Elder Scrolls Lore and Gaming
The Elder Scrolls is a fantasy game series that began in the 1990s with a game called Arena, which was okay for its time. It didn't seem to be anything special though. The 2nd game in the series was Daggerfall, which was better, and it was fun to play in between all the crashes that happened because it was published while still in beta, full of bugs, probably for marketing reasons that sounded good at the time. (In any creative endeavour, the "suits," the business administrators, excel mainly in messing things up.)

But with the third game in the series, Morrowind, the Elder Scrolls series started shaping up to be something really special. And the next two games, Oblivion and Skyrim, the Elder Scrolls became king of the fantasy computer role-playing game genre. The best, bar none.

The next big Elder Scrolls thing is the Elder Scrolls Online, which officially begins (for PC and Mac) on 4 April 2014, but I bribed them to let me in five days early. I start on 30 March. By the time your newbie shows up, my character will be a tough guy already... unless you preorder, like I did.

One of the things that makes the Elder Scrolls series stand out is the depth of its historical back-story. That's what I want to show you. I'd try to write a summary, but I don't think I could convey the scale and the scope of it. Fortunately, a YouTube video-maker named Shoddycast has published a series on Elder Scrolls lore, which I'll link to.

But first, here are three books, found in the games themselves, that you can read—provided that you can find them. They relate some of the earliest lore, the story of the creation of the universe in which the story happens.
Before the Ages of ManA Children's AnaudThe Monomyth

The historical period is recounted in several important books, including these.
Frontier, ConquestFather of the NibenThe Dragon WarA Short History of MorrowindA Compilation of Redguard HistoryA Brief History of the (Septim) EmpireA History of DaggerfallThe Fall of the UsurperThe War of BetonyThe Firsthold RevoltThe Falmer, A StudyFall of the Snow Prince

There are series of fictional novels—well, short stories anyway—inside the Elder Scrolls games, and one of things you can do, if you want, is collect all of the books in a series and read them while sitting out a battle or two. Among the series are: The Mystery of Talara, Eslaf Erol, Feyfolken, A Dance In Fire and its sequel series The Argonian Account, a duology entitled Bone, and my favorite series The Real Barenziah.

There are some pretty good single-volume tales, too, such as De Rerum Dirennis, The Final Lesson, Incident in Necrom, The Last Scabbard of Akrash, Chance's Folly, Hallgerd's Tale, Ice and Chitin, a vampire tale entitled Immortal Blood, and Night Falls On Sentinel.

Many other short tales and series of stories can be found in the Elder Scrolls games. I've heard that there are more than 800 books in all. Reading the literature occasionally educates your character in the game by showing him how to improve one of his skills. At other times, a book will flash a tidbit of Elder Scrolls lore that you might not find anywhere else.

Summaries of the two pre-historic Eras and of the four Eras of the historical period are available:
Dawn EraMerethic EraFirst EraSecond EraThird EraFourth Era

The first four games in the Elder Scrolls series of computer fantasy role-playing games are Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, and Oblivion. All of those games occur in a narrow window of time at the end of the Septim Imperial Dynasty—that is, during the last 44 years of the 3rd Era. The fifth game, Skyrim, begins in the year 201 of the 4th Era. In the two centuries between the end of Oblivion and the beginning of Skyrim, a great many things happen that you can read about in the history books that you find in Skyrim, including The Great War and The Red Year.

The Elder Scrolls Online opens in 2E 583—i.e., the year 583 of the Second Era—which is 703 years prior to Arena, 747 years prior to Oblivion and 948 years prior to Skyrim. On the timeline, ESO is set about one-third of the way through the Interregnum.

Two books, written by Gregory Keyes, appear to have been adopted as Elder Scrolls canon. Both are set about 4E 43.
1. The Infernal City
2. Lord of Souls

Further books of interest may be found in
The Imperial Library:
FictionGuides & InstructionHistories & BiographiesInformation & RecordsJokes, Songs, Poems and PlaysReligion, Myths, Legends & MetaphysicsPamphletsResearch

Now here are the videos of Shoddycast's

Elder Scrolls Lore Series


The Daedric Princes Boethia's Proving The Nine Divines
The Amulet of Kings Thieves, Fighters, and Mages Guild The Dark Brotherhood
Argonians of Black Marsh Dark Elves of Morrowind The Dwemer of Skyrim and Morrowind
The Nords of Skyrim The Dragons of Tamriel The Imperials of Cyrodiil
The Ayleid Elves of Cyrodiil The Bretons of High Rock The Orcs of Orsinium
The Redguards of Hammerfell The Wood Elves of Valenwood The Khajiit of Elsweyr
The High Elves of the Summurset Isles Talos: A Legend Is Born Talos: Rise to Power
Talos: God or Heretic? Tribunal: Battle of Red Mountain Tribunal: Rulers of Morrowind
Tribunal: Red Year and The Fall Wolf Queen of Solitude Boethia's Proving
The Amulet of Kings Jarl Ulfric Stormcloak Forsworn of the Reach
Daedric Prince Hircine

The Elder Scrolls games are your real window into this universe. Arena and Daggerfall were plagued by bugs, although the were subsequently patched to the point where they were playable. However, the series only really gets going with the third game. You can surmise the history relating to the first two games by reading the books in the later ones.

TES III: Morrowind
TES IV: Oblivion
TES V: Skyrim
The Elder Scrolls Online (ESO)

You should play III, IV, and V in order. But you don't need to play any of those before getting into ESO. The stand-alone games and ESO are somewhat different experiences, with ESO being more of an massively multiplayer online (MMO) game with a strong Elder Scrolls flavor. But you can only get the full blast of the Elder Scrolls experience from the stand-alone games. Or so it has proved so far. On the other hand, there are people who just like MMO type games, so ESO would be better for them.

Skyrim: Dragonborn at the summit of the Throat of the World

Barack Obama is a disgusting traitor. And so is most of the medical profession. Selected articles.
Part 1. The Treason of Obama in Benghazi.

Barack Obama is a disgusting traitor, and Benghazi was his most spectacular act of treason so far. He conspired with enemies of the United States and sacrificed the US embassy in Libya in pursuit of personal ambitions. Obama made an agreement with a group of anti-US terrorists, in which US Ambassador Chris Stevens would be kidnapped and held for prisoner-exchange. The terrorists wanted the release of their leader Omar Abdel Rahman. Obama wanted to become more popular with Americans just before the elections in 2012.

Two Navy Seals, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, refused to stand down and gave strong resistance to the terrorists when they attacked the embassy, but were eventually overwhelmed and killed. In other words, those two military men were among the few who actually did what they were supposed to do, but they had to fight all by themselves. They weren't enough to achieve victory. The fight was two Americans against 150 terrorists, and our "President" made sure that our two guys didn't get any help.

This resistance by the Navy Seals made the terrorists believe that Obama had betrayed them, so instead of kidnapping the Embassy staff, the terrorists tortured them to death.

Obama deliberately withheld available military support which could have arrived at the Embassy in time to defeat the terrorists and save the Americans who were there. Obama conspired with these anti-American terrorists in the hope of using the kidnapping of a US Ambassador as a means for winning re-election in 2012.

According to Wikipedia, "To date, a few arrests have been made (none by the FBI); as of January 2014, no one has yet been prosecuted." That's because the involvement of Obama would be revealed at the trials.


Part 2. The treason of (most of) the health-care industry.

The ostensible mission of the medical profession is to eradicate disease. But what business will seriously pursue a course of action that would, if successful, put it out of business? The doctors wouldn't like that. Neither would the pharmacists. Neither would the stockholders in the corporations that own the hospitals. There is a conflict between the purpose for which the medical profession exists and the financial interests of its personnel.

What usually happens is this: poor people don't get cured of their diseases. The doctors, hospitals, and pharmacists just prescribe, administer, and sell palliatives while sucking up medicaid money. The people who actually get cures are the richer folk who can front all the money that the medical parasites will charge.

The poorer people, meanwhile, serve the industry as a reservoir and as a vector to reinfect the richer people on a steady basis. Thus, the medical profession can pretend to be pursuing its purpose, while in reality merely managing diseases for their greater profit.

Most doctors aren't healers. They are businessmen who happen to have medical degrees and licenses to practice. There are exceptions, but there aren't many.

Part 3. Comments on the 2014 Revolution in Ukraine.
(My comments in the discussion were made in both Russian and English. Presented without translation here.)

Владимир, в 1787 году не было "законная власть" в Америке, в сознании европейских лидеров. Эти ранние американские революционеры создали свои легитимность сами по себе. Наследование легитимности не является необходимым, если он может быть создан и заработал как новый факт. Поверьте в добросовестно людей Украины. С его помощью вы не нужны никакие тяжелые правительство. Без этого, правительство не будет стоять долго в любом случае. Как вы недавно доказано.

If Ukraine ties itself with European Union, then I will begin to doubt the wisdom of this revolution. Nobody wants to be one of those countries with the big debt that nobody can pay and all the economy going to hell, people with no jobs, bankers taking away peoples' houses, children living in gutters, immigrants coming in from Africa to rape and kill everybody. I can't see how a patriot would want to do this to their country, because this is the work of traitors.

I hope that I have not been cheering for the wrong side these past several days.

I am American, and maybe I will get into trouble for saying it, even if we have free speech here. But you will do better to align with Russia. I know that Ukrainians don't like the Russians because of historical reasons, but it does no good to keep alive old hate when the circumstances have changed. It is like after ww2, US and Japan did not continue to hate each other. (They became business rivals instead.)

Anyway, Russia would not have been so bad in Soviet days if it weren't for Jewish communists. And now it is Jewish Zionists in the European Union who are scheming to exploit your country once again. I like Russians and Ukrainians, both, and would like to see the two countries get along better. But I am a white nationalist. United States can burn to the ground for all I care, as long as the white people are here, we can build a better country after the fire is gone.

Part 4. No day should go without a dose of sexist truth-telling.

If a woman has a dollar or two, she'll find a way to spend it to increase her comfort, without regard to the unforeseen needs of tomorrow. That's where perpetual poverty comes from.

As a gender, men evolved to take care of females. And, unfortunately, women evolved to take that fact for granted. Human cultures always find a balance between the limited rate at which men can provide wealth and women's nearly unlimited ability to consume it.

So it is quite common for women to cry for aid, but then jump ship when someone else does. This is easy to understand in evolutionary terms.

Women possessed of a sufficiently honorable nature to respond nobly to a call for assistance are rare. As a rule, a woman contemplating an act of charity is not planning to do it with her own money and by her own deeds. Most of the time, she will try to persuade someone else—often, someone male—to do the doing and the paying for her.

Women do, however, usually want most of the credit for any charitable deed they had any slightest thing to do with. That's where the silly saying comes from: "Behind every great man there is a great woman."

Typical women's fantasy:

Can you imagine the child support that the "billionaire" will be socked with after the slinky heroine has persuaded him to make her pregnant? At least, I assume that's the thrust of the story, what's coming sooner or later. There's a rap song by a black woman that features the line: "All you got to do is fuck, and nine months later you get the big bucks." The only difference with most white women is that white men don't disappear into the woodpile like black men do, so instead of getting state benefits, white women get them from their children's fathers post-divorce.

Part 5. Comments to Jaclyn-the-Atheist on Christianity and on Debating Christians.

Jesus didn't mention a lot of sins in a particular way. So the Christians aren't going to be much impressed by your first point. The tradition into which Jesus was born that supplied most of the ideas about right and wrong does condemn homosexuality. If we had to estimate what Jesus would have said about homosexuality, then our best guess would come be what his apostles said about it after Jesus' death and from what the Judaic tradition held about it prior to Jesus' birth.

Now, I'm an atheist, and I can figure that out. What ever could have given you the odd notion that you'd have the slightest impact on Christian thinking with Thing Number One?

Regarding your second and third points: I had not been aware that Christians were throwing homosexuals to the lions anywhere in the world. Certainly, this has not been going on in our country. Do you really know what oppression is?

To be sure, Christians say things that you don't like about homosexuals, and I can easily imagine that you'd like them to stop. But you, in turn, say things that Christians don't like. You aren't throwing them to the lions, though, nor into jail, so you aren't oppressing them.

When Christians say "homosexuals will go to hell," even if they intend to scare people away from homosexuality, they are not oppressing homosexuals.

If you want to teach the Christians a lesson—or try to—then you can invent your own fantasy about God's Wrath and say that people who don't like homosexuals will be subject to it. Christians aren't the only ones who have a right to make up self-serving metaphysics and ethics. You may do it, too.

Further, the Christians are not oppressing you when they deny you membership in their churches. The Christians are not oppressing you when they deny you opportunities to speak in their churches. The Christians are not oppressing you when they deny you the services of their churches. Generally, membership in an association of people—a group, an organization, a club—or services provided by them, are rightly under the control of the existing members of that group.

If you want to be a member of a church, or to speak in a church, or services from a church, then first build your own church. Somebody else's church is not yours to use or to command.

Consider homosexual "marriage." In many states, a legal association called "marriage" is allowed to homosexuals. If two (or however many) homosexuals enter into a legally defined "marriage," then they can get tax breaks also given to heterosexual married couples.

But what homosexuals can't get is Christian recognition that they are married with God's blessing. Regardless of whatever license the state might issue, homosexuals are the same scissoring, butt-porking sinners that they always were, and their legal status affects their moral status not in the slightest. So far as Christians are concerned, the queers just found a clever way to save a little money on their income tax returns, and the state is a little more corrupt than it was.

Regarding your fourth point, how do you know whether marriage or religion came first? And how do you know that marriage was originally a civil matter, rather than a religious one? I don't think that you "know" any such things, and I do think that you have attempted an argument by bold, unsubstantiated assertion. To be sure, marriage predates Christianity, but Christianity wasn't mankind's first religion.

The point you tried to make is that marriage originally was a legal (or civil) institution detached from god-belief in general—not merely from Christianity in particular—and that the institution of marriage originally was conceived such that homosexuals were as welcome to participate in its benefits as heterosexuals were. That's something that you don't know, and your pretenses to the contrary do damage your credibility.

Regarding your fifth point, “Judge not, that you be not judged" comes from the 7th chapter of Matthew, from the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus goes on to say, "Because when you judge, you will be judged by how you did your judging." In other words, people will decide whether you were fair or not. And their estimate of your character will be based on whether they think that you are right, or not.

In other words, if you judge, and your judgment is based on lies, or on beliefs that most other people deem to be wrong, then you will be judged as being someone whose judgments are inaccurate, and because inaccurate: unfair.

Whether you think that your judgment is fair or not is beside the point. They are the many. You are the one. That doesn't mean that you are wrong and they are right, from an objective standpoint, but it does mean that they can probably beat your ass in a fight if you go spoiling for one. So "Judge not, that you be not judged," said Jesus as advice, knowing that his group was inferior in martial terms to the larger society in which they lived.

As it happens, however, Jesus and the Sanhedrin didn't dispute every theological point that you can imagine. In particular, if the subject of homosexuality had ever come up for debate, Jesus and the Sanhedrin and all the Pharisees probably would have stood together and waved the same flag.

Now, your sixth point is a very well-understood principle. The idea that truth is not something that can be found by the method of voting on what truth is might be considered a definition of objectivity. Yes, you were certainly right to remind the Christians that the opinions of the majority don't define the truth, whether in morality or in anything else.

But the same thing goes for minorities. Just because your favorite minority has made moral declarations does not mean that those declarations are true ones. Or, to rephrase, "Who made you God, Jaclyn?"

We have two parties (at least) who dispute the morality of homosexuality. That one side is more numerous than the other is unimportant—in both directions. What sorts of society are "profoundly sick" is something to be proved empirically: no legitimate shortcuts can be found in sophistry.

Certainly, you may take the high tone, wag your finger, and declare what you will about the goodness of homosexuality. And, just as certainly, the Christians may take the high tone, wag their fingers, and declare what they will about the wickedness of homosexuality. Neither of you will impress me much.

I'm an empiricist when it comes to seeking the truth. There is no substitute for the acquisition and the clear, statistical organization of data, and for logic in the interpretation of those data—and there never will be. I will wait for one side or the other to present a scientific case. Until then, it's all merely contentious noise.

One thing more. Jaclyn, you have the bad habit of trying to impute repute or disrepute on extraneous topics by way of metaphor. That is, you've been noticed on occasion to make some good arguments on a topic for which you can prove that you are right, or, at least, prove that your opponent is wrong, and then try to pour that credit for rightness into another topic for which you cannot prove that you are right or that your opponent is wrong. That kind of behavior costs you credibility because it is an old trick, and people do notice.

It is far from empirically established, for example, that racial intermarriage is harmless to society. If you assert that it is harmless, then you have at once opened up another debate in which you can't prove that you are right, and your use of that still-controversial topic as an ostensible illustration—which, actually, was a fraudulent transfer of credit for rightness—was inappropriate.

Part 6. How the Jews cheat us with their banking tricks.

This isn't the only layman's explanation for how the Jewish banking scam works, but it's one of the funnier ones.

If the embedded video doesn't load, then here is a link to the video on Youtube.

You might be wondering how this Jewish giga-grand-larceny evolved historically. Most people assumed, mistakenly, that the government and the banks acted in good faith in the public interest. Most people could not have been more wrong.

During the middle ages, gold coins were used as money. Gold is heavy, and thieves would try to steal it. So people who had a lot of gold, but who didn't have any safe places of their own to keep it, began renting strongboxes from others who promised to keep the gold secure. For a fee, of course. Think of it as a rented locker for gold coins.

Most of the people who owned the deposited gold were European nobles. Most of the people to whom the gold was entrusted for safekeeping were goldsmiths, and most of the goldsmiths were Jews. Whenever a European noble would leave some gold with a Jewish goldsmith for safekeeping, he would get a receipt for the amount of gold he'd deposited, and by this receipt he would claim his gold again when he had need of it, reduced by the amount the Jew charged as his fee.

As the years went by, the nobles discovered that they could use the receipts as money of the "bearer bond" sort. Whenever the noble wanted to buy something, he didn't like to go running to the Jew to make a partial withdrawal of his deposit (especially since the Jew was charging for that service also). Instead, when he made his deposit, he had the Jew write him receipts for 1%, 5%, 10% portions of the gold on deposit, which added up to 100% altogether. And when the noble bought something from somebody, he would sign over the ownership of one of these fractional receipts to the seller. By this means paper money came into common use. Originally, it was a certificate by which an amount of precious metal could be claimed.

For a while, it is possible that the Jewish goldsmiths were scrupulously honest in their accounting. Maybe. But things didn't stay that way. Over time, the Jews discovered that the nobles had come to rely on their paper receipts as money, and they hardly ever came to call upon him for a return of their deposited gold. By careful estimation, the Jews calculated that they could safely begin using about 90% of this gold as they pleased. So what they started doing was lending the gold to third parties at interest. The Jews had no right to do this, since the gold didn't really belong to them, and each loan carried a risk of default or of simply being stolen by thieves.

Remember that the whole point of the Jews keeping the nobles' gold was to keep it safe, in a strongbox, so that thieves would not have an opportunity to steal it. So not only did the Jews begin taking income from lending valuable property that was not theirs to lend, the very act of their using the deposited gold in this manner was a breech of contract with the nobles who really did own the gold. The Jews had begun putting at risk what they had promised to shield from risk.

More time went by, and a further financial development came about. Instead of releasing any of the gold right away, the Jews started writing promissory notes on the deposited gold. That's a note that promised to pay gold to someone who borrowed it—from the Jewish goldsmith, who didn't really own the gold that he was promising to pay with. (Instead of walking out of the goldsmith's office with any actual gold, a borrower walked out with a promise written on a piece of paper. A Jew's promise was supposed to be "as good as gold.") So now there was, upon each coin of gold in the Jews' strongbox, two written instruments by which it might be claimed. The first one was the receipt that the Jew had given to the noble, whose property the gold really was. The second one was the promissory note that the Jew had given to a borrower. And both the receipts and the promissory notes entered general circulation as paper money.

Since the Jews had taken the step of creating more possible claims on gold coins than could be satisfied by the number of gold coins they had, there didn't seem to be any reason for them to hesitate about issuing a second promissory note upon each gold coin, and then a third, and so on. And charge the full rate of interest against each borrower, as if they could have paid them all in real gold.

But, although each gold coin could be claimed by more than one written instrument, the rate at which the Jews had to produce the actual gold coins was low enough that they never got caught short. If anyone had known that the Jews would be caught short of gold were all of the possible claimants to present their demands, there would have been a "run on the bank" as each depositor and each borrower tried to make sure that he wasn't one of the persons upon whom the Jew would have to default. But by maintaining the illusion that there was enough gold to pay everybody, the Jews were able to continue making promises to pay that they could not keep, and so they were also able to continue extracting interest on loans of gold whose aggregate principal was several times greater than the amount of gold—other people's gold!—that was actually in their strongboxes.

This was sort of a gamble for the Jews, during these early days of the Jewish banking swindle. If the nobles and the kings had caught on to the Jews' tricks soon enough, then matters could have been set aright by having the king's soldiers forcibly seize all the gold and execute the offending, presumptuous Jews. But the European nobility did not catch on in time, or else they did not see where the Jews were going with their scam and so did not muster the necessary amount of concern to nip it in the bud.

And so the devil's seed grew. The Jews kept getting richer and richer by lending out other people's gold, and lending it in several different directions at once, while the working classes kept getting poorer and poorer because of the interest that the Jews charged on their loans.

Eventually, the Jews had so much money by this means that kings who found themselves in need of funding started coming to them for loans, which meant that the Jews began to have financial leverage over the governments of Europe. Leverage that could be used, for example, to start wars. The Jews had an incentive to start wars because, being expensive, wars forced governments to borrow from them further and going ever more deeply into debt, which provided the Jews with an income from the interest. The more war, the more borrowing, the more debt, the more interest, the more wealthy the Jews got, the more the Jews could incite more wars, forcing governments to do more borrowing... and so on.

And that's why Europe's history went the way it did, for the past 400 years.

Several Jewish families, including the Rothschilds and the Warburgs, formalized their financial swindles as banking houses. It was still the same assortment of cheats and tricks, only now it had a patina of respectability from the spaciousness of the lobby, the sumptuousness of its furnishings, the dress and grooming of its employees, etc. And this predatory Jewish activity continues today as the Federal Reserve System, the Bank of England, the House of Rothschild, and other institutions that might strike you as respectable until you know what they really are: huge financial frauds, the like of which the law should never treat with friendly hands, improperly, immorally, and treasonously given legal sanction.

Henry Ford, writing in the Cleveland News on 20 September 1923, recognized that the only way for the world to escape from the snare of Jewish finance was to round up all of the Jews who were involved in its scams and "control them"; i.e., either execute them or hold them fast and incommunicado in a prison until they died.

"Get hold of fifty of the wealthiest Jewish financiers, the men who are interested in making wars for their own profit. Control them, and you will put an end to it all." —Henry Ford

Part 7. How the Jews cheat us with their banking tricks.

Here's the second part of the "Jew Bankers Swindling the Goyim" series.

If the embedded video doesn't load, then here is a link to the video on Youtube.

If Germany had won the Second World War, then none of this Jewish swindling would be going on. Adolf Hitler removed the Jews from their positions of power because they were using their power of finance to harm the German people in precisely the manner illustrated in the "Eddie Rothschild the Pig" video.

Adolf Hitler was fighting primarily for Germany and its people. But, indirectly, he was fighting for all of the white people everywhere; indeed, he was fighting for all non-Jewish peoples, because each of them will be targeted for destruction, in the order in which Zionist Jewry judges them to be a threat to itself. Alas, Hitler's Germany was not strong enough to stand alone in battle against the military forces of all the other countries that were under the control of Jewish finance.

But we may wish that things had turned out differently.

If the embedded video doesn't load, then here is a link to the video on Youtube.

Facebook censors historical facts that liberals don't like
Facebook user David Sims reports that he received a 12-hour suspension of service because he posted some facts regarding the practice of slavery in the American colonies and in the United States. Here is what Facebook told him.

We Removed Something You Posted
We removed this from Facebook because it violates our Community Standards: A post

The common conception of "black slavery" is a malicious creation of propaganda, created by Jews as a means of instilling guilt among white people.

First, the shipping companies engaged in the transport of slaves were, as far as I know, all owned by Jews. Although some of the employees of these companies were whites, the major profiteers of the slavery business were Jews.

Only 2% of whites in the United States owned slaves. Considering the South only, it was about 5%. Only one Southern white in 20 owned any slaves at all. But blacks also were slave-owners. In 1860, about a quarter of all the blacks in New Orleans owned slaves. Two blacks in New Orleans—one was Antoine Dubuclet, and the other was a black woman known as C. Richards—owned over 100 slaves each, and used their slaves to work sugarcane plantations.

Whites were commonly slaves also. Not "indentured servants," although there were some of those also. An indentured servant is a person on a temporary contract of servitude, as a way of working off a debt. The contract was usually from 4 to 7 years. A slave was his owner's property for life. Most of the whites who came to America prior to the Declaration of Independence, came as slaves. European countries used the New World as a dumping ground for their unwanted poor people. Most Irish who came to America were transported as slaves. During the 17th century, more white than black slaves were shipped into North America.

Slavery didn't become a legal institution in America until a black man named Anthony Johnson sued to make another black man, John Casor, his property for life, winning his lawsuit in 1655. The very first person to own a slave legally in North America was a black man.

You're Temporarily Blocked
You're temporarily blocked from posting on Facebook for the next 12 hours. Please review our Community Standards so you can understand what's allowed on Facebook and keep your account in good standing.

We don't see any incorrect statements in his "offensive" post. David Sims presented just the facts, which, if they were false, could easily be identified and disproved. But censorship was Facebook's preferred method to handle the matter. Apparently, certain truths are impermissible because politeness has priority over accuracy. If you don't feel up to telling lies, then you may not address race or history on Facebook and had better just shut up.

On the other hand, the suspension is only for 12 hours, and I believe that's the Facebook equivalent of a slap on the wrist. Which means that somebody at Facebook apparently likes Sims and is only following through with appeasing a complainer.

Attention Social Scientists! Urban riots are caused by Negroes inside the city limits.
(Reposted from 2005.)

Katrina's pass by New Orleans, and the flood that followed, proved that most blacks don't look ahead, that they value short term opportunities to loot and engage in power-mongering above long-term survival considerations, and that they are in general the most useless, inept people in a crisis that you could imagine. In fact, trying to help them can be a most dangerous undertaking.

Why did New Orleans blacks shoot at rescue workers? If you know how they think, it's easy to understand. After law enforcement broke down, ambitious blacks who fancied themselves "leaders" tried to create fiefdoms within the city. Because of competition between them, each of these petty warlords and his gang of subordinates could claim only a city block or two (by shooting anyone who disputed that claim). Skirmish lines formed along every street that marked the boundary between contested territories, each avenue becoming a no-man's land.

Into this war zone came small groups of good-hearted white rescue workers, brimming with loving-kindness, with vehicles full of relief aid. They expected their efforts to be met with orderly queues of grateful blacks who said "thank you" after receiving their fair measure of assistance.

Of course, blacks don't really cooperate in that fashion.

What really happened is the rescue workers' vehicles were attacked by the first warlord gang to notice them, the supplies seized, and the volunteers abused in various ways. Each warlord wanted all the good things which the rescue workers were bringing in, and furthermore he wanted to deny those blessings to his rival warlords. Letting the relief workers pass through his territory to the next would have been a tactical blunder, from his point of view.

To put it another way, the relief effort was attempting to operate on a social scale larger than the one in use by the armed groups in Flooded New Orleans, and since the blacks had the guns, their scale and their values prevailed.

That's why trying to help blacks in such a crisis is a very stupid thing to do, unless you first send in military forces to kill the leaders of the armed factions that form spontaneously among them after law enforcement has broken down. To reestablish enough order to aid the remaining blacks, you must first demonstrate to them that your soldiers can kill their soldiers, and the demonstration will necessarily be a lively one.

Those blacks didn't suddenly choose to be predators. They were born predators. For years, law enforcement suppressed their natural behavior. Then came the hurricane, and law enforcement was swept away. The gene-coded behavior natural to blacks instantly reappeared.

However much circumstances can affect people, the result of environmental influences will always differ depending on the races involved. What leads one to violent factionalism motivates another to cooperation. What leads one to starvation trains another to hard work.

The results of the Katrina experiment are encouraging. When the levees broke and water from Lake Pontchartrain flooded New Orleans, the city's Negroes were caught almost entirely unprepared, despite having had a week's warning of a possible threat, and two days' warning of certain danger. Rather than leave the city, or at least provision themselves against a long outage of commerce, many of the blacks ignored Mayor Ray Nagin's tardy evacuation order, preferring to endure the storm in the expectation of easy loot afterward.

When the hurricane passed, things seemed well for a short time. But the city's black mayor assumed that all would remain well and did not order an expert inspection of the levees—which ought to have been a routine precaution after a strong storm. Then the levees broke and New Orleans was flooded. Authorities warned that the city might remain flooded for months and repeated the evacuation order.

There are several conclusions to be reached.

First, whites who are caught among, and outnumbered by, blacks in a disaster situation had best flee if they can, otherwise they must hide until they can flee. Fortify your homes with food and weaponry ahead of time, and remain at home until a chance to get away from the disaster area appears. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD YOU GO INTO ANY GOVERNMENT ASSIGNED SAFE ZONE OR REFUGEE CAMP. These will be full of the most violent, meanest, and most depraved Negroes of the city. You will be robbed, raped, beaten, stabbed, repeatedly insulted and humiliated, and ultimately murdered—unless someone in authority chooses to put moral decency above the insane federal "racial equality" rules and helps you escape. National Guard Staff Sergeant Garland Ogden did just that.

Sgt. Garland Ogden is an American hero and patriot but for whom 30 British and 65 Australian visitors to our land would have been murdered inside a darkened Superdome by vicious, predatory blacks. He saved their lives, and spared us at least the shame their deaths would have brought us.

This was my father's belief, and this is also mine:
Let the corn be all of one sheaf, and the grapes be all of one vine...
—Rudyard Kipling

Did you see it, world? There are still some Americans in America.

And Bud Hopes—consider yourself an honorary American. You deserve the status more than any of those black savages do.

The second conclusion is that whites at some distance from the disaster area may be safe from migrations of Negroes away from it. It was the FEMA effort alone that saved the blacks, whereas for the most part the whites saved themselves at their own expense. If there had been no federal program to evacuate the remaining blacks from New Orleans, the Negroes would have squatted in that flooded city until they starved, by which time they'd have eaten every scrap of food they could find—and the search would be a thorough one—as well as engaged in much cannibalism. Even 20 miles distance might be enough of a barrier to permit rural whites to handle whatever threat does manage to reach them by land or by waterway, and the safety factor appears to increase more than linearly with distance.

However, future disasters might find blacks more inclined to migrate in armed bands, perhaps with transportable provisions that could see them across a few days of walking. Therefore, fifty miles (80 kilometers) should be considered a minimally safe distance from an urban disaster such as Katrina.

Thirdly, whites living in majority black disaster areas should not expect any organized assistance from the federal government. Even though white people paid nearly all of the taxes used to subsidize relief efforts, those efforts will be directed to the benefit of non-whites almost exclusively. Whites are on their own, in such circumstances. You will get no police protection, and, indeed, black policemen might be foremost among the predators you should avoid. You will have to contrive your own escape. You will have to provide for yourself—and the only feasible way to do that is to do it before a disaster strikes. Food, water, fuel, backpacks, guns, ammunition—never be without a supply for your family that will suffice for several weeks, on the assumption that your only interaction with the outside world will be fighting off hostiles.

Fourth, expect that everything blacks say about their circumstances and about the causes for them are lies. You will get a more accurate picture of events if you assume that blacks always speak the very opposite of what they believe the truth is.

Fifth, if you are white, you'll be called a racist no matter what you do, and no matter what you don't do. Get used to it. Learn to like it. Once you realize that racism is a good thing—because it is the truth about race—you'll find that you are no longer bothered by the "racist" label. It becomes a badge and a laurel, when it has become a fact.

Katrina proved (again) that whites and blacks do not behave in the same ways in a crisis. In Louisiana, St. Bernard Parish took the direct hit from the hurricane; New Orleans did not. The destruction and the flooding in St. Bernard were more complete than in New Orleans. St. Bernard is mostly white (88.9%). New Orleans is mostly black (72.8%). Federal rescue and relief efforts passed through St. Bernard, without stopping, on their way to New Orleans. See how ridiculous are the Negroes' claims that they were slighted by the government due to their race? It's the whites who are entitled to say that, not the blacks. But, through it all, the whites in St. Bernard Parish were as orderly as they could be, as helpful as they could be, and county sheriff has remarked in amazement at how little complaining he heard from the white residents. And that's a racial difference you can depend on to appear, again and again, when a crisis occurs.

Why is this assessment "encouraging"? As fossil fuels become ever scarcer, there will come a day when food production or transport for the cities will become impossible. On that day, all the cities will be like New Orleans was during the flood. Negroes will rampage everywhere within the city, but perhaps not so far beyond its environs. We should not take this for granted, however. If you are within 50 miles of a major urban area, you should move farther into the countryside. If you haven't stocked up on survival essentials, you must do that soon, and maintain those stocks, until the day the Apocalypse begins in earnest. With sufficient foresight, we will regain our territory after most of the blacks have done themselves in with their savagery, incompetence, and general foolishness.

The Zionist Occupation Government in the United States can't evacuate Negroes if either of two conditions exists: (1) there's no fuel to do the evacuation with, or (2) there's no other place to which they can export them to any purpose.

There has been at least one rape in the Astrodome in Houston, Texas, police say. We suspect that the imported black rapists (rape-ugees?) are going into town at night and doing most of their raping there, after which the media either do not report the crime, or they report it as ordinary "random" crime.

Two black New Orleans refugees of the small number sent to Charleston, West Virginia, were arrested for rape (or for attempted rape) only one week after arrival. The press claims, as usual, that the incident is an "aberration" and assures us that all the other Negroes from New Orleans are pillars of their new communities.

And So Does the Murdering...

A black New Orleans refugee was observed buying beer in Cincinnati, Ohio, by a police officer, who, upon closer inspection, also observed that the negro was in possession of a crack-smoking pipe. When questioned about the pipe, the negro threatened to kill the officer.

An elderly White woman, Betty Blair of Louisiana, was murdered by three "hurricane refugees" at her home. Mrs. Blair had tried to help the refugees by giving them employment. Instead, they teamed up to strangle her to death as a first step toward looting her home. The killers were a real "rainbow" bunch: an Asian male, a Latina female, and a Negro buck. Mrs. Blair had been a 77-year-old active church member.

The murder rate in Houston in 2005 has increased by 24% over the rate for 2004. The major reason is the relocation of thousands of blacks from New Orleans to Houston following Hurricane Katrina. From 1 November to 15 December 2005, Houston had 51 murders—an amazing 70% increase over the same weeks in 2004. Most of the killings occurred in the housing projects where Katrina refugees were settled.

And so does Negro Fraud...

Predictably, there has been massive fraud in the allocation and abuse of those $2000 credit card vouchers provided by FEMA or by the Red Cross. Blacks, whether legally entitled to their vouchers or not, have been using the FEMA cards to obtain luxury items. For example, one Negress used disaster relief money to buy an $800 Louis Vuitton handbag at Nieman Marcus. Was she arrested? No. There are no rules prohibiting such abuses of the taxpayer's money. Chalk up another bungle by FEMA and Your Government, which once again mistakenly assumed that blacks will act as responsibly as whites would.

Black refugees have been getting more than one card each. One Negro was caught as he attempted to receive his sixth card. Blacks who are not entitled to cards (because they are not hurricane victims) have been getting into line and obtaining the federal money vouchers. In Houston, Texas, black men have paid for services and alcoholic drinks at area strip clubs with FEMA or Red Cross credit vouchers.

FEMA discontinued issuing the cards on 11 September. However, FEMA is still giving money—in the form of cash disbursements through direct deposit—that the defrauding Negroes are taking out of the bank and continuing to spend on unnecessary bling bling, such as the new $250 bracelet that one Negress "hurricane victim" was seen wearing in Memphis, Tennessee.

Obviously, FEMA does not really care about fixing the Negro fraud problem. Its "remedies" only make instances of Negro fraud more difficult to trace. And that tells you what FEMA really cares about—not reducing the abuse, but hiding it from the taxpayers and from Red Cross donators! Thus, FEMA colludes with the cheating Negroes, to help them to cheat more stealthily.

The shift from the credit cards to subsidizing blacks with cash actually worsens the fraud problem. Negroes can now more easily use federal or charity money to buy alcohol, guns, or crack cocaine. Three Negresses in Louisville, Kentucky, tried to do just that. They entered the Clark County Red Cross office and tried to pass themselves off as "hurricane victims" in order to get money to buy crack. They were caught in their lies, however, and police arrested them—black females, all three of them.

If Norma Jean Calloway-Tillman (34), Denise Hughley (24) and Latoyia Taylor (19) had been more skillful liars, or if they had been three genuine refugees instead of impostors, they'd have received up to $6000 of charity donated money, which would have gone straight into the pockets of drug dealers. Meanwhile, more successful Negroes were observed using charity money or disaster relief funds in such places as Hooters, Circuit City, and Victoria's Secret in parts of the United States stretching from Texas, to Ohio and Indiana, through the Appalachian Mountains, to many parts of the US East Coast.

Again, in Houston, undercover police posing as Red Cross volunteers apprehended a black boy, 16, who came in claiming to be the head of a household with four children. It is the stated policy of the Red Cross to "err on the side of compassion" (when dealing with blacks) but golly gee what kind of blind suckers are they?

FEMA grants go as high as $2000 per family, formerly through debit cards, but now mainly through cash disbursements. The Red Cross is still providing debit cards. In some cases, the limit to the grant is determined by the size of the family and its remaining assets. So, of course, Negroes will declare that they "lost everything," and, if they have no children to show the caseworker, they will borrow (or rent?) them from another Negro, handing them back once they have the cash in hand. Each refugee child may be counted several different times and be declared by several different sets of "parents."

One FEMA spokeswoman, Barbara Ellis, said that by making recipients promise to obey the rules "We think we've done our duties as stewards of taxpayers' money." Does Ms. Ellis come from a planet that has no Negroes on it? Surely, racial ignorance of such astronomical magnitude demands such an explanation.

As bad as the Negro fraud is with respect to immediate disaster relief, and even larger bout of the same can be expected, as FEMA investigators report the addresses of the homes that have been destroyed by the hurricane in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, or by the subsequent flooding, arson, looting or rioting in New Orleans. Word about which addresses to claim as their lost old homes will circulate among the Negroes, and many of them will make false claims in order to receive as much as $26,500 each in compensation for their alleged property losses.

Negroes have two distinguishing characteristics, other than dark skin: raping and looting. Given any chance, they will engage in these, their favorite recreations. And they lie—oh, how they lie! Their lies are usually not clever ones. But blacks are very frequent liars, and they are very persistent with their self-justifying falsehoods. One day all former white liberals, at least those who survive, will hang their heads with shame. Because the racists were right. The racists are still right. The racists have always been right. The liberals were the ignorant ones about race, and it's long past time they admitted it.

Part 2. A scene from Chapter 8 of "A Heritage of Divinity."

"In other news tonight, the police investigation into the beating of some youths has revealed that their assailant was an 11-year-old Brookstone student named Brendalyn Jones. Yes, apparently a little girl beat five members of the Krack gang so badly that all of them were sent to Columbus Memorial Hospital for serious to critical injuries. Police say that the girl, who came forward the moment her classes at Brookstone's college campus were over, testified that the youths attempted to ambush her as she was going to class."

"Mark," said the news anchorman. "Why is an 11-year-old girl going to the Brookstone College campus? She seems a little young to be enrolled there."

"Peter," said the reporter. "She is young. But Brendalyn Jones is the girl who made headlines across America a few weeks ago after tests revealed that her IQ is somewhere above 200. She has been given permission to take college level classes, and she must run each day from Brookstone GSC to Brookstone College because she's too young to drive a car."

"And how is it that a little girl beat up so many gang members?"

"The police aren't too sure of that," said the reporter. "Apparently, Miss Jones has had martial arts training of some kind."

"Will the youths recover from their injuries?"

"Several of them will be in the hospital for a while. One of them has three broken ribs. Another has had to have his lower jaw put back into place. A third has a burst left testicle and a bruised right—"

"My word, Mark, that is one tough little girl."

"Peter, she told the police that it was their good fortune that she hadn't killed any of them. She said that she had no choice other than to use nearly lethal force because the odds were five-to-one against her."

"Well," said the anchorman. "I think we can all understand that. Turning to events at the state capitol..."

The girls in the dorm lobby were clustered around the TV. Watching the local news was a habit with us girls because it told us where the gang activity in Columbus was the thickest, so we could avoid those areas. But never had the lobby been so quiet, with attention so fixed on the 6 o'clock news as it was on that Tuesday evening. I was sitting on the broad central rise of a furry, brown, all-the-way-around couch which half filled the dorm lobby, my legs crossed, reading about the ride of Paul Revere (and the similar rides of William Dawes and Samuel Prescott) from my history book on the rise before me, when the eyes of thirty other girls turned my way.

It was so comical that I couldn't help laughing. What was even funnier is that most of them started asking whether I was all right, even though there I was, sitting on the couch rise, reading a book.

"Nobody better mess with my roommate," said Ruby, acting fierce. "Or they'll have to deal with me!"

Giggles and guffaws broke out among the girls at that. Well, at least the shock-and-awe mood that the newscast had created was broken. The other girls congratulated me on my victory and related horror stories about girls who had been raped or beaten by gang members. Which meant black gang members, but they were careful not to name the race of the perpetrators. It wasn't the first time I'd noticed that people were unwilling to discuss the socially significant differences between the races in a candid manner. Although it seemed such a simple thing to do, nearly everyone had been strongly conditioned to avoid it.

Although I wasn't familiar with the techniques of military brainwashing, I didn't think that psychological conditioning of any sort could be stronger than that which had instilled within so many people a reluctance to talk honestly about racial differences.

An 11th grade girl named Patricia Greenwood excused herself, saying that she had to go study in a less noisy place. I suspected that she wanted to be the one to bear the first gossip about my fight downtown because, on her way out of the lobby exit to the east wing, she told me "It's nice to see the good people win for a change!" Perhaps she meant the white people. It had been a while since we were winners, hadn't it?

About a hundred years.

Survival is the greatest school, and Death is its best teacher. But no living thing graduates, ever. The beneficiaries of nature's lessons aren't individuals, but races, which endure so long as they pass the tests and which prosper by how high they score. The white race had gotten itself into trouble partly by being too generous, and, in its generosity, making itself vulnerable. Other races had been quick to take advantage of that vulnerability. They infiltrated white countries, seeking out key positions of control, of supervision, of decision-making, and of power, which, once they had them, they used to benefit their own people at the expense of white people. Non-whites of every stripe had become favored above whites, and, being favored, they received rewards even when there were white people who deserved them more.

My fight could, conceivably, have landed me in jail. Or it could have imposed on my parents a legal obligation to pay fines and the hospital expenses of those gang members. The reason that didn't happen was that I'm only eleven years old—a little kid—and a girl, and have no prior record of mischief of any sort. All of those things added up to a degree of favor that outweighed the favor that those gang members had just for being black, once their prior records for trouble-making had been subtracted. Or, rather, my favor exceeded my opponents' favor this time. If I had to fight again, especially against blacks, that earlier fight would weigh against me, even if I were as justified next time as I'd been before.

To be sure, I could have outrun those blacks. I hadn't admitted that to the police because, in their opinion, it would have put blameworthiness upon me. Why didn't I just outrun them? Because the next little girl who happened to walk down that street, past that alley, would not have had my advantages. She'd have been robbed, beaten, raped, and probably murdered by those black youths. It was morally necessary that I deprive those gang members of their ability to harm someone who actually was an ordinary child, someone like whom I only appeared to be.

And there was one other reason as well. There is no idea more obscene than that decent people should be expected to give ground or right-of-way to vile predators. Good should roar so that evil trembles, not the other way around.

Those five black youths would recover. But would they reform? Had I taught them a lesson that would change their predatory behavior? No. They'd return to their previous lives, maybe a little more cautious than they were before. But sooner or later they would attack another innocent victim.

The conviction was growing in me that I'd made a mistake by not killing them. It was a mistake that I'd made before, in my old neighborhood in Druid Hills, when I had defeated four teenage blacks who had attacked me. By letting them live, I'd made the violent deaths of some number of other people probable. Though it hadn't occurred to me at the time, I'd chosen between the lives of those gang members and the lives of whomever it was they would someday murder, and I'd chosen wrongly.

And now that my fighting skill was known, I wouldn't be presumptively excluded from suspicion if gang members began turning up dead. I could no longer afford to do what was right. My moral weakness, which had made me reluctant to kill when killing was proper, had cost me that much.

The nature of treason, and who are the country
There's some confusion about what "treason" is, and most of it comes from a related confusion about what the country is. Our government authorities speak as if the United States of America were the government thereof. That's the false premise that enables treason under color of law.

The US government is not the United States. The United States is us, we the people, the citizenry. The government is merely our government. When the government presumes to be the country itself, it usurps from us that title which properly belongs to us.

Treason to the United States consists of making war on the country, on us, on we the people, or aligning oneself with those who are making war on the country, on us, on we the people. The only reason that an attack on the US government would be treason upon the United States is if the US government were, itself, an instrument of the people, used by the people for their own protection and to further their own interests. In other words, attacks upon the US government are "treason" only if the US government has not become, itself, traitor to the United States.

It is indeed possible for the government to betray the country. The standard for judging treason on the part of the government is the same as the standard for judging treason by anyone else. There isn't a bit of difference. When the US government attacks the people of the United States, it has begun to wage war against the United States, because the United States is not its government, but its people.

Any elected official who asserts to the contrary should be recalled and shamed for betraying the trust of his constituents. Any appointee who does so should be impeached. Any government employee who does so should be fired from his job.

Soldiers given orders to attack US citizens have been given illegal orders, which they must refuse to obey. Not only is this their duty, it is in their interest, since obedience would have them murdering each others' families.

Part 2. Selection bias and religious expectations.

When interpreting signs of the fulfillment of prophecy, be sure to allow for what historians (and statisticians) call "selection bias." You didn't live in the 1400s, so you probably don't know about, and therefore cannot count up, all of the earthquakes and wars and other alleged fulfillments of prophecy that happened during that century. Most people have a view of history that is very nearsighted. Because they don't know about their selection bias, people in each century assume that their own times are richer and more intense with "signs" than past times were. Christians really have been expecting Jesus to return "soon, very soon" for the past 1900 years.

A common definition of insanity is continuing to repeat the same action over and over, even though it fails each time you do it. That's what causes the mental disorder that compulsive gamblers have. Well, most religious people have it too. Generation after generation of Christians have expected Jesus to return "soon, very soon" because of the "signs of the fulfillment of prophecy" and so forth. And all of them were wrong. Every one. Test after test, prediction after prediction, all of them to fail. So I propose that the name of the religion be changed to Christinsanity, because that's what it is.

Part 3. Antisemitism and falsehood are different things.

So don't confuse them with each other.

My censored comment on Ender's Game and on Homosexuality
The following comment is posted here because it was censored by moderators at The Guardian. It will also be posted in many other places, and it will continue to appear across a long span of time. My policy. It is how I react whenever leftists decide that they won't "tolerate" my opinion.

♈ ♉ ♊ ♋ ♌ ♍ ♎ ♏ ♐ ♑ ♒ ♓ ☉ ☿ ♀ ⊕ ♁ ♂ ♃ ♄ ♅ ♆ ♇ ☽ ☾ ☄ ★ ☆ ☊ ☋

Orson Scott Card opposed gay marriage? Good on him. I oppose homosexuality in all respects, not just gay marriage only. I think that the professional psychologists got it right the first time: it's a mental disorder, a biological dysfunction, an aberration, an abnormality, a perversion of nature, and a public health hazard. It spreads diseases that would not otherwise spread, or at least not as fast. It causes biomechanical deformities that lead to incontinence. It involves dangerous ancillary activities that can cause still more diseases and peritonitis.

Homosexuality is bad for the same general reason pedophilia is bad, for the same reason necrophilia is bad, for the same reason bestiality is bad. Legitimizing homosexuality is the first step on a slippery slope that will end up legitimizing all those other perversions, mostly by way of the same arguments about tolerance.

Now, where the Ender Wiggin saga is concerned, I approve of Ender's Game, the first book, only. The idea that aliens would covet and desire to possess a rare jewel of a planet, such as Earth is, is eminently believable, sensible, and in accord with all we know about the universal struggle of life against life for possession of the means for continued survival.

But after the first book, Card ruined his series with the sappy sentiment that, oh, the poor aliens didn't really mean it. They didn't know we were intelligent creatures with feelings! It was all a big mistake. Bleah. Not believable. Not at all. So the Ender Wiggin saga is the series that could have been great, but got itself philosophically undermined by an author who, it appears, does manage to conform to political correctness once in a while. Even if he was right about gay marriage.

You want the philosophy of alien contact done right, look at Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers. (The book, not the movie.) Pay special attention to what goes on in the class of "Major Reid" in chapter 12.

Part 2. I got invited to join the Facebook group of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Thanks for the invite to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. I've followed some of their blogs in the past. A few of their moderators have me on permanent ban because I won't agree with their opinion that there aren't any race differences with genetic causes having a magnitude and a social significance with which liberals are uncomfortable. This might be a corporate economic interest, since the readership of the newspaper is largely black, and blacks don't come off well in some of the comparisons I've made. Back around 2010, during the early aftermath of the CRCT cheating scandal, Maureen Downey started taking down my comments on "Get Schooled," and shortly afterward she put my posts on automatic moderation, which seems to have evolved into eternal moderation. Again, I appreciate your thoughtfulness, but there are places where I can post without having the post disappear within a few minutes. AJC isn't one of them.

On the utility of white dwarf stars as suns for artificial colonies
Given the mass and the effective temperature of a white dwarf star, find the radius, the luminosity, the age, the habitable zone radius and the Roche limit.

Given: M/M๏, T

This is my own curvefit to the mass-radius relation for carbon-oxygen core white dwarf stars. The line fitting the center portion of the domain runs through 40 Eridani B (0.5 solar mass) and Sirius B (1.0 solar mass) and roughly bisects the remaining data. It also fits very closely to theoretical models of white dwarfs supported against their own gravity by the electron degeneracy pressure in a relativistic Fermi gas.

If 0.25 ≤ M/M๏ < 0.45, then
R/R๏ = 0.07279307 (M/M๏)² − 0.0752974 (M/M๏) + 0.03327478

If 0.45 ≤ M/M๏ ≤ 1.2, then
R/R๏ = −0.010421 (M/M๏) + 0.018821

If 1.2 < M/M๏ ≤ 1.41, then
R/R๏ = −0.0814246 (M/M๏)² + 0.1899852 (M/M๏) − 0.1044496

The luminosity is calculated from the radius and from the effective temperature using the ratio form of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

T๏ = 5784K

L/L๏ = (R/R๏)² (T/T๏)⁴

The age of a carbon-oxygen core white dwarf (i.e. the time since the star became a white dwarf), in years, is given by

t = 10^[6.7 − (5/7) log(L/L๏)]

Although there aren't any helium-core white dwarf stars in the universe as yet, since stars insufficiently massive to fuse helium into heavier elements have not yet had time to leave the main sequence, the only difference in the age relation in their case is to replace the 6.7 by 7.0.

The distance to the habitable zone, from the center of a white dwarf star, can be calculated directly from its age as follows:

rᵤ = 48977.9 t^(−0.7)

Also, rᵤ = √(L/L๏)

Where rᵤ is returned in astronomical units.

rᵥ = 0.06571045 ∛[(M/M๏)/ρᵥ]

Where rᵥ is returned in astronomical units when ρᵥ (the density of a test object in orbit around the white dwarf) is input in kg m⁻³.

By using trial parameters, you can determine that only younger low-mass white dwarf stars might be used as suns for artificial space colonies. The older (cooler) and more massive (smaller size) white dwarfs will have habitable zone radii shorter than those of their Roche limits.

Part 2. From the Diary of Brenda Lynn Jones.

The problem of adapting terrestrial flora to red dwarf light is a nuisance, yet I covet the longevity of red dwarf stars. Those things can live several trillion years each, but their spectra pose "nutritional" difficulties for plant life evolved on Earth.

I considered building artificial colonies in orbit around white dwarf stars, but it didn't take me long to reject the idea. Why? Let's say that you began with a white dwarf having the same surface temperature that the sun has, 5784 Kelvin. White dwarfs usually have masses starting at a half sun, like 40 Eridani B, up to about one sun, like Sirius B. A small percentage of white dwarfs have masses above or below that span, but the main run of them is included.

Because white dwarfs are degenerate matter, they are held up against their own gravity by free electrons comprising a relativistic Fermi gas. Their radii in solar units, at least in the 0.5 to 1.0 sun mass interval, is closely approximated by

R = −0.010421 M + 0.018821

Yes, the more massive a white dwarf is, the smaller its radius is. Degenerate matter is just weird like that. Anyway, the radius of a half-sun white dwarf is 0.0136105 solar radii, and the radius of a one-sun white dwarf is 0.0084 solar radii.

If both of them have surface temperatures of 5784K, their luminosities are simply the squares of their radii: 0.00018525 sols for the half-sun white dwarf and 0.000070560 sols for the one-sun white dwarf.

The age of a white dwarf in years is found from

t = 10^[6.7 − (5/7) log L]

So the age of a half-sun white dwarf when its temperature is the same as the sun's is 2.322 billion years, and the age of a one-sun white dwarf at that temperature is 4.627 billion years.

In order to get the same intensity of radiation from the white dwarf as Earth gets from its sun, the distance of an orbiting space colony would have to be (t in years, r in astronomical units)

r = 48977.9 t^(−0.7)

It might not look like it, but that's just the Stefan-Boltzmann law again, after some substitutions were made, while assuming a subsolar temperature of 393.6 Kelvin. So with respect to the half-sun white dwarf, a space colony would need to have a circular orbit radius of 0.0136105 AU and, with respect to the one-sun white dwarf, it would need to have a circular orbit radius of 0.0084 AU. Did you notice that the distance of the Earthlike planet is as many astronomical units as the radius of the white dwarf star is in solar radii? Shows I did the math right.

Now, here's the problem. The density of a half-sun white dwarf is 279297 grams per cubic centimeter, and the density of a one-sun white dwarf is 2376187 grams per cubic centimeter. Let's suppose that the space colony has an average density of 0.1 grams per cubic centimeter. With that assumption, the Roche limit of the colony with respect to the half-sun white dwarf star will be 0.011236 AU, and the Roche limit of the colony with respect to the one-sun white dwarf star will be 0.014156 AU.

In the case of the one-sun white dwarf, the Roche limit is already farther out than the distance at which the colony would receive the same amount of light that Earth gets from the sun. So for that star, the habitable zone, as it is conventionally understood, doesn't exist. A colony around a one-sun white dwarf having a sun-like spectrum wouldn't be able to get enough light to stay warm, unless special arrangements were made, like with low albedo structures and focusing mirrors.

In the case of the half-sun white dwarf, the Roche limit is inward of the habitable zone, but not by much. I doubt that it would be wise to put a colony habitat only 21% further than the distance where the tides would rip it apart. And, anyway, it would be only 732 million years before the star cooled enough to close the window completely.

Of course, if one were willing to accept a bluer spectrum than Earth's sun has, then one might find a younger, brighter, less massive white dwarf that could support an orbiting colony for a billion years or more. If you caught a 0.45-sun white dwarf when it was 7000K and aged 1.3 billion years, you might could make it last for four billion years before the tides got ugly. But with that open time window would come more ultraviolet light than Earth's plants are used to getting, and the animal life forms wouldn't like it much, either.

So it looks as though red dwarfs are the way to go.

Part 3. Red Dwarf Suns.

Given the red dwarf's mass, M/M๏. (M๏ = 1.9891e30 kilograms)

R๏ = 6.96342e+8 meters
R/R๏ = −6.1108745996 (M/M๏)⁴ + 13.1850512107 (M/M๏)³ − 8.9344000845 (M/M๏)² + 3.1283873563 (M/M๏) − 0.0969583023
T๏ = 5784 Kelvin
T/T๏ = −22.229110702 (M/M๏)⁴ + 33.8938116098 (M/M๏)³ − 17.979950390 (M/M๏)² + 4.1919011375 (M/M๏) + 0.1750176730
L๏ = 3.846e26 watts
L/L๏ = (R/R๏)² (T/T๏)⁴

Total time on main sequence, т, billions of years.

If M/M๏ ≥ 0.5 then
т = 10 (M/M๏) / (L/L๏)

If 0.25 ≤ M/M๏ < 0.5 then
т = 5.10155782e-7 exp{34.779212 (M/M๏)} + 21395.6632 exp{−11.6197093 (M/M๏)}

If 0.08 ≤ M/M๏ < 0.25 then
т = 89.05387 (M/M๏)^(−1.8586791)

Habitable zone radius, rᵤ, in astronomical units. (1 AU = 1.4959787e11 meters)

rᵤ = √(L/L๏)

Roche limit, rᵥ, in astronomical units.

rᵥ = 0.06571045 ∛[(M/M๏)/ρᵥ]

Part 4. A comparison of suitability between red dwarfs and white dwarfs.

(1) M/M๏
(2) Roche limit vs space station (ρᵥ=100 kg m⁻³), in AU
(3) Habitable zone distance, in AU, for main sequence star
(4) Habitable zone distance, in AU, for white dwarf at 6000K

0.25, 0.00892, 0.09074, 0.02045
0.30, 0.00948, 0.10385, 0.01855
0.35, 0.00998, 0.11795, 0.01704
0.40, 0.01043, 0.13638, 0.01593
0.45, 0.01085, 0.16153, 0.01521
0.50, 0.01124, 0.19424, 0.01465
0.55, 0.01160, 0.23225, 0.01409
0.60, 0.01194, 0.26793, 0.01352
0.65, 0.01226, 0.31430, 0.01296
0.70, 0.01257, 0.36882, 0.01240

For white dwarfs at 6000K and more massive than 0.65 M๏, the Roche limit is outside the habitable zone distance.

For white dwarfs at 4000K and more massive than 0.25 M๏, the Roche limit is outside the habitable zone distance.

Jew after Jew after Jew after Jew...
Obama has nominated Janet Yellen as the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve. A lot of people have come to realize that the Federal Reserve is a fraud by usury. The Federal Reserve "System" is a way for a small group of bankers to steal the money that should have rewarded the labors of working Americans.

Money is supposed to originate with the government as payment to people engaged in public works: building roads, bridges, dams, parks, mines, spaceflight, defense, delivering the mail, and so on. It is supposed to issue as their paychecks, upon which no interest shall be due. The money gets into circulation among the general public when the government workers pay money in trade to private businesses. There never is any deficit. There never is any public debt. There never are any interest charges on a public debt. The financial future of the country is secure. That's how the Founders of the United States set things up in the US Constitution.

But in the Federal Reserve System, money originates as interest-bearing loans. The government borrows money that bankers simply "invent" as bookkeeping entries. The bankers never do any work to justify the money they grant themselves permission to create. They simply create it. As much as they want. But that isn't why the bankers are rich, since by itself their paper banknotes are worthless. No, the reason the bankers are rich is because the government has agreed that the bankers must be repaid, with interest, from taxes upon the incomes of Americans.

So the bankers print money, the government borrows it, wastes some of it, spends most of the rest doing what we don't like, and then sends around the tax-collector to present us with the bills. It isn't a coincidence that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified only 10 months before that rump Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act. It was all planned, in a timed sequence of events.

Now, remember that the Federal Reserve's loans to the government bear interest, whereas every dollar the Fed prints is principle. When the government took out its very first Federal Reserve loan in 1914, it doomed the United States to eventual bankruptcy, absent legal repudiation, simply because it would never be possible to repay the entire loan. The originally small amount of interest would inevitably grow over time, until its exponential increase brought the national economy down permanently.

But, of course, once the government had borrowed and was addicted to borrowing, the debt just grew and grew. Until the interest that must be paid on the national debt is crippling and will shortly be fatal to our nation's ability to function.

The men who passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 weren't stupid. They were traitors. In December 1913, when most of our legislators had gone home for the Christmas holidays, a small group of Representatives and Senators remained secretly in session. That is when they passed the Act. When the bulk of our federal law-makers returned the next year, the first thing they should have done was repeal it. But they didn't.

Instead, they were either paid off or intimidated into playing along. Men who spoke out against the Federal Reserve, such as Representative Louis T. McFadden, were assassinated.

Janet Yellen is Jewish. If she is confirmed as Federal Reserve Chairman, she will be the Fed's 15th Chairman, and the 9th Jewish Chairman. Of the remaining six, two Chairmen were of near Jewish ancestry. And we can probably assume that the other four were very friendly toward Jews.

The population of the United States is 2% Jewish.

The Chairmen of the Federal Reserve will have been 100% pro-Jewish/Zionist, of whom 73% will have come from Jewish families, and 60% will have been Jews in their specific selves.

The Federal Reserve System is a Jewish creation. The conspirators that planned it were mostly Jews. Its Chairmen and its directors are mostly Jews. Its affiliates, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, are likewise Jewish creations controlled mostly by Jews.

Is it any surprise that the United States ambassador to the United Nations routinely uses the US veto in the Security Council on behalf of Israel?

The Jews have been robbing us via the Federal Reserve System and it's usury-laden banknotes for a hundred years. They say that we are endebted to them to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars, at the least.

However, is that really true? Morally speaking, what obligation do we have to pay debts that were imposed on us without our consent, and, at first, without our knowledge? I see none. Most of the public debt is the work of fraud and treason, the like of which the law should never treat with friendly hands. The debt is a fiction that has been improperly given legal cognizance. Anyone who invested in the US public debt (such as the government of China) did so in the expectation that Americans would be impressed into slavery and stripped of their wealth and property by a rogue federal government.

The people who did this to us should be executed. Tried first, of course. But convicted and executed. Then the debt should be repudiated, and any creditor who wants to fight about it should be asked whether he wants his repayment in 10, 20, 50 or 100 megaton denominations.

Part 2. Wikipedia's Talk page on "Antisemitic canard."

This attempted edit of mine failed to post on Wikipedia's Talk page on "Antisemitic canard." Apparently, an editor there has an automatic revert to the previous version of the page. I took out nothing; I only tried to add this:

I agree with's argument and with his standards for epistemology. Wikipedia has demonstrated repeatedly, over the years, that its NPOV (neutral point of view) is no such thing where certain topics are concerned, and Jewish history and/or Jewish interests are among such topics. Just in the above exchange, I see one side arguing that objectivity should be maintained when examining Jews; i.e., that exceptionalism should be avoided, that assumptions friendly toward Jews are as improper as are assumptions hostile toward Jews. And I see the other side making unsupported assertions generally to the effect that every antisemitic opinion must necessarily be false. Wikipedia is obviously not in hands capable of recognizing neutrality on this subject. Instead, those hands try to place their "mark" of neutrality somewhere that it should not be, or to characterize neutrality as something it isn't. Among those who have the biggest say, or the final discretion, in what stays on these pages and what will be removed, there is a history, long and strong, of establishing what "credibility" is, who has it, and who does not, by declaration. The assignment of degrees of credibility here flows from political motives. To be sure, as one writer said, (specific) statements are either true or false, and there is no middle truth-value between them. But that summary of circumstances is, perhaps intentionally, incomplete. Complex descriptions contain many statements, any of which may be either true or false, and you should take them one by one when trying to determine which statements are false. Further, just because each specific statement must be either true or false does not mean you may pick the truth-value that you prefer, skipping all analysis and pretending that, in this case, the setting forth of evidence is something that need not be done.

End of attempted revision. To summarize:

* Wikipedia's claims of Neutral Point of View can be fraudulent, particularly in its treatments of Jewish history, Jewish organizations, or Jewish politics.

* Wikipedia assumes that every antisemitic statement is necessarily false.

* Wikipedia supports the illusion that certain statements, which anyone can determine to be true through independent investigation (i.e., Jews control most of the Western mainstream media), are "canards."

* Wikipedia's assignment of credibility can be purely a process of political maneuvering: an attempt to seize the high ground without earning that position through success in reasoned debate.

* Wikipedia's Zionist editors sometimes, perhaps frequently, engage in semantic trickery and in censorship, rather than lose an argument.

Part 3. Talking about revolution is not doing a revolution.

Most ordinary citizens have an intellectual blindness. They rise from bed with no idea what to do about tyranny. They come fully awake with their coffee, and they still have no idea what to do about tyranny. Well, here's what to do.

Kill a soldier, take his gun, and kill more soldiers with it. Distribute their guns to your friends. Then you and they all repeat the process until the government has no more soldiers. Then you go into the homes and offices of the traitors, drag them out, and shoot them. After that, you create whatever new guards seem best to you for the future security of the people for whom you were fighting.

The irony of many civil wars is that both the rebels and the government's soldiers believe they are fighting for their country. But the rebellion would not be necessary if the soldiers were right. The thinking of the soldiers is corrupted by the fact that they are professionals; i.e., they are paid. They want to keep their paychecks. Soldiering is how they make their money. So their belief that they are protecting the whole of the country's people is a false belief, whether they know it or not.

I've said it before, and this is a good place to say it again. A threat to the paycheck will make most people pretend to believe every lie they ever heard. The incentive of staying employed will induce self-delusions in almost anybody. Most of the soldiers really do think that they are doing good by supporting the established government. They're not bad fellows, and it's a shame that we must fight them. They just aren't smart enough to know when they should turn around and shoot their employer, instead of obeying the employer by killing each others' families.

Part 4. Zionists corrupt the Greek government. Golden Dawn political party is shut down with mass arrests.

Last Friday, 27 September 2013, international Jewry pounced on the Greek Nationalist political party, Golden Dawn. With their influence, they had Golden Dawn declared "a criminal organization" and began arresting its members for the "crime" of having membership in that organization. Police searches are being made, and false evidence is undoubtedly being planted, in order to justify the arrests retroactively.

Five months ago, in May 2013, Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras was under pressure from the European Council to ban Golden Dawn. At that time, Samaras stood up to that pressure and rejected the idea because Golden Dawn was a freely elected political party whose members had won elections and therefore represented, in the Greek government, a part of the Greek population. It would be uncivilized to deprive the Greeks who had elected Golden Dawn members to Parliament of their chosen representation.

But during the five months since, something happened to change the thinking of Antonis Samaras. We don’t know for certain what it was, so we speculate, and we use history as our guide.

First, we notice that established elites do not enjoy being eclipsed by rising newcomers.

A few years ago, in Belgium, the small Vlaams Bloc party defeated much larger political parties in elections held in Flanders. The reaction of the larger political parties was to criminalize the Vlaams Bloc party, and then steal back the power that Vlaams Bloc had democratically earned.

Also, in the American elections of 2012, a popular candidate, Ron Paul, was cheated out of the Republican Party nomination for US President by election frauds carried out by that party’s plutocrat faction, who preferred that the nomination go to a different candidate, Mitt Romney. The Republican plutocrats were not punished for their crimes because they had the favor of the big media of television and press. The media did not like Ron Paul because he was not committed to the US-Israel alliance. The media in the United States, as in many other places, are controlled by Zionists. So the media not only shielded the Republican plutocrats from legal penalties, they also added slights and slanders of their own making against candidate Ron Paul.

I mention these things to show how so-called democracies become very undemocratic when the power of the elites is threatened by someone outside their own groups.

And this is what I think is happening in Greece now. The murder of the rapper is only a pretext. In Greece, as in the USA, an accused person is presumed innocent until proved guilty by a trial in a court of law. But the accusation against a Golden Dawn member, by itself, before any trial, was used by PM Samaras to justify a massive wave of arrests, which included six persons who had been democratically elected to offices in Parliament.

If anything ever smelled like secret political motives, this does.

Think about it. If a member of a Jewish organization committed a crime, maybe the Jew would be arrested. But the organization in which he was a member would not be criminalized, would it? No. If someone belonging to an immigrant advocacy organization committed a crime, he might be arrested. But his organization would not be banned, would it? Again, no.

But this is what happened to Golden Dawn, even before a trial could decide whether the accused member was guilty or innocent.

Secret political motives smell so badly that we, who are on the other side of the world, can detect the scent. Even if the Zionist media are spraying perfume everywhere.

Does anyone really believe that the criminalization of a freely elected political party, the arrest of its members, including six members of Parliament, is “democratic”? Is there anyone in this world who is stupid enough to believe that this move shows that “democracy is strong” in Greece? We can see very plainly that Golden Dawn began winning a game that the Zionists had set up to their liking, with the almost unbeatable advantages of banking influences and control of the media. And Golden Dawn was rising anyway! Since the rules were not preventing Golden Dawn from having some success in the elections, the Zionists decided to sweep all the rules aside and resort to the brute force of state police power.

The Greek government now has so much political capital invested in the success of its color-of-law fraud against Golden Dawn that it dare not allow the trials of its members to result in exoneration and acquittals. I anticipate, therefore, a certain amount of juridical cheating of the kind that has become common in Europe whenever Zionist interests are involved.

On the Blacks and Their Lies
Blacks continually attempt to deceive whites, and each other, about the technical competence of blacks. Let's examine a pair of recent African frauds.

Fraud #1. A urine-powered electric generator was allegedly invented by four Nigerian girls.

Like so many claims of black achievement, this one, um, smells.

Claim: one liter of urine provides electricity for six hours.

Check of claim:

1. The composition of 1 liter of urine, by mass.
1a. Water (H₂O): 969 grams.
1b. Urea (CH₄N₂O): 9.3 grams.
1c. Chloride (Cl-): 1.87 grams.
1d. Sodium (Na): 1.17 grams.
1e. Potassium (K): 0.75 grams.
1f. Creatinine (C₄H₉N₃O₂): 0.670 grams.

2. One mole of urea masses 60.06 grams. In one liter of urine, there are 0.155 moles of urea.

3. If all the hydrogen is evolved from the urea in one mole of urine, the resulting amount of diatomic hydrogen (H₂) will be 0.310 moles.

4. The combustion of hydrogen with oxygen yields 241.8 kiloJoules of energy per mole of H₂ burned. 2H₂ + O₂ → 2H₂O + energy

5. The efficiency of hydrogen fuel cells is 40% at best, and it isn't likely that all of the hydrogen in the urea contained in the urine will be evolved.

6. Let us say, then, that from the (somewhat less than) 0.310 moles of diatomic hydrogen obtainable from the 9.3 grams of urea in 1 liter of urine, that one watt of electric power can be produced for six hours, with the total energy supplied during this time being 21600 Joules. That’s about the same energy contained in two rechargeable D size NiMH batteries.

What can one watt do? Well, it can operate one very small LED flashlight.

However, if you were to use the solar panels directly to do the job, you could get one watt of electric power from 70 cm² of solar panel: a square of panel only 3⅓ inches on a side.

It is a big question why anyone would want to insert a chemical process into a system that doesn't need it. Yes, hydrogen can be evolved from urea in solution (such as urine). Under direct sunlight, hydrogen can be extracted from human urine from a solar panel placed in full sunlight (~1000 W m⁻²) with the use of a Ni(OH)₂ catalyst and photoelectrodes made of TiO₂ or α-Fe₂O₃. Hydrogen gas will slowly evolve at the opposite electrode. But the energy required to operate the electrolytic process is several times greater than the energy that can be recovered by burning the hydrogen. The urine-step in the system wastes two thirds of the energy that is required to make it work.

Of course, the way the Africans tell the story, you just pour urine into one side of the generator and get lots of energy out of the other side. But that is simply a deception. Urea isn't in a state of readiness to be used in combustion. It must first be electrolyzed at a very unprofitable cost in energy. Urea differs with petrochemicals in this respect, since petrochemicals (such as kerosene) are in a state of readiness to be used as a fuel.

Now, although it is barely possible that these three girls invented a device such as this one, I consider it unlikely that they did so. At least not by themselves. The technical competence required is likely above that which they possess, and I have learned from experience that claims for significant black achievement are often over-hyped, to say the least, and outright fraud most of the time. Call me a doubter.

Fraud #2. A team of Ugandans is prepared to launch a space probe into orbit around Earth.

It's a hoax. Cadimella is an aluminum rat-cage with enough solar panel on it to generate perhaps 5 watts of electric power: insufficient to operate any motherboard that I've ever heard of. The solar panels and the P2 12V ribbon connector are likely there just for show. If a video camera and/or a GPS device ascends with Cadimella, they will be powered by batteries.

The launch system is a helium balloon, and it appears that Mr. Nsamba is having difficulty securing one, which is why he's asking for large government grants and donations from people worldwide. Cadimella will not reach orbit, nor will it even enter space on a ballistic trajectory. It will, if it ever gets off the ground at all, rise to about 30 km altitude, where the balloon will burst from the reduced ambient pressure and fall—possibly on a parachute—back to the ground.

Most of what you are hearing about Cadimella are lies intended to convince stupid people to give Chris Nsamba money. Some of the lies are absolutely ridiculous, such as the one about Cadimella's "missile defense" system. It has no such thing, of course.

Black people have an odd attitude, which seems best described as a belief that the illusion of ability is as good as the real thing. You find that attitude in Haiti as well as in Africa. You will notice how, among whites, "outer space" begins above the atmosphere, at about 100 km altitude, but, among blacks, it begins above the treetops at about 100 meters altitude. Such reduced standards! Yet they want equal credit.

You will also have noticed have seriously the Ugandans are taking their toy "space probe," the absurd gravity with which they treat it, while pretending that it is just the cutting edge in aerospace technology, and that they are all very smart people for being able to put it together. (According to IQ and the Wealth of Nations, the average IQ of the people of Uganda is only 73.)

Compare the Ugandan hoax of spaceflight achievement with the actual spaceflight success of white physicist and entrepreneur Elon Musk.

Part 2. The kind of obscenity that both Jews and Muslims do.

This particular atrocity was blamed on the Israelis by an unidentified person on Facebook.

dismembered boy

Israel's typical atrocity isn't this up close and personal. More commonly, Israel uses its military forces to shoot missiles or drop bombs on schools, hospitals, ambulances, marketplaces, and crowds of civilians. In other words, the Jews usually prefer to sit back comfortably and do the carnage from a distance. (The US government has that same character because it is taking orders from Jewish bankers and because its officials fear adverse publicity from Jewish media bosses.)

[Aside. That's not to say individual Jews don't do this sort of thing. They do. Even in the United States, a Jew will occasionally cut up someone after murdering him. That's why Samuel Sheinbein fled to Israel. He was to be prosecuted by the State of Maryland for murdering and dismembering a Hispanic named Alfredo Tello. Early reports stated that Tello had been a person previously unknown to Sheinbein and had been trying to rob Sheinbein. Those reports were false and may have been Jew-sponsored PR efforts to mitigate Sheinbein's guilt. Tello was a friend of one of Sheinbein's classmates at Montgomery College, and he had been brought to Sheinbein's attention by a mutual acquaintance. Actually, Samuel Sheinbein had plans for murdering someone else, and his murder of Alfredo Tello was just for practice.]

Also, it appears that the boy in the photo was already dead before someone cut his arm off. If he had been alive, his face would be showing more pain, and there would be more blood on the floor. The part of the caption that says the boy's arm was removed first and that he was killed afterward is almost certainly false.

Israel's spokespersons and Western apologists are engaged full-time in inventing plausible denials for Israeli atrocities. They have lied so often that, as far as credibility goes, they might as well not exist. Once in a great while, photos or other evidence for an atrocity like the one in the photo gets past Israeli censorship, and we get a peek at what they're up to. Doing something like this isn't at all out of character for Jews, either individually or under the auspices of the Israeli government.

Having said that, it should be observed that the Muslims are also perfectly capable of treating a child this way, for nothing more than a smartass comment about Mohammed the Prophet, and then using the pictures as anti-Israel propaganda. The Jews' enemies lie, too. Often. And one way to tell a lie is to attach a false caption to a photograph. (The Jews know that trick, of course; they attached false captions to many WW2 war photographs to create Holocaust propaganda.) So this could be a Muslim atrocity, blamed on the Jews.

Yes, Jews do it too. Not to other Jews, but to non-Jews who are within their reach. Without further information, you can't tell which of those nasty bunches did this particular deed.

An apology to the rest of the world from a US citizen
I regret very much that our past several heads-of-state have been idiots who have chosen, many times, to begin wars that were neither morally righteous nor in the best interests of our country. I'm sorry that this happened. And I'm very sad that many of you have suffered because of our political ignorance and negligence.

Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all been tools of the Jews who control our money system and our media. Our elections are controlled by these Jews though the mechanisms of campaign finance and information management. Americans mostly do not understand what their government has been doing around the world. Either they have never concerned themselves enough to learn, or they incorrectly believe that they have learned, but have, instead, been falsely misinformed by the media.

It was the internet, not television, that began the slow—too slow—process of waking up the American people. We should have been more alert to what the Jews were doing to our country, but we were too trusting. We have bad political habits. We institutionalize too much our ability to use force, and then evil people take over the institutions. And we too easily believe lies from an apparent authority. So we were betrayed. So we are used to hurt people in other countries, even though we don't have any wish to hurt them.

We will have to pay for our mistakes, just as you also have been paying for our mistakes.

I hope you will believe me when I tell you that most Americans did not wish you harm. It is true that many of us did not care enough to make sure that our government wasn't harming Serbians, or Afghans, or Iraqis, or Palestinians, or Vietnamese, or Germans in an unjust cause. But if it had not been for the Jewish influence, we never would have fought most of the wars we did.

We deserve blame, but most of our blame is on account of carelessness, misplaced trust, and political apathy. Whenever our soldiers appeared on your land to kill you, they thought they were there to fight against evil. That is what they were told, and they did not have the wisdom, or the interest, to question authority.

For the evil, blame the Jews. Because that is where the blame belongs. In every country where the Jews go, they end up taking the real power to themselves with tricks such as banking or propaganda. And when they have power, they do evil to other peoples. Always. There has never been an exception in which Jews, having taken power, have done well with it from the viewpoint of us Gentiles.

If you would save the world from the Jews, you should understand that it will not be enough to destroy the countries that they have been using as their tools, because the Jews would simply acquire more tools and begin their evil once again.

Part 2. The Right to Fight Back should be our law.

The "Stand Your Ground" laws are a good idea, but they don't go far enough. The law should allow citizens who have been attacked to counterattack when the villain who attacked them has moved off, temporarily, to regroup or to await reinforcements, before making a second try at you. During that time, the citizen who was originally the victim of attack should be legally permitted to counterattack in order to remove the threat posed by the persons who instigated the violent confrontation.

Why? Because the instigator bears entirely the blame for the violence. All of it, not just some of it. The instigator is to blame for the violence he does, and he is also to blame for the violence that you must do in your own defense. He's the one who started the trouble, and if things don't go his way and if he does not want to die, then his only recourse should be to run, run, run and hope that he can escape from your retaliation. The instigator is the villain, and the villain should never be afforded a staging area or time to catch his breath or a chance to summon aid to his wicked cause.

The worst law is "duty to retreat." It's stupid and morally perverse to require decent people to give ground or right-of-way to evil people.

The "stand your ground" laws are an improvement over "duty to retreat," but they aren't sufficiently improved.

"Right to fight back" laws, which permit citizens who are first attacked to counterattack enemies who have temporarily withdrawn in order to plan another attack, should be the laws we live by.

Part 3. On the Whites, the Blacks, and Their IQs.

For those of you who admire statistics about racial matters, here's a few in black and white. The statements below are true for US residents. We begin with the basic information.

1. The average IQ of whites is 103, and the standard deviation in IQ for whites is 16.4 points.

2. The average IQ of blacks is 85, and the standard deviation in IQ for blacks is 12.4 points.

(Source for the averages: "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by Arthur R. Jensen and J. Philippe Rushton, published in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 235-294.)

(Source for the standard deviations: W.A. Kennedy, V. Van De Riet and J.C. White, Jr. 1963.)

What does it mean that the white distribution in IQ is normal 103±16.4 and that the black distribution of IQ is normal 85±12.4? Here are some of the things it means.

The fraction of a race, having an average IQ of x̄ and a standard deviation in IQ of σ, which is above the minimum IQ of μ.

f(μ) = [σ√(2π)]⁻¹ ∫(μ,∞) exp{ −[(x−x̄)/σ]²/2 } dx

Because of the symmetry of the normal distribution, it is equivalent to write:

f(μ) = ½ − [σ√(2π)]⁻¹ ∫(x̄,μ) exp{ −[(x−x̄)/σ]²/2 } dx

When you do the math, this is what you can learn:

3. The average white is smarter than 92.67% of blacks.

4. The average black is smarter than 13.62% of whites.

5. Having IQs over 100: 57.26% of whites and 11.32% of blacks.
Ratio (white to black, for populations of equal size) is 5.058.

6. Having IQs over 110: 33.48% of whites and 2.19% of blacks.
Ratio 15.29.

7. Having IQs over 120: 15.00% of whites and 1 black in 420.
Ratio 62.96.

8. Having IQs over 130: 4.98% of whites and 1 black in 7030.
Ratio 350.4.

9. Having IQs over 140: 1.20% of whites and 1 black in 217709.
Ratio 2620.

10. Having IQs over 150: 1 white in 481, 1 black in 12.6 million.
Ratio 26173.

11. Having IQs over 160. 1 white in 3924, 1 black in 1.37 billion.
Ratio 348382.

12. The bell curves for whites and blacks have a single crossing point at IQ 29.2. In the United States, there are equal fractions of whites and of blacks who have IQs less than 29.2. The fraction is one person in 294319 members of his race.

13. Mental retardation begins at IQ 70 and goes on down. 2.2% of whites are mentally retarded. 11.3% of blacks are mentally retarded. The fraction of mentally retarded whites is about 1/26th of the fraction of whites who have IQs above 100. The fraction of mentally retarded blacks is equal to the fraction of blacks who have IQs above 100.

14. Again, all of the above is true for whites and blacks in the UNITED STATES. The reason blacks do even so well as this is that they have absorbed some white genes, meaning that most of them aren't purely black any longer. The average US-resident black is about one-quarter white. In Africa, where the black race remains nearer to its pure form, the average IQ is only about 70. Fully half of the blacks in Africa are mentally retarded. (Source: IQ and the Wealth of Nations, by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen. A related table of national average IQs, by Richard Lynn.)

15. All sixteen of the countries having the lowest national average IQs are black countries: Zambia (77), Congo (73), Uganda (73), Jamaica (72), Kenya (72), South Africa (72), Sudan (72), Tanzania (72), Ghana (71), Nigeria (67), Guinea (66), Zimbabwe (66), Democratic Republic of the Congo (65), Sierra Leone (64), Ethiopia (63), and Equatorial New Guinea (59).

You are viewing jenab6