Treating "science as science" means never having to say you're sorry

In science, it is often said that theories can never be proved, only disproved. But over the course of the last twenty years, "Out of Africa" has risen from the ranks of "theory" to "undisputable truth" in the public conscious. The reason is that "Out of Africa" was embraced and widely disseminated by those who wanted it to be true because it supported their own political objectives. "Out of Africa" holds that Homo sapiens developed in Africa and over time, migrated across the world to colonize it. However, a study conducted by Spain's national research center on human evolution suggests that "Out of Africa" may be flawed.

The study states that:

"the continuity of the Eurasian dental pattern from the Early Pleistocene until the appearance of Upper Pleistocene Neanderthals suggests that the evolutionary courses of the Eurasian and African continents were relatively independent for a long period."

"The history of human populations in Eurasia may not have been the result of a few high-impact replacement waves of dispersals from Africa, but a much more complex puzzle of dispersals and contacts among populations within and outside continents."

"In the light of these results, we propose that Asia has played an important role in the colonization of Europe, and that future studies on this issue are obliged to pay serious attention to the 'unknown' continent."(more)

"Out of Africa" first gained favor within the science community after studies of mitochondrial DNA showed a clearer picture concerning the timetable of Homo sapien development. The studies also showed humanity to be interlinked through the same "mitochondrial Eve." Already, key archeological finds in Africa and a lack of such discoveries elsewhere suggested that the "Out of Africa" hypothesis was applicable. But where scientists saw the DNA studies as complementary evidence, certain people saw a nail in the coffin of those who supported other development theories - and saw this simply because they wanted their theory to be true.

In order to understand what was going on here, one must realize that "Out of Africa" is extremely friendly to certain multiculturalist agendas and more useable than any other development theory. For example, the Candelabra model suggests that Homo sapiens originated in various, unconnected locales, as descendants of Homo erectus hominids. This allows for disconnect and potential inequality in development, and suggests that the peoples of earth are rather disconnected. Fortunately for the multiculturalists, the Candelabra theory has lost favor because scientists cannot confirm that it matches the hypothesized timetables of human development.

However, the theory of early Eurasian dispersal from Africa and further development outside of the continent, as the recent Spain study suggests, is equally problematic for multiculturalists. Like the Candelabra theory, this theory loses the oneness with Africa that "Out of Africa" conjures. It leaves the multiculturalists' agenda to be seen as less of a reconnecting of "like peoples" and more of a deceitful gimmick to advance certain political interests, which it is. There are many people who want "Out of Africa" to be true and give it practically unending publicity because the theory also supports their ideology.

Smithsonian was the latest to join the three-ring circus. In the article "The Family Tree, Pruned," Richard Conniff argues that genealogy is bunk and race does not matter because we humans all came from Africa anyhow. " Our genealogy is identical," he writes.[1]

A belief in "Out of Africa" figures prominently in Conniff's assessment. If there were separate evolutionary paths after the migrations from Africa, and thus a greater disparity between the races, "identical genealogy" would be insignificant considering that, according to the common origin theory, all life forms evolved from the same organism/gene pool and there is a common root for every life form on the planet. To nobody's surprise, Conniff is not running around advertising this sort of "genealogy" and saying we are all eels, tigers and elephants; his focus is Homo sapiens and his tone resembles a very intentional advancement of leftist internationalism and social marxism.

Kevin Shillington is another example of politically-charged "Out of Africa" promotion. In History of Africa, Shillington writes:

"Final evolution of modern human beings, with average brain capacity of about 1450 cc, was clearly complete by 40, 000 Bc. Originating in Africa they had spread to all major regions of the world by 10, 000 BC.

...as [modern human beings] spread throughout Africa and colonised the other continents of the world, they adapted to variations in climate and environment. Those in the heart of tropical Africa developed the darkest skin to protect them from the harmful rays of the direct tropical sun. Those moving to cooler climates developed paler skins in order to absorb more of the beneficial rays of the less direct sunlight. The so-called 'racial differences' between the various peoples of the world are thus literally only skin-deep, local adaptations to climate and environment..."[2]

It is interesting that Shillington writes "thus skin deep" as if he has actually proved something, which is what "thus" is used in the English language to indicate. In actuality, Shillington dedicated a mere three sentences to the matter of racial differences, all which elaborate on the reasons for skin color change; there is no promotion or refutation of the other racial differences, he just ignores them, implying that they are immaterial just because "Out of Africa" says so. Aside from considerations that stem from the highly controversial notion of a disparity in cognitive ability, Shillington skips over phenotypic diversities such as cranial types, as well as differences in bone density and chemical concentration. The fact that the differences between the races are not as dramatic as say, the differences between Homo erectus and Homo sapien hominids, is no excuse as to why any race should see its deliberate destruction through a so-called "promotion of diversity" behind the illusion of building one humanity.


[1] Richard Conniff, "The Family Tree, Pruned," Smithsonian, July 2007, 90-97.
[2] Kevin Shillington, History of Africa Revised Edition (Malaysia: MacMillan Publishers Limited, 1995), 6.

"Redheads set for extinction"

article from the Courier Mail:

"PETER Beattie, Nicole Kidman and Michael Voss are. So were William Shakespeare, Christopher Columbus and Queen Elizabeth the First. But the future doesn't look bright for people with ginger hair. According to genetic scientists redheads are becoming rarer and could be extinct in 100 years. The current National Geographic magazine reports that less than 2 per cent of the world's population has natural red hair - created by a mutation in northern Europe thousand of years ago.

Global intermingling, which broadens the availability of possible partners, has reduced the chances of redheads meeting and so producing little redheads of their own. Although it takes only one red-haired parent to produce ginger babies, two redheads obviously creates a much stronger possibility. Some experts warn redheads could be gone as early 2060, but others say the gene can be dormant in the reproductive system for generations before returning.

National Geographic says the gene at first had the beneficial effect of increasing the body's ability to make vitamin D from sunlight. However, today's carriers are more prone to skin cancer and have a higher sensitivity to heat and cold-related pain."

Kudos to National Geographic and Courier Mail for publishing what multiculturalists would rather you did not encounter - that is, the real outcome of their "multicultural" work. This sort of news might make the reader reconsider the desirability of the current social engineering agenda, which destroys cultures rather than endorsing all of them as the world "multiculturalism" would suggest. Yet at the same time, it is interesting how the article blames "global intermingling" and not the multi-ethnic agenda pounded into the head of every redhead, undoing the natural attraction to one's own.

One should also note how the article makes redheads sound like a piece of outdated farm equipment...and gets away with it. Can you imagine in this day and age if someone said the same thing about a trait belonging to some non-white ethnic or racial group?

"4,000 people a week trying to leave UK"

excerpt from "4,000 people a week trying to leave UK," by Michael Knapp, Home Affairs Editor, The Daily Express

Britain is facing a mass exodus of people looking to escape the crime and grime of modern living. The country’s biggest foreign visa consultancy firm has revealed that applications have soared in the last seven months by 80 per cent to almost 4,000 a week. Ten years ago the figure was just 300 a week. Most people are relocating within the Commonwealth – in Australia, Canada and South Africa. They are almost all young professionals and skilled workers aged 20-40.

And many cite their reason for wanting to quit as immigration to these shores – and the burden it is placing on their communities and local authorities. The dearth of good schools, spiraling house prices, rising crime and tax increases are also driving people away.

Obtaining a visa to live abroad can cost as little as £1,500 for the right candidates. Plumbers, electricians, construction workers and doctors are famously in demand. The only obstruction to emigration from the UK is a criminal record, poor health, advancing age and being a “third country national”.

Liam Clifford, a former immigration control officer, set up globalvisas.com as a one-man band 12 years ago. He now employs 60 people and is in the process of opening new offices in both South Africa and Australia. Mr. Clifford said:

“It’s absolutely phenomenal. People are trying to get away to wherever they can, and most are successful. Ironically, one of the main reasons for leaving is the overstretch of services due to increasing immigration into the UK. People are looking for the better standard of living offered by other countries, as even the most idyllic villages in Britain are under pressure from rising populations. Skilled labour is obviously an advantage, but so is speaking the English language. Most countries are harder to get into if you don’t speak English. UK simply isn’t fighting hard enough to keep its people. Some are telling us they are fed up with living in this country. Even business people are saying they’ve had enough. They’re saying ‘I can’t put my children into the right school, but if I move abroad I can’. Most people are very patriotic and don’t want to leave. They’re almost terrified about it. But they say they just have to. It’s a shame people at the top don’t recognise they’re not doing enough to retain highly skilled workers in this country. A lot of them are quite young, and they’re not idle. They just can’t see a future for themselves in this country. They want to get married and settle down and buy homes, but they can’t see it happening here. And time and time again they are saying to us they don’t want to be seen as racist because they are quitting because of immigration. We tell them of course they’re not.”

According to the most recent Office of National Statistics figures, in 2005 the official number of people leaving UK shores was 352,000 – up from 249,000 in 1995. The majority – around 150,000 – migrated from London and the southeast. (more)

Britain just isn't the same these days...

ADL: "Anti-Semitic" attitudes up

As the result of a 2007 tracking poll, the Anti-Defamation League is reports that "Anti-Semitic attitudes are up." The survey, conducted over the phone and contracted on behalf of the ADL, asked 3,000 adults if the following were "probably true" or "probably false":

• Jews are more loyal to Israel than to this country.
• Jews have too much power in the business world.
• Jews have too much power in international financial markets.
• Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust

Participants were then asked whether the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus and if Israel had influenced their opinion of Jews. The results of the survey were then compared to findings in 2005.

According to the ADL, to agree with any of the four statements above is anti-Semitic, because these are "the most pernicious notions of anti-Semitism" and represent "classical anti-Semitic canards that have persistently pursued Jews through the centuries" - this of course, despite the fact that both the Holocaust and Israel did not exist more than a century ago.

In any case, it is interesting that the ADL considers it "anti-Semitic" to believe that Jews have too much power, are more loyal to Israel or use the Holocaust to promote their own interests. Their argument is that these beliefs lead to anger against the Jews - as a race, religion or ethnic entity - and for that reason, these ideas are anti-Semitic.

So here's a riddle for you: if the ADL's policing and ceaseless endorsement of Jewish interests leads to anti-Semitic actions and anger against the Jews, is the ADL itself anti-Semitic?

"Good Republicans Won't Do"

Special thanks to the original author for offering to share a Southerner's point-of-view. Minor edits were made to what follows...

With the announcement of every new Republican contender for the G.O.P. nomination for president, I am asked by yet another flat-head conservative:

"Now surely you see him as a good Republican?"

Thus with the announcement of Mike Huckabee’s candidacy for the Republican nomination, I was assured once again that here was a good Republican. I am sure that, yes indeed, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is a good Republican—but that is the problem. Another good Republican is not the answer for Southerners who have witnessed the loss of respect for Southern heritage, an increase in the size and scope of government and an ever increasing tax bite from Mr. Lincoln’s IRS. Its time for Southerners to accept the fact that good Republicans are not good enough.

Since the 1964 campaign of Barry Goldwater, it has been the South that has given the Republican Party its largest block of voters. Regardless of how one looks at the political landscape in the United States during the past forty-three years, it has been the South that has given the G.O.P. its White House victories and its majority status in Congress. Remove the South from the Republican Party and the G.O.P. becomes America’s hopeless minority party.

But how has the good Republican Party treated Southerners in the past forty-three years?

Five Republicans have held the office of President of the United States. Yet, during that time Southerners have watched as their children were used as sociological guinea pigs and forcibly bused into unwholesome environments; Southerners have watched as Federal government-sanctioned discrimination against White people, called “Affirmative Action”, replaced State-sponsored discrimination against Black people under segregation; Southerners have watched as the moral underpinnings of their culture, Christianity, the Bible, and the Ten Commandments, have been routinely purged from their communities while pornography and sodomy were given official protection; and during this time Southerners have had to stand by and tolerate the murder of millions of unborn children under the guise of “freedom of choice” (something that they were not allowed to exercise in their children’s education, as far as busing was concerned). All of the aforementioned evils were done on the watch of many good Republicans. God save the South from forty-three more years of such good friends!

During his second bid for the White House in 1968, Richard Nixon guaranteed Civil Rights leaders of his intent not to abandon such highly disruptive Civil Rights crusades as forced busing and reverse discrimination by assuring them to “Watch what I do, not what I say.” He delivered. Under Nixon forced busing became a national education priority - although it was the South that carried the burden. After Nixon’s election and in the subsequent administration of every other Republican president, Arthur Fletcher, the father of Affirmative Action, held a high position in government. Yet each Republican President after Nixon depended more and more upon the vote of Southern conservatives for their election victories. In exchange, the South got a lot of rhetoric from the Republican Party, but it was the NAACP and other advocates of big government that were being anointed with power and position within each G.O.P. administration—one more example of why "good Republicans" won’t do.

How many times have we heard a fellow Southern Christian bemoan the loss of traditional moral values in America? Most Southerners were disgusted by the sight of Federal Marshals forcefully removing a copy of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court Building. But who was President when this happened, Bill Clinton? No, it was a good Republican, George Bush. If Mr. Bush was desirous of assisting and preserving traditional moral values in America, why did he not order those Federal marshals to stay out of the business of the sovereign State of Alabama? Remember, the same Bush who acquiesced in the removal of the Ten Commandments in Alabama is the same Bush who, as governor of Texas, had a Confederate memorial plaque removed from the Texas Supreme Court Building. There is a pattern here! From Nixon to Bush II, each Republican president has assisted in the growth of big government while giving lip service to State’s Rights and the Constitution (Watch what I do, not what I say). These good Republicans have been very good at saying what Southern conservatives want to hear but have been totally lacking in their ability to resolve the problems faced by the South and America. This lack of respect for traditional values of morality and Constitutional government is displayed not only by the elected Republicans but also their appointed department heads. Bush’s Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been quoted as saying that the Constitution is “an outdated document.” These people are not defenders of Constitutional liberty.

Many Southern activists bemoan the lack of respect given to Southern heritage - that is, Confederate flags, monuments, and leaders. While this is surely the case, one must remember that our Confederate forefathers did not go to war for a flag, monument, or particular leader. They fought for State’s Rights - that is, the right to govern themselves, the right to live as free men in a free society. In a nutshell: they fought for liberty. Liberty, therefore, is our greatest heritage as Southerners. We must remember that all other forms of Southern heritage are insignificant when compared to our heritage of liberty. Our job is to undo that which has made the malignant growth of government not only possible but also inevitable—the loss of real State’s Rights, that is, the ability of “we the people of the sovereign States” to enforce the limits of the Constitution upon the Federal government. The reason the Ten Commandments were removed from the Alabama Supreme Court Building is the same reason that the State of Alabama cannot prevent the murder of the unborn child in Alabama—the lack of real State’s Rights. The Federal government will soon be enforcing the “rights” of sodomites upon the people of the South because “we the people of (the once) sovereign States” no longer have the right to govern ourselves as a free people—State’s Rights are dead.

Yes, let us acknowledge the fact, real State’s Rights died at Appomattox. Until a Republican candidate comes along who will admit the fact that Lincoln’s Party killed State’s Rights and therefore the Constitution, we will forever be subject to a tyrannical and ever-increasing big government.

As Ron Kennedy so well demonstrated in his book, Reclaiming Liberty, for the past 75 years the Republican Party has been just as responsible for the growth of government as the Democrats. Every socialist scheme of Roosevelt, Johnson, and Carter has been protected and enlarged by Republicans. Is it any wonder that both political parties today view the South, the last advocate of State’s Rights, as their enemy? To add insult to injury, every four years the Republican Party sends its anointed candidates to Dixie to convince Southerners that they are good Republicans and therefore, once again, Southerners need to vote for the Party of Lincoln.

As long as Southerners tolerate being treated as a political hooker - to be used once every four years by the Republican Party - we can never expect principles that we love to be respected by good Republicans. The National Republican Party will respect the South only when the South forces Republicans to respect us. Another good Republican, even if he is from the South, will not force a change in the Republican Party - and ultimately America - we must have one of our own, one who will unequivocally proclaim that in 1861 the South fought for State’s Rights and Lincoln’s Party destroyed true American republicanism. As a Jeffersonian Republican our candidate will help awaken within the hearts and minds of our fellow Southerners a love and respect for our heritage of liberty that has, for the past fifty years, been under unrelenting attack. By contending for the Republican nomination for president in all Southern States, our candidate can reawaken Southerners to a love and respect for our heritage that will become a stepping stone to the liberty and freedom not known since 1776—a time when Americans believed in the right of self-government, not big government.

Imagine the dilemma and consternation within the Party of Lincoln when our Southern delegates to the Republican Convention demand an apology from the Republicans for their unconstitutional war of aggression against the South! How will they respond when we demand a plank in the Republican Party platform that recognizes the real State’s Rights of nullification and secession! And if they turn our Jeffersonian Republicans down, what will they do when we take the South out of Mr. Lincoln’s Party and support a third party in the general election (remember, without the South the Party of Lincoln is forever a minority party)?

As long as we Southerners allow the National Republican Party to use us, much like a pimp uses his hookers, we will be condemned to living with less freedom and more government; we will be destined to having sodomites held up before our children as heroes while men such as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson are given the bums rush; we will continue to have good Republicans elected like Nixon and Bush. The question before us now as never before since Appomattox is simply this: “Are we willing to do those things necessary for Reclaiming Liberty?”

1 in 3 consumers is a minority, thus fueling changes in toy manufacture

excerpts from "Kmart launches multicultural doll brands" by Ashley M. Heher, AP Business Writer

Toy store aisles are getting a multicultural makeover. Bolstered by the success of Nickelodeon's popular bilingual children's character, Dora the Explorer, and the spending power of the nation's growing minority population, toy retailers across the country are filling their shelves with dolls whose skin colors and facial features reflect the girls and boys who play with them.

Now, discount retailer Kmart hopes to cash in on a growing appetite for ethnic toys among minority consumers, and their rising spending power. It's launching its own initiative this month, putting dozens of multicultural dolls on shelves in each of its 1,400 stores.

When the rollout is completed next week, Kmart stores will sell nearly four dozen types of ethnic dolls — a nearly fourfold increase from what's currently available. The dolls are flanked by an advertising campaign in the store's circulars and designed to appeal to black, Hispanic and Asian parents.

"We needed to be relevant to them," said Philipp Elliott, a toy merchandise manager at Kmart, a subsidiary of Hoffman Estates-based Sears Holdings Corp.

Becoming relevant to minority shoppers can reap big benefits. About one in three Americans is a minority, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Between 2006 and 2011, the spending power of the country's blacks, Asians, Native Americans and multiracial shoppers is expected to grow 38 percent, to $1.9 trillion. Meanwhile, Hispanic buying power alone is projected to grow a formidable 48 percent, to almost $1.2 trillion, according to data from The University of Georgia's Selig Center for Economic Growth.

By 2050, minorities will account for half of U.S. residents, according to Census Bureau projections.

Kmart officials declined to release figures showing how much the chain has invested in the doll project, which includes brands such as Baby Abuelita and Mattel Inc.'s Rebelde dolls, as well as the newly designed proprietary Just Girlz collection.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. spokeswoman Melissa O'Brien said the chain's Hispanic doll selection has more than tripled in the past year while the total assortment of black baby dolls has more than doubled.

Wayne, N.J.-based Toys "R" Us Inc., which follows a similar approach when stocking its more than 100 types of multicultural dolls, said its Hispanic selection has soared in the past two years along with smaller increases in the more established black doll products.

"Dora was really the key driver," said spokeswoman Kathleen Waugh.

"If you're a little girl of color, this is your year," said Denise Gary Robinson, president of DollsLikeMe.com. (more)

Honoring your heritage is illegal; help yourself to some degeneracy instead

This past week, the natives' rights situation sank to an all-time low in Germany as mall-owning moguls, undoubtedly prompted by leftist scum and so-called Jewish interest groups, exercised their power and authority to shut down stores selling Thor Steinar apparel. Thor Steinar specializes in fashionable clothing that makes use of Norse motifs and celebrates Europe's Viking past.






Several years ago, the company started to encounter opposition from the Left, as it had become a popular brand amongst people who hate their politics.

The decision to shut down Thor Steinar's retailers was probably music to the ears of the German-hating public in Germany, including the miserable low-life who spray-painted "No Germans, No Holocaust" next to an elementary school building in Hamburg. I kid you not.

Heaven forbid that the German people actually get a chance to display their pride in who they are through what they wear, but of course, this is the last thing that the people who control Germany's destiny want to see. The brand raises identity awareness among a people who have, for the most part, been brainwashed into turning their country over to the unceasing flood of Turkish and North African migrants.

Thor Steinar is an appeal to Germans to remember their heritage and be proud of who they are. By contrast, anyone can dress themselves up to join the "goth" suicide-depression cult, a ridiculous trend of abnormality popular in Germany under brand names like "Emily the Strange"; similarly, anyone can dress (and act) like a law-breaking, womanizing, gun-toting gangsta - in fact, this fashion is encouraged by MTV Europe and increasingly popular in Germany. As opposed to these styles which advertise degeneracy or tend to blend our people into a new, narcissistic and highly-materialistic culture, Thor Steinar was a breath of fresh air. It was not for the Turks, the Blacks or the Chinese living in Germany as "Germans", it was for the real Germans. Thor Steinar forces Germans to think about who they are as a people. In this sense, it was not very different from the African-American-inspired label FUBU - "For Us By Us."

Ironically, because Thor Steinar is like the white man's FUBU, the left, Jewish interest groups and most of the Establishment do not like the brand. All that seems to matter to this assortment is that the brand does not blind people to their differences. Oh, and another thing: Thor Steinar's message gives credence to the ideas of the far-right, especially when nobody else bothers to stand up for the future of real German people. This, of course, despite the company making no statement about race awareness, even if that is what its customers use the brand for. This is not so different from the way FUBU was and is used, which nobody seems to have a problem with. In fact, FUBU won a series of awards: NV magazine - A Salute to Urban Professionals in Business (2001); Source Foundation - Hip Hop Cares Award (2001); Online Hip Hop Awards "Best Fashion Designer Label" (2001 and 2000); "Celebration of the Creative Sprit" -- The Black Alumni of Pratt Creative Sprit Award (2000); Essence Award (1999); Congressional Achievement Award for Entrepreneurship (1999); N.Y. African American Business Awards -- Outstanding Business Achievement Award (1999); NAACP Entrepreneurs of the Year Award (1999); Citation of Honor, "Team FUBU" - Office of the President, Borough of Queens, City of New York, (1999); meanwhile, Thor Steinar is deemed "offensive" and banned from store shelves.

Several stores will be forced to close their doors due to the edict against Thor Steinar. This includes the store "Tønsberg", a proprietor located at Berlin's famous Alexanderplatz, which sold the Thor Steinar label exclusively. Another store named in the press release was "Narvik." Narvik is the name of an important port city in Scandinavia, and thus the name reflects the Nordic theme found in the clothes it offers. Of course, in order to bridge the gap between Thor Steinar, Nazis and "the death of six million Jews", the media made sure that the public knew Narvik was also the site of a Nazi victory against the British along the Norwegian coast in 1940. Evidently, that was enough to calm down even the conditioned ones who might have otherwise been alarmed at the news of the shutdown...a shutdown which is pretty clear evidence of the lack of freedom in Germany.

An early warning sign: Whites now a minority in 10% of the country

A rather unlikely source, AOL Time Warner, just released the results of a Census Bureau study which found whites to be a minority in 1 out of every 10 counties in the United States. In 2006, there were an estimated 100 million minorities in the U.S., about a third of the population. According to Census Bureau projections, by 2050, minorities will account for one half of all U.S. residents. Non-Whites will cease to be the minority.

Does this give credence to the idea that Whites must take action so that their children will not become minorities in a nation founded by Whites?

...so that their children can find opportunities, including employment?

...so that their children can find a mate?

...so that their culture and heritage can survive?

Critics will say there is no reason for whites to be alarmed - 9 out of 10 counties are still predominantly white. Critics might also say that mass immigration adds human muscle that may be necessary to compete with China. Well, future generations of whites will see things from an entirely different perspective, as a people overrun and outnumbered, and shunned by the country of their birth. This is not about to happen in China. China has 1.3 billion Chinese. The Han Chinese constitute about 91.9% of the total population. I can see it now: a bitter white child, sitting alone in a hidden archive, shuffling through news clippings. He will want to know the truth. One by one, the clippings will document the gradual disintegration of white influence in the United States. The child will read headlines like "Whites a Minority in One in Ten Counties" and wonder why they did not provoke a response from the white folks who read them while there was still time. Maybe the United States will no longer even exist because of the Chicano territorial revisionists and a language and identity conflict.