The sad thing is that I know this is a result of the education system purposely not teaching people about anthropology. You learn about biology and white racism in high school, but not anthropology.

Liberalism is causing people to not know how to think!

I would think VNN and Stormfront are educated compared to some of the things I read.

This document has some good information about how genetic studies work. It explains how PCA plots are designed to create clusters and do not really represent the entire genome.

L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza and his collaborators Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza have devoted fourteen years to one of the most compelling scientific projects of our time: the reconstruction of where human populations originated and the paths by which they spread throughout the world. In this volume, the culmination of their research, the authors explain their pathbreaking use of genetic data, which they integrate with insights from geography, ecology, archaeology, physical anthropology, and linguistics to create the first full-scale account of human evolution as it occurred across all continents. This interdisciplinary approach enables them to address a wide range of issues that continue to incite debate: the timing of the first appearance of our species, the problem of African origins and the significance of work recently done on mitochondrial DNA and the popular notion of an “African Eve,” the controversy pertaining to the peopling of the Americas, and the reason for the presence of non-Indo-European languages–Basque, Finnish, and Hungarian–in Europe.The authors reconstruct the history of our evolution by focusing on genetic divergence among human groups. Using genetic information accumulated over the last fifty years, they examined over 110 different inherited traits, such as blood types, HLA factors, proteins, and DNA markers, in over eighteen hundred, primarily aboriginal, populations. By mapping the worldwide geographic distribution of the genes, the scientists are now able to chart migrations and, in exploring genetic distance, devise a clock by which to date evolutionary history: the longer two populations are separated, the greater their genetic difference should be. This volume highlights the authors’ contributions to genetic geography, particularly their technique for making geographic maps of gene frequencies and their synthetic method of detecting ancient migrations, as for example the migration of Neolithic farmers from the Middle East toward Europe, West Asia, and North Africa.Beginning with an explanation of their major sources of data and concepts, the authors give an interdisciplinary account of human evolution at the world level. Chapters are then devoted to evolution on single continents and include analyses of genetic data and how these data relate to geographic, ecological, archaeological, anthropological, and linguistic information. Comprising a wide range of viewpoints, a vast store of new and recent information on genetics, and a generous supply of visual elements, including 522 geographic maps, this book is a unique source of facts and a catalyst for further debate and research.

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is generally assumed to be inherited exclusively from the mother…. Several recent papers, however, have suggested that elements of mtDNA may sometimes be inherited from the father. This hypothesis is based on evidence that mtDNA may undergo recombination. If this does occur, maternal mtDNA in the egg must cross over with homologous sequences in a different DNA molecule; paternal mtDNA seems the most likely candidate…. If mtDNA can recombine, irrespective of the mechanism, there are important implications for mtDNA evolution and for phylogenetic studies that use mtDNA (Morris and Mightowlers, 2000, 355:1290, emphasis added).

Demographic “realism” is part of marketing. True it is not as precise as psychograpahic history, but without knowledge of actual individual buying patterns, the next best strategy is to go by demographics. The logic behind this is that while you will occasionally make a false judgment, at least a percentage of the time you will be correct in your stereotype.

SAN JOSE, Calif. — Using technology from top Silicon Valley companies such as Cisco and Intel, advertisers are creating a new breed of digital signs that can be customized depending on a viewer’s age and gender.

Already starting to appear in selected malls and other spots around the country, the signs have the potential to revolutionize the retailing industry, but their intrusiveness has led to criticism from privacy advocates and nervousness from some in the marketing industry itself.

“The vast majority of people walking in stores, near elevators and in other public and private spaces have no idea that the innocent-looking flat screen TVs playing videos may be capturing their images and then dissecting and analyzing them for marketing purposes,” the nonprofit, Southern California-based World Privacy Forum warned in a report it issued on digital signs in January. “Controls need to be put in place now, before this technology runs amok.”

Businesses insist the signs are good for them and for consumers, because they can offer more focused and effective advertising. And the burgeoning market has caught the eye of Silicon Valley companies. Among them is San Jose-based Cisco, which makes gear that displays images and management software for the signs. It’s not a huge business yet for the company, according to Thomas Wyatt, general manager of Cisco’s digital media systems unit. But he said it’s growing, adding “these are really emerging technologies.”

The trend stems from a desire among marketers to make ads more effective by making them more relevant to those seeing them.

“If you come by a sign and it’s playing something you’re not interested in, it’s noise to you,” said Joe Jensen, a manager at Santa Clara, Calif.-based Intel, which touts the ability of its chips to provide visually appealing ad images and to process the audience data the signs capture. But if the message is tailored to a specific individual’s needs, he added, the person often will welcome the information.

Using facial-recognition software from other companies — such as TruMedia of Tampa, Fla. — the signs can recognize the demographic characteristics of people standing in front of them and instantly change their ads.

Tony Leger, a TruMedia sales director, said hundreds of signs with that capability are in operation worldwide in retail malls, airports, banks and other places. But he said it’s unclear how many are automatically adjusting their ads for customers because many businesses that have installed them don’t want to reveal that to competitors.

Some of the signs have proven controversial, including digital billboards Castrol operated in London in September. Equipped with cameras, the signs read the license plates of each passing motorist, accessed a database that revealed the automobile’s model and year, and flashed the driver a message about what type of oil their vehicle should use.

The ads were blasted as intrusive and a potentially unsafe distraction, and Castrol halted them after only a few days.

The digital devices are beginning to resemble the brainy signs featured in the 2002 science-fiction movie “Minority Report,” which could recognize people and hail them by name. Many can gauge the sex and approximate age of those standing in front them. That way, if a pre-teen girl watching the screen wanders away and an adult male approaches, the sign automatically can switch from showing an ad for Hello-Kitty Dress-Me Bears, for example, to one for men’s work boots. Samsung claims its versions can even determine the race and nationality of a viewer.

These digital signs are part of a growing push to personalize ads through technology.

Web ads that are customized based on a user’s interests and demographics have been a staple for companies like Google and Yahoo for years. Although critics have decried the tactic, Forrester Consulting found that 77 percent of the marketers it surveyed in January “are planning to use or already use audience targeting for their online strategy.”

More recently, companies have used GPS technology in mobile phones to tailor ads to a user’s location (“25% off lattes” as someone walks by a coffee shop, for instance). Although many retailers won’t send such ads unless invited to do so by a consumer, the practice worries the Center for Digital Democracy. In a letter to the federal government on Monday, the nonprofit public interest organization warned against letting the practice proliferate “without strong privacy and consumer health-related safeguards in place.”

Any ad targeting makes some people uncomfortable. A survey of 1,000 adults last year by University of California-Berkeley and University of Pennsylvania researchers found that 66 percent opposed such pitches.

Count Will Douglas among them. The 25-year-old consultant from Oakland, Calif., who was shopping at the Milpitas Great Mall, termed the idea “weird” and wondered if the equipment might make insulting errors about “someone of ambiguous gender” or mistake a short person for a child. Assuming a sign “can tell something about you strikes me as arrogant,” he said.

“That’s so wrong,” added state agricultural technician Bobbi Thornton, 55, of Milpitas, who was at the same mall searching for a handbag. “This is like the Internet search engines that follow your shopping behavior. It’s so invasive.”

Face-assessing digital displays even make some advertisers skittish. Last month, Point of Purchase Advertising International published guidelines for using the signs, advising among other things that consumers always be told when they are under surveillance. Despite the advantages of such technology, the industry group concluded, being able to monitor a consumer’s every move and facial feature “sends shivers down the spine of even the boldest marketer.”

Key visionary points:

1) “Up to date” views on religion.  Perhaps tolerance and collaboration but certainly not agreement with precepts that are clearly refuted by modern science.

2) “Up to date” views on race.  An acknowledgment of human biodiversity but rejection of  unscientific theories.  “Racial science” but not bigotry.  “Race realism.”

3) Integration of technology into society, as opposed to using technology as a means to deconstruct the concept of nationality.  Integration, not radical globalization.

4) A realization that capitalism can implode without authoritarianism.  Technology helps authority to gain more control over the market for national self-interest.

5) Not only should governments use technology to keep their people loyal, but inversely, the people should use technology to keep their governments loyal.

6) Population control ideally avoiding abortion.

7) “Up to date” views on ideology.  No following Marx, Mussolini, Thomas Jefferson, Muhammad, Jefferson Davis, Moses or Adolf Hitler word for word.  It is the year 2010 now.

Perhaps good women are the ones who take on their co-sexualists, and admit that they are responsible for everything that is wrong with America right now. It doesn’t matter if women are necessary for reproduction. We can change that with a technocracy.

This letter was sent to me from America’s Heartland.

Dear Dick,

I live in Nebraska where anyone with a decent job can afford to buy a house. Recently, I’m seeing a trend in the amount of women who feel that they can AND SHOULD buy their own house. “How the fuck do these women expect to mow the lawn?” I asked a friend of mine who is buying a house. She replied, “You.” After I finished laughing, she asked if she could borrow my lawnmower to do it. “How are you going to get the mower from my house to yours?” I said. She replied, “Your truck.”

Property ownership for women should be discouraged, starting at the real estate agent.

CE in Nebraska.

Well said, CE in Nebraska. Women should not own property.

A woman owning property is like giving a monkey a dog on a leash. It doesn’t mean the monkey has a pet. It means some idiot tied a dog to a monkey.

Women owning property doesn’t mean that they themselves aren’t property.

But what’s the worst that could happen? So a few women buy a few houses and fuck them up, it’s not like that will fuck up the entire global economy, right?

Wrong. Women caused the subprime mortgage meltdown.

You Are What You Eat

Women don’t know how to treat property. Just look at how they treat themselves! Getting fat as hell, speaking when they could just sit there and look pretty, giving it up on the first date. Women are the world’s oldest property and they treat themselves like shit.

They also treat their cars and houses like shit. The last time I let a woman drive me anywhere, I didn’t. I insisted on driving her car myself and she had to kick through a foot of trash and debris in her passenger seat to even sit down. That’s how a woman treats something she owns. She lets it go to hell.

If women can’t fuck to make a problem go away, or at least pretend they’re going to fuck after the problem goes away, then the problem goes unsolved. Take my new best friend CE from Nebraska. Sure, he could get his freak on for mowing some dozy bitch’s lawn, but that’s a waste of time and worse yet, it’s a loss of Man Points.

The maximum amount of work any man can do to get laid without losing Man Points is 30 minutes. Any more means you give a shit.

Women Are Consumers

Women don’t understand ownership. They only understand consumership. That’s why they should only purchase things that can be used. Things like make-up, clothing, pots and pans, and especially birth control; all things meant to be used up or thrown away when something better comes along — just like women.

Men are owners. We invented ownership and we fought the wars that resulted from this awesome invention. Ownership is about putting work into something, including ourselves, in order to increase its value. Women just complain until someone either pays more for access to their sex organs, or lies better while doing it.

A boob job doesn’t make a girl smarter, it just makes her look smarter.

Subprime Fuck Up

Subprime is the first word I think of when I think of women and their shit brains. However, it also perfectly describes their real estate investments.

If you don’t understand what the subprime mortgage crisis is, I’ll explain it in man terms.

Let’s say you’re throwing a party and stocking it with booze. You get a bottle of Patron, a 12 pack of Pacifico, and a case of Ralph’s brand charcoal filtered potato Vodka.

Guess what, no one will fucking drink Ralph’s brand charcoal filtered potato Vodka and the people who will drink it, you don’t want at your party! That’s the subprime alcohol at my party crisis. The Pacifico will be gone in ten minutes and the Patron will get smashed on your car by pissed off, sober party guests during an angry mass exodus.

In 2003, one in five home purchases were made by single women.

In 2006 women were 32% more likely to receive a subprime mortgage than men.

In 2006 women were 41% more likely to receive a high-cost subprime mortgage than men.

In 2006, 30% of mortgage borrowers were women

In 2006, 38.8% of subprime mortgage borrowers were women.

In 2006, women were 29.1% more likely to be stupid and irresponsible.

Men are better than women.

The economy is like a symphony. It doesn’t take an orchestra to fuck it up, it just takes like 29.1% of the instruments.

Accountability? Who Me?

Women are experts at shooting themselves in the foot. I think men have too much practice not shooting ourselves in the foot from pissing outside our entire lives. We learn to account for wind, splash factor, all kinds of shit. We learn not to piss all over our shoes. But women don’t. According to women, the reason they accepted shitty mortgages from banks and didn’t use LendingTree.com to shop around like TV told them to, is because banks are sexist.

Fuck you. Banks hate everyone. To banks you are a number not a name and a collection of statistics to milk for cash — not a person. For more information on banks, consult your local library — or ask Mel Gibson. I’m sure he has some interesting theories.

Financial Advice From the Retarded

Aside from trash books telling women not to base their self-worth on men — which they will anyway — financial advice books written by women for women are some of the biggest selling titles out there.

Among money saving pearls like, “Bring your own snacks to the movies”, and “Don’t bother getting a car, just get some man to drive you everywhere!” you’ll will also encounter the following gem amongst the kitschy self-empowerment slogans:

Home ownership is the key to building wealth.

What women fail to realize is that affording a home is the key to home ownership. Women are economically retarded. They’ll write checks until their checkbook is empty. They’ll pay the minimum required amount on their credit cards just for fun. They’ll buy the Extended Warranty because it makes them feel better. Then they’ll throw all the fucking receipts away and cry when their shitty little television breaks two years in.

The point is, women are fiscally retarded.

Financial Advice For the Retarded

“Women are Disproportionately Represented in High-Cost Mortgage Market.” -CFA 2006

So what if women got offered shitty deals? They still took them. That makes it their fault. Who knows how much shit women forgot to put on their applications or how much effort they put into researching the loan process or even looking up the word “loan” before taking one out and leaving the global economy alone on the swing set while trying to convince her friends that she’s had a busy day. Running errands is not having a busy day.

Women wouldn’t know a good deal if it offered them a ride home in exchange for a blowjob. That’s a good deal! It’s five minutes of work vs. an hour of walking. Do the math.

But women can’t do math. Women look at APR and amortization rates and closing costs and fiduciary terms and their little heads start replaying the training montage in Dirty Dancing. “Maybe this time she’ll get in the air without laughing like a whore!” thinks a woman as she’s signing away daddy’s retirement plan.

Daddy

All problems by women are actually caused by men. Men who think their daughter, wife, sister, girlfriend, mother, fuck buddy, or co-worker, has anything more than shit between her ears.

In the case of the subprime meltdown, some man thought it was a good idea to give his daughter a down payment. It wasn’t.

Welcome to the big leagues, ladies. Having the world on your shoulders isn’t as fun as it looked, is it? Make sure your degrees in Political Science are framed to match your bedroom set when the repo man comes to collect both.

“Though no statistics exist to compare foreclosure rates among men and women, it is logical to conclude that higher rates of subprime mortgages among women translates to higher rates of foreclosure.” -Allen J. Fishbein

Here’s a statistic for you. Women have only been allowed to own property for 1% of the time we’ve been around as a species. There’s a reason for that.

Manclusion

“35 percent of women home equity borrowers used the loans to pay off credit card debt, and a third of those borrowers had rebuilt the same credit card debt within four years.” – Money Magazine, July 2004

I should have just lead with that quote, but since it also ends the discussion, I saved it for the end.

End of discussion. Women are fucked.

If I was a bank, I would never lend money to a single woman wanting to buy a house because I know she’s going to blow half of it on overpriced furnishings and a new puppy she won’t discipline for shit. Besides, she’s just going to get married in a few years anyway, and the day a woman gets married all her money suddenly becomes discretionary. Yours is hers and hers is hers. Welcome to marriage. That means whenever a bank signs a mortgage over to a single woman, they’re actually signing it over to her future husband.

Since when is it good banking to give loans to imaginary people!

A dictatorship modeled off of Pol Pot’s khmer rouge could really rewrite the religious culture of the middle east, and then allow it to progress technologically after its original period of purification.

And don’t forget that pol pot was a nationalist!

Russian nation was created by Russian climate and Russian blood.

Contrary to common misconception, Russians living on territory of Russian Federation are not of Slavic blood. The ancient inhabitants of Kiev’s principate were Slavic people, that’s true. When Moscow principality was created a few centuries later in the 14th century, its population was overwhelmingly Urgo-Finns. Descendants of Kiev’s genealogical tree, their princes were originally of Slavic blood. But when Kiev’s armies moved north with their small troops, they conquered enormous vast variety of Finnish tribes who lived on enormous territory of European Russia. Only aristocrats of Russia were originally Slavs. Simple folk were descendants of Finns. That is why it is practically no different between “Chuvash” and “Finn.” And that is why Serbs are so different from Russians. Because Serbs are Slavs.

Russians are a depressive tribe because of centuries they were living in shadows of moisty forests. Russians are as unhappy with alcohol as Finns are.

So, forget about Slavs. When you will adopt my vision of Russian history, and of Russians, you will understand who Russians are.

I am the best Russian writer, but I am forced to confess that I hate Russian language. Russian words are painfully long, they remind me of naked slimy worms. You know, those pink awful creatures that you can see on some hot summer night on path you walk. Worms get out of soil to copulate under the moonlight. Russian words are copulating on my table every day and night. I am looking at them with hate and I am screaming. I am gnashing my teeth. Why should put “icheskaya” to the end of “social” in “Social Republic?” Seven letters I am adding for what fuck? Fucking “icheskaya!” Hysterical, hystericheskii laugh goes out of me when I am imaging those fucking Urgo-Finns in their shadowy forests. They move in slow motion, they take their time. Why wasn’t I born in a clear lucid language dealing in “Achtung!” and “Shnell?” And when I think that Russians are only a handful of 142 million readers, it’s really depressing for a writer.

The so called “Russian Soul” can be also explained by origins of the Russian people. Proverbial slowness of Finns (”hot finish lads!”) can be seen as phenomenon of Russian soul. Enigmatical Russian Soul is simply Russian man, uncertain, slow to decide, hesitating, never sure of itself, never sure of its own decision. Forest man with a milky skin, with thin blond hair. Not a Slav, but a Finn, Finn, Finn! And don’t accuse me of racism. Happily we have Turks and all sorts of Mongols amongst us. But the sick from alcoholism urban Russian Europeans are descendants of native Urgo-Finns and their tribes. They have shadowy mysterious souls because for hundred generations their ancestors were living by the river banks in the forests. They like to get drunk and to weep. Of too many trees, of too much of river’s water the Russian Soul is created.

Then, of course, we live in a terrible climate. We have eight months of winter and only four of summer. This summer, however, can be called a “summer” only such on condition that you have never travelled abroad. The lack of sunshine is chronic on the Russia’s territory. Everything is explained by its climate and the Urgo-Finn blood. Even more, the blood is explained by the climate. It moves slowly because of the freeze. No sunshine makes our kids look sad. When I was young, I thought almost everyday why “we Slavs” (I thought we were Slavic people) living in such an unhuman, uncomfortable climate? Why we didn’t move out of that terrible territory? However, I had tried to move. Our national ideas for centuries was to move south. We fought First World War to capture the the straights of Bosphorus and Dardanelles. We didn’t get it, alas. (Before that, in January of 1878, we were some kilometers from Istanbul-Constantinople before English bastards intervened.) Russian man carries all weight of his climate on itself. My deepest belief is that Russia should swallow Kazakhstan territory if we want our children to have sunshine.

Russian women are very, very bad. The worst of all. Russian women is like the Russian Government. Most Russian women at least are good looking when they are in their twenties. Some Russian women are gorgeously beautiful. But they are bad. They are treacherous because they have no moral principles. Christian faith was eliminated during existence of the Soviet Union so nobody taught Russian women morals. No such discipline was taught in Soviet schools. Russian woman hates man because she is envying him. She wants to be as brutal and stupid as him, she wants to lay on a divan doing nothing as man does, but she has less possibilities. Russian woman is disastrous, relationships with her destined to be tragedy. There is no way that you will end happily. You must subjugate her. If not, she will subjugate you. On both occasions, you will lose. Don’t forget that abortions and divorces were permitted even in Stalin’s Russia, so our country educated women as bitches. Millions of bitches walking our streets. I am absolutely and positively on the side of Muslim strict code of behavior for women. Their system of separation of sexes if effective and healthy.

Russian Government is bloody beast eating human flesh. It is deeply medieval in its principle conceptions. Russian Government strongly believed that Russians are subjects of Russian Government, that they are its property, that Russians should be physically punished for not showing proper respect for its Government. European Governments behave cruelly towards foreign populations, towards Yugoslavs or toward Iraqis. But Russian Government represses its own citizens. Russian Government never said one honest word. Blatant lies, we, citizens, hear from Government. They terrorize us.

Their instrument are police, brutal and unhuman, just millions of scoundrels dressed in grey uniforms. And judges: archaic men and women with terrible medieval faces and black souls under their judges clothes.

As you understand, my view of Russia is macabre, like Lovecraft’s work. I hope country will change soon, I am working for it. Then I will look at my country through rosy tinted glasses. Just wait.

Interesting. This may explain why Russians have tiny traces of Mongoloid blood (but not as much as Finns do).

But Greeks and Southern Europeans are similar to Middle Easterners on BOTH sides – paternal and maternal – while Ashkenazi Jews have European blood pumped in through their maternal line. MtDNA proves this but so do recent autosomal studies.  Jon Entine, a man I have read since being a little teenager, agrees with me in the book Abraham’s Children!

There are two explanations for this.  Firstly, some people suggest that at one point of history, Jewishness was transferred by the father instead of the Mother and that the definition was modified later in history.  Karaite Jews determine Jewishness this way.  Secondly, conversions may have been involved.

The key factor in my argument is that Northern Europeans and Southern Europeans can be distinguished, and distinguished enough that in some ways hybrid Jews can slip between them genetically!  Graphs indicate that the European blood that Ashkenazi Jews have is Northern, not Southern.  In a nutshell, we now have graphs which show that Ashkenazi Jews have more northern European blood than Southern Europeans do!

The Study

(The genetic variation is tracked on two different axis lines – vertical and horizontal.  The vertical line is divided into units which are twice the size numerically as the horizontal line’s units.)

Horizontally, Jews are clustering around the fringe of Europe and towards the near east. Vertically, Jews are with Northern Europeans.  So while Jews may have Middle Eastern origins, they’ve mixed enough that in some ways their genome goes off in a completely different direction.  Ashkenazi Jews are endogenous, but only in intervals.  In certain periods of history, there has been mixing.  In addition, it should be noted for the sake of clarity that even Near Easterners are Caucasian Mediterraneans.

In calculating genetic distance, we have to add both the horizontal and vertical distance.  When making that calculation, Ashkenazi Jews are “beating” Greeks and Italians!  ADD BOTH THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL DISTANCE FOR THE GREEKS AND THE ITALIANS!

I can’t wait to see the self-hating Mediterraneans piss themselves over this one!

Anthroscape : the forum which helped provide information
Occidental Dissent
The Occidental Observer
Information about “Anon”
Anon’s Website

Kahanism is not the right path to fight Islamic extremism.

The neo-con path is not the right path either. Liberal democracy is not the right path when confronted with theological threats.

A third way is the real option.

Venezuela’s extreme leftist president Hugo Chavez recently took aim at the PlayStation and non-indigenous toys in his weekly radio-TV show, Alo Presidente. According to the AFP, Chavez stated, “Those games they call ‘PlayStation’ are poison. Some games teach you to kill.” El Presidente had previously knocked Nintendo for promoting “selfishness, individualism and violence.” He believes video games reinforce capitalism which, of course, is “the road to hell.”

Chavez would like to see Venezuela making “educational games” instead of Super Murder Simulator VI and “little indigenous dolls” in place of Barbie. Venezuela’s (sometimes paranoid) government outlawed violent games last October in an effort to curb the country’s extremely high violent crime rate.

Hugo Chavez has attacked my two Corporate darlings – Sony and Nintendo.

May fascist corporate technocracy prevail over phony egalitarian socialism that appeals to bullshit religious values.

The genome is not organized like a machine or a factory. It’s not neatly compartmentalized like a computer motherboard or assembly line. You don’t have a section for physical type, a section for intelligence, a section for skin color neatly laid out and organized.

No, the genome is randomized and most of dna is junk.

This is clear proof against creationism. The “trial and error” nature of the human genome is forensic evidence for evolution. A creator would remove the junk DNA.

Also the fact that different races often share similar trivial haplogroups debunks the idea of creationism. The fact that human beings existed before modern races did debunks creationism.

Yet East Asians also have it.

I wonder if Mongols evolved out of White Arabs who had a noticeable mutation.

edit : see this thread. I have switched my position, and concluded that these markers existed before racial groups (modern ones) did.

It’s even dumb to fail to distinguish between members of families. Should I fail to note that Nero and his mother had different traits? Or are they all the same because they belong to the same family? Because Nero killed his mother, I would say there is a difference!

I officially reject and want nothing to do with racists who categorize people into groups and then hate people just because they belong to the groups. I “believe in race” but I’m also detail-oriented. Most of these clowns people don’t know jack shit about anthropology either. And believe it or not, there are a few “good” Black people. And I’ll attack any ethnic group I want to. If I want to attack Irish Catholics for example, I will, so shut up!

Analogously, If a 25 year old punches me in the face, I won’t hate all people who are 25 years old. Another analogy : even though I hate most women, I don’t hate “the good” women.

Racism is a bad idea. Realism is a good idea.

But realism is pretty cruel and politically incorrect.

Mr. Hussein is a strong advocate of progress under the banner of secularism and a united Arab destiny. Mr. Hussein believes that a dictatorial government that force-feeds modernization is a shortcut to progress. He is convinced that such an approach will catapult the backward Arab world, starting with Iraq, into the next century.
-New York Times

The Ba’athist movment was and is clearly run by mainly Caucasoid Arabs (of course there is some racial variation), of Mediterranean appearance in Syria and of partial Iranid mixture in Iraq, who claim religious beliefs from Christianity, to Islam, to atheism, to even Judaism. It was a Jewish mother who convinced Saddam Hussein’s mother not to abort him. While many Muslims participate, an important point in their worldview is the separation of church and state. Ba’thists enthusiastically embrace secularism and technological progress and oppose Sharia law. In addition, the Iraqi Ba’athists embraced the Soviet Union, logically becoming allies of third positionists as nationalists who are conscious of the dangers of capitalism. The Ba’thist Arabs were not religious fanatics but progressive Human Beings. “American” imperialists targeted the Ba’athists not because they were a theological threat, but out of Corporate greed. There was no link between Al-Qaeda and Ba’athism, so the war was fought under false pretenses.

Arab Ba’thists strongly resisted and continue to resist a global capitalist structure that not only keeps them enslaved but also the majority of the world. Hence, Arab Ba’thists and their American, European and Israeli Third Positionist brothers should work actively together to smash imperialistic ideologies like capitalism, Shia fundamentalism, Sunni fundamentalism and mainstream Torah Zionism (secular Zionism is okay) wherever possible! HAIL the heroic Ba’athists! Only those who do not understand the material falsehoods of Abrahamic theology do not appreciate the hard work that they did for the betterment of progressive thinking. The accomplishments of the Arab Ba’athists should be remembered by any self-respecting race realist and anti-capitalist nationalist.

While the Middle East, North Africa and Near East are now enslaved by a reactionary religion, at one point Arabs were major contributors to paganism and technical progress. Saddam Hussein set out to progress his people scientifically at the expense of religion in the same way that Stalin did!  The regime in Israel which the Ba’thists opposed was nothing but a puppet for American interests.  America stabbed Saddam Hussein in the back, and logically he had to respond with defiance.  But this does not mean that Saddam Hussein was fixated on killing Jews.  Being a secular man, I firmly believe that Saddam Hussein was open minded enough to embrace the right Israel if it wasn’t aligned against his interests behind America.

How do Clerics view the Ba’athists? As traitors to Islam who need to be decapitated!

HAIL the Ba’athist Arabs! Good fascists most of them… HAIL the ideology and the pragmatic results of its applications!

Some Arabs supported the Ba’thist Revolution to liberate the Arabs from the possibility of encroaching Sharia Law while others chose to side with the non-Arab South Asians who worship an Arabian religion in Iran.  The Ba’thist Arabs that sacrificed their lives to aid the destruction of Sharia law and liberal capitalism were spiritually connected to Europeans and secular Israelis that fought for the same goal.  It is absolutely correct to distinguish between good Arabs and bad Arabs. It is retarded to throw all Arabs into the same pot, declaring them enemies of progressive civilization. After all, historical evidence suggests otherwise. Besides, many Arabs were and are similar to Europeans, both culturally and racially.  All were pagan and now all are ruled by Abraham’s creed (Christianity, Judaism and Islam come from Abraham)! Physically, Bashar al-Assad is the president of Syria, and he is DEFINITELY Mediterranean in appearance, similar to a person in Southern Europe. Is Saddam Hussein non-White? No. Is Ralph Nader non-White? No. Is Steve Jobbs non-White? No.

Arabs as a group are not the enemy.  Massive immigration of Arabs into Europe, and Islamic imperialism are the enemy, but not Arabs in a physical sense just because they are Arabs. Theocratic nuts are the enemy. Failing to realize the genetic link between Europe and the Middle East is anthropology for a crippled mind. A lot of Arabs look Mediterranean in appearance, a few are actually blondish, and a few have a particular “Arabid” type which is still Caucasoid. There are, however, negroids who live in Arab countries and have mixed, and they should not be confused with the indigenous Arabs. In the case of Iraq, Iranian admixture is present (Persians are not Arabs).  There is variation in phenotype internal to the Arab linguistic group just like there is variation in phenotype internal to the Hispanic linguistic group, Soviet Geographical group and American geographical group.  Nevertheless the majority of Arabs are Caucasoid, with some variation in appearance from the Peninsula to the Gulf to the fertile crescent.

Islam is a reactionary religion. Iraq was a secular state and therefore indefinitely more progressive than the Islamic “republics” surrounding it. Most Arabs in Iraq opposed sharia law while other Muslims are religious fanatics. Why a socialist should support religious fanatics instead of rational secularists is beyond me. Ba’thism is a beacon of communitarianism. This is why it is necessary that Arabs orient themselves towards either Ba’thism or Social Nationalism (another secular party in Syria) instead of towards a capitalist liberalist AmeriKa or Sharia law. Social nationalists fringe movements and mainstream Ba’thist movements are trying to push Arabs in that direction. Only modernism can guarantee communitarian stability in the Middle East, if necessary by force. After all, it has been conclusively proven that hardcore Muslims are incapable of uniting themselves, for whatever cause. Muslims are by nature tribal and factional but Saddam Hussein brought many people together under his rule. Ba’athists are more industrious than theocrats as well. This is why Iraq remained a techno-progressive labor nation while Muslim nations reverted to their medieval (and natural) state of tribal and nomadic desert communities. While Saddam looked towards the future, Muslims longed to live in the past.

Iraq was a race realist tribal state which is superior to a liberal state. If Iraq was only a liberal state, it would have been defeated by Islam. But since Ba’athists are of a different mindset than Theocrats, Iraq adamantly resisted Iran. This is a good thing. Actually, to civilize the Middle East, Iraq was correct to invade Iran and Ku’wait. The effects of reactionary imperialism could be erased with progressive imperialism. Of course, for this to happen, Iraq needed the support of America, which backstabbed it, and could have benefited from a Euro-Siberian Empire.

To a White Nationalist, there is no difference between an Italian, a Russian and a German, yet there is a humongous difference between all Jews and all Gentiles. Go figure.

“White Nationalism” is a contradiction. It isn’t nationalism. It’s anthropology for a crippled mind.

The link

Newborn babies mimic the intonation of their native tongue when they cry, indicating that they begin to pick up the first elements of language in the womb, a study suggests.

Scientists were already aware that babies are able to recognise certain sounds from birth, such as their parents’ voices, but they believed that infants were only able to imitate them from the age of about 12 weeks.

Now research carried out in Germany suggests that babies develop a capacity for language much earlier than was previously thought. “Our study shows the importance of crying for seeding language development,” said Professor Kathleen Wermke, who led the research at the University of Würzburg.

The study, which is published today in the journal Current Biology , recorded and analysed the cries of 60 healthy babies: 30 born into French-speaking families and 30 from German-speaking families. The recordings were made in maternity wards when the babies were 3 to 5 days old. Analysis revealed clear differences in the shape of the babies’ “cry melodies”, which appeared to accord with their mother tongue.

French newborns tended to cry with a rising melody contour, starting at a low pitch and ending on a high note, whereas German babies preferred a falling melody.

While the average volume of crying was the same, the French babies started more quietly and built up to a crescendo, while the German babies did the opposite. These patterns are consistent with characteristic differences between the two languages, according the researchers.

“When you say the word ‘Papa’ in German, for instance, you stress the first syllable, whereas in French it is the other way round,” explained Professor Angela Friederici, of the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig. The same pattern is typical for longer phrases, she said.

Volker Dellwo, a hearing and phonetics scientist at University College London, said melody contour was one of the most basic characteristics of language and one that he could imagine babies mimicking.

However, other academics were unconvinced by the findings. “Biologists and medical people are always talking rubbish about language because they don’t understand it,” said Professor John Wells, a linguistics specialist at University College London. “Both German and French use rises and falls, as does English. It’s easy to compare syntax and word order but this just sounds too vague.”

Earlier studies of vocal imitation had shown that infants were able to match vowel sounds spoken to them by adults, but only from 12 weeks onwards. That skill depends on more sophisticated vocal control that is not physically possible much earlier.

“Imitation of melody contour is something that they can do immediately after birth,” said Professor Wermke. She said that from an evolutionary perspective, newborn babies were probably highly motivated to imitate their mother’s behaviour in order to foster bonding.

Speech is also one of the few human stimuli that penetrates the womb, where the foetus is otherwise insulated from light, smell and touch. “In the womb, you hear voices as though someone were speaking next door, so rhythm and melody contour are the two things you’d be able to perceive,” added Dr Dellwo.

Professor Wermke said that the research supported the idea that unborn babies could be soothed by music or a parent’s voice. “We’ve shown that the brain is mature to process basic aspects of language and music, and speech probably is stimulating for the foetus. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that it would be harmful if you were too busy to play them Mozart CDs, though,” she said.

Most of the “free speech” forums and Zionist forums and skinhead forums are so far below my level of comprehension that it’s impossible to carry a beneficial discussion. There are so many people who just don’t strictly apply scientific principles to human beings. If you do that, you’ll find that Coon had a lot of good ideas, though of course he’s been improved upon, and you’ll find that racial science is frequently corrupted for political ends by liberals, Afro-centrists, Zionists, Nordicists and KKK types.

This is a question I ask to Besoshvili, to Alex Linder, to Chaim Ben Pesach, to Daniel Shays, to Texas Dissident of original dissent. What year is it?

The reason (that the Caucasoid race exists) is that bone structure, not pigmentation, determines the race.

Analogously, it is not the color of the pine needles or leaves that determines what type of tree a tree is, but the structure of the branches. You can have a pine tree with red needles, yellow needles, green needles, and it’s still a pine tree.
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_g7-review/colorswap.jpg
http://static-p3.fotolia.com/jpg/00/06/44/52/400_F_6445278_HpENOxtlfnmNEyReO9H8FGcrRJx0Zang.jpg
http://www.maxcor.com/img/Pine_Tree.jpg

IT’S STILL A PINE TREE! IT DOESN’T MATTER THE COLOR! AND IF THE SKELETON IS CAUCASOID, IT’S STILL A CAUCASOID!

For once in my life, I agree with Martin Luther King. It is indeed not the color of the skin. It’s the structure of the bones!

They post pictures of obviously negroid admixed Berbers and Arabs and argue that the Caucasoid race is a social construct. There is no “Arab race” there is no “African race” there is no “European race” there is no “Asian race” there is no “Mexican race” there is no “Jewish race” there is no “Russian race” there is no “Soviet race.”

There is a Negroid race and there is a Caucasoid and there is a Mongoloid race race and there is an Aboriginal race and there are people of mixed race. Can it be any clearer?

And then we have those amateur clowns in anthropology circles who think eye color and pigmentation are important!

What we have to remember is that blondism and red hair occur at low rates even in Arab and Mediterranean populations. These are not “new evolutions” or “racial traits” but just genes that “grew in popularity.” The term “Aryan” and the term “Semite” have linguistic roots and are not tied to racial origins. The Caucasoid race was always capable of depigmentation, because pigmentation is controlled by the complex interaction of genes and it only takes a single “bad gene” to cause someone to lose pigmentation. Look at an Albino black! But the bone structure is what makes Negroids a separate race!

What I’m arguing is that the change in pigmentation is not genetically important. Northern Europeans really are just depigmented Mediterraneans. Mediterraneans are just classical Caucasoids. Terms like “Alpine” and “Nordic” are not really logical. While there is an east-west genetic divide within Europe, there is little evidence that “Alpines” and “Nords” are separate races with distinct histories. It is merely random variation.

I really think the answer is sexual selection. Part of it is nature and part of it is human beings becoming conscious of the environment. People know the environment is colder, Mediterraneans are adapted to the desert, and that is what causes the change.

An interesting point is that Jews in Northern Europe are more depigmented than other Jews, even though they are (partially) genetically linked to other Jews. All Caucasoids are capable of depigmentation.

The spectrum of people who support Darwin is broad. Liberals do, to a point. As crazy as he was, Hitler did. Communists originally did. Engels compared Marx to Darwin and spoke with praise. Most scientists do. I would objectively say that the political viewpoints which question creationism are more widespread than those which accept it.

Hail Darwin!

it’s the 150th anniversary of darwin’s origin of species theory, and this nytimes.com link proposes fresh controversy attached to it, it’d make a nice thread topic; specifically: could the arguments advanced in the below article link be used to say that humans could adapt and counter the effects of everything from the ‘inescapable truths’ of HBD to the effects of global warming, etc.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/an-evolve-by-date/?hp

One hundred and fifty years, and liberals still only pay lip service to evolution, refusing to believe that evolution means that beings evolve differently.

The Left always mocks the Religious Right for not believing in evolution. (Actually, they mock all of us because in their mind, everyone on the right shares every bad quality any right-wing movement may have.) But do they believe in evolution?

At its core, evolution means adjustment to your environment through genetics. Polar bears are white and brown bears are dark for a reason. There was no chance that they would be pink or purple. That’s evolution.

And the more important a trait to survival, the more important it is to evolve it properly. If it were just some irrelevant traits, then evolution itself would be irrelevant.

It is precisely because evolutionary adjustments go to the core of our being that evolution is important.

Racialism and race realism is belief in evolution. All else is denial of basic science.

Polako and Racial Awareness take the position that Native Americans and Mongoloids are not a single racial category.

I do not know if they have since changed their minds, but before Anthroscape was hacked, Racial Reality and Dienekes took the position that it is one race.

I want whoever would like to participate to explain their position and perhaps we could all learn more.

My position is that although they cluster apart, their physical appearance is similar and physical appearance is controlled by DNA. Most DNA is junk. So the fact that junk DNA mutated doesn’t make them a different race. You don’t become a different race until the DNA that changes is related to behavioral and physical characteristics. I don’t see much evidence that there was evolution involved, only mutation of DNA that doesn’t make code or doesn’t make code that affects the interaction with the environment.

That’s my position, but I’m willing to listen to others.

Ted Sallis replies to White Advocate and Guy White. Iceman, Ian Jobling, and Lawrence Auster have also argued that Jews are White. The genetic data seems to indicate otherwise. Ashkenazi Jews are distinct from all European populations.

I am “iceman.” Prozium is calling me out!
The other link

Look, if you want to say that Jews are a tribal group of people, who entered Europe at a different time than Latins, Slavs and Germans, and who tried their best not to intermarry, then I’ll agree with you.

But I won’t agree with you that they are flat out non-white in a biological sense. If you designed a disease to kill Caucasoids by DNA, it would kill Jews as well as Europeans.

I find it interesting that WNs like to (correctly) argue that the Egyptians were White in Ancient history. Am I the only person who sees a contradiction here, between arguing that the Egyptians were White and arguing that the Caucasoids of the Middle East are non-white? Not to mention, Jews and Arabs were distinguishable from each other, even before Jews hit Europe and lost a moderate amount of purity.

My point. A Caucasoid race exists, and race is not a social construct. The reason I consider Arabs Caucasoid is not so that I can include them into a political movement, but because to not do so would be race denial which is no better than the race denial advocated by the “race doesn’t exist” crowd.

“Aryaness” has nothing to do with this. “Aryan” refers to an alphabet, one which the Hungarians do not use. If that mattered, then Black people who speak English would be White. It doesn’t. The fact that Jews cluster imbetween Europeans and Semites, and Semites speak non-Aryan languages, is no material to the question of Jews being non-White. A very real genetic and anthropological connection exists between both Semites and Aryans!

Hitler convinced the German people that Jews were not Aryan. And he’s right that in an indigenous sense they speak a Semitic language. But Hitler never convinced the German people that Jews were non-White. He barely even used the word “White” in Mein Kampf, except when he talked about Jews bringing Blacks into Germany. In other words, he used the term “White” when comparing to Blacks, but used the term “Aryan” when comparing to Jews. My point is that if Hitler – one of the most tenacious anti-Semites of all time – couldn’t argue that Jews were non-white, then Prozium will never do it successfully. Confederate and American Law have both considered Jews to be White. Prozium and the people he linked to are working hard to gerrymander the definition of White, but gerrymandering is not science!

If you really believe in genetic determinism for racial origins, then you are absolutely obligated to consider all Caucasoids White. To argue otherwise is to make race political, and you can do that, but quit trying to pretend to have a scientific basis.

Why fight for the preservation of ideological systems which hate infidels and continue to thumb their nose at science? Unlike the Iraqi Ba’athists, Theocratic Muslims believe in permanent revolution just as strongly as Leon Trotsky but are not advocating socialism but Islam. If you are an idealist like me, it is saddening that the middle east can’t fight American imperialism with anything but religious fundamentalism. In some ways, I believe the victim is responsible for the rape, to put it crudely.

If the world is divided between two theological viewpoints, secularism and Islam, and only one can exist, then sympathizing with the other is self-destructive. If someone has to be supreme, then it is better America than Iran or Afghanistan. Let it be made clear that if many of these regimes had the military strength to dominate, they would take advantage of it. It is only for material reasons that America dominates. But America is not more evil than Islam.

Yes we are ruled by disgusting liberalism. Nobody denies that. Yes our leaders are corrupt. But that does not mean that I sympathize with every single enemy America has.

And I would support the same thing against Christians too. Hail technocratic oppression! Racial antisemitism (which is poorly defined anyways) is stupid, but I am completely supportive of giving Judaism a hard time so that Jews liberate themselves into atheism. I prefer the atheistic ones to the Torah thumping ones. The state must be worshiped and nothing else. And the state must be techno-progressive!

Techno-Supermecism (my ideology) is entirely different. I see technology as something to be vertically forced on inferior and unwilling populations, and they can kiss my reactionary ass if they don’t like it. Techno-Supermecism reduces people to cogs on an authoritarian “fascist” corporate state worshiping wheel, and that’s just how I like it.

I guess the “Jewish Media Conspiracy” doesn’t explain everything, but of course I never was stupid enough to believe it.

If they refuse to eat it on explicitly religious grounds, oppress them.

At some point, nobody will be left to resist you.

For your information, Pol Pot actually did this (in the name of Maoism).

I know it sounds harsh, but when you consider the way religion has been poisoning the world for so long, it is completely justified on utilitarian grounds.

What we have in America is people who want to convert Muslims to capitalism. The policies of the neo-cons in USA (Bush, Cheney, Obama) include nation building and cooperation with reactionary forces. My policies would be intentional nation destruction of all backwards theocracies. The primary goal of foreign policy should not be material – converting Muslims to capitalism for business – but secular – destroying Islam even if it is bad for business. The strategy of the neo-cons is to divide between extreme and moderate Muslims. This delusional greed has prevented the secular world from really burying Abrahamic backwardness into the sands, even if it disrupts business contracts and relations. I don’t understand liberalism. By expanding liberal democracy to Muslims, and not becoming energy independent, you give them the industrial capability to eventually wipe you out using military technology that of course only infidels could invent.

I consider Saddam Hussein a hater of Islam and so does Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, The Iranian regime and virtually every Islamic movement. Saddam Hussein was one of the most brutal secularists in Middle Eastern history, and supporting the Ba’athist and the Iranian regime at the same time makes absolutely no sense. Only a Marxist who views the world ONLY through materialism cannot see the contradiction there.

Do a search on google blogs and see how many liberal hippis come up.

Search for “technocracy.”

Hardcore, nationalistic, war-mongering (but not nation building) and politically incorrect techno-fascism is the only way. Not this kum-bah-yah garbage.

He’s wrong that the only solution is to abolish industrial society.

The real solution is to increase control over business with a dictator, and use the control to protect the privacy ideals of individual workers.

What the businesses lose in freedom, the worker gains. While I do not trust technological data-mining in the hands of general business, I could trust a dictator who is properly groomed to control businesses and clearly of a populist mindset.

In a third position ideology, the state and business are merged anyways, so that would be easy.

Sabri Husibi, a former Muslim who is now an atheist, says he has been ostracized and threatened with death since publication of a Tulsa World article Saturday in which he was critical of Islam and all other religions.

The article was written to promote a talk he gave the next day to the Tulsa Atheists organization.

Husibi, who has an unlisted telephone number, said he received about 30 calls Saturday from people who were cursing him, calling him a traitor and threatening him.

Most were foreign-born, Tulsa-area Muslims whom he knows, he said. He also received angry calls from friends and relatives in Syria.

One caller, whom Husibi would not identify, said that if he spoke at the meeting and said anything against Shariah (Islamic law), he would be killed.

Another caller offered Husibi’s young Muslim wife $10,000 to leave him and return to her native Syria, he said.

“Someone from Tulsa called my 76-year-old mother in Syria and said, ‘You’re not going to see your son anymore,’ ” he said.

His critics’ chief objection, he said, was to his statement that the Quran was written by men, not God, and has been changed over the years. They also objected to his comment that al-Qaida is respected by many Muslims.

Bill Dusenberry of the Tulsa Coalition of Reason, of which Tulsa Atheists is a member, said he offered Saturday afternoon to cancel the Sunday talk, but Husibi wanted to go ahead with it.

“It showed a lot of courage,” Dusenberry said.

Husibi said he takes the threats seriously. Before Sunday’s talkDusenberry notified Tulsa police, who said they would be alert to any possible trouble.

On Tuesday, a clearly shaken Husibi asked that any future articles emphasize that he is not attacking Islam alone but all religions, including “fundamentalist Christians like Timothy McVeigh and fundamentalist Jews who kill Muslim children in the Gaza Strip.”

He said Tulsa Muslims are awaiting an apology from him.

“I won’t apologize,” he said. “I’m not going to be a chicken. This is my right, to give my point of view.”

Hussam Albakri, Husibi’s second cousin, said he was surprised about the threats “because that’s not what our religion teaches us.”

Razi Hashmi, executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an Islamic civil-rights organization, said Husibi’s comments are protected as free speech.

“He has the right to make them without being threatened,” he said.

“Husibi apparently doesn’t like all religions,” Hashmi said, “and puts them all in the same category. But that doesn’t give him the justification to make false assumptions, like saying the Quran has changed over time. That’s historically and factually false.”

Hashmi also said polls show that very few Muslims around the world support al-Qaida’s extremist views.

He said the Quran teaches in chapter 2, verse 256, “Let there be no compulsion in religion.”

Sheryl Siddiqui, a spokeswoman for the Islamic Society of Tulsa, said she had received one e-mail about the matter.

“There was no discussion about him at the mosque this week,” she said.

Husibi was born and raised in Damascus, Syria, and attended Quran school as a young man.

He became an atheist after years of studying religion and serving as a soldier in the Syrian army during the Lebanon civil war.

He moved to Tulsa 10 years ago at age 35.

This is the future for Islam.

Nah Nah Nah Nah. Nah Nah Nah Nah. Hey Hey Hey. Good-Bye!

The Link
The pictures are created using computations of statistical samples which are merged into an average. Take a bunch of old Greeks and statistically average out their Craniometric traits into a visible picture, and do the same to new Greeks.

Clearly, the pictures are similar. Greeks have not changed much.

The funniest thing is that closet nordicists who pretend to operate under the banner of free speech but really support VNN ideology chose to name themselves after Greeks when setting up their false flag operation forum. Isn’t it funny to learn that Greeks are racially equivalent to their own founders!

The dream is fading away into the starrs as I overwatch its death.

The only real defense people on the other side of the debate can make is to either deny history, disagree with this aspect of Stalin’s legacy or argue that material conditions justified Stalin’s actions but do not currently justify opposition to Islam due to the position of American imperialism and the non-existence of the Soviet State (lesser evils).

If they chose the last approach, they would have to concede that if Communism had the strength it did before 1989, then opposition to Islam would be logical.

When Joseph Stalin consolidated power in the second half of 1920s, his religion policy changed. Mosques were closed or turned into warehouses throughout Central Asia (comment by metal gear : this is technocracy). Religious leaders were persecuted, religious schools were closed down and Waqf’s were outlawed.[3] The Soviet government took the Paranji veil that the women wore (as part of the Islamic Hijab interpretation of Modesty) as evidence that the Muslim women were oppressed, and began the Hujum to try and forcefully remove it.[2][4] This backfired, and the veil became more popular than ever among the workers, whereas prior to this was mostly used by the middle, wealthier classes.[5] Stalin’s Cult of personality, left virtually no place for any religious sentiment.[4][2]

Stalin also forcibly moved Chechens and several other small nationalities residing primarily in southwestern Russia (Crimean Tatars, Balkars, Karachais, Meshketian Turks, Kalmyks and others) from their homelands during World War II, lest they rise up against him in favour of Nazi Germany (comment by Metal Gear : everyone knows that).[6]

During Stalin’s reign, Crimean Tatar Muslims were victims of mass deportation. The deportation had begun on 17 May 1944 in all Crimean inhabited localities. More than 32,000 NKVD troops participated in this action. 193,865 Crimean Tatars were deported, 151,136 of them to Uzbek SSR, 8,597 to Mari ASSR, 4,286 to Kazakh SSR, the rest 29,846 to the various oblasts of RSFSR.

From May to November 10,105 Crimean Tatars died of starvation in Uzbekistan (7% of deported to Uzbek SSR). Nearly 30,000 (20%) died in exile during the year and a half by the NKVD data and nearly 46% by the data of the Crimean Tatar activists. According to Soviet dissident information, many Crimean Tatars were made to work in the large-scale projects conducted by the Soviet GULAG system.[7]

My race realist stance goes hand in hand with my techno-fascist view of the world. Science must destroy political correctness as quickly as it destroys religion. The power structures in America and the world must be altered for this to take place. I smell Stalinist purges in the future. The techno-nationalist bureaucracy will change the entire world. New scientific study will make old views obsolete. Liberalism, Paleoconservatism, White Nationalism and Hitlerlism are the past but the future will re-examine and improve.

A key point is that America is not yet sufficiently fitting the party line. This is another reason American imperialism should be opposed. If you are going to force regime change, you at least have to have the correct party line! America is not spreading Bureaucracy but Democracy. It is not helpful to the cause of either. The plan is backfiring.

Most Muslims aren’t ready for technocracy yet. When they are ready (even America is not), they should crush their own rulers and their own religion. Until they are ready, they should crush imperialists.

Iraq was an exception. Iraq was a rare pro-technology Bureaucracy in the Middle East. Crushing Iraq was regressive and attempting to crush Afghanistan may not be regressive but it is counterproductive and premature. America rejects Bureaucracy and Afghanistan sure as hell rejects it.

Though Israel is certainly more technologically progressive than its Islamic neighbors, the techno-fascist machine must eventually steamroll over Israel too. I believe Israel and America will “convert” to futurism before the Islamic world does. We could argue that America is the techno-progressive state which will clean the world of religion, but it is not. America’s liberal business interests have utilized technology only for profit and not with the cult like fanaticism that bureaucratic fascism requires. The American regime would never walk into an Amish household and force it to adopt cell phones and computers at gun point. The American regime would never engage in a research project that enhances society but does not give profit to big business or the military. When true techno-progressive viewpoints have not developed even in America, the idea that they should be exported around the world to even less progressive states is anti-pragmatic. The spreading of techo-intensive nationalism is a long term goal, not a short term experiment. Israel, America, Japan, China, Germany and Britain will probably embrace a futurism before the Islamic world does. In my mind, Russia has taken a step backwards with the dismantling of USSR.

The death of religion is the birth of the future. When the leg iron of religion is finally cast off, the room to create an authoritarian model which merges business and state interests will be much more flexible. Religion must be brutally crushed and all the phony hypocrites who practice must be exposed. In all places, wherever its head rises. And the techno-fascist machine will crush every state in the world in due time. It’s just a matter of time. We can talk pragmatically for now, but the more powerful technology gets and the more literate the people become, the less there will be a need for pragmatism in international politics.

The “racial anti-Semitism” of internet Hiterlites I ridicule without apology, but what is the Torah other than a stupid collection of papers written by phony prophets who had mental disorders? I could make a better false prophet than any of the frauds who created the Koran, Bible and Torah. Anyone who believes in the validity of religion has something wrong in the head. It’s automatic. It may be low intelligence and it may be high hypocrisy, but something is definitely wrong. The people who populate Israel are quite capable of embracing bureaucracy, unlike the third world. Pragmatically, their domino should fall first.

We are fifty to a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do this or they crush us. – Josef Stalin

When Stalin issued the five year plan, he meant business. The USSR was a primitive peasant country and he was going to change that at gunpoint. Before USSR, Tsarist Russia fought in WWI with swords, shields and horses. During WWII, USSR fought with tanks and advanced weaponry. Trotsky’s army (even though he was a scumbag) won the war largely because of better use of railroads and communication.

It is a clear that from a technology perspective, USSR advanced Russia further than the Tsarist regime in a shorter amount of time. I credit a few factors. The controlling of religion as Communism is an atheistic ideology, the controlling of macroeconomic action and the willingness to push the limits (especially under Stalin). Also Stalin’s acceptance of harsh reality, but a determination to change the reality. Many rulers deny problems and hope they will go away, but not Stalin. Stalin had a five year plan and if you weren’t on board, you got purged. Those who see quick results, those who turn things around, those who make a difference, are those who are ruthless.

Powerful technocratic state governments are imposing their ideology brutally against reactionaries (oppositional religious and political groups) while making populist appeals to progressives (secular) people. Notice that the division is based on religion and ideology; not based on class. People who use religion or ideology to slow down technological progress are the scapegoat, not the bourgeois as whole. Religious people who are moderate enough to embrace science may survive the purge, but “fundamentalists” who call for counter-revolution are definitely and without apology getting purged. If business interests oppose technocracy, then they are suppressed too, but I anticipate that most opposition would come from religious movements rather than business movements (amish, muslims, catholics).

As a side effect of technocracy, human biodiversity studies become mainstream and discussion of race and ethnicity becomes politically correct. The term “progressive” is now a populist technocratic term, not a crazy liberal term or a term to indicate love for the third world. Progressive means nation-building, not globalization idiocy.

A confederate form of communication exists between the states. All politics is local but there is federal regulation. The state and federal governments are free to “turn up the dial” on authoritarianism at any point. At any given point, the Governments can act like a referee. At any given point, the Government can dictate things the way Hussein, Stalin or Mussolini would. The Government however allows market forces in some instances because they are “quicker.” It sets clear boundaries and reserves the right to crash the party at any point.

Information about Year Zero

1.Envisioned a return to agrarian society
2.Banned modern technology and tools
3.Attempted to create a “Year Zero,” the beginning of a new history
4.Thought that a return to the land would allow a new communist society to emerge
5.Once the people were “purified” and a new society formed, a return to technology would be possible.

The truth is that Pol Pot was NOT anti-technology in an Amish sense; he just understood its power and did not want it in the hands of status quo civilization. While his subjects were denied the basic liberties of life as they picked rice, he ran the camps using trucks and industrial equipment. He stored information of his prisoners in s-21 prison. That involves an information system even if it is not a computer. Pol pot himself was an intellectual and he knew the potency of techno-power and wanted to remove that potency from national opponents (the Vietnamese) and regime opponents.

As a historical matter, no ruler worked harder to remove the idea of religion off of the face of the planet than Pol Pot. Marx may have been a materialist, but only Pol Pot murdered people just for not being an atheist. This means that Pol Pot resembles the Utopian Socialists that Marx describes in the Manifesto; not the Leninist socialists. Marxist-Leninism is a movement of class conflict; but Pol Pot’s movement was a utopian movement. He set up ideological litmus tests, and purged those who did not fit the litmus tests. That’s utopianism. That’s using ideology rather than class antagonisms as the basis of a movement. That’s what Pol Pot did in general.

A strong argument can be made that Stalin’s socialism in one country was a matter of pragmatism; not a matter of nationalism. Pol Pot was different. He was a nationalistic Maoist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

In Keynes’s theory, there are some micro-level actions of individuals and firms that can lead to aggregate macroeconomic outcomes in which the economy operates below its potential output and growth. Some classical economists had believed in Say’s Law, that supply creates its own demand, so that a “general glut” would therefore be impossible. Keynes contended that aggregate demand for goods might be insufficient during economic downturns, leading to unnecessarily high unemployment and losses of potential output. Keynes argued that government policies could be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity and reducing unemployment and deflation.

Keynes argued that the solution to depression was to stimulate the economy (“inducement to invest”) through some combination of two approaches: a reduction in interest rates and government investment in infrastructure. Investment by government injects income, which results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.[3]

What Keynes argues is that the Government should act like a Referee, blowing the whistle in downturns and increasing its influence to counteract selfishness and stupidity and get the economy going again by calculated macroeconomic action.  When microeconomic individualistic choices “work,” then let them work.  But as soon as they collectively start to diverge from the interests of the nation, then the public sector (without a profit motive) must play referee.  I always had some interest in Keynes, but now I am 100% sold after the recession. Supporting free markets is just idiotic. You can’t have idealism (reduced unemployment, a strong middle class) without economic oversight and law enforcement.  Even Marxist regimes in name like the Chinese regime (in reality it has Maoist foundations) concede that in many cases markets are more efficient than the Government.  To argue completely against markets is to argue that the economy should move at the pace of a snail.  But to argue against Government is to not understand how microeconomic and national macroeconomic forces can diverge, and how Government has to bring them back together.  Obama actually has this right.

Keynes is not known for viewpoints on technology, but a long term view I have on economics is that spending must be forced on technology so that the economy can grow its way out of scarcity.  This requires a totalitarian effort; especially against religious sects who may feel threatened by having technocracy thrown in their face.  That’s their problem.

If 100 years later, Marx has still not been revised by his followers, then something is wrong. If 250 years later this is the case, then something is REALLY wrong. Nobody is perfect and everybody must evaluate and adapt. Being inspired by Marx is one thing. I believe Marx did advance human thought in his time. But he passed the baton long ago. Still following Marx word for word is like analyzing modern warfare with the logistics that were used before modern technology.  Surely strategy chances as technology advances from swords and shields to nuclear bombs.  This is as true in the field of economics as it is in the field of warfare.  New philosophers have stepped on his shoulder and analyzed the world with a more current sense of precision.

It seems the extremist left cares more about ideological purity than the extremist right. Though the marginalized extremist right is just more deceptive, and denies its Hiterlism. Third positionists are the only thinkers who analyze and stay current in their thought.  That’s why they do not march in step, and that is a good thing.  National anarchism is different from national bolshevism, which is different from corporatism, etc. Marxists do not stay current and Nazis do not stay current.  Both are stuck in the past.  Republicans and Democrats both make appeals to traditions too; though Republicans are more guilty.  Do I really care what the founding fathers said in the year 2009?  They were good thinkers in their time but it isn’t 1776.  I respect old thinkers, but I put them into context.  Anti-revisionists do not.

Those who argue against revisionism in a nostalgic dogmatic sense get the scientific method backwards.  The scientific method dictates that you base a hypothesis off of the evidence.  If it fails the evidence, you drop it and revise the hypothesis.  The mentality of one who philosophically opposes critical revisionism is to make a hypothesis based off of tradition, and then to revise the evidence to fit the hypothesis.  That’s the kind of process that lead to claims that the world was flat.

As we saw last year, the great globalization of IT seems to have peaked. After booming from 2004 to 2006, offshore IT outsourcing leveled off the past couple of years, even among the largest companies (DeMers, 26). – InformationWeek Print Magazine

I can observe this myself. I see major Corporations insourcing because they are realizing the realities of culture and heritage. I have no delusions that globalization will end, but the second guessing is starting. Not only have I observed this, not only has InformationWeek observed this, but very respectable PHD level analysts I know have observed it. Insourcing is a victory for populism and a victory against exploitative wages that harm the third world as much as the first.  It is a victory for those who believe that the third world needs to build its own infrastructure instead of relying on the infrastructure of America.  Culture, reliability, locality, knowledge of a local business process and heritage matter, even when global ideologues pretend they do not.  Technocratic attitudes must reconcile with nationalism to defeat the delusion that one size fits all.

Works Cited

DeMers, Kevin. “Tech Specialist: Unified Communications.” InformationWeek 14 Sept. 2009: 26. Print. ]]> http://www.freemediaproductions.info/Editorials/2009/09/20/populist-attitudes-are-resurging-with-american-technology-jobs/feed/ 3