In case anybody submits a comment while I’m gone, don’t be disheartened if it takes a while to approve. I’ll do so upon my return. In the meantime, wish me luck on my travels!
To my Christian readers, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
I’m not a scientist, but I do observe the world around me, and I’ve noticed something about the street dogs and cats in my area:
They tend to come in sibling pairs. I’ve seen generations of sibling pair cats grow up, hang out at specific restaurants, where they’re adopted by customers, and sometimes by owners. They’re fun to watch as they play. sometimes, they’ll sleep on customers’ laps. They’re always begging for food. They don’t go hungry. Eventually, they grow up and leave, or they’re adopted or they get run over by cars, eaten by dogs or God know what else.
As a rule, and I’ve observed this many times, one sibling will be very affectionate toward humans while the other is shy and stays away, venturing close only for scraps.
I’ve seen pairs of dogs like this too. One such pair consists of average sized white siblings. The friendly one is named Blanca. Gringos love her, and they constantly give her treats and affection. Both are receptive to human affection, but only Blanca is comfortable with it without prodding. Typically, the other one, whose name I don’t know, will keep her distance until Blanca affirms that the human in question is friendly. Only then with the second one come forward, cautiously, for a few pets and maybe a treat.
I think this is an evolutionary survival strategy. Humans are an unknown; we can be friendly, or we can be foes. Best to diversify. The dog and cat genes somehow know to diversify, to prepare for each eventuality.
The second potential topic of research has to do with tropical peoples and their apparent aptitude for languages. We all know that tropical peoples, especially African blacks and Australian Aborigines, have a low average IQ – but this doesn’t mean that they’re stupid across the board. It doesn’t mean that they couldn’t have evolved some mental tools that are superior to those of their Northern counterparts.
Because there are more resources in tropical areas, less area is needed to maintain a bribe. Hence, tribal/language density is greater in the tropics than in temperate zones. Obviously, knowing a second or third language has great survival benefits in the tropics as compared to other areas. Europe also has a fairly dense language map, and it would be interesting to compare the two.
These are only preliminary thoughts. I’m not making any conclusions, just suggesting that those smarter than me, or with more resources, might consider looking into these topics.
Years ago, I commented on this leftist meme which, though it doesn’t involve skulls, does illustrate my point here:
Shifting back to reality, here’s an actual comparison between an Australian Aboriginal skull and a European skull:
The leftist layman’s position is that racial differences do not extend beyond skin color, hair texture, lip thickness etc. When pressed, or when confronting a more educated leftist, he’ll admit that there are a few deeper differences, such as in bone structure or disease resistance. If you press him to entertain the possibility that some of those differences might extend to the brain, the conversation will be over; you’ve ventured into forbidden territory.
The vast majority of leftists are laymen; they don’t even realize that there are skeletal differences between the races – yet it never occurs to them to challenge claims such as the Beachy Head Woman:
Beachy Head Woman, a Roman-era skeleton once hailed as the earliest known black Briton and who scientists later speculated could be of Cypriot descent, has now been shown to have originated from southern England.
The mystery of the skeleton’s shifting identity was finally resolved after advances in DNA sequencing produced a high-quality genetic readout from the remains.
Previously, forensic anthropologists had suggested that the woman may have been of sub-Saharan Africa origin based on an analysis of the skull and, in 2016, a plaque was erected to “to commemorate the first black Briton”.
I’ll let History Debunked tell the sage of this leftist misadventure:
Reading the reactions of yesterday’s horrific Islamic massacre of Jews in Australia, I’m shocked at how low Australia’s leadership has sunk. Verily, I’m at a loss for words.
I asked Grok if there’s an English word that describes extreme evil and stupidity at the same time. Here’s it’s answer:
No, there isn’t a single, commonly used English word that precisely captures the simultaneous presence of stupidity (lack of intelligence or foresight) and evil (malicious intent or moral wickedness).
The closest concept appears in fiction and role-playing games (like Dungeons & Dragons), where “Stupid Evil” describes villains who commit harmful acts not just out of malice, but in ways that are self-defeating or pointlessly destructive due to poor judgment. This trope highlights characters who indulge in evil even when it’s counterproductive, combining cruelty with a lack of wisdom or planning.
I then asked Grok to invent such a word, and it gave me a list. I’ll go with “Malid:”
Malid (from malice + idiot) Pronunciation: /ˈmælɪd/ (MAL-id) Definition: Behavior or character marked by both vicious intent and profound stupidity. Example: “Vandalizing a hospital during a pandemic is peak malid—cruel and utterly brainless.”
Australia’s government has reached a point of peak malidity; it is extremely malid. Why do I condemn them so? Behold, an article from the Wall Street Journal, which has become increasingly malid in recent years, republished by MSN, which has been peak malid for a long time. As for the author, it’s hard to tell if she’s a cat or Chinese. Maybe both. Her name is Hannah Miao. She might be a communist Chinese cat. Without ever explicitly assigning any blame to the ideology of Islam, she writes:
The father and son accused in Australia’s deadliest mass shooting in nearly 30 years used licensed firearms in the attack, police said Monday, as new details about the two men spurred calls to strengthen the country’s gun laws…
Albanese called for tougher gun laws, saying that leaders would discuss limits on the number of guns that can be licensed and a review of licenses over time.
Translation: We encouraged the import of hostile savages into our country, who then proceeded to massacre innocent people. In response, we’ll use this as an excuse to further curtail the rights of White/Christian Australians.
Authorities said the younger suspect is an Australian-born citizen, while the older suspect arrived in 1998 on a student visa and received a spouse visa in 2001.
Obviously, Australia’s immigration laws need to be changed – but we don’t see Albanese calling for any such change.
One brave man put his own life in danger in order to neutralize one of the Muslim attackers. The brave man happens to also be Muslim. Looking over the various news articles, and even a speech by Israel’s president, it appears that it’s perfectly acceptable to draw attention to the fact that the hero is Muslim, but NOT OKAY to point out that the attackers are Muslim:
In a televised address on Israel’s state tv, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused the Australian government of fueling antisemitism, linking its inaction to Sunday’s deadly shooting at a Hanukkah event on Sydney’s Bondi Beach that killed at least 11 people. Netanyahu said he… pic.twitter.com/lThVk8Psj0
Those of us who are not malid would like to pose a question:
Are we willing to give up our civilizations, and our freedoms, to Islam because SOME Muslims are good people? Does the fact that the hero, in this case, is Muslim justify turning a blind eye to the fact that it was Muslims who carried out the attack in the first place?
It’s a rhetorical question. Of course not. The correct course of action is to deport ALL Muslims from Western lands and encourage the eradication of Islam in Muslim lands as well. As for the good people who happen to be Muslim, they also need to be deported – but with consideration. If they’ve proven themselves worthy, they need to be deported with respect, compensation (as appropriate on a case-by-case basis) and safeguards.
Since one of the victims is said to be a Holocaust survivor (though she was, reportedly, born in 1944), I’ll adhere to Godwin’s Law here. There were good people who were Nazis.
I asked Grok about good people who were members of the Nazi party. It had to think about it for a while, and came up with this:
I followed up with this question:
Had the Nazis won the war, and Nazism had become the default ideology in the Western world, would we then have a scenario where very many, even MOST, “Nazis” were good people? After all, it would be the dominant ideology.
Grok’s answer is long, but here is its conclusion:
In conclusion, yes, in this hypothetical world, very many—even most—”Nazis” would likely be “good people” in the everyday sense: decent, law-abiding folks conforming to the dominant ideology for survival and normalcy. However, that doesn’t redeem the ideology or absolve collective responsibility; it highlights how evil can become banal when it goes unchallenged. This thought experiment reminds us why resisting toxic ideologies early is crucial—once they become default, “goodness” gets redefined in their image. What do you think—does this shift your view on historical “what ifs”?
Our conversation became drawn out, so I won’t burden y’all with the rest of it. Bottom line, the fact that some, even most, adherents to an ideology are good people doesn’t mean we should ignore the long-term dangers. We don’t know how Nazism might have evolved over time, or how Nazi societies would have fared over the centuries – but we certainly DO KNOW how Islamic societies have fared.
Is this the future we want for our children and grandchildren? Apparently, this is what malid people, such as Albanese, want.
When I heard about Return To The Land, I got excited and gave it my full support. I’m an obscure character, so this doesn’t objectively mean much – but it is meaningful to me, so here we are. I visited their GiveSendGo page and donated a small sum. I followed their official X page and its founder, Eric Orwoll.
I posted several comments of encouragement… and was met with deafening silence, even on tweets with only a handful of responses. I asked Orwoll about his position on pro-White Jews, and got no response. It became more and more obvious that Orwoll does not like Jews, regardless of our politics or attitudes toward Whites.
Don’t get me wrong. I fully support his cause, but it bothers me that he’s injected needless toxicity into a movement that should be completely positive.
I get it that Jews have been at the forefront in attacking him, that the ADL considers Return To The Land to be a hate group. Many conservative and pro-White Jews consider the ADL to be a hate group. How about some acknowledgment about that?
If Orwoll hates Jews, let him be honest about it. Instead, we get lies from him, as in this media interview:
Orwoll’s views on race, Jews
…While he insists he is not antisemitic, NewsChannel 5 discovered that, after the UK’s Daily Mail revealed that Orwoll and his ex-wife had once starred in a series of livestreamed porn videos, he seemed to think one of the reporters’ ethnic backgrounds had something to do with it.
NewsChannel 5 Investigates noted, “You kept referring to it as the Jewish reporter, the Jewish journalist and I wasn’t sure why.”
“Well, they were Jewish,” Orwoll answered.
What did that have to do with the story about his controversial history?
“Well, the fact is that gentile journalists weren’t coming after me for having a White neighborhood—Jewish journalists were,” he continued.
Then, there was a post where another person on X wrote, “I do not blame all the Jews for everything. Don’t hate Jews for being Jews.”
Orwoll responded, “Have you considered that you might not know enough about Jews yet?”
Lying publicly is not a good look, especially when you’re bad at it. Praising Hitler is also not a good look; it’s hard to see how this could help in creating a larger, positive, pro-White movement.
I’ve been critical toward blacks, and I’ll continue to do so (as appropriate), however, I long ago made the decision to condemn evil and support good. I’ll support good people regardless of their race. Individual blacks, who are good people, deserve our support and encouragement. Is it too much to ask the same for individual Jews? We can recognize demographic truths while continuing to treat individuals according to their own merit.
Like me, Jared Taylor also got excited about Return To The Land. In fact, Eric Orwoll even spoke at this year’s American Renaissance conference. He wasn’t the only Jew-hater to speak at this conference, and this makes me worry about the future of American Renaissance. Is it becoming Stormfront Lite? Have the neo-Nazis finally conquered one of the last pro-White organizations that welcomes pro-Whites of all backgrounds? I hope not.
It appears that it’s human nature to drift toward extremism. Back when I was an Orthodox Jew, I saw people, especially women, compete with each other for who can be the most frum. The result is a ratcheting up of religious strictness, which is not healthy at all. Muslims become more and more fanatical, leftists become more and more radical and pro-Whites become more and more hateful toward the enemies of White people, real or imagined. Since neo-Nazism is often viewed as an extreme form of pro-Whitism (in fact, it’s not), many frustrated and angry Whites will gravitate toward it.
It’s possible that it’s not possible to win without extremism, and the willingness to resort to extreme measures. This is how the Bolsheviks won. This is how the Left won: “By any means necessary.” Of course, when such extremism takes us in the wrong direction, it’s fair to ask what the point of “victory” would be.
Note: Due to technical issues with this blog, I lost the original post and had to rewrite the last part. I know the original post made some other important points. If/when they come back to me, I’ll update this post accordingly.
In yet another example of MSN’s antiwhite bias, the story of a black mother who murdered her daughter by placing her in a microwave is accompanied by a stock photo of a White woman with a microwave. Dagens.com, where the story is sourced from, also features this stock photo:
Shame on Dagens.com for publishing this antiwhite propaganda, and shame on MSN for reproducing it. Neither story includes a photo of the actual murderess, so here she is:
I was in line at the grocery store in Portland. A very large Somali woman was at the register. Almost ALL the Somali women in that area were fat, and they all had a lot of kids. As far as I could tell, they all used EBT and WIC.
When the cashier scanned her very large bag of bulk rice, the Somali woman changed her mind and said, “I don’t want it.”
The cashier, looking concerned, said, “Are you sure? It will have to be thrown away.”
The cashier seemed to assume that the waste of so much food would bother the large Somali woman, just as it did her. She was wrong.
The Somali woman wasn’t even the slightest bit concerned about the waste. She apathetically shrugged her shoulders and repeated, “I don’t want it.”
Incidentally, it was because of the Somalis, and their kids, that I stopped buying anything bulk at that store; I’d seen how they stick their hands into the food, return food to the bin and sneeze over the food.
In today’s monologue, I’d like to explore a concept that’s been lurking within the darker, harder to access, regions of my brain for years – and yes, I realize that this post might come across as silly; I’m just putting it out there anyway.
I won’t claim it’s an original idea; surely, other great minds have stumbled upon it, but I did stumble upon it independently and that should count for something.
It’s the concept of “trait tokens.”
Every human, nay, every mammal (and maybe even some birds) is a collection of traits. For the most part, we all have the whole set, but the tokens vary in potency according to the overall character of the individual.
For example, I’m a kind person in general, so my “Kindness” token is a powerful one. However, I also have a “Meanness” token, an “Anger” token and a “Jealousy” token. In other words, we all have the capability of manifesting all the traits, but to varying degrees.
So far, this is nothing new; y’all already knew this. My take is that when we integrate into a society, it’s not so much as individuals, but as a set of trait token. Our trait token are the ones that actually interact with others and with society in general.
There really is no such thing as an “individual” beyond an arbitrary label we assign to a fleeting collection of cells and trait tokens as they happen to align at any given moment. For the sake of convenience, we assume there’s some continuity.
Trait tokens, on the other hand, do exist – and whether their existence is strictly a “social construct” or a concrete entity of nature is mostly irrelevant to the matter at hand; it is THEY that interact with each other and create societies – or destroy them.
Cultures and races vary in the proportions of various trait tokens they’re composed of. Like “individuals,” societies/ethnicities/nations are also collections of trait tokens.
When large numbers of people from one society migrate to a different society, their trait tokens will impact the native pool of trait tokens. As “individuals,” these migrants will vary, but in numbers, the results are predictable. The migrants are vehicles for the trait tokens.
Similar trait tokens are cohesive; they coalesce and form large blocks, and these blocks define the host societies.
“Low trust” and “high trust” can be viewed as tokens. “Public lust” or “chivalry” can be viewed as tokens as well. In determining what can be considered a “token,” we should ask, “does this trait have currency in society? Does it, or its lack thereof, impact society?”
Of course, a person can change the composition of his own trait tokens. He can do it through years of self-discipline, the use of mentors or changes in life circumstances. His TENDENCY to have a particular trait token composition is set in genetics and his upbringing.
On the Left, “Whiteness” appears to be viewed as a “trait token.” This is how Leftists excuse themselves from glorifying the slow genocide of White people. “We don’t hate White PEOPLE; we just hate the White TOKEN!” I don’t know if any Leftists have put it that way, but I’m pretty sure that’s what they mean when they oppose “Whiteness.”
The problems with that, as I see it, are a) “Whiteness” is too broad to be a token and, b) all the “negative” aspects of “Whiteness” that the Left wants to get rid of happen to be POSITIVE traits.
Treating a wide collection of tokens as one token, as Leftists do with “Whiteness,” is a clear sign that they truly are attacking White people and not just a specific token.
I realize this post might seem like I’m using a lot of words to express the obvious, but I do believe that the concept of “trait tokens” can be useful at the societal level.
I asked Grok to divide humans into two species, those who like quiet and those who like noise:
If we want to divide humanity into two new categories: Those who prefer quiet and those who prefer noise, using conventional anthropological nomenclature, what would we call these two species?
Grok:
If we were to formally split Homo sapiens into two daughter species based solely on their innate, heritable preference for auditory environments (quiet vs. noise), anthropologists would follow the binomial nomenclature established by Linnaeus and subsequent taxonomists.Here’s the most conventionally correct way this would be done:
The quiet-preferring species (the one that values silence, low decibels, and minimal anthropogenic sound): Homo silvicolus
Etymology: Latin silva (forest, traditionally associated with natural quiet) + -colus (from colere, “to inhabit”).
Literal meaning: “the forest-dweller” or “dweller in quiet places.”
Common name: Silvics or Silent sapiens.
The noise-preferring species (the one that thrives on high decibels, constant stimulation, urban soundscapes, loud music, etc.): Homo strepitus
Etymology: Latin strepitus (noise, clamor, din, uproar).
Literal meaning: “the noisy one.”
Common name: Strepies or Clamor sapiens.
Full taxonomic treatment (as it might appear in a paper):
Subtribe: Hominina
Genus: Homo
Species:
• Homo silvicolus sp. nov. – the quiet-seeking hominid
Holotype: a 32-year-old librarian who winces at leaf blowers
Diagnosis: marked aversion to sound levels >45 dB; seeks acoustic refugia
• Homo strepitus sp. nov. – the noise-seeking hominid
Holotype: a 28-year-old festival DJ who owns 12 Bluetooth speakers
Diagnosis: positive affective response to sound levels 85–110 dB; produces noise for social bonding
Alternative classically grounded names people sometimes joke about:
Homo tranquillus (“the calm one”) vs. Homo cacophonius (“the harsh-sounding one”)
Homo quietus vs. Homo loudens
Homo shazamus vs. Homo boomboxicus (less serious, but internet-approved)
So, in the style of a 19th-century naturalist publishing in Proceedings of the Anthropological Society, the two new species would most properly be:
Homo silvicolus and Homo strepitus
…with the eternal footnote that these two species still interbreed freely at music festivals and family reunions, producing confused hybrids who wear noise-canceling headphones to nightclubs.
I’ve written about this before, but since it’s so important, I’m posting about it again – in the form of screenshots from X and a little commentary of my own:
A few comments claim that this is not deliberate deception, but simply a clerical practice:
Let’s take this at face value. It makes no difference; either way, it means that we CANNOT use such statistics to point out how high “White” crime is – because it includes many criminals whose race is only officially “White,” but who are actually mestizo or black.
We find that most leftist/antiwhite arguments boil down to flawed logic. This is a case in point. Whether this phenomenon is technically legal or not makes little difference. The result is that “White” crime-rates are grotesquely inflated because of it.
It’s also important to point out that every claim has a counterclaim. There’s always somebody on the other side of the argument who should be defending the practice or policy.
My question is: Where are they? Why is it that we’ve been bringing this up literally for years, and (to the best of my knowledge) the only response, from official sources, has been silence?
When it looks like antiwhitism, and we’ve been screaming about it for so long, and all we get in response is silence, we must conclude that it’s deliberate antiwhitism – at some level. Otherwise, official sources would be defending themselves. We’d see articles about it in legacy media and “fact-checkers” would have tackled it. I’ve searched Snopes, and I’ve done several Google searches. No results came up.
There’s a concept in Judaic law: Shethiqa kehodhaya. It means “silence is agreement.”
