Saturday, 6 October 2012

More DNA Evidence of European / Neanderthal Breeding
NEW YORK (GenomeWeb News) – The most recent mingling between modern humans outside of Africa and Neandertals appears to have occurred during the late Stone Age, according to a new genetic analysis by American and German researchers.
To assess the time frame for Neandertal gene flow into non-African populations, a team led by Harvard University's David Reich and Svante Pääbo, director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology's evolutionary genetics department, did linkage disequilibrium analyses using genome sequences for European-America, East Asian, and West African individuals sequenced for the 1000 Genomes Project pilot.
Their findings, published online last night in PLoS Genetics, pegged the most recent introduction of Neandertal genes into the ancestors of modern Europeans at roughly 37,000 to 86,000 years ago. The team's less stringent estimates put this gene flow in a slightly narrower window: within the last 47,000 to 65,000 years.
The analysis supports the notion that Neandertals and modern humans mixed with one another relatively recently, the study authors explained, and hints that "interbreeding may have occurred when modern humans carrying Upper Paleolithic technologies encountered Neandertals as they expanded out of Africa."
Since the Neandertal genome sequence was reported in 2010, researchers have found that human populations living outside of Africa carry Neandertal sequences in their genomes — sequences that are commonly believed to be genetic remnants of ancient breeding events between modern humans and Neandertals following human migration out of Africa.
Even so, the study authors noted, there is an alternative population substructure model that might also explain these patterns. In that scenario, the Neandertal sequences in present-day non-African populations would be predicted to stem from the existence of multiple hominin populations in Africa prior to the appearance of distinct modern human and Neandertal forms.
"If this substructure persisted until modern humans carrying Upper Paleolithic technologies expanded out of Africa so that the modern human population that migrated was genetically closer to Neandertals," they wrote, "people outside Africa today would share more genetic variants with Neandertals than people in sub-Saharan Africa."
When the researchers looked at specific SNP linkage disequilibrium patterns in genome sequences of 59 West African, 60 East Asian, and 60 European-American individuals sequenced for the 1000 Genomes Project, though, they found evidence indicating that gene flow from Neandertals or a closely related species into some human populations happened much more recently than the modern human-Neandertal split.
Through analyses that included genetic distance mapping for SNP pairs against a genetic reference map developed by Decode Genetics, the team estimated that gene flow from Neandertals occurred as recently as 47,000 to 65,000 years ago.
That argues against a population substructure-based explanation for Neandertal sequences in some human populations, since fossil records for modern humans and Neandertals each go back at least 200,000 years.
While such findings are consistent with the modern human-Neandertal admixture model, the team noted, it doesn't rule out the possibility that population substructure also existed in ancestral human populations. If that were the case, the researchers explained, simulations suggest that the timing of Neandertal-human interbreeding may have happened over a somewhat broader time span, occurring during the past 37,000 to 86,000 years.
"Genetic analyses by themselves offer no indication of where gene flow may have occurred geographically," the researchers noted. "However, the data in conjunction with the archaeological evidence suggests that the two populations likely met somewhere in Western Eurasia."
Add to Technorati Favorites

Sunday, 16 September 2012

The Only Way To Defeat Islamism

The only way to defeat Islamism is via a Reformation within Islam.
Islam is 700 years behind Christianity in its evolution - it is where the Catholic Church was in the Middle Ages - burning witches, burning heretics and massacring thousands in the Albigensian Crusades against those like the Cathars.
The Islamists do not fear death, so killing them merely makes them martyrs.
You cannot defeat a Meme, which is Islamism, with bullets and bombs - they only help spread it.
In the film The Fifth Element each time the defenders of Earth fire their missiles at the approaching evil, it grows stronger.
So too does Islamism.
The only way to defeat it is to assist Moderate Muslims undertake a Reformation within Islam.
That means we have to stop conflating Muslims and Islamists as one and the same - as that is what the Islamists want.
We must assist and encourage moderate Muslims to confront the Islamists and create the internal Reformation within Islam.
That is the only way to ensure Islamism is defeated forever.
The Islamists know this, this is why they kill 'apostates' who try to create such a reform movement within Islam.
The Islamists are not scared of death - they are scared of only thing - that Islam undergoes a Reformation that makes them obsolete.
Add to Technorati Favorites

Wednesday, 5 September 2012

Democracy = White Genocide
Notes on Populism, Elitism, & Democracy Greg Johnson
Is democracy a good system from the perspective of racially-conscious whites?
(1) When both the United States and North Korea describe themselves as democracies, it is safe to conclude that “democracy” means close to everything and next to nothing. For my purpose, I will define democracy as the idea that the power to make political decisions should reside with the “many.”
By the “many,” I mean more than a minority, but less than everybody. A society can be ruled by one man, a few men, or many men. But it cannot be ruled by all men, since in every society there will be at least some people who cannot be allowed to exercise political power, e.g., minors, the insane, criminals, etc.
(2) Most White Nationalists are strongly inclined towards elitism, even though the opinions of the majority on such questions as economic nationalism and non-white immigration are far more sensible than those of the ruling elites who are imposing globalization and race-replacement on the people. If white societies were truly democratic on these issues, we would be a lot better off. But, although today’s so-called democracies could be improved by being more democratic, that is hardly an argument for democracy as such.
(3) I would like to argue that democracy, defined as placing political sovereignty in the hands of the many, is not a good system for racially conscious whites, or anybody else for that matter. To make my case, however, I must distinguish democracy, plain and simple, from two good ideas that are so similar to democracy that they are often confused with it.
(4) The first good idea mistaken for democracy is what I shall call “populism,” or the principle of popular sovereignty, or the principle of the common good. I define this principle as the idea that government is legitimate only if it serves the common good of a people.
In his Politics, Aristotle makes this principle the highest law and the criterion for distinguishing between good and bad forms of government. When a single man rules for the common good, we have monarchy. When he rules for his own private good, we have tyranny. When the few rule for the common good, we have aristocracy. When the few rule for their private and factional interests, we have oligarchy. When the many rule for the common good, we have what Aristotle calls “polity.” When the many rule for their private and factional interests, we have democracy.
Yes, for Aristotle democracy is by definition a bad form of government. But he believes that “polity”—popular government for the common good—is at least conceivable.
The idea that the common good is the proper aim of politics is often mistaken for democracy, but they are not the same thing. The common good can be served by one man, the few, or the many. Furthermore, it is an open question as to which group—the one, the few, or the many—is most capable of securing the good of all.
White Nationalists are, of course, racial populists. We believe that the only legitimate regime is one that secures the existence of our people and a future for white children.
(For more on Aristotle, see my essay “Introduction to Aristotle’s Politics,” Part 1 and Part 2.)
(5) The second good idea that is often mistaken for democracy is a so-called “mixed” regime that has a democratic element. For instance, the United States has a mixed constitution with elements of monarchy (the President), aristocracy (the Supreme Court and the Senate before it was popularly elected), and democracy (the House of Representatives). Representative democracy itself is a hybrid system, since the many appoint one man or a few to represent their interests. Virtually every European society today has a mixed constitution with monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic elements, as did ancient Rome and Sparta (which was technically not monarchical, since it had two kings at the same time).
In his Politics, Aristotle argues that a mixed regime is more likely to secure the common good than an unmixed one. In an unmixed regime, the one, the few, or the many are liable to pursue their factional interests at the expense of the commonweal, simply because the other elements of society are not empowered to resist them. In a mixed regime, all three groups are sufficiently empowered to resist the attempts of the others to serve their interests at the expense of the common good. Yes, Aristotle was the first theorist of “checks and balances.”
In an unmixed regime, we have to depend on the virtue of the rulers, since their selfishness can lead society to ruin. In a mixed regime, we do not have to depend entirely on the virtue of the rulers, since the one, the few, and the many all take part in rule, and even when their virtue fails them, they will still oppose the selfishness of the other factions out of selfish motives of their own.
Thus Aristotle long anticipated Machiavelli’s critique of ancient political theory, namely that it was too dependent on human virtue. Aristotle would, however, reject the idea of modern political theorists that a good society can arise out of base motives. A good society can only be the product of virtuous statesmen, although he would grant that base motives can be harnessed to preserve the products of virtue, even when virtue occasionally nods.
(6) Why is democracy, pure and simple, a bad system? Simply because men are unequal.
To understand and pursue the common good, statesmen need certain moral and intellectual virtues: wisdom, intelligence, courage, justice, self-control, etc. But these virtues are not evenly distributed in the population. Thus it is very unlikely that the majority, by deliberating together, will ever hit on policies that are conducive to the common good (or even their own factional interests, for that matter).
Nor would majorities working together be able to enact and sustain such policies over the long run.
Moreover, the many cannot even be trusted to elect superior individuals to represent their interests, since they tend to fall for the bribes and flattery of slick and unscrupulous demagogues.
(7) If the majority do not have the necessary virtues to serve the common good, then the only question is whether rule by one man (monarchy) or a few men (aristocracy) is best suited to serve the common good.
If virtue is the sole criterion for rulership, then monarchy is the best system only under extraordinary and highly unlikely circumstances. For a monarch would have to be superlative in a whole range of virtues that are seldom combined in a single individual, and even more seldom combined to a superlative degree.
Aristocracies can draw upon a whole range of men of consummate virtue: the wisest sages, the most stirring orators, the most cunning strategists, the bravest warriors. Only a god could possess all of these virtues at the same time. If one could find such a god-king, that would be the best of all systems of government. For he would combine all the virtues necessary for wise decisions with the power to actually decide.
But it is folly to repose all one’s hope in a miracle. Thus aristocracy is a better system than monarchy, because only real regimes can serve the common good.
Furthermore, all existing monarchies are actually aristocracies in practice, for if a king is to rule well, he must of necessity select advisors, delegate powers, and thus create “peers.”
(8) However, aristocracy also has its limits. The main problem of aristocracy is that whenever power is exercised by groups, they must deliberate, and their deliberations must be able to produce decisions. Ideally, these decisions should be the wisest possible. But sometimes any decision, even a reckless one, is preferable to no decision at all.
There are many procedures to terminate deliberation and force a decision. One can put a time limit on discussion. One can put matters to a vote. One can even leave it up to the toss of a coin. But in such cases, human beings are essentially abdicating their responsibility to an impersonal system.
But if one needs more than just a decision, if one needs accountability for decisions, and if one needs an executor of decisions, then one needs a person who can decide. This is particularly the case during an emergency such as a war or a time of constitutional crisis when the existing laws and institutions prove themselves inadequate.
In the end, one cannot be governed merely by laws and institutions. Legislators cannot envision and provide for every future possibility. Thus there will always be circumstances where individuals have to make decisions in the face of novel circumstances.
And even if legislators could foresee every possible circumstance, one still needs individuals to apply the laws. And the application of laws cannot simply be governed by a higher set of laws, for how would one apply them? One cannot appeal to a third set of laws, for those laws also need to be applied. In short, the idea of general rules to govern the application of general rules leads to an infinite regress.
The only way out of that regress is to recognize another kind of intelligence, which can judge the applicability of general rules to particular circumstances. This is the faculty of judgment. But if judgment cannot be reduced to abstract general rules and incarnated in law books, it must be incarnated in a particular individual, the judge, who has the intellect to understand the general rules, the vision to apprehend and the tact to appreciate concrete circumstances, and the insight to apply the former to the latter.
Judgment is required on all levels of a system, from traffic courts to matters of life and death for the entire nation. Thus even the most exalted and refined aristocracy has need of a monarch: someone who has the responsibility and the power to exercise judgment in exceptional situations regarding the destiny of the nation as a whole.
Aristocracy by necessity is driven to embrace monarchy just as monarchy is driven by necessity to embrace aristocracy. Aristocracy is the best principle in normal circumstances, monarchy in emergency situations. In normal circumstances, the monarch should take his throne and preside over deliberations but give maximum latitude to aristocratic rule to ensure the most intelligent possible decisions. In emergencies, the aristocracy should give maximum support to the monarch to help him, and them, and the body politic, to weather the storm.
(9) But although the few are far more likely to be able to discern and execute policies conducive to the commonweal, once they have power, how can we be sure they will actually do so?
To answer this, we must face a difficult fact: a White Nationalist society will never happen unless we can assemble an elite of extraordinary individuals who create it and endow it with sound institutions. Since such a society can only be created by an elite, it must, of necessity, be led by it. So, again, how can we insure that such an elite, once installed, actually pursues the common good?
The answer is twofold. First, one must structure the elite so that it can perpetuate and improve itself. Second, one must structure the system as a whole so that the many have the power to keep the elite serving the common good rather than its own factional interests.
(10) Although White Nationalists have a strong tendency to hereditarianism, hereditary aristocracy and monarchy are not the best systems, because there is a strong random factor in heredity that makes it possible for superior parents to have inferior children and inferior parents to have superior children.
Thus if we are to be ruled by the best, we need ways to (a) recruit and promote the best children of the masses to elite positions, and (b) identify and demote the inferior children of elites to stations that better suit them.
Elite parents will quite naturally love their children more than the common good. They will give their children every advantage of their station. Thus a well-governed society needs to take active measures to negate these advantages and to cultivate and promote geniuses from humbler circumstances.
One of the best ways to do this is a rigorous and entirely public education system, as opposed to the present mixed public-private system which is designed to perpetuate the current corrupt elites while smothering or co-opting their potential rivals from humbler circumstances.
The best institutional model for a White Nationalist society is the Catholic Church, which is ruled by a non-hereditary aristocracy which it recruits and promotes from its own ranks, and which elects a monarch from among the aristocracy.
Another useful model is the Venetian system. Although Venice was ruled by a commercial elite, it maintained an aristocratic rather than a merely oligarchical form of government by promoting to and demoting from the ruling stratum based on merit. Venice also had an elective form of monarchy, like the Papacy and other Italian city states, such as Genoa.
Of course a White Nationalist society will be founded neither by a priestly nor a commercial aristocracy.
For the Old Right, a White Nationalist society would be founded by a martial/political aristocracy, which would more closely resemble the knightly orders of the Middle Ages or another militant order, the Jesuits, both of which were models for Himmler’s SS. The New Right seeks to create a White Nationalist society by dethroning the current hegemony of anti-white ideas and instituting a counter-hegemony of pro-white ideas, propagating this hegemony through the educational system and culture and colonizing the entire political spectrum with a range of pro-white options.
The vehicle for creating and perpetuating white hegemony is an intellectual and spiritual aristocracy, organized as a non-hierarchical network that can penetrate, subvert, and control all existing institutions that shape consciousness and culture.
Such an intellectual and spiritual aristocracy need not worry about exercising power, so long as it sufficiently shapes the consciousness of those who do, which is merely to say that the New Right is a metapolitical rather than political movement. Politics is guided from afar by metapolitics.
But a society sufficiently penetrated by New Right metapolitics would take on the form of a mixed regime with an aristocratic/monarchical leadership. Of course, most white societies already have that essential system, albeit in more or less degenerated forms. Thus New Right metapolitics aims at pouring a new, racially-conscious spirit into the existing institutional bottles.
(11) Recall that the two good ideas that are often called democracy are (a) the populist principle that a system is just only if it serves the common good, and (b) the mixed regime with monarchical, aristocratic, and popular elements.
With that in mind, we can raise the question: Do monarchy and aristocracy have need of a popular element? The answer is: Yes. If monarchy and aristocracy are to serve the common good, the people need to be empowered to constrain them.
But what form can this popular element take, given the obvious failure of representative democracy?
First, representative democracy can be improved by increasing the quality and decreasing the quantity of the electorate. One could limit votes to heads of households, property owners, or the gainfully employed. One could raise the minimum voting age. One could institute educational and public service requirements. One could give extra votes to the highly intelligent. In short, a democracy is more likely to elect an aristocracy if the aristocratic principle is used to determine the electorate.
Second, since democracy works best in small, homogeneous communities, one should adopt the principle of “subsidiarity,” meaning that any issue should be handled by the authority that is smallest, least-centralized, and closest to the “grass roots,” as long as it is capable of dealing with the problem effectively. Subsidiarity would allow deliberative, “direct” democracy and also improve representative democracy, since the smaller the community, the more accountable the elected representatives.
Third, although the many are less qualified to frame and execute national policies than the few, the people are acutely aware of damaging policies, such as free trade and race-replacement immigration.
Thus the people or their representatives should have the power to veto legislation that is inimical to the common good. The people should also have the power to depose public officials, including judges, who are inimical to the public good.
To prevent the people and demagogues from abusing these processes, they should, of course, be confined to extraordinary circumstances. They could, for instance, be carried out by calling special elections, referenda, or plebiscites.
Fourth, the people should also be able to propose and impose legislation of their own through ballot initiatives and special elections. Again, to prevent abuse, these would have to be confined to extraordinary circumstances.
Fifth, to keep the elites honest, the Ancient Greeks gave the people the power to audit public accounts.
A little imagination could expand this list further. None of these measures would impede honest servants of the common good. But they would provide powerful deterrents to corruption. * * *
The powers that be have invested a great deal in promoting the value of diversity, even while pursuing policies that systematically destroy it. This has played into the hands of the New Right, since we are the true defenders of human biological and cultural diversity.
In a similar manner, the establishment has invested a great deal into making an idol of democracy, even as they ignore the will of the people and trample the common good.
This can redound to the New Right’s benefit as well, for although we are frank and unapologetic elitists, we can argue in all honesty that we represent “true democracy,” or what is true in democracy, namely the principle of the common good and the idea that, in the name of the common good, the people must be empowered to resist the corruption of elites. Add to Technorati Favorites

Urban Warfare and Race Riots - Americas Future
In response to recent articles in mainstream military journals discussing the use of the U.S. Army to quell insurrections on American soil, I offer an alternate vision of the future. Instead of a small town in the South as the flash point, picture instead a score of U.S. cities in the thrall of riots greater than those experienced in Los Angeles in 1965 (Watts), multiple cities in 1968 (MLK assassination), and Los Angeles again in 1992 (Rodney King). New Yorkers can imagine the 1977 blackout looting or the 1991 Crown Heights disturbance. In fact, the proximate spark of the next round of major riots in America could be any from a long list cribbed from our history.
We have seen them all before, and we shall see them all again as history rhymes along regardless of the century or the generation of humankind nominally in control of events. But the next time we are visited by widespread, large-scale urban riots, a dangerous new escalation may be triggered by a new vulnerability: It’s estimated that the average American home has less than two weeks of food on hand. In poor minority areas, it may be much less. What if a cascading economic crisis, even a temporary one, leads to millions of EBT (electronic benefit transfer) cards flashing nothing but zeroes? Or if the government’s refusal to reimburse them causes supermarket chains to stop accepting them for payment? The government can order the supermarkets to honor the cards, but history’s verdict is clear: If suppliers are paid only with worthless scrip or blinking digits, the food will stop.
In my scenario, the initial riots begin spontaneously across affected urban areas, as SNAP (supplemental nutrition assistance program) and other government welfare recipients learn that their EBT cards no longer function. This sudden revelation will cause widespread anger, which will quickly lead to the flash-mob looting of local supermarkets and other businesses. The media will initially portray these “food riots” as at least partly justifiable. Sadly, millions of Americans have been made largely, or even entirely, dependent on government wealth transfer payments to put food on their tables.
A new social contract has been created, where bread and circuses buy a measure of peace in our minority-populated urban zones. In the era of ubiquitous big-screen cable television, the internet and smart phones, the circus part of the equation is never in doubt as long as the electricity flows. But the bread is highly problematic. Food must be delivered the old-fashioned way: physically. Any disruption in the normal functioning of the EBT system will lead to food riots with a speed that is astonishing. This will inevitably happen when our unsustainable, debt-fueled binge party finally stops, and the music is over. Now that the delivery of free or heavily subsidized food is perceived by tens of millions of Americans to be a basic human right, the cutoff of “their” food money will cause an immediate explosion of rage. When the hunger begins to bite, supermarkets, shops and restaurants will be looted, and initially the media will not condemn the looting. Unfortunately, this initial violence will only be the start of a dangerous escalation.
The ransacked supermarkets, convenience stores, ATMs and gas stations will not be restocked during this period due to the precarious security situation. A single truck loaded with food or gasoline would be perceived to be a Fort Knox on wheels and subject to immediate attack unless heavily protected by powerfully armed security forces, but such forces will not be available during this chaotic period. Under those conditions, resupply to the urban areas cannot and will not take place. The downward spiral of social and economic dysfunction will therefore both accelerate and spread from city to city. These delays, in turn, will lead to more riots with the constant underlying demand that hungry people be fed, one way or another.
Catch-22, anyone? When these demands do not bring the desired outcome, the participants will ratchet up the violence, hoping to force action by the feckless state and national governments.
The “food riots” will be a grass-roots movement of the moment born out of hunger and desperation. It will not be dependent upon leaders or an underlying organization, although they could certainly add to the sauce. Existing cell phone technology provides all the organization a flash mob needs. Most of the mobs will consist of minority urban youths, termed MUYs in the rest of this essay. Which minority doesn’t matter; each urban locale will come with its own unique multi-ethnic dynamic.
Some locales will divide upon religious or political lines, but they will not be the dominant factors contributing to conflict. In the American context, the divisions will primarily have an ethnic or racial context, largely because that makes it easy to sort out the sides at a safe distance. No need to check religious or political affiliation at a hundred yards when The Other is of a different color.
We Americans are all about doing things the easy way, so, sadly, visible racial and ethnic features will form the predominant lines of division.
Would that it were not so, but reality is reality, even when it’s is a bitch.
Especially then.
In order to highlight their grievances and escalate their demands for an immediate resumption of government benefits, the MUY flash mobs will next move their activities to the borders of their ethnic enclaves. They will concentrate on major intersections and highway interchanges where non-MUY suburban commuters must make daily passage to and from what forms of employment still exist. People making a living will still be using those roads to get to where they earn their daily bread.
The results of these clashes will frequently resemble the intersection of Florence and Normandie during the Rodney King riots in 1992, where Reginald Denny was pulled out of his truck’s cab and beaten nearly to death with a cinder block. If you don’t remember it, watch it on Youtube. Then imagine that scene with the mob-making accelerant of texting and other social media technology added to stoke the fires. Instead of a few dozen thugs terrorizing the ambushed intersections, in minutes there will be hundreds.
Rioters will throw debris such as shopping carts and trash cans into the intersection, causing the more timid drivers to pause. The mobs will swarm the lines of trapped cars once they have stopped. Traffic will be forced into gridlock for blocks in all directions. Drivers and passengers of the wrong ethnic persuasions will be pulled from their vehicles to be beaten, robbed, and in some cases raped and/or killed. It will be hyper-violent and overtly racial mob behavior, on a massive and undeniable basis.
Some of those trapped in their cars will try to drive out of the area, inevitably knocking down MUY pedestrians and being trapped by even more outraged MUYs. The commuters will be dragged out of their cars and kicked or beaten to death. Other suburban commuters will try to shoot their way out of the lines of stopped cars, and they will meet the same grim fate once they run out of bullets and room to escape.
The mob will be armed with everything from knives, clubs and pistols to AK-47s. A bloodbath will result. These unlucky drivers and their passengers will suffer horribly, and some of their deaths will be captured on traffic web cameras. Later, these terrible scenes will be released or leaked by sympathetic government insiders and shown by the alternative media, which continue to expand as the traditional media become increasingly irrelevant.
Implausible, you insist?
This grim tableau is my analysis of age-old human behavior patterns, adding flash mobs and 2012 levels of racial anger to the old recipe. Early-teenage MUYs today are frequently playing “The Knockout Game” on full bellies, just for kicks, and proudly uploading the videos. They and their older peers can be expected to do far worse when hunger and the fear of starvation enter their physical, mental, and emotional equations. The blame for their hunger will be turned outward against the greater society, and will be vented at first hand against any non-MUY who falls into their grasp while they are in the thrall of mob hysteria. These episodes of mass psychology we will refer to as “flash mob riots”, “wilding”, or some other new name.
To gear up for even a single “Florence and Normandie on steroids” flash mob street riot, city police departments will require an hour or longer to stage their SWAT teams and riot squads in position to react. Ordinary patrol cars in small numbers will not venture anywhere near such roiling masses of hysterical rioters, not even to perform rescues. Those citizens trapped in their cars cannot expect timely assistance from local or state authorities.
Even in the first days of widespread riots, when the police forces are well rested, it might take several hours to mount a response sufficient to quell the disturbance and restore order to even one major street intersection riot. In the meantime, scores of innocent commuters will have been attacked, with many of them injured or killed and left at the scene. It will be a law enforcement nightmare to quell the disturbance, mop up lingering rioters, restore security, and bring medical attention to the living and get medical examiners to the dead. And each jurisdiction will face potentially dozens of such scenes, thanks to the ability for MUYs to cross-communicate at will using their wireless devices.
The far more difficult challenge for the police is that by the time they are suited in riot gear, armed and geared up to sweep the intersection, it will probably be empty of rioters. The police, with their major riot squad reaction times measured in hours, will be fighting flash mobs that materialize, cause mayhem, and evaporate in only fractions of hours. This rapid cycle time is a clear lesson taken from massive riots by immigrant French Muslim MUYs in their own religious enclaves and bordering areas.
The American flash mob riot will exist almost entirely inside the law enforcement OODA (observe, orient, decide, act) loop. In other words, the rioters will have a much quicker reaction time than the police. Until fairly recently, superior police communications meant that they could use their radio networks as a force multiplier. With their networking advantage and cohesive reactions both within a department and among cooperating local agencies, police could act as shepherds guiding or dispersing a wayward stampeding flock.
Today, the mob has the greater advantage, immediately spreading word of every police preparation by text and Tweet, even in advance of the police movement. Attempts by the authorities to stop the flash mobs by blocking and jamming wireless transmissions will have limited success.
It is at this point that the situation spirals out of control.
The enraged mobs in urban America will soon recognize that their spontaneous street riots cannot be stopped by the police, and then they will grow truly fearsome. For the police, it will be a losing game of Whack-a-Mole, with riots breaking out and dispersing at a speed they cannot hope to match. The violence will spread to previously unaffected cities as an awareness of law enforcement impotence is spread by television and social media. After a few days, the police forces will be exhausted and demoralized. As the violence intensifies and spreads, and in the absence of any viable security arrangements, supermarkets and other stores will not be restocked, leaving the MUYs even more desperate and angry than before. The increasing desperation born of worsening hunger will refuel the escalating spiral of violence.
Nor will violent conflict be only between the inhabitants of the urban areas and the suburbs. The international record of conflict in tri-ethnic cities is grim, making the old bi-racial dichotomy formerly seen in America seem stable by comparison. In tri-ethnic cities the perceived balance of power is constantly shifting, with each side in turn feeling outnumbered and outmuscled. Temporary truces, betrayals and new alliances follow in rapid succession, removing any lingering sense of social cohesion.
The former Yugoslavia, with its Catholic, Orthodox and Muslim divisions, comes starkly to mind. The Lebanese Civil War between the Christians, Sunnis, Shiites and Druze raged across Beirut (at one time known as “The Paris of the Middle East”) for fifteen brutal years. Once a city turns on itself and becomes a runaway engine of self-destruction, it can be difficult to impossible to switch off the process and return to normal pre-conflict life. It’s not inconceivable that the United States could produce a dozen Sarajevos or Beiruts, primarily across racial instead of religious divides.
Vehicle traffic by non-minority suburban commuters through adjoining minority areas will virtually halt, wrecking what is left of the local economy. Businesses will not open because employees will not be able to travel to work safely. Businesses in minority areas, needless to say, will be looted. “Gentrified” enclaves of affluent suburbanites within or near the urban zones will suffer repeated attacks, until their inhabitants flee.
Radically disaffected minorities will hold critical infrastructure corridors through their areas hostage against the greater society. Highways, railroad tracks, pipe and power lines will all be under constant threat, or may be cut in planned or unplanned acts of raging against “the system.” As long as security in the urban areas cannot be restored, these corridors will be under threat. Even airports will not be immune. Many of them have been absorbed into urban areas, and aircraft will come under sporadic fire while taking off and landing.
In the absence of fresh targets of value blundering into their areas, and still out of food, MUYs will begin to forage beyond their desolated home neighborhoods and into suburban borderlands. “Safe” supermarkets and other stores will be robbed in brazen commando-like gang attacks. Carjackings and home invasions will proliferate madly. As I have discussed in my essay “The Civil War Two Cube,” so-called “transitional” and mixed-ethnic areas will suffer the worst violence. These neighborhoods will become utterly chaotic killing zones, with little or no help coming from the overstretched police, who will be trying to rest up for their next shift on riot squad duty, if they have not already deserted their posts to take care of their own families.
In the absence of an effective official police response to the exploding levels of violence, suburbanites will first hastily form self-defense forces to guard their neighborhoods—especially ones located near ethnic borders. These ubiquitous neighborhood armed defense teams will often have a deep and talented bench from which to select members, and they will not lack for volunteers.
Since 9-11, hundreds of thousands of young men (and more than a few women) have acquired graduate-level educations in various aspects of urban warfare. In the Middle East these troops were frequently tasked with restoring order to urban areas exploding in internecine strife. Today these former military men and women understand better than anyone the life-or-death difference between being armed and organized versus unarmed and disorganized.
Hundreds of thousands if not millions of veterans currently own rifles strikingly similar to those they carried in the armed forces, lacking only the full-automatic selector switch. Their brothers, sisters, parents, friends, and neighbors who did not serve in the military are often just as familiar with the weapons, if not the tactics. Today the AR-pattern rifle (the semi-automatic civilian version of the familiar full-auto-capable M-16 or M-4) is the most popular model of rifle in America, with millions sold in the past decade. Virtually all of them produced in the past decade have abandoned the old M-16′s signature “carrying handle” rear iron sight for a standardized sight mounting rail, meaning that virtually every AR sold today can be easily equipped with an efficient optical sight. Firing the high-velocity 5.56×45 mm cartridge and mounted with a four-power tactical sight, a typical AR rifle can shoot two-inch groups at one hundred yards when fired from a steady bench rest. That translates to shooting eight- to ten-inch groups at four hundred yards.
Four hundred yards is a long walk. Pace it off on a straight road, and observe how tiny somebody appears at that distance. Yet a typical AR rifle, like those currently owned by millions of American citizens, can hit a man-sized target at that range very easily, given a stable firing platform and a moderate level of shooting ability.
And there are a far greater number of scoped bolt-action hunting rifles in private hands in the United States. Keep this number in mind: based on deer stamps sold, approximately twenty million Americans venture into the woods every fall armed with such rifles, fully intending to shoot and kill a two-hundred-pound mammal. Millions of these scoped bolt-action deer rifles are quite capable of hitting a man-sized target at ranges out to and even beyond a thousand yards, or nearly three-fifths of a mile. In that context, the 500-yard effective range of the average semi-auto AR-pattern rifle is not at all remarkable.
So, we have millions of men and women with military training, owning rifles similar to the ones they used in combat operations overseas from Vietnam to Afghanistan. Many of these Soldiers and Marines have special operations training. They are former warriors with experience at conducting irregular warfare and counter-terrorism operations in dangerous urban environments. They are the opposite of unthinking robots: their greatest military talent is looking outside the box for new solutions. They always seek to “over-match” their enemies, using their own advantages as force multipliers while diminishing or concealing their weaknesses. These military veterans are also ready, willing and able to pass on their experience and training to interested students in their civilian circles.
Let’s return to our hypothetical Florence and Normandie intersection, but this time with hundreds of rioters per city block, instead of mere dozens. Among the mobs are thugs armed with pistols and perhaps even AK-47s equipped with standard iron sights, and except in rare cases, these rifles have never been “zeroed in” on a target range. In other words, past a medium distance of fifty to a hundred yards, these MUY shooters will have little idea where their fired bullets will strike—nor will they care. Typically, most of the rioters armed with a pistol, shotgun or an iron-sighted rifle could not hit a mailbox at a hundred yards unless by luck. Inside that distance, any non-MUY could be at immediate risk of brutal death at the hands of an enraged mob, but beyond that range, the mob will pose much less danger.
Taking this imbalance in effective ranges of the firearms most likely to be available to both sides, certain tactical responses are sure to arise, and ranking near the top will be the one described next.
The sniper ambush will predictably be used as a counter to rampaging mobs armed only with short- to medium-range weapons. This extremely deadly trick was developed by our war fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan, taking advantage of the significant effective range and firepower of our scoped 5.56mm rifles. Tactics such as the sniper ambush may not be seen early in the civil disorder, but they will surely arise after a steady progression of atrocities attributed to rampaging MUYs.
Street intersection flash mob riots will not be the only type of violence exploding during periods of civil disorder. As mentioned earlier, the number and ferocity of home invasions will skyrocket, and they will be very hard to defend against. Neighborhood self-defense forces will be able to protect a group of homes if they are located on cul-de-sacs or in defensible subdivisions with limited entrances, turning them overnight into fortified gated communities. Individual homes and apartment buildings located in open grid-pattern neighborhoods with outside access from many directions will be much more difficult to defend, and the home invasions will continue.
Carjacking and other forms of armed robbery will proliferate to previously unimagined levels, leading to a total loss of confidence in the government’s ability to provide security across all social lines. Stray bullets striking pedestrians or penetrating houses will take a frightening toll, even in areas previously considered to be safe. The police will be exhausted by constant riot-squad duty, and will not even respond to reports of mere individual acts of violent criminality. They will simply be overwhelmed, and will be forced to triage their responses. The wealthy, powerful and politically well-connected will demand the lion’s share of remaining police resources, further diminishing the safety of average Americans.
In that context, neighborhood self-defense forces will form the nucleus of the armed vigilante direct action groups which will spring up next in the progression. Suburban anger will continue to build against the MUYs, who are perceived to be the originators of the home invasions and gang-level armed looting raids. Survivors of street ambushes, carjackings and home invasions will tell blood-curdling tales and show horrific scars.
The neighborhood defense teams will evolve into proactive suburban armed vigilante groups (SAVs) out of a desire to preemptively take the violence to their perceived enemies, instead of passively waiting for the next home invasion or carjacking. The SAV teams will consist of the more aggressive and gung-ho members of the self-defense forces, who met and compared notes. Often they will be young men with recent combat experience in the armed forces, who will apply their military training to the new situation. Major intersections and highway interchanges where ambush riots have previously occurred will be among the SAV targets. The SAV reaction times will be measured in minutes, compared to the hours required by major police department SWAT teams and riot squads.
When word is received that a flash mob is forming at one of their pre-reconnoitered intersections or highway interchanges, the SAV team will assemble. Sometimes cooperating police will pass tactical intel to their civilian friends on the outside. Some clever individuals will have exploited their technical know-how and military experience to build real-time intel collection tools, such as private UAVs. Police will have access to urban security camera footage showing MUYs moving barricade materials into position—a normal prerequisite to a flash mob riot intended to stop traffic. Tip-offs to the vigilantes will be common, and where the networks are still functioning, citizens may still be able to access some video feeds. Sometimes, police will even join the SAV teams, incognito and off-duty, blurring the teams into so-called “death squads.”
The operation I will describe (and it’s only one of dozens that will be tried) uses two ordinary pickup trucks and eight fighters. Two riflemen are lying prone in the back of each truck, facing rearward, with removable canvas covers concealing their presence. Their semi-automatic, scoped rifles are supported at their front ends on bipods for very accurate shooting. A row of protective sandbags a foot high is between them and the raised tailgate.
In the cab are a driver and a spotter in the passenger seat who also serves as the vehicle’s 360-degree security. The two trucks don’t ever appear on the same stretch of road, but coordinate their movements using one-word brevity codes over small FRS walkie-talkie radios. Each truck has a series of predetermined elevated locations where the intersection in question will lie between 200 and 500 yards away. Each truck is totally nondescript and forgettable, the only detail perhaps being the non-MUY ethnicity of the suburbanite driver and spotter driving relatively near to a riot in progress.
By the time the two SAV pickup trucks arrive at their firing positions on different streets and oriented ninety degrees to one another, the flash mob riot is in full swing. A hundred or more of the rampaging youths are posturing and throwing debris into traffic in order to intimidate some cars into stopping. The riflemen in the backs of the pickups are waiting for this moment and know what to expect, trusting their spotters and drivers to give them a good firing lane. The spotters in each truck issue a code word on their radios when they are in final position. The tailgates are swung down, and the leader among the riflemen initiates the firing. All-around security is provided by the driver and spotter.
Lying prone and using their bipods for support, the shooters have five to ten degrees of pan or traverse across the entire intersection. Individual rioters are clearly visible in the shooters’ magnified optical scopes. Each of the four snipers has a plan to shoot from the outside of the mob toward the middle, driving participants into a panicked mass. The left-side shooters start on the left side and work to the middle, engaging targets with rapid fire, about one aimed shot per two seconds. Since the two trucks are set at ninety degrees to one another, very complete coverage will be obtained, even among and between the stopped vehicles.
The result is a turkey shoot. One magazine of thirty aimed shots per rifle is expended in under a minute, a coded cease-fire is called on the walkie-talkies, and the trucks drive away at the speed limit. The canvas covering the truck beds contains the shooters’ spent brass. If the trucks are attacked from medium or close range, the canvas can be thrown back and the two snipers with their semi-automatic rifles or carbines will add their firepower to that of the driver and spotter.
Back at the intersection, complete panic breaks out among the rioters as a great number of bullets have landed in human flesh. Over a score have been killed outright, and many more scream in pain for medical attention they will not receive in time. The sniper ambush stops the flash mob cold in its tracks as the uninjured flee in terror, leaving their erstwhile comrades back on the ground bleeding. The commuters trapped in their vehicles may have an opportunity to escape.
This type of sniper ambush and a hundred variations on the theme will finally accomplish what the police could not: put an end to mobs of violent rioters making the cities through-streets and highways impassible killing zones. Would-be rioters will soon understand it to be suicidal to cluster in easily visible groups and engage in mob violence, as the immediate response could come at any time in the form of aimed fire from hundreds of yards away. Even one rifleman with a scoped semi-auto can break up a medium-sized riot.
Many citizens will take to carrying rifles and carbines in their vehicles, along with their pistols, so that if their cars are trapped in an ambush they will have a chance to fight their way out. If their vehicle is stopped outside the immediate area of the flash mob, they will be able to direct accurate fire at the rioters from a few hundred yards away. Inside the fatal hundred-yard radius, unlucky suburbanite drivers and passengers pulled from their cars will still be brutally violated, but the occurrences of large mob-driven street ambushes will be much less frequent once long-range retaliation becomes a frequent expectation.
Where they will be unable to respond swiftly or effectively to the outbreaks of street riots by MUY flash mobs, the police and federal agents will respond vigorously to the deadly but smaller vigilante attacks. These sniper ambushes and other SAV attacks will be called acts of domestic terrorism and mass murder by government officials and the mainstream media. A nearly seamless web of urban and suburban street cameras will reveal some of the SAV teams by their vehicles, facial recognition programs, and other technical means. Some early arrests will be made, but the vigilantes will adapt to increasing law enforcement pressure against them by becoming cleverer about their camouflage, most often using stolen cars and false uniforms and masks during their direct-action missions. Observe Mexico today for ideas on how this type of dirty war is fought.
Eventually, the U.S. Army itself might be called upon to put out all the social firestorms in our cities, restore order and security, pacify the angry masses, feed the starving millions, get vital infrastructure operating again, and do it all at once in a dozen American Beiruts, Sarajevos and Mogadishus.
Good luck to them, I say.
A few hundred “Active IRA” tied down thousands of British troops in one corner of a small island for decades. The same ratios have served the Taliban well over the past decade while fighting against the combined might of NATO. Set aside for a moment the angry starving millions trapped in the urban areas, and the dire security issues arising thereof. Just to consider the official reaction to vigilantism separately, it’s unlikely that any conceivable combinations of local and state police, federal law enforcement, National Guard or active-duty Army actions could neutralize or eliminate tens of thousands of former special operations troops intent on providing their own form of security. Millions of Americans are already far better armed and trained than a few hundred IRA or Taliban ever were. And the police and Army would not be operating from secure fire bases, their families living in total safety thousands of miles away in a secure rear area. In this scenario, there is no rear area, and every family member, anywhere, would be at perpetual risk of reprisal actions by any of the warring sides.
In this hyper-dangerous environment, new laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in vehicles would be ignored as the illegitimate diktat of dictatorship, just when the Second Amendment is needed more than ever. Police or military conducting searches for firearms at checkpoints would themselves become targets of vigilante snipers. Serving on anti-firearms duty would be seen as nothing but pure treason by millions of Americans who took the oath to defend the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. Politicians who did not act in the security interest of their local constituents as a result of political correctness or other reasons would also be targeted.
A festering race war with police and the military in the middle taking fire from both sides could last for many years, turning many American cities into a living hell. Remember history: when the British Army landed in Northern Ireland in 1969, they were greeted with flowers and applause from the Catholics. The Tommys were welcomed as peacekeepers who would protect them from Protestant violence. That soon changed. Likewise with our tragic misadventure in Lebanon back in 1982 and 1983. Well-intended referees often find themselves taking fire from all sides. It’s as predictable as tomorrow’s sunrise. Why would it be any different when the U.S. Army is sent to Los Angeles, Chicago or Philadelphia to break apart warring ethnic factions?
For a long time after these events, it will be impossible for the warring ethnic groups to live together or even to mingle peacefully. Too much rage and hatred will have been built up on all sides of our many American multi-ethnic fault lines. The new wounds will be raw and painful for many years to come, as they were in the South for long after the Civil War. The fracturing of the urban areas, divided by no-man’s-lands, will also hinder economic redevelopment for many years because the critical infrastructure corridors will remain insecure.
Eventually, high concrete “Peace Walls” like those in Belfast, Northern Ireland, will be installed where the different ethnic groups live in close proximity. That is, if recovery to sane and civilized norms of behavior are ever regained in our lifetimes and we don’t slide into a new Dark Age, a stern and permanent tyranny, warlordism, anarchy, or any other dire outcome.
Dark Ages can last for centuries, after sinking civilizations in a vicious, downward vortex. “When the music’s over, turn out the lights,” to quote Jim Morrison of The Doors. Sometimes the lights stay out for a long time. Sometimes civilization itself is lost. Millions of EBT cards flashing zeroes might be the signal event of a terrible transformation.
It is a frightening thing to crystallize the possible outbreak of mass starvation and racial warfare into words, so that the mind is forced to confront agonizingly painful scenarios. It is much easier to avert one’s eyes and mind from the ugliness with politically correct Kumbaya bromides. In this grim essay, I am describing a brutal situation of ethnic civil war not differing much from the worst scenes from recent history in Rwanda, South Africa, Mexico, Bosnia, Iraq, and many other places that have experienced varying types and degrees of societal collapse. We all deplore the conditions that might drive us toward such a hellish outcome, and we should work unceasingly to return America to the path of true brotherhood, peace and prosperity. Race hustlers of every stripe should be condemned.
Most of us wish we could turn back the calendar to Norman Rockwell’s America. But we cannot, for that America is water long over the dam and gone from our sight, if not from our memories. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” If that is true, judging by current and even accelerating cultural shifts, we might already have passed the point of no return.
The prudent American will trim his sails accordingly. Add to Technorati Favorites

Wednesday, 1 August 2012

What Kills Civilisations and Nation
It happened to the Romans. It happened to the American Indians. It happened to the Incas of South America. It happened to the aborigines of Australia. It happened to South Africans. It’s happening to Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, Holland, Belgium, Australia, France and Spain.
It is happening to the United States of America.
What is “it”?
All those ancient civilizations experienced migration of other civilizations so great in numbers that “it” changed their languages, religions, cultures and ways of life.
The Romans lost their empire. The American Indians lost everything and found themselves stuck on internment camps better known as “reservations.” Today, they cope with alcohol, domestic violence, poverty and purposelessness. The Spaniard Pizarro, using his guns, degraded the Inca nation into oblivion. The Australian aboriginals, like the American Indians, lost their continent to the British invasion. The same happened with South Africa.
Today, Great Britain, by its own hand, watches itself change from “British” to Middle Eastern Islamic right before its eyes. The same goes for Norway, Sweden, Holland, Belgium, France, Canada, Australia and Spain.
While academics and social elites call it “multiculturalism and diversity”, such numbers of humanity racing into first world countries—flood host countries with incompatible cultures, religions and sheer numbers.
But today, another aspect of mass migration percolates to the surface, but nobody wants to talk about it much less deal with it. Top leaders of every country avoid addressing it at all costs. Average citizens don’t know it exists much less understand its growing ramifications.
For example, Great Britain today, already crowded beyond sustainability, houses 61 million people on its tiny islands with a sum total landmass smaller than the State of Oregon. Nonetheless, they continue importing people that will add a projected 11 million additions within two decades. No one will whisper a word about it and no one knows when the additions will stop or if Britain will choose to or be able to stop them. Since the third world adds 80 million people annually, there is no end of the line for the numbers of desperate humanity.
Great Britain provides a 21st century rendition of Easter Island’s legendary population debacle back in the 1800s.
Holland provides another rendition in that it houses 18 million people in a tiny landmass about 90 miles wide by 180 miles long. They must import everything into their country in order to feed, warm, house and transport themselves. They cannot sustain 18 million people on such a tiny landmass without total dependence on the outside world.
Today, China, adding 8.1 million net gain annually, buys farmland in Africa and South America in order to feed its projected addition of 300 million by 2050—a scant 38 years.
Can America withstand the coming transformation of itself?
In the past 40 years, America endured immigration that added 100 million people by October of 2008 to the lower 48 states. This country, at present rates of mass migration, will add another 100 million people by 2035. We will add another 38 million on top of that by 2050. Total: 438 million from our current 315 million. (Sources: PEW Hispanic Center, “US Population Projections” Fogel/Martin, US Census Bureau)
On July 11, 2012, ABC’s anchor Diane Sawyer reported on New York adding two to five million more residents in the coming decades. She said that 300 square foot apartments would be the norm of the future. A 300 square foot apartment equals the size of two car parking spaces. Is this the kind of transformation we want as individuals and communities? Do we want to repeat Rome’s path? Great Britain’s? China’s? India’s? Mexico’s?
How will adding another 100 million people within 38 years help our water, energy, resources, standard of living and quality of life?
If allowed to proceed, this transformation will affect every aspect of our freedom, quality of life, environment and the planet itself. None of it positive!
"Unlimited population growth cannot be sustained; you cannot sustain growth in the rates of consumption of resources. No species can overrun the carrying capacity of a finite land mass. This Law cannot be repealed and is not negotiable.” Dr. Albert Bartlett, , University of Colorado, USA.
This is not the time to complain or whine. You must engage your congress-critters. Go into their offices. Tell them what you want. This is a Republic and it is up to you to take action by voting the bad ones out and/or running for office yourself. The two top organizations for taking action and making impact are and . Become a phone caller and faxer of pre written letters. It’s up to you. Add to Technorati Favorites

Thursday, 26 July 2012

My Theory On Race As Speciation Is Proved
The human family tree just got another — mysterious — branch, an African “sister species” to the heavy-browed Neanderthals that once roamed Europe.
While no fossilized bones have been found from these enigmatic people, they did leave a calling card in present-day Africans: snippets of foreign DNA.
There’s only way one that genetic material could have made it into modern human populations.
“Geneticists like euphemisms, but we’re talking about sex,” said Joshua Akey of the University of Washington in Seattle, whose lab identified the foreign DNA in three groups of modern Africans.
These genetic leftovers do not resemble DNA from any modern-day humans. The foreign DNA also does not resemble Neanderthal DNA, which shows up in the DNA of some modern-day Europeans, Akey said. That means the newly identified DNA came from an unknown group.
“We’re calling this a Neanderthal sibling species in Africa,” Akey said. He added that the interbreeding likely occurred 20,000 to 50,000 years ago, long after some modern humans had walked out of Africa to colonize Asia and Europe, and around the same time Neanderthals were waning in Europe.
Akey said that present-day Europeans show no evidence of the foreign DNA, meaning the mystery people were likely confined to Africa.
The find offers more evidence that for thousands of years, modern-looking humans shared the Earth with evolutionary cousins that later died out. And whenever the groups met, they did what came naturally — they bred.
The once controversial idea that humans mated with other species is now widely accepted among scientists. In fact, hominid hanky-panky seems to have occurred wherever humans met others who looked kind of like them.
In 2010, researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany announced finding Neanderthal DNA in the genomes of modern Europeans.
Heavy-set people whose thick double brows, broad noses, and flat faces set them apart from modern humans, Neanderthals disappeared around 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.
Another mysterious group of extinct people recently identified from a finger bone in Siberia — known as the Denisovans — also left some of their DNA in modern day Pacific Islanders.
And while modern humans and the newly found “archaic” Africans might be classified as distinct species, they managed to produce viable offspring. Likewise, donkeys and horses, lions and tigers, and whales and dolphins can mate and make babies.
“They had to be similar enough in appearance to anatomically modern humans that reproduction would happen,” said Akey. But with no fossils in hand, it’s impossible to say what these people looked like. It’s also impossible to say whether the matings were consensual or forced.
But one thing is clear: This enigmatic group left their DNA all across Africa. The researchers found it in the forest-dwelling pygmies of central Africa and in two groups of hunter-gatherers on the other side of the continent — the Hadza and Sandawe people of Tanzania.
Starting a decade ago, a team led by Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Pennsylvania drew blood from five individuals in each of the three groups. Using the latest genetic technology, Tishkoff spent $150,000 to read, or sequence, the DNA of these 15 people.
Besides finding evidence of the now-extinct species, the team discovered a huge range of genetic diversity between the three groups. The human genome contains about three billions letters, or base pairs, of DNA. Before this study, scientists had found that some 40 million of these letters vary across human populations.
But in the 15 Africans, Tishkoff found another three million genetic variants — a huge trove of human diversity. Among this stunning variety, Tishkoff says she has pinpointed some of the genes responsible for the short stature of the pygmies, who average less than five feet in height. She also found that immune system genes and genes for taste and smell varied wildly between the three groups — confirming Africa as the seat of the most human diversity.
The research was reported Wednesday in the journal Cell.
“This is very cutting-edge population genetics work,” said geneticist Spencer Wells, a National Geographic explorer. “This ‘whole genome’ analysis the team performed is really revolutionizing our understanding of human history. It’s an exciting time to be in the field, but it’s difficult to interpret all the new data.”
Wells said the oldest modern human skull, found in Ethi­o­pia, dates to 195,000 years ago. For more than 150,000 years, then, humans shared the planet with cousin species.
Despite all the amorous advances, though, only one group survived — us.
Akey said: “As we were conquering the world, we also conquered similar human populations that were dying out.”
Add to Technorati Favorites

Is This What British Soldiers Died For ?
The modern-day states of Iraq and Syria once formed the ancient kingdom of Mesopotamia. They share the same tribal culture, heritage and a lengthy border. It is hardly surprising, then, that they still have much in common.
Having both been ruled by Hashemite kings following their creation as independent states in the aftermath of the First World War, they became the only Arab states to adopt the Ba’ath party’s revolutionary ideology and were renowned for their hostility to the West.
While on occasion this relationship has become somewhat frayed, not least when the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein declared his desire to unite both regimes under his barbaric rule in the Seventies, the ties that exist between Baghdad and Damascus have ensured that such unpleasant memories are soon overcome.
Now these two Arab states can boast yet another, less welcome, characteristic that binds them together: they have both become targets for al-Qaeda’s new generation of Islamist jihadists.
At first glance, it appears that the bombers responsible for the recent attacks in Damascus and Baghdad were motivated by very different objectives. Related Articles
In Syria, last week’s carefully executed bombing of the National Security headquarters, which killed President Bashar al-Assad’s brother-in-law, as well as the country’s defence minister, was in all probability the act of groups working for the Free Syrian Army, a mainly Sunni Muslim force that is seeking to overthrow Assad’s minority Allawite regime, which has ruled the country for more than four decades.
In Baghdad, on the other hand, the recent well-coordinated series of bombings and shootings against a number of government targets in 15 different cities and towns was carried out by Iraqi Sunni extremists. Many of them are disaffected members of Saddam’s Ba’athist tyranny who are trying to force the government of Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s Shi’ite Muslim prime minister, to establish a more inclusive regime, one that represents the interests of the Sunni and Kurdish minorities, rather than simply feathering the nests of the majority Shi’ite Muslim population.
But while the objectives of these anti-government activists may differ, there is a chilling similarity in the tactics they employ in their respective quarrels with the ruling cliques in Iraq and Syria.
In both countries, the recent wave of bombings bears all the hallmarks of al-Qaeda terror cells, both in terms of their planning and the execution. Indeed, the group responsible for the Iraqi bombings, al-Qaeda in Iraq, makes no secret of its allegiance to the organisation originally founded by Osama bin Laden.
In a statement issued shortly after the attacks, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who claims to be the leader of the Iraqi cell, deliberately sought to link the violence in Iraq to the Sunni revolt in neighbouring Syria. According to al-Baghdadi, al-Qaeda has launched a campaign it calls “Breaking Down the Walls”, whereby it aims to overthrow the established governments in Baghdad and Damascus and replace them with regimes more in tune with the group’s strict Islamist agenda.
This might seem far-fetched, particularly as al-Qaeda has already suffered one humiliating defeat in Iraq: moderate Sunni tribal leaders refused to support the terrorist group’s extremist agenda and helped US forces to defeat it by forming the “Anbar Awakening” in 2006. Iraqi Sunnis might want to see a more representative government running Baghdad, but most of them have no desire for a return of the appalling scenes of sectarian violence that devastated the country from 2006 to 2007.
And yet the fact that al-Qaeda, which was effectively destroyed as an organisation in Iraq by the end of 2007, is back with a vengeance is a direct result of the violence taking place in neighbouring Syria. Even before last week’s attack on the National Security building, senior Iraqi officials had expressed concern about the existence of a number of al-Qaeda cells in the eastern city of Fallujah, which were travelling freely across the Syrian border to support the rebel cause. Now it appears that these cells are travelling in the opposite direction from Syria to Iraq, with all the potentially disastrous implications that could have for regional stability.
Until now the priority of Western policy-makers has been to stop the fighting in Syria on humanitarian grounds. But a conflict that has so far claimed more than 17,000 Syrian lives could easily reach levels not seen since the worst days of Iraq’s sectarian violence – if, as now seems possible, the turbulence spreads beyond Syria’s borders. Rather than treating Syria as a humanitarian crisis, the West should see its troubles as a threat to the stability of the entire region, and act accordingly.
Add to Technorati Favorites

Monday, 9 July 2012

Northern Europeans The First Americans

In a discovery that could rewrite the history of the Americas, archaeologists have found a number of stone tools dating back between 19,000 and 26,000 years, and bearing remarkable similarities to those made in Europe.
All of the ancient implements were discovered along the north-east coast of the USA.
The tools could reassert the long dismissed and discredited claim that Europeans in the form of Christopher Columbus and his crew were the first to discover the New World.
Previous discoveries of tools have only been dated back to 15,000 years ago and prompted many archaeologists and historians to question claims that stone-age man managed to migrate to North America.
But the striking resemblance in the way the primitive American tools were made to European ones dating from the same period now suggests a remarkable migration took place.
Adding to the weight of evidence is fresh analysis of stone knife unearthed in the US in 1971 that revealed it was made of French flint.
Professor Dennis Stanford from Washington's Smithsonian Institution, and Professor Bruce Bradley from Exeter University believe that the ancient Europeans travelled to North America across an Atlantic frozen over by the Ice Age.
During the height of the Ice Age, ice covered some three million square miles of the North Atlantic, providing a solid bridge between the two continents. Plentiful numbers of seal, penguins, seabirds and the now extinct great auk on the edge of the ice shelf could have provided the stone-age nomads with enough food to sustain them on their 1,500-mile walk.
"Across Atlantic Ice", a book by professors Stanford and Bradley presenting the case for the trans-Atlantic trek, is published next month.
Add to Technorati Favorites

Wednesday, 27 June 2012

The Republic Is Born.

The moment the Queen shook McGuniness's hand was historic and symbolic.
It will be seen by history as the moment we became a Republic and the Monarchy fell.
It will take a few more decades to happen, but the line has been crossed.
The moment the Queen shook that murdering terrorists hand was the moment the Monarchy confirmed its utter irrelevance.
That betrayal by the Queen is the birth of the British Republic.
Add to Technorati Favorites

Saturday, 9 June 2012

The New IQ Elite
Have you come across “OES syndrome”? The letters stand for Overeducated Elitist Snob, and if you don’t know what that means let me draw your attention to the front benches of the House of Commons.
OES syndrome is an American term, coined by the US political scientist Charles Murray to describe the clustering of wealth, power and – crucially – intelligence at one end of the social spectrum. Murray’s new book Coming Apart: The State of White America is not as controversial as The Bell Curve, the 1994 volume in which he and Richard Herrnstein compared race and IQ. But its conclusions are every bit as alarming.
A hundred years ago, says Murray, most Americans in the top five per cent of cognitive ability had ordinary occupations. They were very clever shopkeepers, farmers, housewives and factory workers. But they didn’t somersault over their peers.
One reason is that they couldn’t marry very smart people. High intelligence was scattered evenly across America, so a gifted farm worker might have to travel 100 miles before he met a woman as bright as he was. Instead, he married an ordinary local girl, and their children, regressing to the mean, were only slightly cleverer than their schoolfriends.
The explosion of college education changed that. Universities plucked bright kids out of their home towns like a tornado and suddenly they found that they weren’t in Kansas any more. Young people hooked up with equally intelligent partners and passed on two sets of smart genes.
This mobility opened up Ivy League universities to competition from ultra-bright candidates. The old-money aristocracy at Harvard, Yale and Princeton shrank, but the average IQ at those universities soared – and with it the earning potential of alumni. The newly elite students married each other and the result, says Murray, is a hard core of Overeducated Elitist Snobs.
Members of this supercharged class don’t just separate themselves from the poor: they’re quarantined from “everybody who isn’t as rich and well educated as they are”. They also produce clever, rich children by marrying brains and money (which go together these days).
Remind you of anybody? We may tease David Cameron and George Osborne for being “toffs”, but they’re more than that. Although both inherited money, they’re also furiously ambitious academic snobs of the type Murray describes. In their meritocracy, the purpose of a superior brain is to amass money and power. Intellectual curiosity isn’t encouraged lest it jeopardise that project. Hence the anomaly of a prime minister with a brilliant First from Oxford who has never uttered a truly original thought in public.
Let’s not kid ourselves that the elitism of this Oxbridge-educated Coalition will disappear when it loses power. Labour has its own OES syndrome; so do politicians and business leaders from Palo Alto to Beijing. Free market capitalism forces the brightest people to the top. That may sound like good news, but it also creates an association between intelligence and living standards that, in the long run, will condemn stupid people to poverty.
The new marriage patterns do as much harm as good. Once bright people are taken out of the local gene pool, what does that leave? Our natural reaction is to say: “Let’s not go there.” But we really have no choice, because global capitalism is creating a cognitive hierarchy in front of our eyes – and, with it, inequalities just as cruel as the ones we thought we had abolished.
This is much the same argument as I use to assert that the UK was the first nation to become genetically stratified. It happened first because we initiated the Industrial Revolution which brought the bulk of the population from the countryside to towns and cities and opened opportunities for untapped talent outside the landed aristocracy. People marry people similar to themselves; this is called assortative mating.
Genetic stratification is not a caste system. The reason being the regression toward the mean mentioned in the blog. This is a simple and inevitable consequence of characteristics being transmitted as discrete units: genes. Its effect is that on average offspring are less extremely removed from the overall population mean of a characteristic with a metric such as that of height or IQ than their parents. For example, the offspring of the bright tend to be less bright and those of the tall shorter and vice versa in both cases.
The "on average" mentioned above allows for potential variation among offspring such that they may become more extreme than the mean value of a characteristic of their parents. Thus, even the dimmest will produce some offspring closer to the population mean intelligence and a small proportion may greatly exceed this. Of course as nature and nurture influence the expression of a characteristic the offspring of the dimmest may lack much contribution from nurture and social intervention may be required to unlock talent.
The upshot is that a genetically stratified society must be understood as dynamic rather than static. The dynamic upwards and downwards is closer to glacial growth than a fast running stream but it has immense consequences.
This reasoning supports the notion that we should move toward a true meritocracy rather than the lip service currently made. Upward and downward movement should not be partially locked as at present. Keeping talent down is both wasteful and stores up trouble from intelligent people inn the lower social strata: it is those who will become criminal gang leaders or militant trade unionists. Not allowing those of less talent than expected in their class to drift downwards is equally bad. It means that resources, especially inherited wealth, are sequestered away from those who would use them better.
So in order to further meritocracy opportunity must be unlocked. This entails radical overhaul of the education system and the introduction of inheritance tax that is no longer effectively optional for the wealthy.
Meritocracy should not be construed as dog eat dog in a scramble for wealth. I am not advocating the crass "American Dream". Meritocracy is much more than opportunity to amass wealth according to ability. What it is to do with is encouraging each individual to work hard to develop such talent as he has so that he may find a niche that gives satisfaction whether in workaday life or in the pursuit of family interests and hobbies. Some of the most talented will be drawn to entrepreneurship, others to the learned professions and academe in expectation of a comfortable lifestyle rather than wealth but with the challenge and satisfaction of following their profession most important.
The bottom of the talent pile should be considered too. There is no reason why those performing relatively menial tasks should not be instilled with pride in doing what they do well. There is no reason why they should not be valued and seen to be. Part of that value is reflected through wages. Whilst income differentials are inevitable in a society that values freedom to make one's own way and act as an incentive for achievement the grossly disparate distribution at present is indicative of market-capitalism having been permitted to enter a pathological state whereby opportunity is monopolised by the few; it must be released.
What has gone very wrong is that the rat race to wealth, reflected now in the "bonus culture", is regarded as somehow noble, that gross disparities in wealth are as inevitable as winter and that it is every man for himself, may the devil take the hindmost. Those resisting change to the status quo are displaying a selfish short sightedness that is ultimately to their detriment. The words society and community have become ill-defined, misused and sometimes derided. A society is more than the sum of individuals battling for their own interests. There is interdependence that even the most wealthy have to rely on. Some of this is enshrined in our laws.
Feelings of fair play arise spontaneously in childhood. When it is perceived to be absent historical precedent shows that nasty consequences can afflict even the most entrenched elites if they don't give grouind. They should bear in mind that so-called property rights are no such thing. They appear on no tablet of stone (not even "thou shalt not steal" is a prescription for how economic wealth should be divided up in the first place) . They are societally defined. Property ownership is in general a good that most people recognise. Yet that should not lead to unquestioning acceptance of present assumptions on how generated wealth should be shared among those who labour and those who can't labour or about how much should be inherited by those who didn't earn it.
The days of the OESs are numbered.
Add to Technorati Favorites

Thursday, 7 June 2012

The Globalist Agenda Revealed.

Finally the Globalist Corporate Fascist agenda is revealed - the British Army will be downsized and replaced by cheap foreign mercenaries, the same as the British economy has been globalised and replaced with cheap foreign workers.
This is the globalist corporate agenda exposed - and it is being imposed by traitor filth governments elected by moronic British people at the behest of the globalist media.
The Army will have to rely on help from private contractors and foreign soldiers in future wars, the Defence Secretary will announce today.
Several regiments will be axed or merged as the Army downsizes from 102,000 personnel to 82,000 by 2020.
Private military contractors, Nato allies and Territorial Army reservists will be employed to plug the gaps, Philip Hammond will say.
In a speech to the Royal United Services Institute in London, Mr Hammond will outline plans for paid civilian soldiers to provide ‘logistics support’ for regular front-line soldiers.
He will promise that the UK will maintain ‘teeth’ for any future military operations, but add that others will have to help with key tasks to keep soldiers armed and fed.
This could lead to recently retired soldiers being rehired as mercenary contractors to deliver kit to front-line soldiers.
Britain could also be forced to rely on other countries for vital transport and logistics tasks, which are currently undertaken by soldiers’ own countrymen.
Mr Hammond will tell the think-tank’s conference on land warfare that the Army will ‘rethink the way we deliver every aspect of military effect in order to maximise capability at the front-line’.
He will say Army chiefs are now ‘thinking innovatively about how combat service support is provided, using more systematically the skills available in the reserve and from our contractors.’
He will add that commanders are ‘working closely with partners to operate logistics more rationally through Alliance structures’, as the Army looks ‘to others to provide the tail, where Britain is concentrating on providing the teeth’.
The long-mooted cuts to personnel were detailed in the Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2010. However, the plans for greater involvement of private military contractors will fuel fears that the economic crisis will leave the UK saddled with a cut-price Armed Forces, placing our soldiers in danger.
Hammond is also braced for a bitter fight over Army reorganisation when he publishes a plan to slash the number of regiments before the summer.
The reorganisation of the British Army will reduce numbers from 102,000 to 82,000
The reorganisation of the British Army will reduce numbers from 102,000 to 82,000
He will pledge to maintain the vital links between regiments and the communities from which they recruit – but he will also acknowledge that some historic cap badges face the axe.
He will say: ‘There is no question, of abandoning the regimental system. But that does not mean that we can avoid difficult decisions as the Army gets smaller.
‘A regular Army of 82,000 will have a different structure to one of 102,000. And some units inevitably will be lost or will merge. In making those decisions, the military voice must prevail.’
Mr Hammond also wants to beef up the reserves, investing £1.8billion in the TA and doubling the number of members to 38,000. This would leave a total of 120,000 soldiers at commanders’ disposal.
Reserve units will be twinned with regular Army regiments, so that members of the TA will train with soldiers they would be deployed alongside.
Mr Hammond will say his Army 2020 proposals provide ‘the opportunity to transform the role of reserve forces’.
He will continue: ‘The future reserves must be structured to provide, as they do today, some niche specialists capabilities that aren’t cost-effective to maintain on a full-time basis – for example in areas of cyber, medical, or intelligence.
‘The integrated Army concept means that light infantry battalions will be reinforced on deployment through a permanent partnership with reserve battalions.’
Read more: Add to Technorati Favorites

Tuesday, 5 June 2012

Now The Party Is Over ....

The fact that the Monarchy remains as it always was, whilst the rest of British culture, society and traditions are destroyed in the Neo-Liberal KulturKampf is evidence of its dislocation from the rest of society, not its relevance.
Now that the celebrations are over, and well deserved too as the Queen is a fantastic role model and worker, the debate now needs to begin - not about republicanism, but about reality.
The monarchy is allowed to stay the same by the political class as they can enact their endless cultural revolutions out of sight. As long as the monarchy remain on the throne, the lemmings think they still live in Britain and under a democracy.
They are not.
This country is being destroyed.
The monarchy cannot, and has not, stopped that process.
The existence of the monarchy has not preserved our national culture, national borders, rights, liberties, the integrity of our political system etc etc - all it has done is allowed the masses to be apathetic and delusional about what is happening in our country.
Add to Technorati Favorites

Out Of Africa Theory Is False
Got to the above link and then download the full text from the blue highlighted TEXT HERE words at the top of the article.
Here is a short precis on the information ;
The report states that haplogroups α- and β originate from a downstream common ancestor for haplogroup A and β-haplogroup, coined the α-haplogroup which emerged 160,000 ± 12,000 ybp.
African haplogroup A (originated 132,000 ± 12,000 years before present) is very remote time-wise from all other haplogroups, which have a separate common ancestor, named β-haplogroup, and which originated 64,000 ± 6000 ybp.
Therefore all haplogroups orginated from the a haplogroup, which originated not in Africa but in Central Europe.
Therefore we did not originate in Africa, as all humans originated from the a haplogroup in Central Europe.
The a haplogroup later split to form the African A haplogroup around 132,000 YBP.
The a haplogroup later split to become the β-haplogroup, which originated 64,000 ± 6000 ybp.
The β-haplogroup did not come from the A Haplogroup, which originated 132,000 ± 12,000 years before present, which is the entire basis of the Out of Africa Theory.
The β-haplogroup came from the archaic a haplogroup, not the African A haplogroup - hence the Out of Africa Theory is incorrect.
African A halogroup originated from the original halogroup a, hence the orginal ancestors of all halogroups is a not A but a, and haplogroup a originated in central europe, not Africa.
====================================================== The African A haplogroup came from the a haplogroup which originated in central europe.
Therefore the Out of Africa Theory is wrong.
Nor did we descend from Africans and the A haplogroup - we descended, as did the Africans, from the a haplogroup.
The β-haplogroup, originated 64,000 ± 6000 ybp from the a haplogroup, not the A haplogroup.
The B haplogroup includes a family of Europeoid (Caucasoid) haplogroups from F through T that originated 58,000 ± 5000 ybp.
Therefore we do not orginate in Africa, nor do we descend from Africans.
Both Africans and Europeans descend from the original a haplogroup.
The Africans evolved from a haplogroup to become A haplogroup.
Europeans evolved from a haplogroup to become B haplogroup and then F to T haplogroups.
Add to Technorati Favorites