Archive for November, 2014

Silk Road 2.0 goes down

Saturday, November 8th, 2014

“This hidden site has been seized”

We are going to need a heavily decentralized solution, so that if a relatively small number of nodes get shut down or taken over by law enforcement, the network continues to function correctly, and, because no single node is central, no single node has traffic patterns that make it stand out.

The Tor hidden site system will always fail if a hidden site generates too much traffic for too long. We need a non Tor solution for publishing and curating reputations and performing transactions.

Emmet Till was not lynched, but he should have been.

Thursday, November 6th, 2014

You tube video of white woman walking for ten hours through the vibrant part of town. Numerous catcalls and numerous menacing pickup attempts, 108 catcalls and crude and menacing pick up attemps, one every six minutes, all of them from vibrants.

You tube video of white woman walking for ten hours through the white part of town. A few stares, mostly from vibrants, no catcalls, and two courteous pick up attempts, one every five hours.

Inner Party always wins

Wednesday, November 5th, 2014

The tea party, upon being elected, deems it impossible to repeal obamacare, despite the fact that it is unpopular, about to become more unpopular with startling price rises, and that it was quite popular to run against obamacare.

Meanwhile, in a move that has absolutely no connection to obamacare, we are seeing a movement to publicize sedative overdose as a peaceful happy death.

It generally is not. The dying person makes horrifying sounds that sound very much as if he is very aware that he is dying and has changed his mind very strongly about the issue. Peaceful death, in so far as any death can be called peaceful, is heavy morphine (or fentanyl, which has much the same effect as morphine), not heavy sedatives.

Further, with heavy morphine, the difficult moral issues go away. You give the patient a pain control clicker with no limit, or a very high limit. And if he should die, death by misadventure. Chances are it was accidental overdose, a common side effect of extreme pain control with self administered morphine in dying patients. Doctor did not kill him, and it is hard to tell if he killed himself. Probably he did not.

The great advantage of heavy sedatives from the point of view of the medical profession is that a heavily sedated patient is unable to protest being killed off. Hence the popular “suicide” method where the patient is heavily sedated, then has a plastic bag popped over his head, then a cord is tightened around the patient’s neck. Sounds voluntary and peaceful, like Obamacare.

The great disadvantage of unlimited self administered morphine through an IV drip is that if pain control is successful, patient is likely to decide there is no hurry to commit suicide, and hang around occupying an expensive hospital bed for months or years.

Opiates control pain, and overdose will kill you. Sedatives control the patient, and overdose will kill you. If a patient is heavily sedated, cannot choose, therefore, not suicide but murder. Murder is a lot more effective at controlling health care costs.

Don’t vote. It only encourages them

Monday, November 3rd, 2014

You will undoubtedly hear that the election is nail bitingly close.

That is a lie. To sustain the illusion of a two party state, large numbers of Democrats are elected as republicans. They reliably vote Democrat whenever it matters. Observe, for example, the “bipartisan” budget passed by the supposedly Republican controlled house.

And what is the issue of the election? Once in a while Republicans point out that Obama is up to his armpits in foreign wars and losing, that the economy has been depressed and is sinking further under Democrat rule, that the streets are unsafe, that the young have no job prospects, that middle class means a hundred thousand dollars in college debt while working at starbucks, that Obamacare turns out to be unaffordable, and so on and so forth. So what are Democrats on about?

They have microtargeted campaigns for low information voters – women, homosexuals, blacks, and hispanics. But if you add up all the microtargets, their one issue is “We hate straight white males.”

To which the Republican reply is “We hate straight white males too. In fact we hate them even more than you do.” And sometimes, not very often, they add “But we also worry about losing wars and the economy sucks.”

Before this election, the anti straight white male party had a majority. After this election, the anti straight white male party will have a bigger majority and more extreme policies.

And similarly for the election after that, and the one after that. You face a government that hates you, and every year it will hate you more. Hence the visibly second class citizenship for whites that we see on the streets, that the recent catcalling video inadvertently highlighted.

Yes, political competition continues, and will continue, but it is competition within the permanent majority party as to hates straight white males even more.

Politicians will use public money to buy votes. They naturally want to buy the cheapest votes, so democracy tends to universal franchise. But they still want cheaper votes, so create an underclass. Then they import an underclass. The final outcome, as in Ivory Coast, is that the former natives get ethnically cleansed with the help of UN troops.

No good person should vote in an election with universal franchise, as it is a declaration that he is equal to his inferiors. Since, in fact, he is not equal to his inferiors, he must therefore be oppressing them, and will be punished for that oppression. Strangely, he remains unequal. Obviously the punishment was not sufficiently severe.

That is what you have been getting for voting, and will continue to get for voting. You have been punished, you will be punished, and the punishments will grow progressively more severe. When you vote, you affirm that you are equal. Since, in practice, you are not equal, you affirm that you deserve the punishment that you will receive.

tasmanian aboriginal skull

Sunday, November 2nd, 2014

Tasmanian aboriginal skull

At least that is what the article says, though maybe they photographed a Neanderthal skull in error.

On the other hand, Erectus walks among us gives an example of an almost equally primitive looking aboriginal skull, and suggests that our most recent common ancestor with the Australian aboriginals is not very recent.

Human skull

The difference seems to be at least as great, as the difference between a human skull and a Neanderthal skull, and the cranial capacity of the Neanderthal skull considerably greater.  Observe the sloping brow and the ridges surrounding the eye sockets, very similar to what makes a Neanderthal skull Neanderthal. Indeed, I wonder if this is a Neanderthal skull somehow mislabeled.

If, as seems likely, Neanderthals had very limited interfertility with humans, we would, on the face of it, suspect that Tasmanians would have very limited interfertility than humans, assuming the skull to be correct, and, from cranial capacity, a substantially lower technological capacity than Neanderthals.  In fact, however, Tasmanian technology was better than Neanderthal.  Tasmanian art was about the same as Neanderthal art.

Race and species

Sunday, November 2nd, 2014

One of the many politically incorrect aspects of Darwinism is that races are the origin of species.  There is no objective way of distinguishing a large race difference from a small species difference, any more than one can distinguish a large hill from a small mountain.

To say that two closely related kinds are two races of the same species, or two distinct species is a fact about scientific terminology, not a fact about the external world.  As Lamarck argued, we draw sharp lines on a world that lacks sharp lines.  For any two kinds, an intermediate kind likely exists, or once existed.

Everyone agrees that if two kinds are not interfertile, that they will not have sex, or cannot have sex, or if they have sex but no offspring ensues, then that is truly two species, not two races of the same species.  But if we said that two kinds that can and will interbreed, given the opportunity, must belong to the same species, then we would be in a world with very few species.  We would not only say that dogs and wolves are the same species, which most people would think pretty reasonable, but that wolves and coyotes are the same species, which is a bit of a stretch, and that lions and tigers are the same species, which is just silly.

Such a standard is also unworkable, because there is very commonly a kind in the middle, such that kind A is interfertile with kind B, and kind B interfertile with kind C, but kind A is not interfertile with kind C, in which case we would like to call all three kinds different species, since we obviously have to call A and C different species.

That blacks are the same species as whites is not a fact about human kinds, but rather the fact that Darwin declined to draw an arbitrary line through the Sahara, not a fact about human kinds but a fact about scientific nomenclature.

We will first consider the arguments which may be advanced in favour of classing the races of man as distinct species, and then and then the arguments on the other side.

The inferior vitality of mulattoes is spokenof in a trustworthy work as a well-known phenomenon; and this, although a differentconsideration from their lessened fertility, may perhaps be advanced as a proof of thespecific distinctness of the parent races.

Now if we reflect on the weighty argumentsabove given, for raising the races of man to the dignity of species, and the insuperabledifficulties on the other side in defining them, it seems that the term “sub-species”might here be used with propriety. But from long habit the term “race” will perhapsalways be employed.

Through the means just specified, aidedperhaps by others as yet undiscovered, man has been raised to his present state. Butsince he attained to the rank of manhood, he has diverged into distinct races, or as theymay be more fitly called, sub-species. Some of these, such as the Negro and European, areso distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any furtherinformation, they would undoubtedly have been considered by him as good and true species

Our naturalist would then perhaps turn t geographical distribution, and he would probabldeclare that those forms must be distinc species, which differ not only in appearance, butare fitted for hot, as well as damp or dry countries, and for the Artic regions. He mightappeal to the fact that no species in the group next to man–namely, the Quadrumana, can resist low temperature, or any considerable change of climate; and that the species which come nearestto man have never been reared to maturity, even under the temperate climate of Europe. He wouldbe deeply impressed with the fact, first noticed by Agassiz (7. ‘Diversity of Origin of the HumanRaces,’ in the ‘Christian Examiner,’ July 1850.), that the different races of man are distributed over the world in the same zoological provinces, as those inhabited by undoubtedly distinctspecies and genera of mammals. This is manifestly the case with the Australian, Mongolian, andNegro races of man; in a less well-marked manner with the Hottentots; but plainly with the Papuansand Malays, who are separated, as Mr. Wallace has shewn, by nearly the same line which divides thegreat Malayan and Australian zoological provinces. The Aborigines of America rangethroughout the Continent; and this at first appears opposed to the above rule, for most ofthe productions of the Southern and Northern halves differ widely: yet some few living forms,as the opossum, range from the one into the other, as did formerly some of the giganticEdentata. The Esquimaux, like other Arctic animals, extend round the whole polar regions. Itshould be observed that the amount of difference between the mammals of the several zoologicalprovinces does not correspond with the degree of separation between the latter; so that it canhardly be considered as an anomaly that the Negro differs more, and the American much less from theother races of man, than do the mammals of the African and American continents from the mammalsof the other provinces. Man, it may be added, does not appear to have aboriginally inhabitedany oceanic island; and in this respect, he resembles the other members of his class.

In determining whether the supposed varieties ofthe same kind of domestic animal should be ranked as such, or as specifically distinct, that is,whether any of them are descended from distinct wild species, every naturalist would lay muchstress on the fact of their external parasites being specifically distinct. All the more stresswould be laid on this fact, as it would be an exceptional one; for I am informed by Mr. Dennythat the most different kinds of dogs, fowls, and pigeons, in England, are infested by the same species of Pediculi or lice. Now Mr. A. Murray has carefully examined the Pediculi collected indifferent countries from the different races of man (8. ‘Transactions of the Royal Society ofEdinburgh,’ vol. xxii, 1861, p. 567.); and he finds that they differ, not only in colour, butin the structure of their claws and limbs. In every case in which many specimens were obtained the differences were constant. The surgeon of a whaling ship in the Pacific assured me that whenthe Pediculi, with which some Sandwich Islanders on board swarmed, strayed on to the bodies of theEnglish sailors, they died in the course of three or four days. These Pediculi were darkercoloured, and appeared different from those proper to the natives of Chiloe in South America,of which he gave me specimens. These, again, appeared larger and much softer than Europeanlice. Mr. Murray procured four kinds from Africa, namely, from the Negroes of the Eastern andWestern coasts, from the Hottentots and Kaffirs; two kinds from the natives of Australia; two from North and two from South America. In these latter cases it may be presumed that the Pediculi camefrom natives inhabiting different districts. With insects slight structural differences, ifconstant, are generally esteemed of specific value: and the fact of the races of man beinginfested by parasites, which appear to be specifically distinct, might fairly be urged asan argument that the races themselves ought to be classed as distinct species.

All spotted owls are obviously the same race and same species.  Californian spotted owls are no more a species than Californian blondes are a species.

Spotted owls differ from barred owls no more that whites differ from east Asians and, as with whites and east Asians, are connected by a cline.  The environmentalists want to exterminate the cline, to make spotted owls and barred owls conform to a plausible species definition.

Similarly coyotes and wolves.  The American government  exterminated the cline for political reasons.  Coyotes are pigmy wolves, and can freely interbreed with large wolves, and are fully interfertile.

Whites and East asians are fully interfertile.

Whites and blacks are interfertile, but *not* fully interfertile.

Whites and Australian mainland aboriginals are interfertile.  We don’t know if they are fully interfertile, because by the time Australia was settled, it had already become politically incorrect to study such matters.

Whites and Tasmanian aboriginals were not interfertile.  Tasmania was initially colonized by white males, and initially had zero single white women.  Very large numbers of Tasmanian aboriginal women were purchased or captured by lonely white males.   A fertile age Tasmanian woman cost about the same as a good dog. Not one mixed race child ensued.  Sex with white people was a substantial part of the reason that Tasmanian aboriginals became extinct.

[Correction some mixed race children did ensue. James Bonwick was there, and wrote a book about it “The lost Tasmanian race.” He tells us it was rare for half caste children to be born “even under the most favorable circumstances”, indicating dramatically reduced, but non zero, fertility]

All existing people who claim Tasmanian aboriginal ancestry and can plausibly trace it to someone who looks plausibly nonwhite (a very small subset of those who claim Tasmanian aboriginal ancestry), trace it back to one woman who is obviously (from her photograph and the date at which she had children) a mainland aboriginal who came over with the white colonists after the Tasmanian aboriginals became extinct.  If Truganini was the last Tasmanian aboriginal, and she was certainly the last person who looked Tasmanian, the Tasmanian aboriginals became extinct without the birth of a single mixed race child, despite massive fornication.

That Tasmanian aboriginals were the same species as ourselves is not a fact about scientific nomenclature, but a lie.  And, if they cannot be classed as the same species, then if we apply to humans the same standards as we apply to other groups of kinds, we also have to categorize kinds that are comparably different as different species.