That’s Scientific Racism!

Human Bio-Diversity (HBD) is an extremely contentious topic. Anyone even close to the progressive end of the political spectrum will immediately accuse you of “scientific racism” (or perhaps scientific sexism), or just straight racism if you start to bring it up. This is of course, ridiculous, but I have a theory as to why they believe this.

The progressive vehemently believes in spite of all the evidence that everyone is absolutely equal at birth, they are blank slates and that any difference is the result of environmental factors like culture. This is absolutely not the case for a wide variety of factors including height, intelligence, propensity for violence, skin colour, eye colour, vulnerable locations on the body, etc. Thus under the mantra of the blank slate, inequality is the result of prejudice that pushes people into less than optimal positions, which is of course wrong because it is denying them the freedom of their totally unbound, unrestricted state of birth. This does of course give progressives an enormous amount of power, whenever there is any perceived inequality they can sound the horns of racism, misogyny, ableism, sexism, or any other kind of ‘ism’ prejudice. This has been extremely powerful over the past decades, but recently the heavy abuse has made it far less effective,

Their reaction against any implication of human biodiversity that is more than skin deep is, I believe, twofold. First, it would deprive them of their power over both individuals, corporations, and even their own governments. The second is a little more complicated. They believe in tabula rasa, the blank slate, and that the only acceptable position that logically follows is the Progressive Doctrine. It is then understandable how they believe that if human biodiversity is true, that the only possible position one could hold is of of the Ku-Klux Klan. They have been told this over and over of course.

But it is ridiculous. Acceptance of HBD does not entail KKK membership. Slavery advocacy does not logically follow from HBD. As HBD-chick states;

there is nothing — absolutely nothing — about hbd that precludes left-wingers from acknowledging its existence. you can … still be all for the proletarian revolution and redistribution of wealth or even just be a mainstream democrat…

…what you can’t be if you understand hbd is be a progressive

Acceptance of HBD does not make one a slavery advocate. It does not undo the 2000 years of moral advancement that Western Civilization has made. Non-progressive Christians ended the slave trade and slavery, and were freeing slaves (including manumission) since the days of the early church.

Don’t let others tell you what you believe.

Western Prosperity was a Choice

To reiterate and expand what @TheRealPolina has said here;
It is not luck that has brought the West (formerly Christendom) great wealth and prosperity, it is choice. 2000 years ago Europe was much like the rest of the world around it, there were scores and scores of inbred tribes having their little quarrels, and killing each other and themselves with feuds. After the Western Roman Empire fell, that slowly changed. Unlike what some would say, the dark ages weren’t entirely dark, cities survived, and so did Christian Churches in the cities. With the Schism, the Pope gained control over the church and slowly consolidated that, enacting a series of social changes that radically changed Europe. It is impossible to understate the extent of these changes.
The first was to eliminate paganism, and with it, superstition. Only God had power, there were no spirits in the wind, waves, thunder, lightning, trees, or any other natural event or entity.
The Catholic Church made cousin marriage invalid and illegal, forcing the tribes to intermingle, eventually blending them together into the homogeneous peoples we know today.
This was a very slow process, taking hundreds of years, but it worked, though even now it has left us with some legacies. Pagan originally meant “country folk”, because as the Churches were in cities first, the country folk converted second, so when the city folk were outbreeding (rather than inbreeding), and believing in a single God outside the universe, the country folk still believed in spirits everywhere and marrying within their small villages and tribes, even now people will call country folk “inbred.”

These people, our (for Europeans reading this) ancestors CHOSE to convert to Christianity.
They CHOSE to stop believing superstition.
They CHOSE not to marry their cousins, subsequently raising their average IQ. (Cousin marriage plunges average IQ by about 10 points, nearly a full standard deviation).

They then defended this, at great cost in blood, from invading Muslims, who do embrace cousin marriage. These invaders conquered the Spanish, who then  at additional cost, drove them out and regained their heritage. From both the West in Spain, and the East in Greece and former Yugoslav states, bore this enormous cost. Their current deleterious state can in no small part be attributed to this historical struggle.

From there, there were more choices. Our ancestors chose to send many, but not all of their intelligent sons to be educated by the Catholic church. These men created the foundation for the rule of law found throughout Europe by rigorously working out the Catholic Church’s canon law, they became Europe’s first lawyers. Even from shortly after the fall of the Empire, when Charles I the Great formed the Carolingian empire, churchmen advised him, and many later advised other rulers.

Subsequently when the Caroline Empire fell and Feudal rule grew out of the state and civil positions appointed by Charles, our ancestors laboured under both fair and foul liege lords. These lords and knights CHOSE to accept certain edicts of the Catholic Church’s ruling, as well as that of secular rulers; in the former case, they accepted that to plunder the poor and raid villages that were not under their care was evil. We know this now, but to them it was new. We ONLY accept it now because they did and passed those higher morals onto us. In the latter case, the secular rulers convinced these lords and knights to cease their frantic castle building once it no longer became necessary.

The 1st Crusade is when Europe CHOSE to become united as Christendom in defence of itself from the repeated Muslim invasions in the southwest and Southeast; coming to the aid of Byzantium; that state which was once the Eastern Roman Empire. Fortunately this also eliminated much of the need for castles everywhere, as it diminished the horrible raiding and slaving of Muslim pirates.

I could continue, but this isn’t meant to be a history lesson.

The summary is that this prosperity is the result of , choices. Overall these choices and the ideology guiding them have been good, as we have seen that Christendom & the West has benefited mankind in a way that no other civilization has. This wealth and prosperity is the legacy that was left by our ancestors, and those that did not have children because they died in war, or plague, or chose to have no children because they were building a better society for the children of their brothers, sisters, and cousins.
This legacy was left to ALL their offspring, and their offspring’s offspring. That includes us, and it includes the next generations too. This wealth and prosperity is ours to share, as we have done with China, Japan, and much of the East in the last 200 years. But it is not ours to throw away as we are doing right now.

It is passed down to us so we could pass it along to our future generations. This prosperity is not ours, though we enjoy it.

We have no right to squander this legacy in the name of social justice, correcting the record,  or being ‘nice.’

A Rant on Immigration, Crime, and White Privilege.

I occasionally write rants and don’t post them, but now I have. This is partially a response to a post I saw somewhere else.

1st generation immigrants have less criminal tendencies than native-born citizens.

When were those stats gathered? When 1st gen immigrants were still mostly people from either Europe, or they were from when there wasn’t tonnes of welfare, so the people coming across were essentially the cream of the crop who had to integrate to survive? Let’s not forget that while the first generation have less criminal tendencies the same does not hold for subsequent generations.

The problem here isn’t immigration per se, it’s mass immigration and illegal/undocumented refugee immigration. You’ve got some African diplomat saying that the people going to Europe now are human trash. (If you know what’s going on there, you might be inclined to agree) You’ve got those existing immigrants, the 1st genners you talk about, scared because the people they escaped from are now following them! And those that try to fix it? They’re extremists!

Oh don’t forget that it’s a regular practice for men in Afghanistan and surrounding areas to rape boys because “they’re just boys.”
So many of them have massive psychological issues because they’re a part of a gigantic inter-generational cycle of soul-destroying abuse. Is it any wonder they do things like killing volunteers who help them.
Or this: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3731005/Austrian-mayor-says-town-Afghan-migrants-carrying-sexual-assaults-locals-discuss-setting-vigilante-patrols-deal-problem.html

I’m a 3rd generation immigrant myself, but my grandparents adapted, they built a place here they earned enough money to make a good life by working hard and not spending a dime that they didn’t ABSOLUTELY NEED TO. They sent their kids to schools where they basically became natives. The people who are coming across are not like that now. Especially/mostly the Muslims. They have their special Islamic schools, their special Islamic food, and all this stuff that keeps them segregated. That’s not how you have a society. That’s how you generate ethnic conflict.

angry white men, whites have privilege, etc. White people have all the power, you’re an angry white man.

Though I have uncles you’d call “people of colour”, I have white skin, because lol genetics. (Other things are telltale though, I can remember getting comments when I was younger). Not that it fucking matters. If I dismissed a black man’s grievances because he was an “angry black man” I’d be socially crucified.
Lets talk about white male privilege though.
Point. Tim Hunt, nobel prize winner lost his job and most of his positions because HE MADE A JOKE and then black female journalist lied about it and said he insulted all women everywhere.
Point. Matt Taylor, who landed a probe on a comet wore a T-shirt that a female friend made him during his proudest moment, but some feminists didn’t like it so he reaped the politically correct whirlwind, resulting in a sobbed apology on national TV.
Then there’s the CEO of Mozilla, who happened to give some of his own private money to a cause he supported, a cause that was not endorsed by the left.  Years later this came to light and deemed ‘unforgivable’ so he resigned during the media blitzkrieg.

Those are just some high-profile examples. If the most respected and successful white men are easily destroyed because they made a joke that someone didn’t like, or they wore a shirt that someone didn’t like, or supported a cause that someone didn’t like, what chance to the rest of us have?

But even as those things are happening, there are academics saying that whiteness, white people, etc have all the privilege, that they are inherently racist need to be destroyed, eradicated, and wiped out. They say all white people have privilege, even the homeless white man freezing on the street.

”White people cannot exist as white and do anything to address racism, because whiteness in action is racism.”
Is it the duty of every good revolutionary to kill every newborn White baby?” – Jose Angel Gutierrez, a communist.
“We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him” – Jose Angel Gutierrez, Chicano activist and university professor.

We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him” -Jose Angel Gutierrez

I could go on. Malcom X, other people like that, current BLM, they all HATE white people (or even black people who are “too white”), and it is totally fine, it is not “lose your job” territory to support these people.
Think they might have had an effect on these people? Muslims aren’t the only people killing white people who help them. But they don’t just kill whites, they also dehumanise blacks that are too white.

But GOD FORBID you believe that people are better off with their own kind, and that everyone has the right to be ruled by their own people, including white people.

I’ve seen it said that the white men are just angry that the media doesn’t care about them anymore. Wrong. The media cares about white men. We  wish that they didn’t, because apathy would be preferable to the hate.
We’re being demonised again, and have started finally looking out for each other, because nobody else is looking out for us, except for a tiny minority of some other groups.

Why do white men have to look out for everyone else, except ourselves (because whites liking being white is racist), but nobody is expected to return the favour?
This “all whites are racist” crap has destroyed race relations in America.

It’s destroying a lot of other things too, because racism is now the original sin of the left that every single white person is guilty of, no matter what. Unlike Christianity, there’s not even a chance of redemption, other than suicide. That’s what’s happening, on a cultural and national scale.

Untying the Knot of Global Events: Part One – Islam

The more I learn about events both past and present, the more I discover just how events tie into other events, and how this mess built up. Some of its smoke and mirrors, but other parts are hard reality.

It seems that every other week, or even every other day another Muslim terrorist attack splashes across our screens and monitors. The most recent big one was in in France leaving scores dead, and even more maimed and wounded. The French Prime Minister has said that France needs to learn to live with terrorism. The word Muslim is conspicuously absent from many reports, this is a serious problem of the type I mentioned in a previous post. The perpetrator is  Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, a Tunisian immigrant.  (It’s worth noting that the majority of Tunisians say that Islam plays a large role in politics, and “this is a good thing”). Members of the Muslim communities in the West are quick to denounce him even, as was done with the Orlando shooter, saying how he’s not a true Muslim. However, the response on the Arabic speaking part of the internet shows a different atmosphere.  These are the facts, a few threads of the knot, from here we delve into the knot itself and as you might expect, everything can become a little hard to follow as everything becomes intertwined.

In order to shed light on these events it’s necessary to go back and examine previous events that may not even seem related, but they most definitely are.  The first is environmentalism, a very powerful movement with a varying agenda, but one that has strayed from being wholly beneficial for mankind.

The relevant outcome for the purposes of this article is that environmentalism has prevented much of the western world for drilling for its own oil, and in some cases, mining its own coal. This might seem like a good thing on the surface but dis-allowing these operations doesn’t end the need for them. Thus  the west has no choice but to look elsewhere. The Arab world has no such qualms about drilling and mining and they have a lot of oil. So the Western outsources the energy extraction needs of its industry and people to the Middle East, giving them huge sums of money while importing oil. This means that nearly every first world country has a massive interest in the affairs and events of the Western world. They need to keep securing oil to keep their people happy, after all. This means that they must ensure that the leaders of Middle East are favorably disposed to them.

This has resulted in a some deleterious ventures into Arab lands, to say the least. In a large part these are due to the legacy of the USA Democratic party president Woodrow Wilson. Wilsonianism is the source of the interventionist style of American foreign policy that President Wilson created with his Fourteen points speech in 1918. Both parties have inherited this interventionist policy, especially  America’s modern Republican party, a real paradox for the supposedly right-wing party.

None of us can be sure exactly how much of the Wilsonian rhetoric about spreading democracy and freedom is genuine, and how much is simply a lip service to get the American (and other peoples) to accept the wars in the Middle east. I suspect that much of it is not genuine at all. That aside, it is time to bring in another factor, for this is not solely about the oil needs of the western world. Oil is traded in US dollars, a fact that everyone who pays attention to it knows. This is the result of a US deal with Saudi Arabia; The US protects the Saudis and the Saudis only price their oil in US dollars (USD). This is extremely good for the USA, as it creates a large demand for US dollars, keeping its exchange rate high even though the country is well over its head in national debt. This debt doesn’t disappear due to increased demands, it just means that other countries essentially take it on when they buy US dollars.

This state of affairs is excellent for the US, but not entirely desirable for the rest of the world. The US essentially gained a massive advantage for no good reason, the US dollar became a third-party to every oil transaction. Of course some leaders tried to get around this, their names may be familiar if one cares to look them up.

Gaddafi was the most recent to my knowledge, he refused to put the petrodollars through investment banks in the USA. He wanted to establish some way to trade oil without involving the US. This state of affairs was of course, totally unacceptable to the US leaders and thus there was a sudden revolution against this leader, where the US backed groups opposed to him.

There’s just one problem with that.

Gaddafi was a secular leader interested in westernization, and a successful one at that. A secular leader in a Muslim country always has opposition in the form of non-secular Muslims. The USA simply ignored the fact that these were the people hostile to themselves, and indeed, anyone who wasn’t Muslim in the first place. A similar thing happened in Afghanistan in the  1970s, and in Syria too. In the 70s and 80s, the Arab world was using its post-colonial heritage to lift itself from the grip of its Muslim roots. For those opposed to colonialism, one must absolutely remember that French and British colonists did three excellent things for the people they colonized.

  1. They showed them an alternate, secular system of government.
  2. They educated the best and brightest in western universities.
  3. They built (then modern) infrastructure that stayed.

The Arabic peoples of Syria, Iran, Iraq, and north African countries such as Lybia used the lessons & infrastructure gained under colonialism to pull themselves forward in the world. But these secular, forward-looking people and leaders still to wrestle with the backward forces within their borders, forces that always took the form of fundamentalist Muslims, because Islam is a totalitarian system. Arab spring wasn’t a spring for the Arab people. It was the beginning of a harsh winter of Islam. Islam is always opposed to the separation of church and state, it is heresy.

It is hard to say if the various Muslim dissenters in these countries would have succeeded without support from Washington. Afghanistan and Syria were likely to have failed in Afghanistan’s case and probably destabilized in the case of Syria. There simply wasn’t enough support for a modern secular style of government in either countries. Whatever the case, US activity tipped the board from possibility into inevitability, and bloated the regressive forces of Islam into a terrifying beast that the entire world has to deal with now.

All this is an extremely tangled web that I have only outlined. It is just one factor that lead to the present day’s events.

The Loss of Cooking

Recently I came to a realization that put in perspective a phenomenon of food and eating that I had been observing for years. That is, the perplexing loss of cooking skill among the current generation. I had what I might call an unusual upbringing with regards to food due to my parent’s disparate heritages. For me the best food was almost always at home, rather than out at a restaurant. This still holds true today. Many meals are better cooked at home than bought, restaurant & bar food too often too expensive and usually lacking in taste.

Furthermore such observations as “vegetables taste bad” or “European/British/etc food is bland” had always made no sense to me, I had assumed that the people around me were either addicted to sugar and soft drinks, or simply suffering from extremely bad cooking. But I no longer think this is the case. The rise of food from other cultures can be traced back, I believe, to the decline in our own.

Nutritionists have trotted out discovery after discovery about what is and isn’t bad for us. These have almost always been taken back later when new findings were added to the old. Nutrition is a study that is singularly unsuited for the scientific method, as almost every nutrient never acts alone, food is a combination of many many different amino aids, carbohydrates, proteins and other things. These interact with each other in our food and our body. The scientific method of isolating each factor can create very skewed results.

These results are declared prematurely. The declaration that eggs were not healthy created a huge market for replacement egg products, but it was nowhere near as damaging as the declaration that fat is the enemy of health.

Fat is used by all cultures in cooking, and no less in that of the west. If anyone has watched their grandmother prepare food they can understand this. Mashed potato, a common staple for many families in the anglosphere was once made with mashed potatoes and butter. The butter made it far more palatable, even delicious. But when fat was declared the enemy, this practice was stopped. Some replaced it with milk or something else, but it simply wasn’t the same.

Furthermore, many products that normally contained fat now wanted to get rid of this so they could have a 99% fat free label, a selling point in a market where fat is the ultimate enemy. But since fat adds and brings out flavor in  a similar way to salt, it had to be replaced with something else. Since fat was out of the question and salt can only go so far without something else, sugar was the replacement. This is especially true of American food but it can be found in other places. Sugar replaced fat on a monumental scale. But sugar can only be added to certain dishes. Many formerly delicious dishes are no longer delicious because they are lacking a major ingredient (fat). Is it any wonder that other cultures cooking overtook that of the Anglosphere? (And the wider west, I believe).

Younger generations believe that vegetables are tasteless and bland for the most part. The answer is that they are not, they require just a little bit of meat, or fat to become absolutely delicious. But few people cook them that way any more.

Bring back fat.

 

Problems And the (Lack of) Solutions.

It is hardly a matter of dispute that the general state of affairs is not desirable. Whether it’s foreign wars, violence at home, the economy, or whatever else, it’s clear that there are serious problems. That in itself is nothing new. Every generation has problems that it must overcome. We are here now because our ancestors overcame their problems. They may not have found the most optimal solution, but they found a solution. There are various problems facing the world today, but far worse than any of them is an underlying issue that exacerbates all the others, yet it is beyond the perception of many.

The underlying, far more serious issue facing our society today is not that there are problems, but that there are no effective solutions being implemented or even publically proposed. Our society has made a series of errors so grave that it may not survive. These errors have exacerbated, or in some cases outright created serious problems that have not been solved. These unsolved problems result in crises, and unsolved crises destroy civilizations.

Any number of supposed solutions to a problem or crisis may be proposed, but only a fraction of these solutions will work. Only a fraction of them will have the desired effect, hence the reference to effective solutions. The dearth of effective solutions and the abundance of false solutions boils down to one overarching factor: Disconnection from reality.
This disconnect evident in near every social and political matter one looks at, but it is hard to point this out, as no one could accept or even consider of these false solutions & false ideas if there was not an environment, a culture that nurtured and defended them and the false assumptions that give rise to them. Continue reading “Problems And the (Lack of) Solutions.”

The Unassailable Preferences of Generation Special Snowflake

“If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”

How many of us heard that growing up? I certainly did, along with others with the same message, because when a teacher has 30 pupils in a classroom they want to keep things running as smoothly as possible. But there’s a problem, because that attitude has combined with others from the self esteem movement to spawn a mental barrier of unassailable proportions.

The easiest example of this can be found online, of course. Visit deviantART, fanfiction.net, or any number of different sites where people post their work online and try to find a positive response to criticism. You’ll be searching a long time. The responses are overwhelmingly negative. At the less extreme end of the spectrum, critics are labeled “haters”, “too negative” and blocked, or they are chided for not providing any positive feedback with their negativity. Disregard is just the beginning, many responses are what one might expect from an entitled 7 year old when informed that their drawing did not win first place in a competition. This attitude can also be seen in the absence of personally created works, such as the responses some have to those that criticize a favored TV show, movie, or game.

The mentality behind this is rather simple, and works like this:

  1. I am special, and things I like are essentially flawless because I am special and unique and don’t like things that aren’t special (ie, flawed)
  2. Any criticism on the object of my preferences cannot be due to any flaws in the object, because they have none (or none worth criticizing)
  3. Therefore, all criticism is an underhanded attack on my own person.

This can also be extended to others, as people defend friends or social groups. The effect is the same; not liking something is evidence of hate for those who like it, and/or those who made it. The likes and opinions of a person are now a part of that person, and thus cannot be assailed in the same way that the person themselves cannot be defamed, libeled, etc.

Much more could be said on this subject, this is just one facet of why any negativity is now grounds for casting out, but this suffices for a single post.