Thursday, August 29, 2013

The Final Solution

The solution proposed by white nationalists.
Nazi Germany claimed that the solution to the "Jew problem" was to simply get rid of the Jews by any means necessary. The neo-Nazis of today and even white nationalists who deny being racist, are no different.

There seem to be two modes of thought for white nationalists on this issue:
  1. If you're a white nationalist who claims to not be racist, and tries to distance yourself from supremacist/neo-Nazi ideology, then just ignore the fact that relocating legal citizens of any country against their will, based solely on their phylogenetic traits, is a breach of human rights. 

  2.  If you're a supremacist/neo-Nazi, embrace it.

Both of these mentalities are highly ironic, considering how they like to constantly whine that their human rights are being infringed upon, and many claim they aren't even racist, and yet, this is their most popular solution: one which violates human rights.
Before I continue I'd like to mention another new blogger/vlogger dedicated to social justice.

This is Sam Owl. He has a great Youtube channel, which even features a lengthy debate with a prominent BUGS member (an online white nationalist organization: it apparently stands for "Bob's Underground Graduate Seminar"; "Bob" as in Bob Whitaker, the guy who wrote The Mantra).

Please subscribe to him and follow him on social media.
You can also find these links in the "affiliates" bar I've added to the right.
So, it's no secret that white nationalists hate Jews and non-white people. What do they really want though? They whine endlessly about Jew overlords, black single moms, illegal Mexicans in the United States, Arabs in Europe, but do they actually have any ideas about what to do about it?

Unfortunately, they do.

Here's what happens when Stormfront gets together to brainstorm:

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know about you, but this looks like a very effective strategy. Just barbecue, make t-shirts, and spread info! Oh yeah, and start World War 3! It's just that easy! I am so intimidated right now!

The neo-Nazis are making t-shirts! Lock your doors and windows!
Well, let's get down to the heart of the matter, and the subject of this post: assuming they had their way, what do they really think should be done with the Jews and non-white folks?

Oh haw haw, you are so funny! Genocide is hilarious, isn't it?

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of religion, but don't you think it's a bit naive for you to assume that people will just forget their religion just because the texts no longer exist?

Oh yeah, typically Jewish things are horrible.

DISGUSTING! Every time I see Jews playing dreidel, I hate them a little bit more.

Le gasp! Even black people would be allowed to help you? Wow, how generous of you! I'm not sure how many would want to, seeing as you just gave away your intent to get rid of them too on a public internet forum, but hey, we ought to give you credit for making such a generous exception to your racism, right?

Aww, well since you said it so politely with a smiley face, I guess you aren't so bad :)

So are there any white nationalists who don't support genocide?

Hmm. Here's one quoting Ezra Pound:

Oh I get it, we don't need to kill them, we just need to treat them like second-class citizens. Whew, I was worried for a second that this was just gonna be another cruel and inhumane idea.

Alright, so that's their "solution" for Jews. What about other groups they hate? Do they really think it's even physically possible to eradicate everybody they don't like, or do they have a variety of clever ideas going?

I would like to pay them with lead. For those not familiar with gun slang, this lovely individual is saying he wants to shoot all American black people. So I guess white genocide is bad, but any other genocide is totally cool? I guess it's too much to ask of racists to not be hypocrites.

Are these people joking? Honestly, they'll claim all day that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites (that's a topic for another post), but they don't seem able to display any thinking skills beyond a 2nd grade level. I'm not really seeing a lot of high-powered intellectual action here, despite their constant claims to intellectual superiority.

Seriously: do I really need to point out that AIDS doesn't only affect black people? What kind of person makes a claim like that? And you're also implying that curing it is a bad thing? And coonthrax? Really? Why don't you go lynch somebody while you're at it? We all know the only reason you didn't write niggerthrax is because Stormfront automatically censors it (aww, how considerate of them).

Here's a nice individual who simply wants to benevolently "free" the blacks. Gosh, that would be a legitimate idea if it wasn' know...a violation of basic human rights.

It's especially funny to see racists who live in the United States, Australia, or South Africa, whine about immigrants and non-whites: according to their own logic, they should pack up and move back to Europe, right?

Oh okay, so you'll admit it's completely illogical to deport blacks out of South Africa, but you want it to happen anyway. You just can't stand people with negligibly different DNA being near you, even if by your own logic, you're in their country. You're just too lazy to go back to your "ancestral homeland".

What about the United States? Is anybody really stupid enough to argue it somehow belongs to whites?

Oh, that's rich. So Europe belongs to whites because it's your "ancestral homeland", and you don't like non-whites being there because their ancestors aren't native there, and they weren't evolved to live there, blah blah blah, right?

But America belongs to whites, not the Native Americans, because whites created it?

That's a nice vague cop-out and actually self-contradictory. Here you stand, saying whites created the America we know today, so ergo it belongs to whites, and yet you pay no mind to the fact that the whites did not build it alone. You also ignore the fact that the Native Americans had a culture, had societies, and built things on the land, and yet you outright deny that they have any right to it. So...only white people have a right to inherit things? Why is that? Why am I even asking...I know there can't possibly be a logical answer.

What happened to the argument that a geographic area belongs to people who are indigenous and who's ancestors were there before anybody else's ancestors? I guess we just ignore that when it comes to the United States, huh?

So what, exactly, do the white nationalists propose be done with the native peoples?

How nice of you.

I can't help but think, that if a bunch of non-whites migrated to white-majority countries, you guys would turn around and immediately say they have no right to be there. Oh yeah, you already do that!

And yet, when it's the other way around, white people immigrating to non-white-majority locations, well, that's perfectly fine. Right, okay.

So what happens to mixed-race people in the midst of all this wonderful ethnic cleansing?


To any racists (white nationalists) reading this: my "comments" section of this blog are not moderated. If you feel I've misinterpreted or unfairly represented your ideology here, feel free to correct me. If this is all incorrect and you all don't really want to commit genocide against all the Jews and non-whites, tell me what your real solution is. Don't be shy.

By the way, how exactly are these genocides/deportations supposed to be carried out? How do you delusional psychopaths expect to actually reach this goal? Quite frankly, there aren't enough of you to stand up against all those who would oppose you, and none of you are powerful enough to convince masses of people to join you. And then, even if you get enough people, you still need...guns, or whatever else you plan on using to defeat all the people you don't like. How are you going to afford all that and organize all that manpower? With t-shirt sales, or something?

And how do you know that weapons suppliers or any other services you need wouldn't deny you service? What if you needed to get black market supplies? And then you need to consider the fact that the FBI would probably get involved at this point...I just don't see how this stupid plan is possible.

And yeah, Hitler did it, and many others did it, but typically it's from positions of political power...none of you could ever hope to get elected president/prime minister of anywhere though, since people who actually agree with your ideology are a fringe minority. And then even if you did...remember what happened to Hitler? It didn't end well. So...honestly your plan appears to have a lot of holes in it (correct me if I'm wrong).

Finally, I'd like to ask a legitimate question about all this.

Let's assume the white nationalist wet dream happened: Jews and non-whites (oh, and race-traitors, homosexuals, transgenders, liberals/marxists, whites who disagree with you/"anti-whites") are gone from "white countries". What is left?

I'll tell you what's left: a bunch of self-righteous, paranoid genocidal maniacs. You really think a society like that would be so great? A society made of people who all think exactly alike and believe in the same ideologies? A society of people who think something as natural as immigration is genocide, but killing and otherwise removing people from an area who may have lived there for many generations, isn't genocide? Or if it is, it's somehow justified?

That's all for now.

Thanks for reading and please comment, share, and follow. And don't forget to also follow Sam Owl on Youtube, Tumblr, and Twitter.


  1. Explain why racism is bad when homogeneous countries are much more prosperous and peaceful than mixed countries?

    1. That's simply not true.

      Uganda, for example, is very homogeneous, and not nearly as prosperous and peaceful as, say, Australia, Brazil, the United States, the United Kingdom, etc.

      The most prosperous and peaceful countries in the world are Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and yes, and these are very homogeneous countries. The reason for their success, however, is not their homogeneity. Correlation does not equal causation.

      The United States and Australia are "mixed" countries and enjoy very high standards of living (according to the UN Human Development Index), higher than many homogeneous countries, like Hungary, Japan, Estonia, Uganda, etc.

      If homogeneity was the cause of prosperity and peacefulness, we would see these two factors neatly correlated all the time: the US, Australia, Brazil, the UK, and other countries with high immigration rates, would always be less successful than Japan, Uganda, Estonia, and homogeneous countries. However, this isn't the case.

  2. You are forgetting an important factor: race. You cant compare black countries with white countries. Everybody knows that blacks are less intelligent than anybody else.

    1. No, there's no objective evidence or proof which supports that. Blacks are not less intelligent than anybody else.

      Also you just completely ignored everything I said. Again, if homogeneity was the direct cause of prosperity and peacefulness in a nation, then we would always see this neatly correlated, and "mixed" countries would always have a lower standard of living than homogeneous countries. However, again, this just isn't true. "Mixed" countries such as the US and Australia enjoy higher standards of living than many homogeneous "white" countries.

  3. 1. Unfortunately there is overwhelming objective evidence that they are, even without the scientific evidence. We've seen over and over that they are incapable to maintain a modern society on their own. Detroit, Haiti, Africa.

    2. US and Australia enjoyed higher standards of living before the third world immigration began.

    3. Criminality skyrocketed in every white country after the third world immigration began.

    4. Western countries were always most advanced than eastern European countries but they have still higher standards than African countries. There is no comparison.

    5. Homogeneity is just one factor of prosperity and peacefulness in a nation the other one is race which is closely correlated with intelligence.

    1. 1. No, citing Detroit, Haiti, and "Africa" is not objective because that's not representative of ALL black societies. It's also incorrect, since you cite "Africa", even though there have been lots of successful societies in Africa.

      You completely ignore the Kingdom of Kush, the Mali Empire, the Ashanti Empire, the Benin Empire, the Nok people of Nigeria, and the Zulu Empire. Therefore, your claim that black people are incapable of maintaining society is without sufficient proof, and is debunked by the existence of the societies I just listed. Please cite objective proof to support your claim next time.

      2. The US and Australia are "mixed" countries. According to your ideology, they should have lower standards of living than all homogeneous white countries. However, this is not the case. Both the US and Australia currently have a higher standard of living than Finland and Northern Ireland, which are two of the most racially homogeneous countries in Europe. If white racial homogeneity was a direct cause of success, then Northern Ireland and Finland would have higher standards of living than the US and Australia. But they don't.

      3. So? What's your point? Criminality also skyrocketed when the Spanish and Portuguese invaded South America in the 1500s, and when the British invaded Australia. The cause of criminality is not race.

      4. No, that's not true. Western countries were not always more advanced than Eastern European countries. The Ottoman Empire, during its existence, was way more advanced than anything going on in the Americas at the time, and was more successful than a lot of non-Eastern European societies (such as the British Isles and Scandinavia). The only Western European civilization it could be compared to is the Spanish Empire. And although the Ottoman Empire wasn't quite as large as the Spanish Empire, did have a comparable degree of success in other ways. Russian civilizations included parts of Eastern Europe and also enjoyed varying degrees of success.

      5. No, there's no proof that homogeneity is a factor of prosperity and peacefulness in a nation. If this were true, then Finland would be more prosperous than the US or Australia, but it isn't. Also, this would mean that homogeneous societies are always less violent, but this isn't the case at all. The Comanche were a tribe of Native American people who were extremely brutal and violent to other groups of people, including other Native Americans. Also, when Britain invaded Australia, they were very violent to the Australian Aboriginals.

      Also, there is no hard evidence or proof whatsoever that race is correlated with intelligence, sorry.

      Please use only facts next time you post. Thanks.

  4. Good job Caribou, very impressive!

  5. 1. I was talking about modern societies not ancient ones. You were citing only ancient societies. The lots of successful "modern" societies in Africa are all were build by whites and when the whites moved out they collapsed.

    2. You are comparing apples and oranges. You contrast a small country Finland with the most powerful country in the world. I thought it was evident that the wealth of a country is a factor also in its standards of living. I didn't think I had to mention something so obvious.

    3. Again apples and oranges. You are comparing criminality in a country in peace time with conquest of land. They have nothing in common.

    4. I was talking about white Eastern European countries but doesn't matter I don't think that the Ottoman Empire was more advanced any time that Western countries yet let's not meander there cause that could be another long debate.

    I am using common sense facts it's you who are refusing to see them.

    1. 1. Why do the ancient ones mean absolutely nothing to you?

      Also, just because you don't see successful modernization in Africa does not mean that they are incapable of it. Correlation does NOT equal causation. That's like saying a woman must not be capable of being US President just because we've never seen one do it yet. To make this conclusion based on such a severe lack of evidence is anti-intellectual and academically dishonest.

      2. So if comparing homogeneous countries with "mixed" countries is apples and oranges, why did you compare them in your original comment? This is what you said: "Explain why racism is bad when homogeneous countries are much more prosperous and peaceful than mixed countries?"

      All I did was cite exceptions to your claim that homogeneous countries are much more prosperous than mixed ones. What did you actually mean to claim, if it wasn't that homogeneous countries are much more prosperous than mixed ones? Please clarify.

      Oh, and you ignored my point that homogeneous societies not more peaceful than mixed ones whatsoever...the Comanche were ethnically homogeneous and terrorized the American West in the 1800s and early 1900s, horrifically torturing and murdering men, women, AND children. And the British terrorized Australia, and the Spanish terrorized South America. White homogeneity does NOT = peaceful.

      Also According to you, success of a nation is directly caused by race, so shouldn't all the white countries be the most rich? How did "mixed" countries get so rich if being "mixed" is so bad in every way? How did the US get so powerful despite it being "mixed"? You claimed that homogeneous countries are always more successful than mixed ones, so you're being contradictory.

      3. My point still stands that the cause of criminality is not race. You haven't cited anything which proves otherwise.

      4. I was talking about white Eastern European countries too: the Ottoman Empire had territory in white Eastern Europe.

      Please elaborate on why you don't think the Ottoman Empire was more advanced than Western countries. Because in fact, when the Ottoman Empire had already conquered and ruled a huge amount of land and peoples, the United States didn't even EXIST yet, the "new world" was only just beginning to be colonized by Europeans.

      Also, the Ottoman Empire was in fact more powerful than Scandinavia AND Great Britain at certain points in history, since the inception of the Ottoman Empire predates the rise of the British Empire. And even after the British Empire existed, the Ottoman Empire still sustained itself into the early 1900s.

      If you're using "common sense facts" then why do you represent such a fringe minority group of people? By definition "common sense" ought to be "common", right?

      You haven't really used any facts, either. You've only stated your OPINION, but no facts. You haven't proven that homogeneous countries are more successful than mixed ones, or that race causes success in a nation, or that homogeneous societies are less violent, or that race causes differences in intelligence. All you've done is state your OPINIONS about these. Opinions aren't facts.

    2. OK, I stay with your example US vs Finland.

      List of countries by intentional homicide rate:

      US = 14,748
      Finland = 118

      There aren't any no-go zones for Whites in Finland. No 500 per year murder capital cities in Finland either. No Chuck E. Cheese brawls and no ghettos/slums either. No Finnish cities have gone bankrupt like Detroit. No gang warfare in Finland that I know of.

      Are you still sure that the multicultural US is more peaceful than Finland?

    3. You know I responded to your other claims, right? Do you have anything to say to those points I made?


      1. Why do the ancient ones mean absolutely nothing to you?

      Also, just because you don't see successful modernization in Africa does not mean that they are incapable of it.

      2. So if comparing homogeneous countries with "mixed" countries is apples and oranges, why did you compare them in your original comment?

      3. My point still stands that the cause of criminality is not race. You haven't cited anything which proves otherwise.

      4. I was talking about white Eastern European countries too: the Ottoman Empire had territory in white Eastern Europe.

      You can see the full points above where I originally responded to you.

      Why are you only choosing to fixate on my Finland vs. US claim? Fine though, I'll humor you.

      I was basing my claim that the US has a higher standard of living on the "Human Development Index", in reference to your claim that homogeneous countries are more successful than mixed ones. I wasn't talking about murder rate or "peacefulness". Furthermore, I'm quite open to the possibility that Finland has a higher standard of living than the US and that the "Human Development Index" is wrong, or that there are various ways to measure the standard of living or success in a nation.

      So what is your point anyway? Finland might be more peaceful than the US, and the reason for that is homogeneity? Sorry, but where's your proof? You cannot cite correlations as if they are PROOF: correlation does NOT equal causation. Furthermore, OTHER correlations go completely against your claim, such as the fact that some racially homogeneous white societies HAVE been extremely violent and not very peaceful at all.

      I can do the same thing but to the opposite effect, by citing the genocide of the aboriginal Australian people by the British. I could point to that and say "the British did this to the Australians because they were a racially homogeneous white nation", but that's completely anti-logical, because I'm jumping to the conclusion that because the behavior and race happen to be correlated, that the race is the CAUSE of the behavior. If I did that wouldn't you be rather indignant, because you can readily see that this conclusion is irrational and without sufficient objective evidence? Yet, you're using the same fallacious logic right now by citing a CORRELATION as a CAUSATION. It is NOT an objective or verifiable proof.

      Furthermore, you conveniently ignored my comparison of mixed countries to Northern Ireland, which arguably has a lower standard of living than either Australia and the US.

      And yes, I know it's fallacious to compare these, but I'm humoring you and playing by your rules: you're the one that initially compared mixed and homogeneous countries. So if you don't want me comparing them, clarify what you actually meant to compare.

    4. Your arguments are so childish that I won't even bother to answer them.

      "Also, just because you don't see successful modernization in Africa does not mean that they are incapable of it."

      Oh, they are capable of creating a modern civilization it's just that they don't feel like to do it right now and they also need someone to hold their hands and show them how to do it. Come on now, don't make a fool of yourself by saying such a ridiculous statement.

      Grow some balls and face reality!

    5. Which part of my argument is childish, specifically? My major contention with your argument is that you cite correlations as causations, which is a well-known logical fallacy. Please explain how it's "childish" to point out logical fallacies.

      Furthermore, all I did besides that was cite a bunch of facts: I fail to see what is "childish" about facts. Please clarify.

      I never said "they are capable of creating a modern civilization it's just that they don't feel like to do it right now and they also need someone to hold thier hands and show them how to do it". I did not even remotely IMPLY it. So please take care not to put words in my mouth: this is yet another sophist technique.

      What I DID say is that correlation does not equal causation, and to argue otherwise is illogical and academically dishonest.

      Grow some balls and face reality!

  6. "Also, there is no hard evidence or proof whatsoever that race is correlated with intelligence, sorry."

    One question before we go there: do you accept evolution as a scientific truth or are you a creationist?

    1. I study biology. I accept evolution.

    2. You accept evolution. Do you accept that different human races evolved having different physical characteristics?

    3. This is actually addressed in my most recent post, "MYTH: Race-Mixing is Unnatural", but I'll gladly discuss it with you here.

      Your question isn't founded on biological fact and is somewhat fallacious: I do not accept that different human RACES evolved to begin with. What I (and biologists in general) accept, is that various phylogenetic traits evolved within the human genome as a result of mutations and natural selection. These traits, however, exist on a continuum: no group of humans has been genetically isolated for a long enough time to become DISTINCT enough to be infallibly grouped separately from all other humans.

      Human racial groups have, at the most, gone without diversifying gene flow for mere thousands of years, not nearly long enough to even be considered separate subspecies. And before you bring up domestic dogs, that's an example of UNnatural selection, not natural selection. Humans are a product of natural selection, so comparing us to domesticated animals is fallacious.

      It's worth noting also, that even if humans WERE distinct subspecies, it would still be ridiculous to suggest that there were inherent behavioral or intelligence differences between them (because I know that's where you're going with this), especially without any objective evidence.

      In other polytypic animals, it's actually not very common to find behavioral or intelligence differences between subspecies, at least with a genetic basis. Most of the time they're rather comparable, and any differences we do see are a product of the environment rather than genetics. Most subspecies of any animal could be relocated to another subspecies' territory, and adapt their behavior and survive just fine in the new environment, because subspecies tend to be so similar to each other.

      For example some caribou eat hallucinogenic mushrooms, and some don't. The reason for this is that the ones that do eat them HAVE ACCESS to them, and the ones that don't eat them DON'T have access to them. We can assume that if a population of caribou that didn't have access suddenly gained access, that they would probably start eating them. This behavior is not genetic but rather circumstantial. Inter-subspecies behavior tends to be very plastic and environmentally-based.

      Oh yeah, and there isn't a biological definition for "intelligence" to begin with, so it's impossible to measure objectively.

    4. "Your question isn't founded on biological fact"

      1. If you are a black in the UK and need a bone marrow donor - you might also need a miracle to find a match.

      The chances of finding a suitable donor stand at around 100,000 to one.

      In comparison, a white person needing an unrelated bone marrow donor faces odds of five-to-one, only marginally longer odds than the one-in-four chance of a member of their immediate family being compatible.

      2. Any physical anthropologist can tell a Black skeleton from a White European skeleton, and from an Asiatic skeleton. The Negro skeleton has sloping forehead because they have underdeveloped frontal lobe, the part of the brain responsible for reasoning and intellect. Also the female Negro pelvis is narrower because the baby Negro's brain is smaller in volume than white baby brains. Asian women's pelvis is widest because Asian babies have the largest brains.

      I could continue but I'll stop right there because it's impossible to argue with someone who denies facts. Lying won't get you anywhere, try the truth for once it can be refreshing.

    5. 1. So? How does this prove that humans are different subspecies? Black people in the US are a minority which makes it harder to find donors. They are also more likely to have uncommon blood types. Also, no matter what "race" you are, your immediate family members are always more likely to be a suitable match.

      2. No they can't. Not all across the board, not with 100% certainty.

      This article describes the problems sometimes faced by forensic analysts trying to determine the "race" of someone by their bones. It's not a 100% reliable indicator:

      Furthermore, there's no evidence that "negro" people all have an "underdeveloped" frontal lobe, sorry. African "black" people are actually the most genetically diverse group of people on the planet, and show an extremely wide array of traits. You cannot generalize them all into just having ONE type of skull: they possess way too much diversity for anybody to make that assumption.

      On average, they have smaller heads than most Europeans, but there's no evidence that their frontal lobes are disproportionate to the rest of their brain. Even if this were true, and considering my admission that they have smaller skulls in general, this actually STILL doesn't prove that they aren't as smart.

      If you're using IQ to define this intelligence, you should know that even though some groups of people have larger brains than "white" Europeans, some of them actually have a lower IQ. Native Alaskans/Eskimos have some of the largest heads of all humans, at 1450cc and up, and an average IQ of 91, whereas Southern Europeans with smaller heads at 1300-1349cc, actually have a slightly higher average IQ, at 93.

      Furthermore, your claims about skull/brain size are overly simplistic and academically dishonest at best, and incorrect at worst: the largest skulls among humans belong to the North Chinese, Mongolians, and Alaskan Natives. Vietnamese people have among the smallest heads, despite your claim that Asians have the biggest heads. Furthermore, the head size of some Europeans (Northern) is comparable to some Africans (namely Ugandans).

      It's also worth noting that skull size in the US has been measured in both black and white people since the 1900s, and there has been an observable increase in both.

      If it's impossible to argue with someone who denies facts, then what on earth were you doing this whole time? You claim I'm denying facts, and yet weren't you just arguing with me? Yet another self-contradictory logical fallacy. This comes across more like a cop-out, to be quite honest.

      Please point out which facts I've denied.

      Lying won't get you anywhere, try the truth for once it can be refreshing.


      Gould, S. J. (1981). Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton.

    6. 1. "Black people in the US are a minority which makes it harder to find donors."
      What would it matter that they are a minority if there are no races and we are all the same? Can you see now how you are contradicting yourself?

      2. OK, Im making you favor by accepting your link. Since you are not accepting mines there is no reason I should accept yours. But see, I'm a generous person.

      The link you posted is about determining race from a jawbone or a skull not a whole squelette. So that was dishonest from your part.

      Of course when it's a mixed race its more difficult to determine but that doesn't mean that this science is baseless otherwise they wouldnt put any money in that profession in the first place. Do you think that the gov has nothing better to do but spend money and time on something that doesn't exist?

      From your link:

      "Racial classification is an inexact science, if that's even the right word for it. Forensic anthropologists never make definitive ancestry pronouncements. They say a bone is "consistent with" European ancestry or "likely" of Asian ancestry. "

      This is an admittance that it exists otherwise why even care about it?

      Of course I could post you links too that debunks your links but I guess you are not that generous as me... so I propose to drop links as proofs and stick to logic. Since you say that you are an unbiased, logical person.

    7. Another quote from your own link:

      " I took a class on physical anthropology in college where we did exactly what is discussed in this article. One portion of our final exam was to classify the age, race and gender of five human skulls. It was only a 200-level class, so the people who were doing it weren't seasoned CSI-types, but normal college students with no experience. I got an A. It's really not that hard once you know what to look for. People of Asian descent have shovel-shaped incisors ... Native Americans have distinctive cheekbones ... males have more robust skulls than females ... each fissure of the skull's plates fuses at a certain age, so age can be determined within 3-5 years based on which fissures are closed and which are not. "

      Do you admit now that races exist?

    8. 1. I NEVER said we are all the same. I said humans have varying phylogenetic traits.

      2. When did I say I wouldn't accept your links? You've only posted ONE link so far, and it was to a Wikipedia article about homicide rates. I didn't deny the information contained in that link. I did object to your argument as a whole, which included that link, because I wasn't talking about homicide rates, I was talking about the Human Development Index. Your link was myopic in this respect, however I did not reject it or say it was incorrect.

      No, those aren't admissions that race exists on a biological level. Varying phylogenetic traits exist. Labeling collections of phylogenetic traits as "races" is not supported in biology and only has a use in SOCIAL contexts. This is because any collection of phylogenetic traits is not exclusive to just one group of people: there are no clear dividing lines.

      My link wasn't dishonest. You claimed that ANY physical anthropologist could determine the race easily of ANY skull. I posted a link which debunked your claim.

      No, you aren't going to squirm out of showing me links/proof. I never said I wouldn't accept your links. Post them.

  7. 1. OK I see you are nitpicking on what I say. We were talking about races so when I said 'we are all the same' naturally I meant every races are the same. But you pretend to not understand me.
    So I'm asking again: do you agree that human races exist or not?

    2. Whether its supported in biology or not (which is influenced by leftist egalitarian politics btw) doesnt matter. Your biology textbook wasnt written by God it was written by politically influenced, leftist scientists. They wrote what they were told to write. You know very well that any teacher loses his job if he disagrees with the political dogma. There are physiological differences between races. Whether it has only use in SOCIAL context or not that is the matter of the debate. So just because you say it so it doesn't make it true.

    Your link wasn't dishonest right, but you are dishonest by pretending that you didn't know that forensic anthropologists can tell race from bones. Plus you are studying biology. It was even mentioned in your link that they teach it in college.

    OK if you want to nitpick, nitpick this:
    - Race can be determined from squelette and from DNA.
    - Different ethnic groups do have different health-care needs.
    - Organs are not interchangeable between races.

    Here are some scientific links that proves that races exist:,8599,1993074,00.html

  8. Simply moving people to another place against their will doesn't seem like such a horrific thing. Anyway the idea of human rights was created by humans so it can be changed thus making it arbitrary. What if a culture also violates one of these human rights and the majority consent to it? would you say that human rights are superior to cultural traditions even though they are just as arbitrary as each other. Point is just because something is against what someone decided human rights are does not mean that it is instantly bad and extremely evil.

  9. "Simply moving people to another place against their will doesn't seem like such a horrific thing."

    I'm not sure how you can hold that opinion but I strongly disagree. I would prefer not to be forcefully displaced because of someone else's ideology.

    "the idea of human rights was created by humans so it can be changed thus making it arbitrary."

    Very interesting point, but ethics (human rights) has a consistent quality to it, in the sense that its whole purpose is to try and decide what activities cause the LEAST amount of suffering. It's a very basic goal, and while arbitrary, is also very logical. All life on earth is "programmed" to avoid suffering. Ethics is the application of human intellect to this biological drive. It is our attempt to understand and thus decrease/avoid/eliminate suffering. It has always been this way. It serves a very practical role in how we deal with each other and understand each other.

    The same cannot be said for various cultures and ideologies of the world, which operate on a sense of willful ignorance and sentimental values which serve no practical purpose (these would fall under the category of morality, which is different from ethics: morality is dictated by culture and is very subjective and arbitrary). Ethics however, attempts to provide us with a consistent barometer for our behavior, which can be applied universally. In this sense it is not quite arbitrary. It's not as objective as a hard science like biology or physics, no, but at the same time, it's not as subjective as a culture/ideology either.

    "What if a culture also violates one of these human rights and the majority consent to it?"

    This has happened before and indeed continues to happen. Slavery (and not just in the US), genocide, displacement, miscegenation laws, segregation, spying, and other various forms of oppression have been ignored or accepted by majority populations before. It doesn't change the fact that these things are unethical.

    "would you say that human rights are superior to cultural traditions even though they are just as arbitrary as each other."

    Yes, absolutely. Genital mutilation (both male and female) is a cultural tradition to many people, yet it robs people of their autonomy and in many cases, a basic biological function. It causes a lot of suffering, which is why it's unethical and ideally should be stopped.

    Also, as I said above, ethics is not quite as arbitrary as cultural traditions. Ethics is our attempt at a consistent scale for understanding and decreasing suffering.

    "Point is just because something is against what someone decided human rights are does not mean that it is instantly bad and extremely evil."

    When someone willfully and needlessly inflicts suffering on someone else, that action is unethical. It wasn't just "someone" who decided this, it's a whole field of academics. It's not based on religion or morality, nor indeed is it a hard science...instead, like psychology, it is somewhere in between, but it isn't just made-up and revised on mere whims or changing social climates (like ideology). It has a consistent rationale that works towards decreasing suffering.

    I have a hard time understanding why you wouldn't at least see unethical behavior as undesirable, and that it should be shunned and discouraged. You don't have to call it "bad" or "evil", but it's certainly not rational or productive.

  10. This blog is quite nice. Wns are really something, huh? They complain that they are victims of genocide(even though whites are increasing in sheer number), while suggesting to actually kill all black people.

    1. Thanks! Yeah, white nationalism is just a huge conspiracy theory. They think committing genocide will fix another genocide (and white genocide doesn't even exist anyway).

  11. Have you ever seen that neo-nazi wiki called metapedia? It's really stupid.

    1. lol yes. And yeah it can be pretty stupid.

  12. I happen to be a efilist anti natalist who holds that it is MURDER for humans to reproduce. Period.

    Also all supernatural belief is bullshit.


    Honestly the the elephant in the rooms is this.

    Religion is bullshit.
    Reproducing no matter in what combination is MURDER.
    Meat is murder.

    If your not a atheist, anti natialist and vegan then, um, shut the hell up.
    Regardless of what color your skin is, the type of hair, bone structure etc.

    Also Abu Ala Al Muarri is awesome.
    Carl Sagan was over rated (I mean I still love the guy)

    Marijuana is awesome.

    Hail satan...