite the fact that she never got off – told me that she had had one orgasm in her life, at age 15. She ain’t the only one.
Then we come to menopause. Women can no longer have kids past age 50, but most other female mammals can bear kids far into old age. No other mammals have menopause except for the short-finned pilot whale. I did not find any of the explanations for menopause very satisfactory either.

Un Bisturi Una Cisti

[wpvideo lPymBw0E]
This post has been translated into French as Un Bistouri Un Kyste (en Français).
This is an Italian translation of the One Lance One Cyst video by Natalie of France, my finest translator. Enjoy.
Questo video è veramente disgustoso !
Penso si tratti di un film medicale.
Pare sia stato girato in un ambulatorio. Si vede semplicemente l’incisione di una cisti mostruosa, o un brufolo o qualcosa del genere. Dal suo aspetto sembra una cisti sebacea.
Mi piace molto schiacciarmi i brufoli, pure alla mia età. Lo so che poi possono rimanere delle cicatrici, ma onestamente è difficile, soprattutto se le mani sono pulite, dopo la doccia e che i brufoli sono pronti a scoppiare.
Questa cosa nel video è il « più terribile brufolo che si sia mai visto ». L’apparecchio aspira sempre di più, sembra che il brufolo sia dotato di una produzione di sebo eterna. Proprio quando si comincia a sperare che il dottore stia finendo, quel dannato brufolo ressuscita e combatte di nuovo.
A tutti quelli che mi malediscono di aver pubblicato questa cazzata, il mio intento è di far progredire la scienza, ecco.

Un Bistouri Un Kyste

[wpvideo lPymBw0E]
This post has been translated into Italian as Un Bisturi Una Cisti (traduzione in italiano).
This is a French translation of the One Lance One Cyst video by Natalie of France, my finest translator. Enjoy.
Cette vidéo est vraiment dégoutante!
Je pense qu’il s’agit d’une vidéo médicale.
Il semble qu’elle ait été tournée dans un cabinet médical. Elle montre tout simplement l’incision d’un horrible kyste, bouton ou furoncle où quelque chose de ce genre. Vu son aspect on dirait un kyste sébacé.
J’aime beaucoup me presser les boutons, même à mon age (mûr). Je sais que ça peut laisser des cicatrices, mais honnêtement, c’est difficile, surtout si vos mains son propres, juste après une douche et que le boutons est prêt à exploser.
Cette chose dans la vidéo est « Le bouton le plus diabolique jamais créé ». L’appareil aspire encore et encore, cette chose semble un puits sans fond. Juste quand on pense que le docteur a réussi 0 terminer, ce satané bouton resurgit et livre le combat une fois de plus.
Pour tous ceux qui me maudissent d’avoir posté cette connerie, je tiens à vous faire savoir que je l’ai mise pour faire avancer la science, voilà.

Geographic Spread and Ethnic Origins of European Haplogroups

Geographic Spread and Ethnic Origins of European Haplogroups, on the very interesting Eupedia page.
From the About:

Eupedia.com was founded in December 2004.Our aim is to create a detailed and informative guide for countries of the European Union for travellers, expats and locals alike, with an emphasis on sightseeing, history, culture, economy, and life in Europe.

I figure that this page tells us something about the origins of the Caucasians, not to mention the origins of the Europeans. One thing that is incontrovertibly clear is that the Caucasian Race did not arise in Europe. Instead, it appears to have arisen in Southern Iran, the Caucasus and the Middle East, as I have speculated. So the Grandaddy of all the great European White Men was some towelheaded wog. Figures. Choke on that, White nationalists.
Going back even further, the Caucasians appear to have origins in Haplogroup N, which, a commenter on this blog has noted, seems to originate in Eastern Africa, especially around the area of the Masai in Kenya. This is also as I suspected, as I assume that the proto-Caucasians may have roots in the Masai, the Tutsi, the Southern Sudanese and other Desert Adopted Elongated African types. The Tutsi even have an uncanny, almost Caucasian appearance about them, despite their African purity (no Caucasian blood).
It also looks like any European clades go back no further than 13,000 years in Europe, and even at that time, I am told that Europeans looked more like Arabs than present day Aryan Supermen. This means that the vaunted White Race, like most exact races on Earth, is a relatively new creation, the latest model, as it were. Attempts to link present day Europeans to Paleolithic Europeans would appear to be absurd on their face.
If anyone other than White nationalist boneheads can make more sense of that page than this, go to it. It’s looks kind of mind-boggling from here.

How To Deal With the "Bleeding Menus" Problem in WordPress

If you use WordPress, you may have to deal with the “bleeding menus” issue. When you write a post, by default, the menus on the left hand side of the screen bleed over into the post, obstructing your view. In addition, on the Edit Posts page, they also bleed over into your post edit menu, obscuring stuff.
For 8 months, I just put up with it like a dumbass. Finally, one time I accidentally did something weird while writing a post and the menus folded back into a minimized position on the left hand side of the screen. It took me a bit of intrigued dumbassedness before I figured out how to unfold the menus.
When the menus are expanded, there will be a tiny arrow right above the Posts menu on the left. It looks like a tiny triple arrow pointing to the left at far left edge of the screen. Hover your mouse over that thing and watch the cursor turn into a horizontal arrow. Click on it and the menus fold back and don’t hang over the screen anymore.
Now that the menus are folded back, the arrow reappears, this time pointing to the right between the Polls and Appearance menus. Hover once again, watch the cursor turn into the arrow again, and click. Now the menus re-expand.

Damn Right We Are

And screw you if you don’t like it.
Baby Boomers Still Getting High, Agency Says.
I’m not sure when I last smoked pot.
I think it was less than a year ago though for sure. I started smoking it again, and it was one of the best things I’ve done lately. I have an anxiety disorder called Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD).
I don’t talk about it much on here because no one wants to hear about it, and this isn’t a “Crazy Blog.” Stigma is still an insanely (Joke!) huge issue, and I have enough problems as it is. Crazy Blogs are the ballooning number of sites where folks with mental dx’s (usually way worse than mine, like Manic-Depression, Major Depression, Borderline Personality Disorder, Asperger’s, Schizophrenia, etc.) mostly write about their mental stuff.
I take meds for OCD – an SSRI called Lexapro. I’ve gone off many times, but I relapse slowly but surely every time. Thing is, I started smoking pot again a few years back on a whim, and it worked great for OCD!
Unfortunately, folks like us have to deal with fools called “psychiatrists” and “psychologists” sometimes. Psychiatrists sometimes to get the meds. Psychologists for therapy, which I’ve had years of anyway and don’t really need anymore, as it doesn’t do that much for OCD, and I’ve already learned enough about myself and my life as I need to know.
This whole field, including all of the psychiatrists and psychologists, is insanely (Joke!) dead set against this thing called “drugs,” despite the fact that they shovel them out all the time as a way of getting their fat paychecks. Plus the dope that the psychs dish out is way worse in terms of side effects than any kind of cannabis.
One particularly annoying thing that these idiots do is the minute you meet some new psych-fool, and they learn you have both a dx and a drug history (even if deep in the past), they immediately make the extremely helpful suggestion that your dx was caused by getting high! Wow, thanks a lot! A dx that developed like 27 years ago, and I’m supposed to feel guilty for the rest of my life about causing it! I feel so much better now! I see why they call it the “helping professions!”
Even though in my case there seems to be zero evidence that this is the case. As an obsessive, I’ve thought this issue to death 50,000 times in multi-hour mental vicious circle sessions.
And drugs never really made it worse or better anyway in the past. Though sometimes coke would make OCD better, usually with plenty of booze too (I also did great creative writing on coke and lots of booze – great combo!) and one time when I was on LSD, I had 1-2 hours free of a particularly horrific obsessive thought that had locked into my brain 24-7, 365 for about a year or so. That was the only couple hours of peace I had had in that whole year. That’s why acid is evil, you know. Because it helps mental illnesses sometimes.
Anyway, if you admit to drinking at all (I drink two glasses of red wine a night) or taking any drugs other than the evil junk the p-docs write scripts for, you get shoveled out of all the programs immediately towards some bull called “Drug Treatment.” Yeah, that’s right, if you admit you take one hit off a jay once a year, you go to local equivalent of Betty Ford. Lame or what?
This is because recently the mental health idiots (not the people with the illnesses, they’re the smart ones), meaning the morons who “treat” us, decided to split “mental health” and “drug treatment.” Nowadays most of the former are dopers too, so this doesn’t make sense, but the whole motto nowadays is never the twain shall meet! So if you have any dx at all, even fulminant schizophrenia I guess, you get shunted to the Synanon clowns, and the mental guys won’t even talk to you until you get “drug treatmented.”
Only then you go into mental health, but only if you get “clean.” What if you never go clean and keep using? I guess mental health says go away until you come clean. This is based on the somewhat lame idea that you can’t treat anyone with a psych dx as long as they are “using.” There’s no evidence that this is true as a general statement, and in a lot of cases, it’s just stupid.
The local medical treatment folks are much the same. I use a public facility, so this may be the problem, but I bet privates are just as insane (Joke!). If you tell them you are smoking weed, even for good reason (like it’s medicine, duh) they freak out and remand you to “therapy.” Then you go to the Therapist Lady who knows little about dope and less about medicine, and she tries to force you to quit smoking dope.
Mind you, this is in California, where cannabis is legal to use medically as long as you have a card! I can imagine what things are like in South Carolina.
Unfortunately, this anti-drug societal meme, which is profound even here in the middle of a California barrio, has taken a hold of me lately, and I even haven’t been stoned in a while.
I take exception to the standard crap line about drugs. I’m extremely happy that we Boomers are continuing to get high. The typical line is that drugs are evil life destroyers, and everyone who takes them is an evil scum to be avoided and shunned.
In terms of my life experience, my position is that drugs are fun. Drugs are a blast. Drugs are oodles and oodles of kicks and endless good times. That’s been my experience. I never got addicted or totally messed up on dope like it seems every other user did. I’ve been using off and on for 35 years now, and I’m not any the worse for it.
That’s because I was always just a recreational user. Everyone I tell this to is like, “No way! What’s that? No such thing as a recreational user!” This is because, you see, all users are either very casual experimenters or addicts and screwups with a life-wrecking problem.
But really. The only drug I ever used regularly was pot, and even if you use it daily, it usually doesn’t screw you up that much.
I used coke for 13 years and never got addicted. I did probably less than an ounce of coke in 13 years, maybe a gram or so a year. I’d just tickle my nose now and then.
I only did speed 3 times, and I never got into heroin, although I admit to very much a liking for codeine these days, which is killer good for OCD too for some weird reason.
I did hallucinogens for 14 years (40 times overall). These drugs actually act against addiction in that they are so overwhelming that it’s almost impossible to take them regularly. I took psychedelics maybe 3-4 times a year, never had a serious bad trip, and I don’t think I have any serious consequences from it other than really bright lit up colors sometimes, which I think is HPPD.
I’ve known many folks who took LSD anywhere from 1-700 times, and I can’t say I’ve ever met one person who was messed up from taking the stuff. I’ve known folks who have been using pot daily for 20-30 years, and they are psychologically normal in every way, shape and form. Those that were not, I saw them quit pot, and in general, they didn’t get any healthier psychologically. Sometimes they even started back up again, and still not much changed. I concluded that pot in general doesn’t seem to have much to do with psychological issues one way or the other.
The notion of the permafried pothead or former acid user is largely a myth as far as I can tell, or at least it’s uncommon. Most of the really psychologically messed up folks I’ve met weren’t using anything. I always thought maybe they could have used some weed to mellow them out a bit.
Oh yeah, one more really evil thing pot does to me. Sometimes it makes me laugh. For hours and hours, off and on. And, even after the high wears off, it still makes me laugh, even for days afterwards, even out in public (where I do try to suppress my giggles). I don’t care if people think I’m nuts for laughing in public. The sane people will just figure I’m thinking of something funny, which is exactly why I’m laughing.
So you see, that’s one more reason cannabis is so evil. It makes people laugh, sometimes on and off for hours and days on end. We can’t have any of that now, can we?

New Site Record on Robert Lindsay August 22

A new record for 4th highest hits in a day was set on this site yesterday, August 22, when 3,560 hits were recorded, breaking the previous record set on July 27 of 3,498 hits.
Many of the hits were coming in for Four Animals One Grinder, a video about the charming, kind, gentle and sensitive goings-on in your local rendering plant.
Alpha Unit’s On the Selfishness of Jews also recorded a lot of hits, probably the most ever recorded on any Alpha Unit post. That’s probably because her post was like an Anti-Semite Venus Fly-Trap designed to snare the local anti-Semites who stalk about the netherregions of the comments section.

More On Hinduism, Race, Caste and the "Aryan Invasion"

The comment below is from an Indian poster on this popular post. I agree with most of what he says. First of all, I don’t think that the Aryans pushed the Dravidians to the South. There are Dravidian types and mixed types all over North India.
Points 2 and 3 are self-evident.
I have always felt that Hinduism was nothing more than the ancient religion of India, and there is good evidence for this. Clearly it predates the Aryans. It’s not necessarily as old as India, since India is as old as dirt, but clearly it goes back so far that we can hardly even say when it begins.
Ancient Iran also had a caste system, and so did their ancient religion. Yazidism, one of the oldest major religions known to man, possibly dating back 10,000 years, has caste and origins in Iran. The suggestion is that caste is a regional phenomenon across India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Iran and Northern Iraq. Afghanistan lacks caste, but until the Communist revolution was a semi-feudal society.
The fact remains that Aryan languages displaced Dravidian languages to the South, and all of North India is Aryan-speaking in general, and the people of the North are lighter than the people of the South, and this needs to be explained somehow. Obviously, prior to the Aryan Invasion, Dravidian languages were spoken all over North India. Either their speakers dropped Dravidian in favor of Indo-Iranian or they moved south. Possibly both of these occurred.

1) Vedas are not everything in Hinduism, though they form some of the core. There are many books written in ancient mathematics and science in the post-Vedic period which are as relevant to the history of Hindus, if not more than the Vedas. Look at the books written by Bhaskara (there were two Bhaskaras recorded in history), Aryabhatta, Apastamba, Baudhayana, Varahmihira and several other authors.
Some of them have had their base south of the Vindhyas, which indicates the migration of the culture of the Vedic people southward. I am guessing the actual migration of Vedic people might also have taken place either before or after the completion of the writing of the Vedas (500-1000 BCE). Read about the myth of Agastya and his followers and the Vindhyas.
2) Skin color depends on the climate and gradually over generations (maynot be 3 but lets say about 30 generations) it is sure to change.
3) People speaking different languages derived from a root language (or speaking the root language itself) need not share genetic origins or race. For example, I am an Indian, and if I speak or write in English, a European-originated language, that does not make me European. I bet the same applies to speakers of Indo-European languages.
4) Based on several references in the Vedas against dark-skinned tribes, one cannot assume that all the scriptures of the Hindus (the Sruti and Smriti) were written by the highly-advanced fair-skinned race-preserving cohort known as Aryans who came down from central Asia and pushed the locals down south.
One severe contradiction to this simplistic theory is how come there are references of lower-caste tribals getting upgraded to the higher caste of Brahmins (like Valmiki, Vishwamitra) in the epics written by these same racially-finicky people (the Aryans) that was allowed to be published without censorship. The racial references in the Vedas are at best ambiguous. If the Aryans were the vanguards of Hinduism and they were the creators of the scriptures, how did dark-skinned gods like Vishnu and Shiva find their ways into the texts.
More likely they should have been shown as demons given the benchmarks by which they would have decided. Given all these, there surely exists a possibility of a fair-skinned race coming down from Afghanistan or central Asia and contributing to the creation of Hindu scriptures and merging with the locals, in fact there could be several races of this type migrating in at different points of time. But to say that they did this at the expense of a dark-skinned race or an indigenous race is pure baloney, given the facts.
In fact the genesis of Hindu scriptures could have come from different parts (including the non-Indo-European parts which may include Sanskrit speakers of Dravidian origin) of the Indian subcontinent. Likewise, tribes that had originally entered from the northern borders of India (one of them being the Aryans) must have migrated all over the country giving an inseparable and indistinguishable genetic mixture that we know as the people of India today.
Also the caste system in ancient India up to a period must have been rather fluid and based more on occupation than ancestry as is the popular notion. Hinduism (at least the history and references from Hinduism) seems to have a much greater tolerance for skin color and caste than is touted to be.

PC Lunacy on Immigration and Other Things

The quote at the end of the post is from a middle class Black commenter who took tremendous offense at this rather moderate post, accusing it of sounding like the neo-Nazis on Stormfront. He also took issue with my description of this site as anti-racist (In my opinion, it is, and that is one of the foundational themes of this site), and said instead it was a racist site.
He has now been banned because you don’t get to call this a racist site, and if you come here and spout PC anti-racism at me, I will soon tire of you and ban you. So this fellow was banned.
He objected to many things in the post. One objection is that a Black state in the US would not be a miserable failure. I’m quite sure it would be a disaster, and that is why you hardly see any Blacks crazy enough to advocate for this. In particular, he objected to my saying that all of the Blacks in the US could take off tomorrow, while it would be painful in some respects in that we would lose a lot of quality workers and citizens, I’m confident that on balance, Whites would be better off.
Obviously, professional sports would be hit very hard, but White men have been shooting hoops, throwing footballs and catching fly balls for a long time now, and I’m sure they could go back to it. Baseball’s practically a Caribbean Latino sport now anyway. We no longer need Blacks for cheap labor, as we’ve imported millions of illegals to do that.
The crime rate would obviously plummet, many of our ruined cities would become quite a bit more livable again, music and other entertainment would become less obviously sociopathic, many of our social pathologies would ameliorate, and perhaps most significantly, we would be free of a lot of racial friction generated by a perpetually grievanced group (Blacks) that many Whites are getting increasingly tired of.
Granted, since the 1960’s, Blacks have resembled a bunch of angry people locked out of a really cool party hanging out on the sidewalk and yelling that they want in. Inside, we Whites are partying it up. Whenever you see a scene like that, you know how painful and ugly it is.
Well, Obama got elected, and to me that meant that Blacks finally got invited into the party after all this time. Instead of being grateful or happy, they seem just as pissed off as ever. They’re inside the party now, and everyone is having fun, but they still act like they are out on the sidewalk.
Many Whites, including me, are exasperated. There is a sense of, “What more do we need to do, anyway, before you all settle down, relax and try to be happy?” What I am saying is that the culture of grievance gets old. US Blacks are the richest, the best educated, the most politically powerful, the most intelligent and the most cultured Blacks on Earth. Despite the ghettos and all, they live quite well here compared to just about any Black or heavily-Black country.
Sure, you can find some other White countries that are maybe better for Blacks, but once again, you come back around to the original argument that White cities, regions and states are great places for Blacks to live in. Blacks agree. They vote with their feet. Once a city gets too Black, the most functional Blacks start taking off too, usually to a Whiter area.
I’m not a White nationalist or a Back to Africa idiot or any of that. I just note that Whites do not particularly need Blacks in the US, while the converse does not seem to be true. Blacks need Whites. If all the Whites left tomorrow, this country would rapidly turn into the usual Black and mestizo Latin American type country. It would not be a better place for Blacks.
So I’m not making any argument for ethnic cleansing or saying Blacks don’t have a right to be here.
But this is why quite a few Whites are enthusiastic about a White ethnostate in the US, while almost no Blacks are keen on the idea of a Black ethnostate.
Whites look at the White ethnostate with no Blacks and ask, “OK, why is this a problem?”
Blacks look at a Black state with no Whites and probably think, “Uh-oh. Detroit. Black Belt. Count me out.”
Blacks benefit in the present integrated system to some extent in that Blacks in the US are fairly spread out and diluted and further that many of the victims of Black criminals are non-Blacks.
In a Black ethnostate, all of the Black criminals would be concentrated together, and there would be no non-Black victims to dilute the victimhood. Blacks would be seriously hammered by Black criminals in a Black ethnostate as Black criminals turned all of their antisocial fury on the only victims available, other Blacks.
Anyway, all the above is surely insulting for a lot of Blacks to think about, so they are going to be pretty defensive about it.
On immigration, this guy spouted the standard PC line, which is quite common nowadays. You hear it across the board by the entire US elite. Immigrant advocates are also parroting this nonsense. It’s interesting that the modern version of Political Correctness is really Marxism stripped of class analysis and focusing solely on race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and other nonsense.
Many of the folks pushing this Leftist line on race are in fact marrying it to explicitly free market economics and reject anything smacking of a Left view of economics, at least according to a friend of mine who is currently taking a syllabus called “Multiculturalism” – mandatory at California state universities now! He calls it “Anti-White Studies.”
Considering the Cultural Leftism these folks were pushing, I assumed that they were liberals or even Leftists. But this Cultural Marxism, according to my friend, is married to an embrace of “the free market” and a rejection of most to all government intervention and regulation of economies.
This really is the same pro-corporate globalism that is being pushed by the corporations. Our modern corporations feature, along with diversity advisers, multicultural seminars and crazy hate speech and anti-harassment codes, the standard conservative pro-corporate economics.
So Political Correctness often nowadays is a bizarre mix of the worst – Right neoliberal madness of the kind that is blowing up our economy mixed with brain-dead stupid and White-toxic Leftist Cultural Marxism.
There’s nothing in this for any principled progressive White person. Economically, it’s just conservative gunpowder and matches. The only Left part of it is objectively hostile to Whites and frankly working class folks of all races, as it demands that White nations be flooded with the entirety of the Third World in the name of redress for supposed White crimes and evils.
So working Whites get the double-whammy. First we get hit by the Rightist Hurricane Neoliberal side of this template. Next we get hit by Leftist toxic anti-White hate propaganda combined with a tsunami of Third World non-White immigrants driving wages into the gutter and turning once-livable cities into Third World hellholes. There’s nothing here for us.
Check out this standard PC line on why mass Third World immigration is necessary for all White countries:

Some Whites will always talk about how we don’t “need” these non-Whites and such and such, but the fact is, if they weren’t needed, they wouldn’t be there in the first place. First off, White countries don’t even reproduce at replacement level, thereby making it imperative to have to bring in non-White immigrants just to keep their rapidly-aging societies from having a labor shortage and to be able to support the social security benefits of Whites retired and soon to be retired.
The situation is even more accelerated in Europe with it’s even lower white birthrate than in America. So go ahead and cut off the spigot of non-White immigration, and the White countries will eventually vanish off the face the planet based on their low birthrates alone.
You ought to be thankful there are non-White workers coming in to make up the slack for your low-fertility rates. I guess next someone will be blaming Blacks for white low fertility rate since you know, Blacks are responsible for everything bad in the universe.

Does anyone reading this blog actually believe this tripe? Yet this is what passes for standard and unquestioned wisdom by the PC Mafia and entire right to left political spectrum of US elites.

Great Pro-Choice Site

In these times when the pro-choice movement seems to be more at risk than in decades, it’s heartening to see a pro-choice website that is as large and active as Rh Reality Check. It covers not only pro-choice views, but also contraception, sex education, sexual health and just sex news in general.
It has a great attitude. All the writers are women, many of them young women, and many are Black, Hispanic or Asian.
The pro-choice movement really needs a shot in the arm nowadays, as its been under withering assault since the rightwing backlash started under Reagan in 1980. We have almost 30 years of rightwing blowback, and maybe the winds are finally shifting.
Taking the race of the anti-abortion folks into consideration, I would say that most of the anti-abortion folks are Whites, usually conservative Whites. I find it fascinating that almost all White nationalists and other racist Whites really hate abortion. Do they realize how many more Blacks and Hispanics would be born if there were no abortion, since Hispanics and especially Blacks have far more abortions proportionately than Whites?
Blacks, despite their religiosity, seem to be pro-choice, and Black women are more likely than non-Blacks to have abortions. Latinas are more likely to have abortions than non-Latinas, I believe that by the second generation or so, they are about as pro-choice as anyone, both unusual facts considering their Catholicism. In fact, Catholic women in general are more likely to have abortions than non-Catholics, which implies that a lot of Catholics think the Church is full of shit.
And most of the anti-abortion folks are coming from a religious point of view, which is interesting since neither the Bible nor Jesus deal with the issue at all. All it is says is, “Thou shalt not kill.”
But we kill all the time, in justified homicide by cops and folks defending themselves, in wars; Hell, nothing kills like capitalism itself. The US government has been funding and/or committing mass murder for a long time now. It’s called imperialism. We fund and advise death squads in the Third World and shower military aid on the most murderous fascist regimes. Then, every now and then, we start a war ourselves and slaughter lots of folks. We started a Nazi-like war of aggression in Iraq which has resulted in over 1 million deaths.
It’s also interesting that the anti-abortion idiots seem to love fetuses so much, but they don’t seem to give a fuck about kids as soon they done get themselves borned.
The fact that the anti-abortion crowd is coming from a usually fundamentalist religious point of view implies that their position is irrational. It can’t be justified by philosophical traditions outside of some Holy Book. Religion is fine, but we have separation of Church and State here, and religion is not supposed to guide public policy.
Even the Catholic Church itself allowed abortion until the time of “quickening” up until about the 17th Century. The opposition to it in toto is simply a Papal Canonical matter that is not necessarily consonant even with Catholic theology. Islam tends to take a pretty hands-off position to abortion, although the fundamentalists hate it.
Anti-abortion views are associated with fundamentalism, backwardness, obscurantism and in particular, anti-woman politics all over the world. Pro-choice societies are more scientific, rational, humane, modern and especially pro-woman than those who are not.
Buddhism and Hinduism don’t appear to take a stand on abortion.
I admit to being queasy about late term abortion, but if the life or the health (Not the mental health!) of the mother is truly or at risk, it’s reasonable. However, I don’t approve it in other circumstances, and using abortion as birth control, which I am convinced some of my female acquaintances have done, makes me ill. It’s still killing, not of a life, but of a potential life, and that is not a breezy matter.

Four Animals One Grinder

I decided to move this video over to the video site. Find it here.
Välkommen svenska läsare! Detta inlägg är nu tillgänglig på svenska. Klicka här för den svenska versionen. Jag älskar Sverige!
I am looking for translators to translate this post into Polish and Dutch. Email me if you are interested.
Warning: Rare adverse reactions to this video, including vomiting, have been recorded. Please take appropriate precautions before watching the video.
The first animal is a cow, the second one is a pig, the third another cow and the last a horse.
I can’t believe this video. It isn’t really horrible or evil. It’s kind of gross, but hey that’s life, man. Mostly it’s just incredible. It just shows what goes on at a rendering plant. Whole dead farm animals are fed into the rendering machine via lifter and then ground up by this unbelievable machine, bones, heads, hooves and all.
A lot of posts on the Net are saying that these cows are alive. It’s not true. They just appear to be alive since once the grinder starts, they start moving around a lot due to the incredible force of the thing.
Another common misconception is that these animals are being ground up for human food like hot dogs.
That’s not true.
These are dead animals that died on farms somewhere so they are not really fit for consumption. The result might goes into, among other things, animal feed (especially for chickens) or pet food, and that’s not a pleasant thought (this is how Mad Cow Disease is being caused). The thought that this goes into pet food also bothers me. If it’s true, that does it. I’m never going to eat dog food again.
Usually the rendered dead animals are turned into fertilizer, which is a harmless use of them. They also turned into yellow (non-vegetable) oil. That’s used as grease for machinery. They also make soap out of this ground up Mr. Ed Puree.
People don’t realize that animals die all the time on farms, especially on modern factory farms. What people never think about is, how do you get rid of dead horses, cows and pigs? You can’t exactly drag them to the curb and leave them there for the garbageman. And it’s kind of hard to bury them in a hole. We don’t have animal graveyards for cows and horses, and incinerators don’t accept them.
This is where the rendering plant comes in. You sell the dead animal to the rendering plant, and they come and pick it up for you. They take it back to the plant and grind it up for Mulch N Grow or whatever. One problem with these rendering plants is that the smell emanating from them is truly horrendous, as people who live near them attest.
The guy driving that lift must have one of the country’s nastiest jobs. Can you imagine being the guy who has to clean the grinder out? If you look at that thing, it’s a horrible mess.
At the end of the video the lift tosses a horse in, and watching that sucker get ground up is incredible. One thing that blew me away was the sound of this crushing machine as it ground up bones and skulls. Wow!
There’s a particularly nasty segment at the second cow (2:11 in the video) segment where the thing lets out this massive spurt as it’s being crunched up. That means that that dead cow had been decaying for a while and was getting bloated as dead animals tend to do. That’s another reason why this meat is not fit for consumption by humans.
This video has been up for a few years, but it just started to go viral around mid-August 2009.
Isn’t it incredible the stuff that we can see on the Interwebs? Before Al Gore invented the Internets, how many of us ever saw a rendering plant in action?
The company that makes this sucker is out of Denmark. Just think of the tech that went into this machine. This thing is called the PB 30/60 Crusher.
A few thoughts:
Wouldn’t this be a great death penalty machine? Screw this lethal injection crap. 1st degree murder? I sentence you to the Grinder! We could sell tickets for large amounts of money for spectators to watch the killers get ground up alive and use the proceeds to help fund the state so the state can spend the money to help people.
Damn I want one of these machines! Where can I buy one? I’d use it on some of my enemies. I would tie them up, throw them in the loader and dump them in the Grinder. Then I would charge like $1,000/head for spectators to watch, get rich and retire on the proceeds.
We should use this thing on dead humans to grind them up. That way we could save lots of graveyard space and use the future would-be graveyard space to build strip malls and Walmarts and other useful things.
Actually, I think when I die, I want to be ground up like this. We could make it like a funeral thing and all of the funeral guests could come watch me get ground up and eat popcorn and stuff. It would be a great end to my life.
After I get ground up, I would like to be canned as Robert Lindsay Chow and fed to my pet cats, assuming that I have any. If I don’t have any cats, I would ask to be made into cat food, because I love cats, and this way, cats could feast on someone who really loves them. Cats have given me so much love in my life, this would be my special way of giving back!
They should have had some really brutal death metal music playing in the background of this video, don’t you think?
Wouldn’t it be cool to see a dead elephant or giraffe get thrown in that thing, just for fun?
In my dream world, there would be like 600 channels on cable. One of them should be the Animal Shredder Channel. That channel would show nothing but this machine grinding animals all day. To make it more interesting, they could vary the types of animals getting ground up. I would just turn it on and leave it on for hours at a time while I do my work and whatnot, just like background you know. Except I would probably change the channel when I was eating.
There are a lot of possibilities for alternate uses for this machine.
We could take some fat White kid raised by a single Mom on Twinkies and video games and stick him underneath the machine. The meat from the ground up farm animals would fall all around him and all over him. It would land on his face, covering him.
We would have workers with shovels to shovel the meat off of him so he wouldn’t get buried. He would keep his mouth open, and some of the meat would fall in. Then he would eat it. We would keep him under there, and he would get fatter and fatter. After about 10 years of that, he would be so fat that he could become the King of Germany.
We could take the ground up animals and give them to Disney. Disney could reconstitute them into humans, especially teen idols like Selena, Miley and Britney. Little would their swooning fans realize that their favorite teen star was really a ground up horse!
We could use the machine to try to solve intractable conflicts. By grinding up pigs and cows both and making movies of it and distributing it to conflict zones, possibly we could make headway in the Hindu-Muslim conflict in Kashmir.
The possibilities are endless!
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Spot the Language 21

Here we go again for another round of Spot the Language! Yay!
Identify the language by its English name. Some of my readers are quite slow, I am very sympathetic to slow people, so I decided to put them in alphabetical order to make things more fair for those who tend to plod a bit mentally.
All languages but three are Indo-European. The other three are Afro-Asiatic, Kartvelian and Eskimo-Aleut. All are spoken in the general area of Europe and its nearby environs. At the very least, all languages but one are spoken in Europe, or at least the area bordered by the Mediterranean and Black Seas. Two others are spoken in the Americas. These two are spoken in either former or current European colonies. Five of the languages are spoken in the UK alone.
Some of these are small languages, but they are all pretty well-known.
1. Հայերեն
2. Euskara
3. Tamazight
4. Brezhoneg
5. Føroyskt
6. Frysk
7. Furlan
8. Gàidhlig
9. ქართული
10. Kalaallisut
11. Kreyòl Ayisyen
12. Magyar
13. Gaeilge
14. كوردي
15. Gaelg
16. Româneşte
17. Scoats
18. Cymraeg

"The Selfishness of Jews," by Alpha Unit

New post by guest poster Alpha Unit. Great stuff!
In 1919 a group of Black and White business and academic leaders created a very special Commission on Interracial Cooperation, designed in response to what was happening in the South after the First World War. Black war veterans returning to the South were being told to resume their “place.” The tension created by this demand was leading to violence, and the Commission was formed to quell this violence.
There is no evidence of widespread White hostility to this Commission. Perhaps it’s because there were well-respected Southern White men at the helm.
“You see?” someone might be tempted to say. “There was a proper way to approach these problems in the South. Things that go through the proper channels have a greater chance of success.”
This seems agreeable enough. Lowering the number of lynchings that Whites carried out seemed like a decent goal. How threatening could this really be?
What was far more threatening to Southern Whites was the radical notion that a Black man should be treated as the equal of a White man. That a Black man was entitled to the same Constitutional rights as any White man. This was no mere appeal to decency; this meant changing the law.
Anyone pushing this idea was a bona fide enemy.
That meant Jews.
Jewish-led organizations, represented by Jewish attorneys and activists, got right in the face of White Southerners and said, in effect, “What you’re doing is wrong. And we’re going to do everything in our power to stop you.”
Such loving kindness and selflessness for their fellow human beings, right?
I’m familiar with the accusations made against Jewish civil rights activists. The gist of these accusations is that Jews only involved themselves in Black civil rights for Jewish benefit. That it was self-interest that motivated them, not any genuine concern for the plight of Blacks.
Well, so be it. Jewish self-interest it is.
During the height of the Jim Crow era in the South, it was Jewish self-interest that brought about Powell v. Alabama, a Supreme Court decision establishing that it wasn’t enough in this country that a defendant be represented by counsel; he had to be represented by competent counsel.
It was Jewish self-interest that brought about Norris v. Alabama, which decreed that a state could not exclude a person from a jury solely because of his race.
Jewish self-interest resulted in Herndon v. Lowry, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot suppress so-called “revolutionary” speech in and of itself; it had to prove a direct connection between such speech and an actual attempt to overthrow the government.
I could go on and on citing cases involving Jewish self-interest.
I know that Jewish participation in the Civil Rights Movement incenses some people. But the same people who cannot stomach Jewish involvement in civil rights aren’t able to muster the slightest disquiet about some of the abuses these Jews were addressing. They don’t seem to express much concern over the fact that there were Americans in the South who were being denied their rights.
These weren’t foreigners or illegal immigrants. They were natural born citizens, and one Southern state after another had decided that these people didn’t really need the protections the Constitution had guaranteed them. It was White self-interest at its best.
Why doesn’t that bother these people?

Chechclear Vidéo: Décapitation – La Pire de Toutes!

The video has been removed following discussions with WordPress staff. Try here instead.
This is a French translation of the Chechclear post. The translator is Natalie From France.
This post has also been translated into Italian. Italian version (traduzione in italiano).
Regular readers, you don’t really want to download this file or view this video at all. This is one of most evil videos ever made.

Chechclear est l’une des vidéos les plus horribles, disponibles sur le Net. Elle montre l’exécution barbare d’un soldat russe durant la guerre de Tchétchénie.
Les avis sont divergents à propos de cette vidéo.
Les Tchétchènes affirment que c’était un mercenaire et que c’est pour cette raison qu’il a été tué, d’autres versions disent que c’était un soldat appelé. Cela s’est passé soit en 1996 en Tchétchénie ou en 1999 au Daguestan. Tout n’est pas clair concernant cette vidéo. Il s’agit d’un horrible chapitre de plus dans cette guerre en Tchétchénie.
Le fait est que la gorge de l’homme a été tranchée par Khattab, le renommé combattant saoudien, qui s’est battu aux cotés des Tchétchènes jusqu’à ce qu’il soit tué par une lettre empoisonnée.
Ici vous pouvez télécharger la vidéo. Plusieurs personnes m’ont écrit pour m’informer que cette vidéo est vraiment très difficile à trouver. C’est la toute dernière version, qui dure seulement 16 secondes.
Il existe une version plus longue, atroce, non publiée, qui dure cinq minutes. Elle est actuellement impossible à trouver. Dans ces images, les bourreaux battent le soldat et l’humilient durant plusieurs minutes avant de le décapiter.

New Weekly Traffic Record on Robert Lindsay

A new record for 4th highest traffic in a week was set on Robert Lindsay last week, August 10-16 of 19,051 hits/week, breaking the record set of 19,001 hits/week set the previous week. In addition, there were 1,005 visitors to the old site for a total of  20,056 hits/week. As traffic seems to be declining somewhat from the peak, it’s interesting that we are still setting records here on Robert Lindsay.

Rendez-vous Avec la Mort: la Décapitation de Daniel Pearl

The video has been removed following discussions with WordPress staff. Try here instead.
This is a French translation of a previous post, Appointment With Death: The Beheading of Daniel Pearl, done by my super-translator “Natalie from France.” This post is pretty popular so I decided to have it translated. Italian translation.
This video is sort of messed up. It’s really sad, as in the first part you are watching a man speaking who seems to know that he is going to die. Through the beheading itself is not shown, thank God, the severed head is displayed for the last minute or so of the video. Regular readers should exercise caution in watching this video.

La vision de cette vidéo est destinée à un public adulte et averti, nous déclinons toute responsabilité pour d’éventuelles conséquences physiques ou psychiques. Interdit aux mineurs !!!
Je pourrais remplir ce Blog de toute sorte de vidéos-choc, même très rares. Je pourrais en avoir des avantages en termes de visibilité, mais ce n’est pas mon intention.
Je n’en ai présentés que quelques uns, très populaires comme la Dua Khalil, la pendaison de Saddam Hussein, la décapitation de « noirs » par des néonazis russes et cette vidéo. Comme à mon habitude, les vidéos sont suivies de mon commentaire et d’une analyse historique.
Ce film déjà diffusé sur le Net durant les années précédentes, s’intitule la décapitation d’un journaliste/espion, le Juif Daniel Pearl (télécharger la vidéo sur ce site). Les titres du début sont en langue Urdu (presque inconnue pour la plupart des gens).
Contrairement à ce que disent certaines légendes métropolitaines, on nous épargne le moment de l’exécution. Nous ne voyons pas D.Pearl prononcer ses derniers mots « ma mère était juive, je suis un juif ». Ensuite le bourreau Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) se rue sur lui et lui coupe la gorge.
En revanche on voit très bien les images suivantes qui nous montrent l’atroce massacre (la décapitation et l’exhibition de la tête tranchée) perpétré sur le cadavre par le bourreau KSM.
On a voulu donner à la vidéo une tournure journalistique, en soignant tout particulièrement la propagande et les détails politiques.
En effet durant la première partie Pearl énumère brièvement les questions auxquelles il devra répondre, il est évident que les mots lui ont été dictés.
Les phrases ont un ton méprisant : les mots de Pearl sont clairs quand il se défini juif, sa tradition religieuse et familiale, son sionisme accentué par le fait que l’un de ses aïeuls ait une rue à son nom dans une ville d’Israël etc. Pendant que Pearl parle des images de troupes israéliennes défilent, en action contre des palestiniens, morts.
Mais pour le peuple islamique un « mea culpa » ne suffit pas…il faut du sang…alors la scène change et le corps inanimé de Pearl, gorge tranchée, est séparé par un expert cagoulé (KSM), la tête est exhibée triomphalement.
Cette horrible image servira de décor pour la partie finale de la vidéo. En surimpression apparaît le sigle du NMFPS et l’habituelle liste de requêtes:
la libération de tous les prisonniers de Guantanamo (Pakistanais en premier), la livraison des bombardiers F-16 achetés, réglés par le Pakistan et jamais livrés par les Etats-Unis, et la fin de la présence militaire américaine au Pakistan.
Voici la menace finale : « américains…vous ne serez jamais à l’abris sur le sol sacré islamique pakistanais. Si vous ne vous pliez pas à nos exigences, cette scène se renouvellera encore, à tout jamais ! »
Ici une chronique détaillée de la vidéo.
De mon coté, il semble qu’au début Pearl soit digne et serein, je dirais même orgueilleux et fier de ses origines et de ses idées Sionistes.
Ensuite on voit la frayeur. La peur d’être un otage et de ne pas connaître son avenir proche. Quand il faut « réciter » la propagande anti-USA, sa voix se brise, il devient nerveux, apeuré ; son visage n’est plus le même : il est évident que la vidéo a été tournée en plusieurs fois.
Oui, à cet instant ça me faisait beaucoup de peine de le voir ainsi : c’était un homme apeuré et je savais déjà comment il allait finir. Puis un instant avant sa mort, le voici qui se transforme et commence à parler comme un étudiant d’université. Un autre homme, à quelques instants de la mort…intéressant…
Mais qui était Pearl ? Un reporter, un espion, ou bien les deux à la fois ? Officiellement il travaillait pour le WSJ et était en train de préparer un reportage sur les collusions possibles entre les services secrets pakistanais (ISI) et les cellules terroristes de Al Qaeda. Mais essayez d’imaginer un journaliste (Pearl) juif et américain, qui se promène au Pakistan pour poser ce type de question, cela ne vous semble pas être une situation invraisemblable ?
Le jour de sa disparition, le 23 janvier 2002, Pearl devait rencontrer un émissaire de Al Qaeda. Le groupe NMFPS a revendiqué son enlèvement en se vantant de l’aveu de Pearl qui admettait d’être un agent de la CIA. Ensuite le groupe a présenté ses requêtes. Comme preuve de la détention de Pearl ils ont envoyé aux agences de presse une photo du prisonnier : une mitraillette pointée sur la tête et un quotidien avec la date bien visible.
Le 1er février 2002, Pearl fut tué et décapité. Son corps fut retrouvé le 16 mai suivant, dans un cimetière de Karachi (le lieu probable de son exécution), découpé en dix morceaux…horrible !
Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh et 3 complices ont été incriminés pour ce meurtre barbare. Ahmed a été condamné à la peine capitale, mais la sentence n’a pas encore été exécutée. Il parait évident qu’il jouit d’une certaine protection.
Qui est Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh?
C’est un Anglo-pakistanais qui a un passé pour le moins douteux ou déconcertant.
Le bruit court qu’il était un agent ou un infiltré du MI-6 (une sorte de James Bond) depuis 1994, mais aussi un agent du ISI en 2001. En gros une personnalité tellement controversée que même le Président pakistanais Musharaff a dit de lui qu’il était un agent double !
Et oui, il semble que l’ISI soit bien impliqué dans l’attaque des tours jumelles, et que Sheik ait eu un rôle clef dans cet évènement.
Il est clair que l’alliance Etats-Unis/Pakistan n’a pas permis de mettre en évidence des connexions liées à une possible implication des services secrets pakistanais dans l’attaque du 11 septembre.
Voici mon hypothèse: l’ISI a fait taire Daniel Pearl qui était en train d’enquêter sur leurs connexions avec Al Qaeda. Les exécutants étaient KSM et Sheik.
Pour calmer leur opinion publique, les Etats unis ont exercé de fortes pressions sur le gouvernement pakistanais afin de trouver un coupable, et le voici tout trouvé! Pauvre Sheik, baisé, mais pas encore justicié. Il doit avoir sûrement un « parrain » politique (ou bien il doit avoir quelques documents secrets bien cachés).
Si Daniel Pearl était vraiment un brave reporter juif américain, et bien, il était candidat au suicide. Après le 11 septembre, aucune personne dotée de bon sens serait allée au Pakistan pour enquêter sur les services secrets pakistanais, sur leurs rapports avec Al Qaeda, et organiser une rencontre avec un terroriste musulman.
Officiellement Pearl avait même une famille ! Je ne suis pas en train de défendre les salauds qui l’ont tué, je dis que quelque chose ne tourne pas rond.
Depuis lors la communauté juive mondiale a créé le mythe du journaliste intrépide et légendaire. Bernard Henri-Levy, lui a dédié un livre.
L’image d’un nouveau Dreyfus, l’héroïque journaliste décapité seulement parce qu’il était juif, va à merveille à Daniel Pearl.
Les musulmans sont les nouveaux nazis, désireux de terminer l’oeuvre d’Hitler, et les Juifs continuent de vivre dans un monde hostile.
C’est clairement une vision paranoïaque, comme si tous les Juifs du monde devaient retourner en Israël, effrayés de mourir comme Pearl. Israël doit se défendre de l’attaque musulmane même avec la bombe atomique.
Il est vrai que Pearl a été tué par des fanatiques antisémites, mais il y avait aussi autre chose.
Pourquoi donc d’autres journalistes juifs ont pu faire tranquillement leur travail au Pakistan ? Il y a même des interviews et des reportages avec certains chefs de clan musulmans !!!
Si Pearl était un journaliste il ne pouvait pas ignorer qu’il allait vers une mort certaine. Le métier de journaliste prévoit ce risque, c’est déjà arrivé et ça arrivera encore. Je ne pense pas qu’il faut mythifier un homme qui a voulu hélas risquer sa vie de façon inconsidérée.
Daniel Pearl avait une grande valeur intellectuelle, un parcours universitaire de premier ordre, il était un journaliste doué, auteur de grands reportages à la fin des années 80 et durant les années 90. Un grand homme sûrement, qu’il repose en paix.

"We Are Not Our Ancestors"

We Are Not Our Ancestors: Evidence for Discontinuity between Prehistoric and Modern Europeans
I just found this intense article right now, and I’m going to post it, but I haven’t looked it over yet. Her contention is that that present-day Europeans are not descended from Paleolithic Europeans, in other words, the folks who made the first musical instrument and the first figurine are not the ancestors of the present-day Europeans. I don’t know who these Paleolithic folks were, but I assume that like populations elsewhere in the world, they were part of some human race that just doesn’t exist anymore.
Like I said, I have not read the post, but I assume that the Indo-Europeans must have overrun those Paleolithic folks and either displaced them or swamped them out.
Feel free to look it over and see what she’s up to.

What's It Like To Teach Black Kids?

A very depressing article on the blog of Marty Nemko, a libertarian journalist who writes on education for the conservative US News and World Report. He reprinted an article of the same name from the White nationalist publication American Renaissance written by Christopher Jackson, a young teacher early in his career teaching at a Black school in the South.
I read through 200 of the comments, and a lot of them are just painful. Some are extremely angry, and there are a number of Whites on there who have had it up to here with Blacks. Many of them say they started out liking Blacks and trying to give them a chance, but they finally just gave up. There are also many comments from students who went to school with Blacks or teachers who taught Blacks.
One frightening thread in the very angry comments from Whites is that we need to go back to segregated schools.
I went to all-White schools. There was one Black guy in our school, and I was friends with him. He was sort of a bastard (he left me in a park late one night stoned out of my skull and finally picked me up 45 minutes later, laughing) but he had his good qualities too.
I taught Blacks in school for years and will hopefully never do so again. I suppose I would teach them in college.
It may well have been my fault. Maybe I just did not know how to handle them. I often walked by the rooms of (usually female) Black teachers at the most Hellish, insane, flat out evil ghetto junior high schools and saw those Black ladies had those kids absolutely silent and obedient. A White teacher was able to do the same. So it’s not that the kids were inherently uncontrollable, but it seemed to take a very special touch.
I also dealt with a lot of Black teachers along the way, mostly females. By and large, they were as professional as any teacher, and they often seemed to have a way with the Black kids that I did not have. I also dealt with many Black administrators, and in general, they were competent and professional. In the heart of Watts, they have sort of given up, but what are you supposed to do in a place like that? The Black teachers and administrators were often very easy to get along with. Easier than uptight Whites!
I’ve worked with some Blacks outside of teaching, and in general, they did a good job. We had some at the legal coding place I worked at, and they were polite, intelligent, well-behaved, punctual and apparently good workers.
The problem with this situation is that it seems to lead folks to drastic conclusions. Whites deal with lots of Blacks as fellow students, or teaching lots of Blacks in the schools, and they just throw up their hands. The typical response is to get rid of civil rights laws, bring back segregation or form a White separatist state. The first prescription is the most common.
There are other choices, one of which is to stop putting up with so much outrageous behavior from Black kids. At a certain age, we ought to be able to suspend them regularly. If you can’t act human, you can’t be in school. Whenever you decide to start acting like a human again, you can come back in. I guess we could give them numerous chances. At some point, maybe you expel them. Or maybe throw the bad ones into a “bad kids school” and keep the good kids of all races in the “good kids school.” It’s ridiculous that a small number of Black kids can ruin the experience for the rest of them.
Nobody wants to do this because you would have lots of Black kids getting suspended or expelled. The usual suspects are going to scream racism. But it’s better than the first three openly racist proscriptions bolded above.
As far as dumbed down curriculum, I guess I don’t mind. If you warm a seat for four years, you get your semi-worthless HS diploma sheet of paper. Amazingly, a lot of Blacks and Hispancis can’t even seem to manage the chair-warming thing, so I guess a HS diploma still means something.
But beyond that to dumbing down college, no way! I am hearing stories about entry level community college courses like English 1A being dumbed down. Forget it! A HS diploma is depreciated enough; the last thing we need is worthless college diplomas.

Henry Louis Wallace, Serial Killer

I love* serial killers, but especially I loves me some Black serial killers!
This guy, Henry Louis Wallace, was one really evil dude. He terrorized young Black women around Charlotte, North Carolina during the early 1990’s. The victims were young Black women, mostly working women, good people doing well in life, often quite attractive. He knew most of these women, and like most killers, was quite popular with the ladies. They don’t call em lady killers for nothing! All of his victims let him the door. Then he killed them, usually quickly, by strangulation. He usually raped them too. The crimes started in 1992 and ended in 1994.
He was ex-Navy, with an ex-wife and a kid. No one really knows how he went wrong, but it seems that got really mad at women somewhere along the line. He also had an abusive and hateful mother, this one both verbally and physically violent. She also ordered Wallace and his sister to whip each other. This is common in guys who kill women. They usually hate their Moms.
In the 6th grade, his father, whom Wallace had never met, called Wallace and said he wanted to meet him. They set up a time. Wallace waited for him all day and he never showed up. Wallace never forgot that.
He was popular in high school and college, cheerful, polite and gregarious. He joined the Navy in 1984 at age 19. He served eight years and married in the Navy. The marriage broke up and he was left with an adopted kid. He was bitter about the breakup.
The case was famous because it seemed that the cops were not investigating it as diligently as they might if it were White women ending up raped and killed.
After his arrest in 1994, he also confessed to killing a prostitute in Charlotte. In addition, in the Navy, he had killed a woman named Tashanda Bethea in South Carolina. And there were other confessions.  He may have killed up to 20 additional women while in the Navy as his ships docked in various ports of call.
He has gained weight in prison and now weighs 400 pounds, and as usual has married, this time to a prison nurse, Rebecca Torrijos. He is on death row awaiting execution.
*I mean I am fascinated by them.

Whites Made The First Maps and Other Nonsense

The White nationalist crazies are all in a flutter over the latest news out of Spain. In a cave, a stone tablet has been found with what may be the world’s oldest map on it. The WN’s, as usual, are huffing and puffing about how this is evidence that Whites made the first maps.
There are problems with this analysis. The first is that the folks living in Spain 14,000 were first of all not ancestral to modern day Europeans. Second of all, they did not look like modern day Europeans. Instead, they looked more like Arabs and their DNA resembles modern-day Arabs more than any other race.
The White race only goes back maybe 9000 years or so anyway. It’s well documented that the folks living in Europe around 12000 YBP looked like Arabs and their DNA looked like the DNA of modern day Arabs. We know what they looked like by looking at skulls. White skin only goes back about 10,000 YBP and blond hair, red hair and blue eyes about 9000 YBP. Those are all just recent mutations. European Whites as we know them today are a new model.
It’s not that these people were Arabs, they were sort of like proto-Arabs.
White nationalists counter that “White mummies” have been found in China at 9000 YBP.
The reference is to the Tarim mummies. The Tarim mummies do not go back 9000 yrs in China. More like 3-4000 YBP. Anyway, those are Tocharian speakers, who are Indo-Europeans. Indo-Europeans are some of the real Whites who moved into Europe and really “Whitened” the place up.
The White European race we know today (and the Caucasian race in the Caucasus, Anatolia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North India is largely an IE legacy. This includes folks like the White Berbers and the White Arabs.
If you go back before 10,000 YBP, most modern races do not even exist.
Amerindians only go back 6000 YBP. At 9000 YBP, they look like Polynesians and at 12000 YBP they look like Papuans.
SE Asians only go back about 5000 YBP or maybe less. Prior to that, they look like Melanesians.
NE Asians go back about 9000 YBP. Prior, they look like Ainu.
Aborigines go back about 13,000 YBP. Prior to that, no one knows, but maybe they looked like Negritos.
East Indians go back about 8000 YBP. Prior, they look like Aborigines.
African Negroid Blacks only go back about 9,500 YBP. Prior, they look like Pygmies or Bushmen.
As far as whether these folks were our ancestors, they were not. We are not ancestral to the European populations of 10,000 YBP and earlier. There is an interesting article along these lines called We Are Not Our Ancestors that you can Google. What probably happened was that Paleo-Europeans were replaced by Indo-European speakers moving in.

Excellent Piece on Stalin

On Socialist Methods & Stalin-Era Purges, by Mike Ely of the Western Maoist grouplet Kasama. I have the same issues with Kasama as I have with the rest of the Western Left, and there is no need to go into them at this time. I don’t even support Marxist revolution in the West. My attitude is we don’t need it. It didn’t work very well in Eastern Europe anyway.
Nevertheless, Ely of Kasama, an organization which upholds Stalin as a member of the Marxist tradition that they follow, seriously condemns Stalin’s killings and repressions, for good reason I think.

The communist movement (justifiably!) denounces the beating of Rodney King, the killing of Oscar Grant, the shooting of Amadou Diallo, the assassination of Malcolm or King, the jailing of Peltier and Mumia, the holding of so-called “enemy combatants” without evidence or trial… These are outrages — and often the innocence of the victim is a part of that outrage.So what does it mean, if someone…can (with a wave of their hand) minimize the state execution of hundreds of thousands of people (without trial and often, it must be said, without evidence)? Is it that different because those were nominally socialist cops who pulled the triggers?

Indeed! I have always wondered about this, but I figured most Commies were simply so insane that all police repression in capitalist societies was pure evil, whereas all police repression in Commie societies was fine and dandy. This never made sense to me. Repression is repression, end of story.

There were in the 1930s quotas for arrests (just like there were quotas for other forms of production) — i.e. the cops in a particular locality were required to produce so many spies and reactionaries. Imagine what that produced? There was permission to torture signed at the highest level. Imagine what that meant for the emergence of “confessions” and new denunciations of new suspects for the machinery.

That there were actual quotas for arrests in the 30’s in the USSR is outrageous. Obviously, cops just rounded up anyone they didn’t like and called them a spy. The fact that torture was allowed means, obviously, that any confessions obtained are obviously tainted. About time Communists said this.

And I am saying that huge numbers of those who were caught up in this were not spies, or reactionaries, or saboteurs, or deserving of death or punishment.There was explicitly a policy (high in Stalin’s government) of “punishing ten to make sure one doesn’t go free.” There was a terrible ratcheting up of harshness, so that the punishment for a casual remark could be denunciation, imprisonment and worse. (Should someone disappear into prison for saying “I wish the Tsar was back”? Mao, by contrast, said that people should be allowed to make such remarks without fear.)
There was in the 1930s USSR a conscious policy of “mopping up” — i.e. assuming that the time had come to remove everyone who had ever been suspect, or a problem, or had gotten some taint on their record (support for non-Bolshevik parties in their past, involvement with an internal opposition, travels or relatives abroad, history of “making trouble,” and so on.)
And there was a policy of blanket blaming all kinds of industrial breakdowns, snafus, accidents, shortfalls, confusion, chaos, delay, and disagreement on conscious sabotage — to deflect anger and impatience from those in power.
There was a conscious policy at the highest levels of using imprisonment and execution as the means of enforcing discipline within the government i.e. getting republic and enterprise officials to say “how high” when told to jump. (Molotov’s own wife was imprisoned after World War 2, held as a kind of hostage to his continued service.)

Incredible. The first sentence really hits you hard. Vast numbers of those arrested were not even spies, saboteurs or even reactionaries. In fact, many were die-hard Communist revolutionaries. That someone could go to prison for a simple casual remark is madness. Even Mao agreed. That this period was used to “mop up” anyone who was felt to be a troublemaker now or in the past shows the fraudulent nature of the purges.
And any failures in production were seen through the insane paranoid lens of sabotage, when it often was not the case. And imprisonment was used as a discipline-enforcing measure in the party, even when the victims were completely innocent. Outrageous!

And the charge that the punished were agents and saboteurs were (in the main) fantasy, paranoia and conscious frameups.

Yes, the majority of those persecuted were not even guilty of the charges against them. How tragic.

The purges involved an overlay of several things:a) a determined terrorizing of the “middle management” (including especially communist leadership at the republic and enterprise level) to enforce an extreme responsiveness — in part as part of the preparation for war.
b) an approach to solving political problems and disunity that rested heavily on police killing or disappearing those raising political disagreements.
c) a runaway process of mutual denunciation and witchhunting that raged far outside any single central control (mutual denunciations, clique struggle by arrest, settling of old grievances and suspicions) etc.
d) an acute high level line struggle over how to deal with the threat of Nazi invasion (with Litvinov, Bukharin and perhaps Tukachevsky on the side of continuing to seek alliance with Britain and France, and Molotov and Stalin deciding to deflect Hitler by seeking a “non-aggression pact.” It was a struggle analogous to the sharp fight between Lin Biao (on one side) and Mao with Zhou Enlai (on the other) over how to deal with the mounting threat of a Soviet strike on Chinese nuclear facilities.

That’s probably one of the best summaries of the purges I have ever seen.

Anyone who thinks that second kind of repression (recklessly using the full means of an established state in this way) is justified or should be imitated, has abdicated a responsibility to learn from this past, and has really announced their determination to become new oppressors. And even if you don’t think so, everyone else will!And I might add: that people who want to conduct mass campaigns of execution should declare themselves early and loudly — so they can be carefully kept far far away from revolutionary preparations and future state power.

Indeed. For Chrissake, let’s not do this again. If for only one reason, because no one will ever let us come into power again for the fear that we may turn our guns on them at some point. Bottom line is Communists just flat out need to quit killing people when they are in power. At the very least, we can begin to get rid of the “Commie murderer” meme that the Right loves so much.
On the other hand, there is value in Stalin. See here later on in the post:

Stalin was the leader of the International Communist Movement for 40 years and helped solidify much of Communism’s advances during that time. In that time, the Soviet Union developed the world’s first socialist economy- something only barely glimpsed within Lenin’s time.

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union developed the first planned economy, and struggled to develop the first collectivized mechanized agriculture (in the place of an extremely backward peasant society). In this they succeeded with great results.

The Red Army met and defeated the most powerful army in the world. 3.5 million highly mechanized Nazi troops invaded — confident of conquering the first socialist country. And these (previously invincible) armies were hurled back to defeat. In the end, after 27 million Russians died due to Nazi atrocities, it was the troops of Joseph Stalin that took the Nazi capital Berlin, and drove Hitler to suicide!
Under Stalin the communist movement became truly international — with the Comintern (and its fraternal parties) appearing all over the world. While Stalin led the world movement, there were new seizures of power.
When he died 1953, the communist forces were in power in a third of the world, and in his time at the leadership of the CPSU he led a series of important line struggles to uphold and strengthen the dictatorship of the proletariat and forge a road forward toward socialism. His struggles with the rightist, state-capitalist line of Bukharin, and the defeatist line of Leon Trotsky were important and historic contributions to communist practice (and theory).

The truth? From another post:

I think it’s really time to break out of the whole paradigm of “the Great Peerless Helmsman Comrade Stalin” vs. “the Murderous Bloodthirsty Tyrant Stalin” debate…Comrade Stalin laid somewhere in the middle of those two stereotypes.

The Left Supports Racial Separatism in the US

Just not for Whites!
I dig this blog, but I have issues with Western Maoists guys for the usual reasons. White nationalists may be interested to note that they support ethnic secessionism in the US! Just not for Whites. They support the execrable Aztlan Chicano secessionist movement in the US and the Black secessionist movement in the US South, which aims to create a state out of the US Black Belt (map here).
They support these absurd causes because supposedly Blacks and Hispanics are both oppressed minorities in the US, hence have the right to self-determination according to Marxist (specifically, Leninist and Stalinist) theory.
I figure if you’re going to give Blacks and Chicanos the right to secede, why not give Whites the right to secede too? Some other questions remain unanswered. Would the Blacks and Hispanics have the right to throw all the Blacks and Hispanics out of the Black and Hispanic states?
I assume these guys are completely hostile to White nationalism, but it’s interesting that they see both US Blacks and Hispanics are members of oppressed nations. I guess Whites don’t get to secede because they are not an “oppressed minority?”
The independent Black state in the South would be a disaster. The whole place would probably turn into some combination of Detroit plus the Mississippi Delta.
Being an oppressed minority in the US is the best thing that’s ever happened to US Blacks. We’ve gotten rid of slavery and Jim Crow, and racism has been declining for 45 years since the Civil Rights Act. Anywhere else on Earth, they would be worse off.
Want to go back to Africa? Didn’t think so. Want to move to those wonderful Black countries in the Caribbean? Nope. How about moving to that wonderful state of Brazil, where they got rid of racism once and for all? Guess not. Blacks in the US and the rest of the West have it better than anywhere else on Earth. Granted, we could certainly treat them better, and that’s a task that anti-racists at their best moments continue to hammer away at.
But Blacks and Whites in the US evolved in a symbiotic relationship. I don’t know about Whites needing Blacks, but I’m convinced that US Blacks need US Whites. They’d fall apart without us. An independent Black state in the South would be a massive fail.
Segregation in the past did not work for Blacks. Ask how many Blacks want to go back to segregation? The independent Black state would in effect be a return to segregation. What happens when you pull all the Whites out of a city and return to an effectively segregated Black ghetto? No matter what it’s called, Oakland, East St. Louis, the Bronx, Harlem, South Central LA, South Side Chicago, Newark, Gary, Hammond, Baltimore, Washington DC, New Orleans, the result is much the same. A Black ghetto, with sky-high rates of crime and every other social pathology you can think of.
We can argue on and on about why Black ghettos end up the way they are, but the fact is that they are what they are. When Blacks are more spread out and not living in heavily-Black communities, it seems obvious to me that they do better, though I haven’t seen any studies yet.
For example, my city is 4% Black. A lot of these Blacks are pretty ghetto, and a lot of them are low income. Nevertheless, the Blacks here cause few problems if you ask me. You do see them getting arrested a lot, but it’s for stuff like driving on a suspended license, pimping, prostitution, domestic violence, stuff like that. The local Blacks do not commit much street crime. There is no wave of thefts, beatings, rapes and murders attributable to them. For one, their numbers are so small that Black gangs have not taken hold, but crucially neither has Black “culture”, which with these folks would just be ghetto culture.
But could you imagine what this city would be like if it was 67% Black and not 4%? I would not even want to live here! The Black crime rate would be much higher than it is. Integration is great for Blacks. Segregation is so bad for them, it’s downright deadly. Hence the Black state is doomed to fail.

Alexa Shows Dramatic Rise in Traffic Rank For Robert Lindsay Over 3 Months

This is very impressive stuff, even though traffic is declining a bit in the past couple weeks.
Traffic rank at 3 months ago: 559,254
Traffic rank at 1 months ago: 395,507
Traffic rank at 1 week ago: 201,919
Once you get down below 100,000, they actually start measuring your demographics and whatnot. Anything under 1 million is doing great, probably, considering there are 100’s of millions of sites on the net.
I’m not sure how they do that ranking thing, but I believe part of it is how many people link to you. Since most other sites would rather die than link to me, I don’t have many incomings.

The First Australians were Indians, Says the Media

See here.
As I have been saying on this site for some time now. However, this article suggests that the first Australians were Indians in that the Out of Africa folks from 70,000 YBP moved along the coasts of India down the coasts of other Indian Ocean nations (all true) before settling in Australia (true) and becoming the Aborigines (I say not true).
Most human races do not go back all that far. Northeast Asians other than Ainu types only go back 9000 YBP. SE Asians for the most part go back 5000 YBP. Most East Indians go back 8000 YBP. Typical African Negroids only go back 6-12000 YBP. Modern Amerindians mostly go back only around 7-8000 YBP. Modern Europeans are not related to the Europeans of the Pleistocene, as much as White nationalists lie and say they do. The furthest back are the Lapps at 11000 YBP.
It’s true that the Negritos go back a long ways. The Orang Asli in Malaysia have lines going back 72,000 YBP, making them the oldest race on Earth. It’s also true that some Africans have ancient lines. Bushmen have lines going back 53000 YBP and some Tanzanians have lines extending back even further, possibly beyond even the Orang Alsi.
I don’t believe that the Negritos created the Aborigines, though it is possible that the Negritos were the original Australians, and they were genodiced when the Aborigines arrived. The genocide was still ongoing when the White showed up. The Aborigines had been exterminating the Negritos for fun for probably over 10,000 years. Amazing that any were left at all.
In my opinion, the modern Aborigines were created by two forces – a Murrayan group from SE Asia (possibly Thailand) that looked something like the Ainu. At 17,000 YBP, Ain types were generalized throughout Thailand. At this date, they move up into Japan by boats and become the Jomon. So at 17,000 YBP, at the same time the Ainu types moved by boat to Japan, they also moved by boat to Australia.
Possible reasons for the mass migrations are rising sea levels. Keep in mind that around this time, Malaysia, Western Indonesia and SE Asia proper were all connected by land. In addtion, most of the Indonesian islands were connected by land. All of Sundaland was connected.
But rising sea levels in connection with mass melting of glaciers caused mass flooding  and rising sea levels in this region, isolated Indonesia from Malaysia and SE Asia proper and islandized the formerly connected region of Indonesia. There were other migrations in this period, and the ancestors of the modern Indonesians probably settled the islands from Proto-Daic types on the coast of SE Asia during this time.
The Murrayans lived in Australia for about 5000 years until an invasion of folks called Carpinterians. They seem to have come from Southern India. At this time, all Indians looked very Australoid. They reached Australia about 13000 YBP.
The mix of Ainu-Murrayans and South Indian-Carpinterians produced this strange fellow called the Aborigine. This is why people say that some South Indians like Tamils look like Aborigines. This is probably the ancestral stock of the Aborigines, in part. If you look closely at Ainu types, they also look somewhat like Aborigines for the same reason. The Ainu are the ancient ancestors of the Aborigines.
So the article is somewhat correct, but not completely. I believe that they are just finding the Carpinterian connection from 13,000 YBP, not some ancient connection from 60,000 YBP.