Ever since Proposition 209, the anti-race-preference initiative, was passed by California voters in 1996, various state and local government agencies have sought a means to save race-based government programs.
The opening, true words of an NRO article written in May 2004 by Lance T. Izumi & Sharon Browne (both energetic opponents of affirmative action and, in Browne’s case, a successful litigant).
Well, all those disappointed state and local government agencies need pine after the old days no more. The San Juan Mercury News reports:-
Students recruit minorities to UC in ways institution can’t
By Lisa M. Krieger
California law bans the state’s public universities from recruiting students based on race.
But it can’t stop student volunteers.
Call it the outsourcing of affirmative action. Stepping into jobs made off-limits to university officials by Proposition 209 - the 1996 California ballot proposition that prohibited public schools from targeting students based on race, sex, or ethnicity - students are reaching back into their own communities to boost diversity on campus.
“We feel an obligation to help open the door to allow for more of our brothers and sisters to enter,” said Fuifuilupe Niumeitolu, a Tongan student at the University of California-Berkeley who is a member of the student group Pacific Islanders Higher Education Recruitment Program. “It is a labor of love, rooted in creating social change.”
The passage of Proposition 209 hit UC-Berkeley’s racial and ethnic communities hard. The number of incoming freshmen from under-represented minorities groups - African-American, Latino, Native American and Pacific Islander - shrank by half.
The numbers are just now beginning to recover. But the campus is still far from reflecting the state’s diversity. Although about 47 percent of public high school graduates in California are members of underrepresented minorities, they make up just 25 percent of UC’s incoming freshman class. At UC-Berkeley, the system’s most elite campus, there are only 15.7 percent.
Under-represented minorities groups. That’s a new phrase, even from Lisa Krieger, who we at RD judge to be one of, if not the, most consistent purveyer of anti-white American hate-journalism at San Jose Mercury News. What it signals is a new wedge for ethnic cleansing.
Richard Lynn, sometimes along with Tatu Vanhanen, has been publishing books challenging the economists and social scientists to look at average national intelligence as an important factor in how well off a nation is including health, wealth, earnings, democracy, etc.
This latest book is an excellent source to give someone who is doubtful about racial hierarchies around the world. Country by country Lynn looks at the races making up a country and explains historically how they became what they are today. Over and over again such themes such as when slavery ended in different parts of the world, Blacks refused to work, and usually East Asians and/or Asian Indians were brought in to do the manual labor, and eventually moved up taking over entrepreneurial sectors of the economy.
This pattern was also shown by Amy Chua in “World on Fire,” though that was not the intent of her book. Lynn shows that wherever there is a mixture of races the pecking order follows the average intelligence of each group: Ashkenazim Jews, East Asians, Whites, mestizos of different hybrids, Amerindians, and Blacks—to name just a few. Only aggressive affirmative action in many of these countries can keep the smaller, more intelligent minority from totally dominating the economy.
Again, of Lynn’s books, this is probably the easiest read and the most convincing arrangement of arguments to convince the skeptic that intelligence does matter and that it is highly genetic.
“Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence. Any man who has once proclaimed violence as his method is inevitably forced to take the lie as his principle.”
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, whose words those are, has died from heart failure in Moscow, at the end of a long period of decline.
“You can have power over people as long as you don’t take everything away from them. But when you’ve robbed a man of everything, he’s no longer in your power.”
The author, among other works, of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1962), The First Circle (1968), Cancer Ward (1968) and The Gulag Archipelago(1973–1978), historian, Nobelist, and a profund Russian nationalist and Russian Orthodox Christian, Solzhenitsyn belonged nowhere but in the socks and shoes of his own spirit. Life forced moral judgements upon him wherever he looked ... as a soldier in Germany in 1945 witnessing the murder and rapine of the Red Army, as a witness to the grotesque violence inherent in Stalinism, as a prisoner in the gulag and a persecuted intellectual outside it, and as an exile in the liberal West appalled by the spiritual absence, self-indulgence and materialism there.
Until I came to the West myself and spent two years looking around, I could never have imagined to what an extreme degree the West had actually become a world without a will, a world gradually petrifying in the face of the danger confronting it . . . All of us are standing on the brink of a great historical cataclysm, a flood that swallows up civilization and changes whole epochs.
Solzhenitsyn’s final act of courage in the written word, Two Hundred Years Together (2003), remains unpublished in the West. It examines in a critical way the nature of the Jewish engagement in Russian life from the partial annexation of Poland in 1795 to 1916. Whilst it finds that the Revolution was not a Jewish conspiracy, it does dwell on the culpability of Jews where Jewish culpability existed. For this, of course, Solzhenitsyn has received his due measure of reflexive semitic hatred inside Russia, and his book has been very effectively frozen out in the West.
“It is impossible to find the answer to the eternal question: who is to be blamed, who led us to our death? To explain the actions of the Kiev cheka only by the fact that two-thirds were Jews, is certainly incorrect.”
But the Jewish tantrums will be of no import to our memory of the man. Solzhenitsyn will be revered in Russia and admired in the West for his moral stature, and for proving that the human spirit was greater than the corruption and violence of the Soviet system ... and, perhaps, greater too than the equally deady - actually, more deadly - dangers of modernity which beset Westerners, in all their comfort and security, today.
“It has made man the measure of all things on earth—imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey.”
Mace Rixer, multicultural detective, met his friend Carl the cryptographer in their favorite bar. Carl was very upset. He told Mace that he had to find a new place to live because he had locked himself out of his apartment.
Carl’s impregnable ex-apartment could also be called his [_____________________].
Jean-Marie Le Pen, Front National member of the European Parliament, given just 4 minutes to explain the world to Monsieur Bruni, le président de la page trois.
Lord Salisbury, three times a Conservative Prime Minister and a political giant in a more enlightened age, once remarked, “English policy is to float lazily downstream, occasionally putting out a diplomatic boathook to avoid collisions.” English, no less! But I digress.
To illustrate the Anglo-centric point a little further, here’s what the New York Times reported on 4th March 1900:-
Regarding Lord Salisbury’s point of view, for some time past he has taken little interest in American politics, and he is averse to any form of an Anglo-American alliance, believing that the Constitution of the United States is unsuited to such a bond. To use the words of one who is in the closest confidence of the Premier, “the politics of America have such an influence on foreign policy, and render the duration of supreme power so uncertain, that any alliance would kill itself quicker than any one could kill it.”
Lord Salisbury feels under no obligations to foster pro-British sentiment in the United States. In fact, for the most part he remains in profound ignorance as to the trend of American public opinion. His idea, as represented by the speaker just quoted, is to trade fairly and squarely without embroiling himself with any extraneous matters ...
Today, though, English politicians - if that is what they really are - have an altogether different view of their and our priorities. Here’s Boris Johnson, Mayor of London and currently the most powerful Conservative politician in the country, talking to a reporter from Square Mile magazine about Barack Obama:-
“I was looking at him on the news and just thinking what an amazing moment this is, watching his speech in Berlin and thinking what a critical moment this is for America and for attitudes towards what they can achieve amongst the black community.
“If Barack Obama can do it, it will be the most fantastic boost, I think, for black people everywhere around the world.
... I think a Barack Obama victory would do fantastic things for the confidence and the feelings of black people around the world - that they can win.”
Unfair comparison? The last of the great Conservatives ... and Boris. With a friend.
Asked if his words consituted an endorsement of the Democrat hopeful, Mr Mayor said pithily, “Yes”.
Well, I’m just wondering what a time-travelling Salisbury might have thought about Obama and the American body politic, and the “feelings of black people around the world”. Presumably, he would have held on harder than ever to his boathook, and to English national interest. He was flatly against what he called “black men” in the English Parliament, and opposed the Liberal candicacy of Dadabhai Naoroji at the 1892 General Election (Naoroji was elected nonetheless and became the first Indian sitting at Westminster).
Salisbury happens also to have been the man who set up the first city-wide authority in the capital, London County Council - something he later came to regret as “the place where collectivist and socialistic experiments are tried. It is the place where a new revolutionary spirit finds its instruments and collects its arms.” And, these day, puts them around the nearest example of “black people”, apparently.
In any case, the time-travelling Salisbury would be able to judge from the incumbent at City Hall how completely successful those revolutionaries have been. We are all MultiCultists now.
Leading on from this MR essay, where I asked some questions that needed to be addressed in future updates of Salter’s work, I now repeat and, in some cases, expand upon these here:-
1. Genetic patterns/combinations as genetic interests
This refers to genetic structure, and this has been discussed in detail already – e.g, here. This is a crucially important point that needs to be expanded. It can certainly be done theoretically and qualitatively based upon the known facts. A quantitative examination would require the services of an objective/sympathetic population geneticist (if such exists - doubtful today) and/or further studies about genetic structure and population differences in said structure. In any case, this topic needs to be addressed in future editions of On Genetic Interests.
2. Compare and contrast kinship genetic interests and adaptive genetic interests
Adaptive genetic interests can be renamed functional genetic interests, since the pursuit of kinship genetic interests IS , of course, adaptive and there is no clear distinction here.
Functional genetic interests are a subset of total genetic interests. A simplistic view would be:-
Total Genetic Interests = Kinship Genetic Interests + (Functional Genetic Interests – The Kinship Component of Functional Genetic Interests).
Simply put, kinship genetic interests are those genetic interests based upon relative kinship, independent upon the functional consequences of the gene sequences in question, while functional genetic interests focuses on how the gene sequences influence phenotype to make the individual and/or group more competitive, and more likely to pass on distinctive genetic information to the next generation.
Remember Lester Jones, the interesting social constructionist who troubled to engage with “Recititive” at the Guardian’s “Comment Is Free”? Alas, shortly after that conversation Recititive was despatched to the gulag by the Guardian mods. They do like to preserve the intellectual purity of their thought-world, and poor Recititive was judged altogether too polluting.
However, some very similar right-wing swine named “unsanctimonius” is playing with the fire of the mods instead, and today he had an encounter with the aforementioned Lester Jones. As there are one or two half-useful pointers to debating technique in it I will reproduce the goalmouth moments here:-
The thread followed on a very fine and interesting piece of writing about the illusion of leadership by the (I think) Marxist intellectual Jeremy Seabrook. It finished with this splendid observation:-
Power and privilege will always find ways round efforts to create economic and social justice. And so it has been in our time. The principal participants in the global theatre are increasingly masks of some gigantic harlequinade or Noh play. The script is pasted in the wings. It is their business to offer prospectuses of freedom and constant improvement to the people, to receive acclaim, to fail, and be scorned and repudiated for their venality and dishonesty. They know this. This is why they tend to expend so much effort providing against the time of their downfall; sometimes corruptly, usually within the loose limits placed upon their right to accumulate and prepare for the day when they will be hounded from power in defeat.
It is the ignoble shabbiness of their role that has created a highfalutin language of “governance”, “high office”, “senior politicians”, “veteran leaders”, “statesmen and women”; as well as the global babble about “transparency”, “accountability” and of course, the “empowerment” and “participation” of the people. The grandiose words are merely decorative. No one should be under any illusion about the emancipatory potential of Barack Obama, and nor should we be quite so vengeful over the shambling figure of Gordon Brown who strings together cliches much as our grandmothers knitted kettle-holders. Their destiny is to strut and fret their hour upon the stage, to exit and not mess with the decor.
“Unsanctimonious” duly praised Mr Seabrook thus (trolling ever so slightly, you understand):-
An informed and eloquent article in a desert of wrong-headedness. Thank you, Mr Seabrook.
However, you omit to mention that the power elite are not merely corporatists but are also coldly determined anti-nationalists whose primary assault on our lives is not economic but racial. The power elite is bound to attempt to kill the most stubborn and salient point of resistance to its absolutist ambition, which is the ancient European state tied to and defended by its people.
Nation-killing and race-replacement immigration - all wildly applauded by the dumb and self-loathing, universalist left - is a power elite crime against humanity. When are you, Mr Seabrook, going to break with your universalist principles and defend your people and their homeland against this attack?
And off we went. Lester Jones, defending his ideological turf next in the thread:-
“Big Brother” - the king of reality shows - is, they say, coming to the end of the road. But then along comes Obama to prove that our life as passive consumers of shallowness and narcissism is not over yet.
The 44th President of the United States, apparently, graced Britain with his presence on Friday - a busy schedule of private meetings and no more engagement with the public than the inevitable sight-seeing photo-calls and a quick appearance outside No.10 (the impudent demand to address both houses of Parliament having been rejected on grounds of protocol). That left little opportunity for we Brits to guage the exact degree of “greatness” Obama is supposed to have about him, falling from his lips and his fingertips like so much fairy gold. Just as well, really. We are in a politically carnivorousmood, and probably not well dispositioned towards snake-oil salesmen.
But not so the 200,000 “people of Berlin“ who renounced critical thinking to stand for 45 minutes and listen to what, I suppose, the American media will sell as Obama’s JFK moment.
Because every Democrat candidate has to lay claim to something of Kennedy. Jimmy Carter had his hairstyle.
Now, everyone should read Obama’s testimony to his own coming greatness and all-round magicality. So I reproduce the speech in its entirety here:-
“A new generation ... common humanity ... the greatest danger of all ... my father ... give our children back their future ... the moment to stand as one ... listen to each other ... keep the promise of equality and opportunity ... banish the scourge of AIDS in our time ... the road ahead will be long ... the walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrant cannot stand ... learn from each other ... Christian and Muslim and Jew ... aspirations are bigger ... America cannot turn inward ... will we welcome immigrants from different lands… trust each other ... this is the moment ... shun discrimination ... our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom ... you too know that yearning ... live free from fear and free from want ... Berlin ... people of”
There. I think I got it all.
Well, it flirts with a truckload of vacuity. Can’t deny that. Alright, there was some foreign policy substance: Obama wants to withdraw American forces from Iraq over a sixteen month period, though only to commit them to Afghanistan. Or possibly the Horn of Africa because, you know, what‘s happening down Darfur way shames the world, and America cannot turn inward. Etc. But getting out of Iraq is certainly a positive. And, though it wasn’t part of his speech, so is the left-Dem line on NAFTA that he has taken thusfar. But beyond these and a few other scarcely detailed policy hints, everything but everything is 100-octane aspiration. John Gast should be raised from the dead to paint it.
Now, obviously, it’s mighty tempting to swing a wrecking ball at anything that has 200,000 naïve Germans swooning over a junior American politician on a dais in Berlin. But let’s set temptation aside, and also cease accusing this poor man of shallowness, narcissism and having unfortunate ears. Instead, let’s consider what Obama-speak might portend for white America.
Several times over the days since his capture I’ve toyed with putting up a post about Radovan Karadžić. The angle would have been to speculate on his trial strategy ... on whether there really is forensic evidence for the Srebrenica massacre ... on whether the wider claims of a Bosnian genocide actually stand up ... on whether the issues will remain as clear as the prosecution would want, or whether the realities of Western geopolitics will be forced into the open, to overtake the moral standard. In a word, will Karadžić do what Milošević did prior to his death, and lead the Court by the evidential nose.
But the deeper I got into the researching the issues to a depth sufficient to float the intellectual boat, the more I learned how little I understood, or really have any likelihood of understanding, this extraordinarily dark and challenging event.
I did not understand the region and its peoples and their tremendously complex histories. I did not adequately understand the Bosnian War itself. I did not at all understand the legalities and precedent involved in bringing a case before The International Court of the Hague. I did, I felt, understand the geopolitics of Nato in Bosnia and of the importance to the West’s interests in Serbia of bringing Karadžić and Mladić to “justice”. But it wasn’t enough. Discretion won and I deleted my notes.
Karadžić, however, remains a charismatic and slippery figure, comic in his disguise but also admirable in the roguish but resourceful way he lived. But he still has that word “Nationalism” attached to him and his, we are told, pitiless, genocidal deeds. For us it is an unjust attachment because Nationalism is not that, but is something born of love. Still, those who strive to darken Europe at dawn don’t baulk at such distinctions nor hesitate to use the spectre of Karadžić the War Criminal for their purposes.
We are bound to respond in some way, and this post - a not-post, really - must suffice. Feel free to broach the issue however you please.
Apparently, you and I are criminals. Or possible animals. I never got to find out which.
Yesterday at midnight in multicultural Greenwich - the Observational one, not the beatified Mr Ginsberg’s - erstwhile MR luminary JWH alerted me to a rather Sub-Condescending thread at GNXP. Ever the sharp-eye, he had already posted on it at Western Biopolitics (which, if it isn’t already a staple read for you guys, darn well should be). He thought I should get up to speed.
So here’s the gist.
Godless Capitalist, co-founder of GNXP and the attack-dog of South Asian cognitive elitism in the Kwa, took it upon himself to contribute to a GNXP thread on Steve Sailer’s self-promoting VDare review of Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam’s book, Grand New Party. THE political book of 2008, apparently. Anyway, I will return to it shortly. First, let’s deal with gc.
Now, both Douthat and Salam - a “Bangladeshi-American” like Razib Khan - are editors at TheAtlantic.com. Douthat had put up a couple of posts on Sailer’s review, the threads to both of which degenerated into the usual, pointless argument with difference-deniers and the kind of mental dross which manages to make every third word “racist”.
On July 10th Razib - he, we must presume, of the vindictive inter-racial porn link - posted a short entry headed Sailer on Grand New Party. The thread to this post also got a bit stuck on sticking it to the racially-aware white American - but in that special GNXP way, since the Sub-Con cognitive elitist’s promulgation of human difference is what makes him cognitively elite. In this spirit Razib unburdened himself of the under-capitalised observation that:-
i don’t think ethnic nationalism is malevolent as such. but it has been pathologized among white americans to such an extent that a disproportionate number attracted to white (as opposed to irish or scottish or whatever) identity tend to have bizarre and unattractive personalities.
Now, a dispassionate, socially scientific mind encountering this unpleasant point of view for the first time might, having established that black racial consciousness and Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism are flourishing all over, ask itself whether “ethnic nationalism” has really been pathologized, or just white racial consciousness. And if it is the latter, why? And by whom?
Well, by Razib and gc, for one. Er, two. Here’s the latter’s response to his pal:-
I will begin with a confession. I haven’t kept up sufficiently with the growth of bioethics in American colleges. I seem to remember a few years ago reading about the setting up of special “bioethics” departments. MR touched upon the issue here.
Hardly surprisingly, our take on it then was that the liberal-left and Jewish ethno-centric reactionaries were instituting a strategy to control any damage that genetic science could do to the lovingly-constructed lie of “Race Does Not Exist (and if it does, It Does Not Matter)”.
Ten days ago Stanford University came forward with a portentous set of “Ten Commandments” on race and genetics. The Stanford Group of, yes, ten not overly Jewish hard and soft science folk issued it in the form of a letter. There have been many responses to it, but not much that I’ve seen from the radical end of the market. So I thought I would pitch in.
The ethics of characterizing difference: guiding principles on using racial categories in human genetics
Statement 1: We believe that there is no scientific basis for any claim that the pattern of human genetic variation supports hierarchically organized categories of race and ethnicity
The equality of rights of all human beings is an unquestionable, moral claim that cannot be challenged by descriptive, scientific findings. As a normative commitment, equality is fundamental to our conception of human rights, and is not open to debate. Classification by racial and ethnic categories has, at particular moments in history, been used to further racist ideology. In view of concerns that linking of emerging genetic data and race/ethnicity categories may promote racist ideologies, we emphasize that there is no scientific basis for any claim that the pattern of human genetic variation supports hierarchically ranked categories of race or ethnicity. Furthermore, we abhor any use of genetic data to reinforce the idea of between-group difference in order to benefit one group to the detriment of another.
Let’s rewrite that. All seats are created equal. Discrimination against a comfy settee because it doesn’t perform well on shooting expeditions is seatist and against the all-conquering morality of Seat Rights. Intolerance of any design of seat is intolerable. And will not be tolerated. Obviously.
Well, I’m sorry to be flippant. But, really, how is one to react when ten learned men and women adumbrate for months over their supposedly seminal and morally Olympian task and come up with … that trash. Frankly, I am embarrassed even to have to take it seriously for the purposes of this response. There is no ethics here, just tenured Nazoid fantasy.
The simple response to give, of course, would be to state that equal treatment under the law is all any person or group requires or deserves. Oh yes, and maybe make it clear that equality is not a moral value at all, never mind an unquestionable one. It is, in this present context, a rank refusal to measure Man, made for the purposes of maintaining a political deception.
First impressions have turned out to be right, and bioethics is revealed precisely as the deceitful, faux-moral left inveigling itself into the scientific process to still-birth inconvenient findings. But no matter. Knowledge is far superior to, say, wealth redistribution or culture war, and this garbage is nothing better than anti-science.
In 1927 Carl Schmitt wrote in The Concept of the Political “Ethical or moral pathos and materialist economic reality combine in every typical liberal manifestation and give every political concept a double face.” For “economic“ substitute “racial”, and observe the two-faces of liberalism - the claimant to high principle and the wilful wrecker of our European life.
Statement 2: We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population
Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups, where those groups are defined in terms of linguistic, geographic, and cultural boundaries. Patterns of variation, however, are far from random. We recognize that human population history, including major migrations from one continent to another as well as more short-range movements, has led to correlation between genetic variation and geographic distribution. This finding is particularly true of indigenous peoples; populations characterized by a high degree of interaction with neighboring groups adhere less to these patterns.
Well, thank you very much. I think! But let’s get it out in the open, shall we? Do two Icelanders have more DNA in common with yeast than with each other? Perhaps. But it doesn’t matter, because Icelanders are Icelanders and yeast is yeast. What matters genetically is what makes one an Icelander and the other only yeast. Or Han. Or Bantu. Difference is what matters. Difference is what we value and understand, and live to advance. Difference is the product of adaptivity, without which there would be no science, nor would there be Man, nor life.
Evolution and reproduction, and the combination of the two in natural selection, are the great tricks by which life arose and clung on in the margins. Who can say how many hundreds of thousands of times it was generated, only to disappear again before these tricks were incorporated within? Denying their value, and the value of the distinctiveness which they engender, is more than anti-science. It is anti-human, anti-life. Until recently, the scientific Marxoid left did exactly that. But now it has to admit that it can’t get away with it any more.
Incompatibility is an issue somewhat at the heart of the analysis on these pages. But incompatibility came back to haunt us on Thursday when an argument developed between an automatically updated software component and the basic system we run. The updated component won and took us off-line.
My apologies for that, and the inordinate amount of time wasted while I looked for a solution in all the wrong places - not, I hope, a characteristic of anything else that goes on here. Anyhow JR resolved the problem within three hours of getting involved, and here we are again.
[From the BPP NATIONALIST WEEK SPECIAL REPORT - 16th July 2008 ]
THE ‘HERETICAL 2’ CLAIM POLITICAL ASYLUM IN THE USA!
Contrary to reports that Simon Sheppard and Steve Whittle had jumped bail to live on a beach in Thailand, the truth has now emerged as to their exact whereabouts: Sheppard and Whittle are being held by the INS (the American Immigration and Naturalization Service) at LAX (Los Angeles International Airport) after claiming political asylum on arrival. Help from local comrades is being organised in terms of solidarity, and legal advice.
Race-hate pair flee to US for political asylum
Yorkshire Post, 16 July 2008
By Rob Preece
Exclusive
TWO men convicted of publishing race-hate articles on the internet have skipped bail and fled to the United States to claim political asylum, the Yorkshire Post can reveal. Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle were given bail by a judge at Leeds Crown Court on Friday, despite having been found guilty of a series of race-related offences. The pair were due to return to court on Monday while a jury continued deliberating over further charges, but they failed to show up. Last night Sheppard, 51, and Whittle, 41, were being held by immigration officials at Los Angeles Airport ? outside the jurisdiction of the British court system.....
The book Before The Dawn: Recovering The Lost History Of Our Ancestors by Nicholas Wade, 2006, has some interesting observations with regards to European evolution that seems to have passed without much notice. If not, then I apologize for my own failure to catch the items below.
Wade pints out that “The question of behavioral modernity is of great significance because it appears to be the last major step in the emergence of the ancestral human population. The components of modern behavior appear most prominently around 45,000 years ago in Europe. At sites throughout Europe, the staid culture of the Neanderthals begins to yield to a set of new and more inventive techniques. There is a new set of stone tools, more carefully crafted to attain specific shapes. There are complex tools made of bone, antler and ivory. The bringers of the new culture made personal ornaments, of materials such as punctured teeth, shells and ivory beads. They played bird-bone flutes. Their missile technology was much improved. They were avid hunters who could take down large and dangerous game. They buried their dead with rituals. They could support denser populations. They developed trade networks through which they obtained distant materials.”
Postcard from Zinnlandia
From the desk of Takuan Seiyo on Fri, 2008-07-11 22:37
I am on the MAX Red Line light rail car going from downtown Portland to the Airport. Some things socialists do better. Among them are public transportation, recycling, French poetry readings, yoga, coffee, artisan food and arthouse cinema. Would it that the counterscale were not so much more loaded.
Two hefty women in Birkenstocks and Nordic sweaters sit on the bench in front of me. They are either academics or lesbians or both. Portland is a babe magnet for this kind of babes.
