For those of you who are disgusted by sites like GNXP, and aren’t familiar with R. A. Fonda’s work, you might like looking at his site:

http://rafonda.com/

I won’t put too many words in his mouth but he’s basically been holding the line on the multiregional hypothesis against the out of Africa hypothesis.

To clarify this:  He isn’t denying that the genus Homo, from which humans evolved, originated in Africa.  He’s saying that any such “out of Africa” scenario is far more ancient, and more distantly related to modern humans, than is posited by the out of Africa hypothesis normally bandied about, and that modern humans are much more a product of “plural lineages” possessing far more genes from far more ancient, locally-evolved populations than is predicted by the out of Africa hypothesis.

If the multiregional hypothesis is true, and a reason why it is so resisted in the theocracy’s seminaries mislabeled “academia”, is that it would mean race mixing is a more risky experiment than we have heretofore been taught, and that preservation of races is also more important.

Instead of regressing to narrow xenophobia, it is time to build on the Human Rights Act. The aim of our British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities will be to clarify and explain the obligations which come with rights

Jack Straw, writing in the Telegraph subsequent to Gordon Brown’s speech on Thursday announcing this forthcoming Bill of Rights and Duties.

Because liberty as it is pursued today contains not a single seed of European survival, I spend a good deal of my thinking time trying to undermine its centrality to political life.  The problem, of course, is that Man is not perfect, and the least perfect of men seem to proliferate among those ambitious for power.  Some restraint on power, then, is essential for an equitable life.  In feudal Germany there was the Comitatus.  In our time there is democracy, and there are the Bills of Rights.

But democracy has spawned a traitorous, internationalist power elite that authors all our political misfortunes.  It denies us recognition of who we are or what unites us, so thereby it can remove from us ownership of that true guarantor of survival: our homelands.

In Britain, as Jack Straw states, this treachery is to be codified in a redefinition of the rights enshrined in the English constitution since the Bill of Rights of 1689.  Crucially, this redefinition will be cast from the Human Rights Act 1998 - specifically, one expects, from the qualifications to Article 10 on freedom of expression and to Article 11 on freedom of association and assembly, and from Article 14 on prohibition of discrimination.

This will be a highly positive (or governmentally prescribed) dispensation of rights, there being little or no sign of the negative rights enshrined in America’s Bill of Rights.  Straw’s reference to responsibilities is perfectly clear.  Big government will coerce us to deny our true self as the people of England, and to be, instead, the MultiCult.  This is a duty to die – eagerly if possible or, at worst, unknowingly.

Keen to discover more about our forthcoming new duty I consulted the words of the Prime Minister Who Is Not Tony Blair, as they were spoken at the University of Westminster, Thursday 25 October 2007, and appear now on the Labour Party website.

The speech is quite refreshingly free from the usual political-aspirational double-talk.  It makes a serious play for academic learning but, happily, is a little too self-serving and reverse-reasoned to succeed.  Its historical references are there solely to represent British history as the midwife not only of liberty but all the exotica of postmodern tolerance.  Everyone from John Milton to Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs gets pulled into the effort.  Thereby the dour son of the manse steadfastly dilutes the heady, 70% proof intoxicant of real liberty - after all, drunkards tend to be free with their tongues, and freedom of speech is something no postmodern Prime Minister can allow.  He establishes to his own satisfaction, at least, that England is the home of happy anti-racism and, naturally, we all want much more of it.

Here, in his own words, is how he picks his path to that goal:-

READ MORE...

I submitted a rather interesting story to digg.com but then it disappeared from the search results for “ron paul”.  No, it wasn’t simply “buried”—it was taken off the results of searches that included “buried” stories!

Evidence is in the screen shots provided herein.

UPDATE 5:30PM PST:  It has reappeared in the search results…

Oh, and happy Halloween!

READ MORE...

A Jewish woman:

somehow ended up the chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, despite being exposed as a probable agent of a foreign country—you’ll never guess which foreign country (unless you need to be sent to a mental institution for mandatory treatment of your paranoia which is so severe you’ve become a danger to yourself and others—so watch yourself).

So what does this Jewish woman do with her power to make us more “secure”? 

She establishes a “National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism” to study and report “who and how someone could become radicalized to the point of inflicting mass casualties on their neighbors and communities”.

Wouldn’t it be poetic justice if the minute Bush signs this into law, a violent revolution erupts?  I know—not likely—but I’ve been training a dog to behave himself recently and it does seem that I have to follow the target behavior very quickly with reinforcement for our communication to succeed.

Fortunately, humans have evolved this little thing called language to communicate more efficiently—or at least that’s what we hope it does…. so here goes:

Hey, B*tch, let me save you the effort and the taxpayers much money, confusion and persecution:

Its “people” like you.

You with your paranoid control freakish demands of “Is it safe?  Is it safe?  Is it safe?”

Inquisitions which you then project:

Project, literally as well as figuratively, onto the retinas, hence amygdalas, of our people in a never ending stream of Big Lie after Big Lie.

So now, you have helped your tribe acquire what it so compulsively and skillfully sought: More and more control over more and more aspects of society.  The result?  To quote Dustin Hoffman:

“It’s not safe.”

Compare the video of the actual contestants in this year’s Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge 2007 held at the X-Prize Cup starting tomorrow and compare it to this fictional video:

portraying the winners hoped-for by the sponsors of the recently announced Google Lunar X-Prize—a video that conforms to the standards for “ethnic diversity” in public relations images previously described here at MR.

The disparity is made even more poignant by virtue of the fact that the Google Lunar X-Prize is offering an added bonus prize for maximizing the ethnic and gender diversity of the winning team.

After all, its only “fair”.

I find it rather interesting that the history of using incentives for private competition to spur space development is largely erased from Google’s Usenet archives, as can be seen by doing a search for my name in the space discussion groups in the years prior to the International Space University’s support of prize incentives.  My posts from that era—frequently in conflict with ISU’s principles, are mostly (I’d guess something like 90%) missing from Google’s archives.

Several years ago, when I was researching the post-war history of Germany and the establishment of the Federal Republic, I found a library copy of Aidan Crawley’s Spoils of the War: The Rise of Western Germany 1945-1972.  It’s out of print these days.  But it was a good read, an eye-witness testimony mostly of the administration of the British Zone of Occupation, where Crawley was stationed.

Still, this was the first time I had read in any detail of the rapine onslaught of the Red Army, and the terrible conditions in the West visited upon the German civil population.  Their daily ration of calories was lower than that fixed by the SS for camp inmates.  Yet the Army threw good food away because they could not eat it all, and forbade locals from scavenging for it.  Crawley witnessed the spread of tuberculosis among the ruins and, inadequately treated, the toll it claimed through the terrible winter of 1946/7.

He savaged the French administration to the north for their staging of insanely grandiloquent military displays, the purpose of which was to teach the German dogs how a cultured victor behaves.  Meanwhile, of course, the dogs were starving.

But the French, as always, were of passing importance.  It was for the Americans, and most especially the high American hand in policy for all three zones, that he reserved his greatest ire.  He deplored the treatment of German soldiers, and did not shrink from calling the worst of it torture.  He railed, too, at the American insistence on reparations - in effect ripping out every worthwhile industrial machine and denying the people any chance of much-needed, normal economic activity.

Crawley, an exceptional man, died penniless in 1993 and amid much personal tragedy, which has continued to stalk his family in the years since.  I am glad, though, that he wrote Spoils of the War and helped introduce me to this extraordinary time in Europe’s history.

In April this year, though, another, weightier book was published about the same period.  It is After the Reich: From the Liberation of Vienna to the Berlin Airlift by Giles Macdonogh.  The Telegraph reviewed it on 18th April:-

READ MORE...

Keen cuckoo clock observers will no doubt be aware of Sunday’s election in the gun-toting, bank-ridden concantenated canton-nation called Switzerland.  The result was a resounding success for billionaire industrialist Christoph Blocher’s Swiss People’s Party, and for white sheep everywhere.

The SVP already holds two of the seven seats on the ruling Federal Council, and is the largest party in the bicameral parliament.  As forecast it increased its share of the poll from 27.7% to 29%, continuing its steady progress from the 22% base won in 1999.

Ueli Maurer (who is, in fact, party leader - not Blocher) said, “We have reached the highest score ever since this electoral system began.”

This is impressive by any nationalist measure, and compares with the solid if, now, unspectacular success of Vlaams Belang in Flemish Belgium.  Notwithstanding the SVP’s entrenchment within the power structure, and its consequent and enviable freedom to speak only a lightly varnished truth, there are some interesting parallels between the two parties.

Both present a substantially Conservative - not overtly racial nationalist - prospectus to the electorate.  Both have a spiritual disconnection with their French-speaking social democratic fellow-nationals.  Both have to play the self-righteous left’s game and deny that they are “racist”, and are pilloried all the same:-

But the SVP has its share of power in the most democratic country in Europe, and it shows in campaign policies like:-

Foreign residents who commit crimes in Switzerland should be expelled after serving their sentences. If they are minors, the parents should be expelled with them.

The construction of minarets - the traditional tower of a mosque - should be forbidden in Switzerland.

When foreign residents of a commune want to acquire Swiss citizenship, the commune should continue to have the right to put their applications to a popular vote.

Foreigners who do not learn the language of the area in which they are resident must leave the country.

The party will surely now claim a mandate to push forward with these ideas.  It will be interesting to see to what extent it succeeds.

A libertarian world would reach an equilibrium where there were a number of human ecologies occupying land held in trust for the posterity of the founders of the respective ecologies.  Within each such land trust a way of life compatible with its ecology would be pursued.  They would tend to be exclusive of other ways of life due to interdependencies within the ecology.  And while they will have varying degrees of population exchange with other human ecologies, all will be partially inbred to varying degrees—coevolving, over the span of generations, genetic as well as cultural adaptations.  In more traditional terms, these land trusts are known as “nations”—natives of a human ecology deriving a way of life from the nature of their land’s ecology.  Many of these human ecologies would have property rights upheld within them to varying degrees, just as extended families will tend to have varying degrees of reciprocal vs kin altruism governing their family’s affairs—varying degrees of debt/bankruptcy forgiveness, etc.

The reason libertarianism reaches this equilibrium, of land trusts that control entry of others to their land, is the same reason anyone controls entry of others to their land:  To prevent damage—in this case damage to the human ecology and possibly the natural ecology of the land trust.  A shallow libertarian answer to such ecological concerns is reliance on Tort law to remediate ecological damage resulting from open borders.  This is inadequate, not just because “an ounce of prevention”, “a stitch in time”, etc., but because the jury in a tort case is required to not only understand the plantiff’s causal hypothesis of damage to his ecology, but to agree with it.  Ecological interactions are highly complex and teasing apart causation is very difficult, frequently requiring experimental controls.  If it were easy, then central planning of a “scientific state” would work much better than it does.  No—we are mere humans left adrift in a mysterious world with our own views on how the world operates at the level of human ecologies—on how cause and effect are related.  We may even see the same ecological correlations but then we are all subject not only to the fact that correlation doesn’t imply causation, but to what statisticians call “the ecological fallacy” which prevents us from drawing strong inferences merely from observing ecological correlations—assuming we can even gather the data.

This is why Federalism must allow voluntary internal controls on migration: the very limits on human knowledge in the face of nature demand that our laboratory of the States—of human ecologies—of nations—have borders protecting the integrity of experimental controls while maintaining the fundamental ethical requirement that experimentation on human subjects must be by mutual consent.