My brother sent me this link. I thought it was amazing enough to share with the rest of y’all:
November 3, 2014
You can’t send firearms via U.S. mail, and you shouldn’t try to transport explosives with your carry-on luggage on a commercial flight. But it is possible to transport the components, and then assemble them later.
In the same way, some mainstream science writers avoid delivering HBD (human bio-diversity), in its recognizable form, to their readers – but they can get away with including its basic components in their articles, and allowing intelligent readers to assemble it themselves.
We know that average brain size varies between races; there is no longer any dispute about this. Therefore, it is generally verboten to concede that there is a correlation between brain size and IQ. Happily, it appears that one can get away with it if it’s buried deep inside an article that deals with the overall reduction in human brain size in recent history.
I recently read Kathleen McAuliffe’s excellent essay “If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking?” After mulling over some fascinating theories, McAuliffe eventually writes (toward the very end):
Whatever the reason for the recent uptick in cranial size, Jantz believes it is having an effect on how we think. Recent MRI studies, according to Jantz and other scientists, show that brain volume really does correlate with intelligence—at least as measured by that oft-celebrated but widely criticized metric, the IQ test.
The middle part of McAuliff’s article elaborates on the human domestication theory, that the reason our brains have been getting smaller is that we’ve been domesticated. She writes:
A TAMER BREED
Other researchers think many of their colleagues are barking up the wrong tree with their focus on intelligence as the key to the riddle of our disappearing gray matter. What may have caused the trend instead, they argue, is selection against aggression. In essence, we domesticated ourselves, according to Richard Wrangham, a primatologist at Harvard University and a leading proponent of this view.
Some 30 animals have been domesticated, he notes, and in the process every one of them has lost brain volume—typically a 10 to 15 percent reduction compared with their wild progenitors. Domesticated animals also have more gracile builds, smaller teeth, flatter faces, a more striking range of coloration and hair types—and, in many breeds, floppy ears and curly tails. Except for those last two traits, the domesticated breeds sound a lot like us…
To illustrate how this could happen, Wrangham refers to an experiment that began half a century ago in Siberia. In 1958 the Russian geneticist Dmitri Belyaev started raising silver foxes in captivity, initially selecting to breed only the animals that were the slowest to snarl when a human approached their cage. After about 12 generations, the animals evidenced the first appearance of physical traits associated with domestication, notably a white patch on the forehead. Their tameness increased over time, and a few generations later they were much more like domesticated dogs…
I find it interesting that one of the “domestication traits” listed is “a more striking range or coloration and hair types.” This trait, along with more gracile build and smaller teeth, seems to imply that Caucasians are more domesticated than Negroes. Caucasians have larger ears than do Negroes or Asians.
Of course, none of this proves anything by itself. However, when we compare behavioral patterns in places such as Ferguson, Missouri and Portland, Oregon, a clear picture begins to emerge.
Being domesticated is a mixed blessing at best. I fear that, as the rule of the jungle spreads, domesticated humans will be fully replaced by the more wild varieties.
October 30, 2014
Here’s a video of a young woman enjoying diversity while strolling through New York. I can think of several problems with the video. Firstly, since when is an offhand compliment “harassment?” Secondly, would she rather be ignored by the opposite sex, and how would she feel if desirable men ignored her? Thirdly, it does appear that she chose trashy neighborhoods for her stunt.
Aside from all of the above, the video does illustrate the hypocrisy of people who clamor for ever more “diversity” in white countries, and then get upset when the natural consequences of such “diversity” come back to bite them. I’m not speaking of Miss Roberts; rather of news outlets such as Reuters and Yahoo. If they truly wanted more respect for women in our society, then they’d try to preserve white/Western society. They’d lobby for an end to mass immigration, and encourage higher white birthrates. They’d also hold Western European culture up as the ideal, to which everybody (regardless of ethnicity or race) must strive. They would stop pandering to third-world cultures, and they would insist that immigrants adapt to OUR culture – and leave their barbarity behind.
October 28, 2014
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society praises federal agencies for “responding to anti-refugee resettlement backlash”
The article states, in part:
Pockets of Resistance!
The most interesting/amusing part, at least to us at RRW, is a segment of the testimony praising the State Department (PRM) and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) for “responding” to the “anti-refugee resettlement backlash”
(I assume by responding they mean that those federal agencies shoveled more of your $$$ to contractors to write reports and hire the likes of ‘Welcoming America’ to help community organizers get your minds right about the growing crush of refugees resettled to your towns and cities).
Here is what they say:
They thank PRM and ORR for “responding to the anti-refugee resettlement backlash that has emerged to threaten the long-term viability of the US Refugee Admissions Program…”
Cool! They have written a whole report about “pockets of resistance.”
It’s only natural that native people protest when they’re being replaced by outsiders – especially if those outsiders get preferential treatment by government, and if those outsiders tend to rape and murder at much higher rates than the native population. While this is not always the case, it certainly is true with Latin American migrants to the U.S. and Muslim migrants to Sweden (for example). Governments, the media and organizations such as HIAS always paint a biased picture of refugee resettlement; they’d have us believe that the host population suffers no ill effects whatsoever, and that the refugees (in the words of HIAS):
can be tremendous assets to their neighborhoods and societies, boosting local economies, and excelling at entrepreneurship. This is especially true in the U.S., where starting over offers not just safety but promise and opportunity.
HIAS has assets of almost 50 million dollars. According to its website, 88% of its donations go toward programs – and yet it appears that a few people are making a lot of money from their employment at HIAS. According to their most recent 990 form, HIAS only has 76 employees – and yet their total expenditures for salaries and other compensation is over $11 million. In other words, the average annual income, for employees of HIAS, is $144,737!
Browsing their website, one gets the impression that this organization does a lot of good in the world. I have little doubt that this is so. HIAS has been around a long time and many of their activities involve helping people where they are, without resettling them. They’ve been at it for about 130 years. It’s likely that I owe my very existence to them; they were active around the turn of the 20th century, when my own grandparents were fleeing the pogroms in Russia. For all I know, they might have helped my family come to the U.S.
Regarding HIAS’ mission and values, we read:
Guided by our Jewish values and history, we bring more than 130 years of expertise to our work with refugees…
Impassioned by our mission, we bring the lessons of HIAS’ history and Jewish ethics and experience to our commitment to serve refugees and other displaced persons of concern around the world…
If HIAS owes its mission, and values, to Jewish tradition, then we would expect it to do everything in its power to protect the Jewish people. Yet HIAS is in favor of resettling Africans in Israel. Under the heading “HIAS in Israel” (which features a black man wearing an “I Love Tel Aviv” tshirt), we read:
HIAS is using our expertise to help the country develop a humane admission system for refugees and asylum seekers that adheres to international legal standards and protects the security of the state. According to UNHCR, there are 55,000 refugees in Israel: roughly 36,000 from Eritrea, 15,000 from Sudan, and 4,000 from other African countries. HIAS works closely with both the Israeli government and UNHCR in their efforts to protect these refugees and review their claims of asylum. HIAS also provides ongoing training to personnel from the Israeli Ministry of the Interior to ensure that they can fully assume the responsibilities of Refugee Status Determination as laid out in international law.
Israel is a small country. Its leaders are right when the say that African migration poses an existential threat to the Jewish state. Surely, HIAS must realize this. One can only assume that, since it advocates for resettlement into America and Europe, it would be vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy if it made an exception for Israel. Hence HIAS’ measured, and calculated, verbiage.
As with European countries, and the United States, HIAS fails to ask itself one simple question: At what point do our activities hurt host countries to the extent that the benefit to refugees is no longer justified? It should also ask itself if there is such a thing as too much immigration and, if so, where would we draw the line and say “no more!“
If there’s a backlash against resettlement activities, a responsible organization would ask itself why there is such a backlash. It would objectively investigate claims of increased crime, reduced ethnic cohesion among natives and lowered wages for entry level jobs.
But I suppose when you’re making $144,000 a year, such questions might be “inconvenient.”
On a positive Jewish note, today is Jonas Salk‘s birthday. Happy birthday Dr. Salk!
October 21, 2014
I just read a fascinating article, by Kathleen Mcaulitte, at The Atlantic.com. It has to do with the research of Jaroslav Flegr, whose theories about the microbe Toxoplasma gondii are revolutionary. Here are some excerpts from the article:
… Starting in the early 1990s, he began to suspect that a single-celled parasite in the protozoan family was subtly manipulating his personality, causing him to behave in strange, often self-destructive ways. And if it was messing with his mind, he reasoned, it was probably doing the same to others.
The parasite, which is excreted by cats in their feces, is called Toxoplasma gondii (T. gondii or Toxo for short) and is the microbe that causes toxoplasmosis—the reason pregnant women are told to avoid cats’ litter boxes. Since the 1920s, doctors have recognized that a woman who becomes infected during pregnancy can transmit the disease to the fetus, in some cases resulting in severe brain damage or death. T. gondii is also a major threat to people with weakened immunity: in the early days of the AIDS epidemic, before good antiretroviral drugs were developed, it was to blame for the dementia that afflicted many patients at the disease’s end stage. Healthy children and adults, however, usually experience nothing worse than brief flu-like symptoms before quickly fighting off the protozoan, which thereafter lies dormant inside brain cells—or at least that’s the standard medical wisdom.
But if Flegr is right, the “latent” parasite may be quietly tweaking the connections between our neurons, changing our response to frightening situations, our trust in others, how outgoing we are, and even our preference for certain scents. And that’s not all. He also believes that the organism contributes to car crashes, suicides, and mental disorders such as schizophrenia. When you add up all the different ways it can harm us, says Flegr, “Toxoplasma might even kill as many people as malaria, or at least a million people a year.”
Mcauliffe brings up a good point toward the end of the article (it’s worth reading the whole thing):
But T. gondii is just one of an untold number of infectious agents that prey on us. And if the rest of the animal kingdom is anything to go by, says Colorado State University’s Janice Moore, plenty of them may be capable of tinkering with our minds. For example, she and Chris Reiber, a biomedical anthropologist at Binghamton University, in New York, strongly suspected that the flu virus might boost our desire to socialize. Why? Because it spreads through close physical contact, often before symptoms emerge—meaning that it must find a new host quickly. To explore this hunch, Moore and Reiber tracked 36 subjects who received a flu vaccine, reasoning that it contains many of the same chemical components as the live virus and would thus cause the subjects’ immune systems to react as if they’d encountered the real pathogen…
Reiber has her eye trained on other human pathogens that she thinks may well be playing similar games, if only science could prove it. For example, she says, many people at the end stages of AIDS and syphilis express an intense craving for sex. So, too, do individuals at the beginning of a herpes outbreak. These may just be anecdotal accounts, she concedes, but based on her own findings, she wouldn’t be surprised if these urges come from the pathogen making known its will to survive.
“We’ve found all kinds of excuses for why we do the things we do,” observes Moore. “‘My genes made me do it.’ ‘My parents are to blame.’ I’m afraid we may have reached the point where parasites may have to be added to the laundry list of excuses.”
Mcauliffe goes on to write:
In fact, I’ve been wondering whether T. gondii might in some small way be contributing to my extreme extroversion—why I can’t resist striking up conversations everywhere I go, even when I’m short of time or with strangers I’ll never see again. Then it occurs to me that cysts in my brain might be behind my seesaw moods or even my splurges on expensive clothes. Maybe, I think with mounting conviction, the real me would have displayed better self-control, had I not been forced to swim upstream against the will of an insidious parasite.
I realize that it is grossly premature to suggest this, but then again, I’m not writing for a peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps Mcauliffe is wrong in assuming that there is a “real me.” Perhaps what we perceive as free-will and seemingly random desires, preferences and fancies are actually dictated by microscopic struggles and interactions that occur within a stew of microbes that reside within our brains. If we are tempted to define whatever lurks beneath this stew as the “self”, it may be just as valid to define the entire entity, microbes and all, as the “self.” If so, it would give new meaning to the term “cat people.”
October 18, 2014
Though Reuters is certainly not the only organization to engage in hate-mongering against whites, two recent articles illustrate its double standard when reporting interracial crime. Here’s one of the two articles, where the defendant was a white man:
JACKSONVILLE Fla. (Reuters) – Michael Dunn, a middle-aged white man, was sentenced to life in prison without parole, plus 90 years, by a Florida judge on Friday for killing an unarmed black teenager in an argument over loud rap music.
Reuters makes absolutely certain we all know that the murderer is white, while his victim was black. But when the perpetrators are black, and the victims of another race (such as Asian), Reuters is silent about the race of the perpetrators – as we see here:
(Reuters) – Two men accused of fatally shooting a pair of Chinese graduate students at the University of Southern California were charged on Tuesday with capital murder, making them eligible to face the death penalty if convicted, prosecutors said.
The only reason the (implied) race of the victims is mentioned is that the crime caused an international incident. Given that rap is primarily a black thing, and that incident #1 involved a white man who objected to loud rap, one could argue that the race of both parties was relevant enough to mention. However, we can make a similar argument regarding the second incident. The neighborhood was crawling with dangerous feral black “youth,” and the Chinese students were neither warned, nor prepared, for this. USC essentially killed them with political correctness – by withholding important information about blacks, and by not making John Derbyshire’s essay, “The Talk: Nonblack Version” available to them. When American universities accept students from safe parts of the world, it’s their responsibility to enlighten them as to the realities of life in the ghetto.
In fact, the second article continues:
Earlier this month the two Chinese students’ families filed a wrongful death lawsuit accusing the school of misrepresenting the area where they were shot as safe and failing to provide security patrols.
By and large, people are shallow creatures. They “know” whatever information is fed to them. They believe what they are told, and their blind obedience to trends and fashions allows certain industries to milk them like cattle, making countless billions of dollars in the process.
When the hoi polloi is fed a constant stream of media clips, which insidiously imply white guilt and black victimhood, reasoned argument cannot shake them from their resulting faith. It becomes ingrained in them.