Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Well Ed, if the white folks didn't do everything first, invent all the good stuff, and get credit for the good exploration, that would mean the poor old white victims would need to recognize the value in other races. Can't have that can we?

Of course if the dark races have some value then jews might too and that is possibly worse.

Posted by: MikeMa | September 1, 2010 9:49 AM

I truly HATE this idiocy. They take the evidence that paleo-'Indians' were more genetically diverse than later populations and turn it into "white people were here and were muuuuuurdered by those evil Indians!!!!!!eleventy!!!1!!"

No, even when they refer to remains as Caucasoid, they don't mean "white," nor do they mean "European" in the modern sense of either. Also, like Kennewick Man, trying to determine ancestry from a single set of remains isn't exactly what one would refer to as "precise." Some identified him as caucasian, but his DNA came up rather firmly as Asian-Native American in origin. Fully study of the remains have classified him as Native American, and he has legally come under the guidelines of NAGPRA, but you'll still have people who will falsely claim that he was European, "proof" of whites in North America, that his research was suppressed, etc.

In this specific case, this jackass appears to have read one too many Clive Cussler novels. He probably believes that the "true" white race was from Atlantis and that all technology and science comes from them.

Posted by: dogmeat | September 1, 2010 10:06 AM

Follow it through to a natural conclusion, with any wild presuppositions supported.

Massive amounts of white europeans came here. In droves. Then, they were killed by an invading population that is obstensibly not white.

Ok.

Then what?

Posted by: Buffoon | September 1, 2010 10:09 AM

I thought black people invented Soultrain.

Posted by: asdf | September 1, 2010 10:11 AM

Good discussion of original settlement of the Americas here, if anyone is interetsed.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/the-new-world-in-three-easy-steps/

Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | September 1, 2010 10:13 AM

As I said before, best guess is that the first Americans were Austronesians (parent group to Cambodians, South Vietnamese, Papuans, Torres Strait Islands, Pacific islanders (of various sorts) and Australian Aboriginals).
Yep all those white people. - Dingo

Posted by: DingoJack | September 1, 2010 10:19 AM

So the white supremacist's new hypothesis is that white people suck? Well it's original, I'll give him that.

Original my ass -- nonwhite people had that hypothesis first!

So it's "original" in the same way that Colombus "discovered" America.

Posted by: rob | September 1, 2010 10:39 AM

Don't the Mormons have something like this in their teachings, that the original settlers of North America were some lost tribe of Israel?

Posted by: wheatdogg | September 1, 2010 10:40 AM

Massive amounts of white europeans came here. In droves. Then, they were killed by an invading population that is obstensibly not white.

Ok.

Then what?

Therefore, the white Europeans were sodomites cursed by God to be killed at the hands of heathens for their wickedness in order to preserve the Western Holy Land for our Christian Nation. QED, motherfucker.

(yes, that was sarcasm)

Posted by: schism | September 1, 2010 11:08 AM

I try to forgive the Discovery Channel for its flaws solely because of Mythbusters--even when their specific proposal doesn't quite do a good job of testing the myth-of-the-day, the attitude of establishing a falsifiable measure of a proposition is possibly the single most aggressive advocacy of the scientific method out there today.

And they blow shit up, too.

And, of course as others have noted, even if the Soultrean Hypothesis (complete with whatever idiocy de Nugent adds on about what it implies) was fully established as the truth, all it would mean is that the rednecks lost another war. Southern heritage for the win!

Posted by: Freemage | September 1, 2010 11:42 AM

My impression was that the current lead suspect for the killer Soultre/Clovis wave was not other humans, but an asteroid impact onto the Canadian ice sheet in the Great Lakes area. However, I may be mixing colonization waves.

Posted by: abb3w | September 1, 2010 12:41 PM

That John de Nugent website certainly is depressing. How do people get so fecked up?

Posted by: socle | September 1, 2010 12:56 PM

In short, the Clovis (the earliest people that are found on the East coast of NA) have technology that looks nothing like that of the Beringians, and looks very, very similar to the Solutrean's technology.

Kris,

There are major problems with the "Clovis-First" model to begin with. For decades anything that wasn't Clovis was declared to be later despite evidence that the site was earlier. Currently there are 15-20 sites that are older than Clovis and contain pre-Clovis and transitional points that rather solidly refute the argument that Europeans are responsible for the development of big game points. Add to that there is little evidence supporting the argument that they sailed across the Atlantic versus significant evidence that they lacked the maritime culture necessary to do so. At the same time there is evidence that Asian-proto-Indians were quite able to sail across the Pacific as well as evidence that the cultures in eastern Asia at the time did have a maritime culture that could have produced the boats, etc.

In addition, Clovis was first discovered in New Mexico, there are older sites in the western US and south American than the sites in the eastern US. Add to that it is a big game hunting culture, people tend to develop similar technology to accomplish similar tasks without there being a need to have someone else show them how.

Really the Solutrean argument is yet another attempt by European descended archaeologists to suggest that non-white cultures were incapable of producing advances in technology on a par with or exceeding similar developments in "white" cultures. It fits in well with the argument by the Mormons that the lost tribes of Israel were here and established a major culture. In many ways it appears similar to the arguments that whites made Cahokia, Machu Picchu, Tikal, etc., and that "heathen Indians" killed these noble civilizations and took them over. For a couple hundred years Europeans have had a hard time recognizing that non-European cultures do have the ability to build substantial civilizations without their help. It's arrogant ethnocentrism.

Posted by: dogmeat | September 1, 2010 2:02 PM

There is some puzzling "genetic evidence" ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_%28mtDNA%29#North_America

Posted by: asdf | September 1, 2010 2:07 PM

@ 19: The Wiki article quotes strong objections to the hypothesis, based on genetics, time differences between the two allegedly linked cultures, no evidence of transatlantic travel capabilities, and lack of evidence of ships (no, not all sites are underwater -- and even if they were, it's not like modern-day humans can't find stuff underwater).

My guess is, enough people may have crossed the ocean to bring technologies across, but not enough to establish viable permanent colonies that would have left behind both a significant genetic contribution and other material evidence of settlements. Either they just stopped in briefly, or they died before they could shag any natives, or they were very quickly driven off (or kept off) the land. Hell, they may have used their weapons in self-defense, and the natives picked them up after the battle and copied them.

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 1, 2010 2:29 PM

I still don't get it.

Whites came first. Indians killed them. Sure. I'll bite.

So what?

Posted by: Buffoon | September 1, 2010 2:40 PM

The idea that the white guilt trip toward Indians might end sure has YOUR knickers in a knot.

The colonists from Europe did shitty things to the Indians, and it had nothing to do with getting revenge for something that happened 10,000 years ago. Even if the Solutrean hypothesis is 100% confirmed it still won't change that fact. But hey, at least you're upfront about why you support this hypothesis. I guess that's preferable to dealing with Intelligent Design proponents who insist that their theories have nothing to do with their religious beliefs.

But, ah... what do I know? I'm probably part Jew, and part Neanderthal or something.

Posted by: Imrryr | September 1, 2010 3:08 PM

#31
The Discovery Channel means jack shit, scientifically speaking. Come back when you have a consensus in the peer-reviewed literature.
Disclaimer: not a Jew, but I eat at Canter's Deli.

Posted by: nejishiki | September 1, 2010 3:13 PM

Raging Bee said:

Wow, the Discovery Channel gives airtime to discredited race-pseudoscience, and now there's a hostage situation at their home office. Coincidence? Mmmmmmaybe...

Considering that these are his demands, most likely.

Posted by: Gretchen | September 1, 2010 3:16 PM

The idea that the white guilt trip toward Indians might end sure has YOUR knickers in a knot.

Thanks, John, you've just confirmed our suspicions regarding the motives behind your support of this already-discredited "theory." I guess this means we can't expect you to address any of the objections to this "theory" that have been cited here...

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 1, 2010 4:05 PM

FARTED by: John de Nugent | September 1, 2010 2:35 PM
Well, ARE you Jewish? You do have neanderthal features, as per the June Science magazine article by the Max Planck Institute's Svante Paabo.

Um, you actually said this out loud; where others could hear you?!? At least your sense of shame is turned off. How can you possibly live in the universe with such hate in your heart? I really thought that people only ever said such things in private.

W+O+W

Posted by: WBPNYC | September 1, 2010 4:45 PM

"The Discovery Channel means jack shit, scientifically speaking. Come back when you have a consensus in the peer-reviewed literature."

"Consensus in the peer-reviewed literature" is a toehold of priesthood. Science views nothing as holy, especially shared f**king opinion. Don't repeat this f**king nonsense.

Posted by: Buffoon | September 1, 2010 5:07 PM

The vast majority of History Channel shows are tabloid crap at best they do have a couple good science shows. How the Earth was Made, The Universe and Evolve are all quite good.

Posted by: Brian | September 1, 2010 6:14 PM

Am I the only person who took one look at the post title and thought "Soultrain Genocide? Wow, that sounds like an awesome band name!"

Posted by: Tacroy | September 1, 2010 6:55 PM

Oh, and I may be alone in this, but I've seen quite a few women with vaguely Neanderthal faces (minus the brow ridge, of course) and most of them are very beautiful.

Posted by: BrianX | September 1, 2010 7:09 PM

Buffoon's peer-review-equals-priesthood shtick is typical AGW-denialist boilerplate. Since the peer-reviewed literature is 100% against them, it's all sheeple following the herd, led by a cynical priesthood trying to rob and impoverish them for some unspecified benefit. Also, algore is fat!

Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge | September 1, 2010 7:57 PM

#44
Peer review is the best system we have. If these cranks were serious, they would look to convince the establishment that their ideas are correct. You can whine about a 'preisthood' all you want, but the matter of fact is that 'consensus' represents the most confidence we can have at the present time. It may be wrong - but who's gonna prove that? Who's going to change the consensus? No, much easier to write out conspiracy theories on the internet. Has all the advantages of theft over honest work, as the saying goes.

Posted by: nejishiki | September 1, 2010 9:00 PM

How much of the Silutrean Hypothesis depends on the resemblance of North American finds to Solutrean tool technology? I ask this because the August 2010 issue of Scientific American had an article on some remarkable finds at the Pinnacle Point site in South Africa. They found evidence of toolmaking using deliberately heat-treated stone dating back up to 164,000 years - a technique that it had been thought was invented by the Solutrean people about 20,000 years ago.

Posted by: DaveL | September 1, 2010 9:36 PM

Am I the only person who took one look at the post title and thought "Soultrain Genocide? Wow, that sounds like an awesome band name!"

For a hate-metal band?

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 1, 2010 10:29 PM

@#55 Dear everyone: When talking about scientific research, "theory" means something that was and/or is effectively proven. "Hypothesis" is the word for something that may have data to suggest it but has not been rigorously tested or have insufficient evidence to be fully supported.

But more exactly 'Theory' is a 'Hypothesis' that hasn't had an example falsify it yet, after many many rigorous and numerous objective tests based on the idea it can be disproved or isn't absolute and holy. That's why when Newtonian Physics at certain levels of reality was theorized it isn't true, no one was slaughtered but instead tests were done to improve or discover the additional hypotheses where Newton's theory ended or has been proven false as newer technology and discover happened.

This Solutrean Theory is similar to the 'So what Africans were forced into American slavery. Get over it whites have been too.' type of shit many denialists and bigots want as justification to initialize hate and discrimination as if it's right and okay "Because LOOL Ma, everyone's been doin it!! Why can't I, WaaaHBoohoo".

I liked the analogy how you shouldn't feel bad your daddy hit so and so's daddy because their grandaddy smacked yours. The Hatfield and McCoy theory of generational, ethnic, racial war and hate justified.

Posted by: megan | September 2, 2010 1:30 AM

DaveL: Very interesting article on Pinnacle Point. Though the comments are crackpot-central.

Posted by: Ema Nymton | September 2, 2010 2:18 AM

I am surprised no one has responded to John de Nugent's comment that Channel 4 is like an American PBS. Channel 4 is a commercial station. They produce mostly crap. I guess the BBC might be considered sort of like an American PBS but with money.

Posted by: Hemulen | September 2, 2010 3:43 AM

"Well, ARE you Jewish? You do have neanderthal features, as per the June Science magazine article by the Max Planck Institute's Svante Paabo."

If he has "Neanderthal fatures" he's probably more closely related to these imagined proto-Europeans than you are.

Posted by: Ian Gould | September 2, 2010 7:56 AM

From wikipedia:

"Solutrean culture was dominant in present-day France and Spain from roughly 21,000 to 17,000 years ago. It was known for its distinctive toolmaking characterized by bifacial, pressure-flaked points. Traces of the Solutrean tool-making industry disappear completely from Europe around 15,000 years ago, when it was replaced by the less complex stone tools of the Magdalenian culture."

So if we follow De Neugent's reasoning the Magdalaneans obviously committed genocide against the Solutreans, making THEM the ancestors of the modern Europeans.

Posted by: Ian Gould | September 2, 2010 8:14 AM

dogmeat- I don't want to threadjack this, nor turn it into a pissing contest with chickenlittles, but I would like to answer your questions rationally and reasonably from my perspective. It will involve quite a long comment. If we get too far afield, or you wish more discussion, I'll give you my email and we can take it off line.

"Buffoon, what exactly are you trying to say? "

I'm trying to say exactly what I said. Consensus is a thing for governing, religion and the running of households. Not science. Consensus as a scientific concept gives undue respect to any concept or viewpoint which is widely viewed as correct. It does not provide correctness and is thus a completely superfluous or possibly harmful thing. Accept that and move on.

"What is the threshold for legitimate scientific knowledge?"

Good question. What is "correct," which can later be proven wrong with a few words on a page? What is "known," that is later found to be true for only a small number of situations in our vast universe? I realize I got all hippymoonbat there for a second, but really what is "legitimate" or "knowledge" or even "fact" is a philosophical discussion.

"Are you arguing that the Discovery Channel is a legitimate authority when it comes to science?"

There is no "legitimate" authority when it comes to science besides nature itself. That's kind of the whole point, isn't it?

" Are you arguing that there is no method for determining what is legitimate?"

If you define "legitimate," that would make it easier. When a scientist produces X conclusion, and provides other people with his hypothesis, method and conclusion transparently, it is not for other people to "agree" or "form a consensus" with his conclusion. There are two true options, the first being to disprove said conclusion through experiment, the second being to show the method to be repeatable. That's pretty much it. When the FDA does drug tests, they want to get the most "legitimate" results, right? So I can agree with you that some forms of legitimacy exist for research, but they are usually centered around profit or safety.

So, you create a couple structures of information. One structure is commercial. This is the bulk of the research on our planet at any given time. A business hires scientists to do research to create or improve products. The real test against nature is when the products are created and released. These scientists are upheld to standards to create reproducible and unbiased work simply because the end result will be the very definition of transparently available.

The FDA does double blind control studies: They require multiple non-communicating researchers to perform the same experiment concurrently, to remove bias.

However, when you consider research for non-commercial purposes, bias and error become real, serious problems.

Bias exacerbated by a consensus viewpoint, which is to say, a widely help opinion which is viewed as "correct," stifles the process. If you do not find results consistent with the consensus, your work may be questioned for its value or accuracy, whereas if you work is consistent with the consensus, it may be assumed more valuable and accurate.

Please note: This does not require malfeasance or evil intent to be a real, functional force in amalgam systems like scientific literature. Believing something, and then accepting a confirmation of it, as opposed to denying a disproof of it, is to be human.

Theology students in the vatican may disagree about the interpretation of a given point in the bible and discuss ad nauseum, but they would rise up in concert against an outsider seeking to demonstrate the bible itself false.

"You make the argument that consensus amounts to a priesthood, but provide no evidence to support this claim."

I said it amounts to a "toehold of priesthood," I believe, not a priesthood.

Ask yourself this question: There is a consensus in the scientific literature that says a particular meteor event exterminated the dinosaurs. Would you come up with an alternative hypothesis, spend your college years and personal fortune trying to disprove that consensus? Probably not. It becomes glib and easy to accept that there is evidence proving that, and that a large and intelligent body agrees upon a given theory. But that doesn't "make it right". You would even call a person that does "stupid" or "unreasonable." That's priesthood in action. "You're wrong, because we say you're wrong."

However, that doesn't necessarily make them wrong, or wacko, or even stupid. That's what science is all about.

"You bash peer review but you provide no viable alternative."

I wasn't required to at the time, I think. I made my point as anti-consensus. In fact, I'm not even against "peer-review." However, I think our "peer-review" system is broken. And not broken (just because of, or limited to,) conflict of interest issues: Each field of specialized research has developed a system of jargon and is somewhat unintelligible to members of other, unrelated disciplines. This creates, due to efficiency requirements, a system where the "peer-review" provided must be done by other researchers in your field, or even, your professors whose research you are carrying out, or a person who publishes research you are seeking to disprove. That is wrong. "A jury" (obstensibly of your peers) doesn't include just people from your neighborhood, income level, color and religion. Why should any "jury" or review panel be selected so.. obtusely?

Buffoon's peer-review-equals-priesthood shtick is typical AGW-denialist boilerplate. Since the peer-reviewed literature is 100% against them, it's all sheeple following the herd, led by a cynical priesthood trying to rob and impoverish them for some unspecified benefit. Also, algore is fat!

Ahem. As scientifically as possible, please eat a big bowl of dick. If you don't want better information, that's your own problem. I'm sick of biased media, biased science and poorly supported claims, or the demagoguery of the chickenlittles in furthering their own aims. Public science should be the last bastion of the best possible aspects of human thought, not tainted by profit motive or politics. Calling people that criticize the holy priesthood of AGW alarmism "denialists" (as an insult, of course) is proving the very letter of my fucking point.

As an aside, Michael Heath, I think I've stolen your record for longest comment. My apologies for derailment.

Posted by: Buffoon | September 2, 2010 11:56 AM

@Buffoon #70:

Ask yourself this question: There is a consensus in the scientific literature that says a particular meteor event exterminated the dinosaurs. Would you come up with an alternative hypothesis, spend your college years and personal fortune trying to disprove that consensus? Probably not.

The "consensus in the peer-reviewed literature" is not a consensus of people; it is a consensus of observation and deduction. It stands not because nobody challenges it - but because nobody has successfully challenged it. I've seen a post on another blog (I'll try and find it and give you the reference) that pretty convincingly argues that science works not because scientists are all noble people with no human frailties, but precisely because they are human; they are jealous, hold grudges, pick (intellectual) fights etc etc. The effect of that is that for everybody publishing in the peer-reviewed literature, there is somebody that will do their damnedest to find the weak spot in the data or the analysis so as to prove the author wrong. If your paper survives the kicking it gets from that process, it will only do so because the data is good and the analysis solid.

Posted by: Robin Levett | September 2, 2010 2:34 PM

@Buffoon #70:

Calling people that criticize the holy priesthood of AGW alarmism "denialists" (as an insult, of course) is proving the very letter of my fucking point.

The people described as denialists are in large part exactly that. They deny significant chunks of well-understood physics with no apparent scientific justification. What else would you call them?

Posted by: Robin Levett | September 2, 2010 5:57 PM

A little late on this thread, but I spent yesterday at the French national museum of prehistory at Les-Eyzies-de-Tayac.
A few points:
1. The classic example of Solutrean stonework was a beautiful projectile point shaped like a laurel or bay leaf. This disappeared during the later, Magdalenian era. But the fact that a leaf-shaped point later showed up in the Americas is a slim thread on which to hang a complicated theory.
2. The other cultural evidence for the Solutrean was wall art in caves, which did continue into the Magdalenian. Lascaux, the cave everybody has heard of, is just the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds of examples of cave art in Southwest Europe. If Solutreans got to North America, there should be examples of their art all over the place.
3.What there is virtually no evidence of in Solutrean cave art is sea creatures. Their representational art was almost exclusively large mammals and very curvy women. (The 24,700 year-old horse mural at the Grotte de Pech Merle has a freshwater pike superimposed, but that's about it.) If the Solutreans were sailors, why didn't they have octopuses and dolphins, like the (much later) Minoan wall art?
4. How did they put together a social cooperation capable of building ocean-going vessels? That kind of cooperation first shows up in the European archaeological record in the neolithic, when stone structure like-- most famously-- Stonehenge were built. That was long after North America was settled by Asians. (Like Lascaux, Stonehenge is no one-off, either. There are thousands of burial dolmens and menhirs scattered all over the place.)
5. Even if they had vessels, how, precisely, did the Solutreans get across the North Atlantic? With the exception of the Polynesians, who had a navigation system considerably better than Columbus's and vessels capable of tacking to windward, voyagers of discovery always followed the wind and current. How did the Solutreans cross the North Atlantic in the teeth of the prevailing Westerlies and the Gulf Stream?

So, you've got a lot of very hard questions to answer to prove that Solutreans got to North America. On the other side of the question, you've got to explain away how two groups, independently, thought up-- leaf-shaped spear tips. Well, hmm....

Posted by: hoary puccoon | September 3, 2010 6:09 AM

Ian--
Thanks for the response. I haven't seen the documentary and was just basing my objections on what was written here.

I do know that the Solutrean was a relatively cold period. I don't know how far south the ice extended. But from what I learned years ago in Newfoundland about the much later Norse incursion in North America, I'm not sure shifting an entire lifestyle to seal hunting from reindeer/red deer/horse hunting would be all that easy, either. So, again, there should be a lot more evidence for this than there appears to be.

Posted by: hoary puccoon | September 3, 2010 10:39 AM

"Because this is not a criminal trial, and you are making a category error. The key-word is peers. Scientific peers in this instance. I'm sure deep down you understand, but you just want to let denialists in."

I'm sure, deep down, if you think about what science actually is, you'll realize what scientific peers really are for the purpose of peer review. If you don't have trouble with the idea that the persons that fundamentally agree with your point are the improper ones to question your methods, I don't know what to tell you, because to me it is just too obvious.

Science cannot move forward if it is not constantly allowed to reject its own beliefs. Your "peer" concept obviates that possibility.

"Rather than apologise for derailment you should be sorry for invoking Michael Heath is this bizarre and semi-coherent screed."

No. My feeling is coherent, and so is my speech. You simply don't agree with it or its merits. It doesn't make me crazy or stupid.

"The consensus in the peer-reviewed literature is not a consensus of people, it is a consensus of observation and deduction."

Sorry, don't follow this. Whom observes? Whom deduces? Whom feels secure that their deductions match those of the person next to them? It's people.

"It stands because ... no one has succesfully challenged it."

You still don't get it. The fact that there is broad agreement (consensus) is a deterrent to an interest in such challenges. Really, I don't get what is so hard about this.

Battleaxe: Sorry, what do I have to overturn exactly? We're talking about AGW now?

Ok, which falsifiable hypothesis (the actual piece of the argument which is science) is there to be argued? That CO2 functions as a greenhouse gas? I don't see a problem with that. It seems like a reasonable conclusion to me. It is a mechanism of additional energy to be gained by the system.

In fact, Tom Vonk wrote a couple posts at "Watts up with that" trying to demonstrate that CO2 and N2, when mixed, would not heat up when exposed to incoming infrared radiation and I (and many others) have been shooting him down relentlessly.

The piece of reasonable science upon which AGW is based (a greenhouse effect,) to create "global warming hysteria," requires extensions (by model and prediction) that are not tenable pieces of science. They are supported by a consensus and value is given to a belief in these predictions and models based on the existence OF that consensus. That's why "consensus in the peer reviewed literature" as a proof for AGW future predictions of doom bothers me so much.

But, if you truly believe that nothing about a consensus over a thing makes that thing a fact (which I do), then this situation doesn't make sense.

Predictions of how the earth will react to "unprecedented rising temperatures" and all the people will starve and the rest of the nonsense that has gone with it is demagoguery that is not within the realm of science. When comparing the sensationalist impressions that most people I have talked to have of the "coming AGW cataclysm" with the worst scenario of the AR4, I find an unreasonable amount of disagreement.

Also, the fact that each "unprecedented" event comes along and is billed as "predicted by AGW theory" usually has a historical analogue should be troubling to most people, but such billings continue to happen on headlines everywhere, every day.

Also.. No theory predicts everything. Scientists make mistakes just like people. But AGW theory seems to predict... Everything. You don't see that with the current state of climate science, even when its mistakes are well documented.

If someone came out today and said, yes, CO2 induced global warming IS going to happen, but the change will be 0.1°C due to man over 100 years, people would stop shitting their pants and get over it. That means that the furor isn't over the basic hypothesis, it is over the predictions. That should be troubling to people, but it isn't.

If you could try to read this reference:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727752.600-liability-for-climate-change.html

It is the first two paragraphs that highlight the situation the best, including an actual quote which *horrifies* me.

I'll show it here:
"WHEN extreme weather strikes, such as the floods in Pakistan, the null hypothesis is to assume that humans have not played a role, then figure out if they did.

That's the opposite of what should be done, argues Kevin Trenberth of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. We should assume global warming plays a role in every climate event, then ask whether that role is a significant one."

The fact that climate events existed before global warming suggests that the null hypothesis is the valid one to work from. But making this assumption sounds like good science to me. No bias at all. Or.. It's the far reaching and subtle effects of the dubious value of the "consensus" that a particular thing is a scientific fact.

Last point: Science is a systematic way to explore the world around us. Consensus is a way to feel good about the current state of that exploration that does nothing to make it true or false.

And since this fabricated AGW monster seems to be failing, hopefully we can separate out valuable and good initiatives like energy diversification and conservation and better pollution control systems through in a rational sense, and discard the whole "sky is falling" portion.

Also, sorry about the bowl of dick comment. The idea that I can't disagree (rationally, no less) with something without being a stupid, rabid, flat-earthing "denialist" unworthy of the air I take in pisses me off more than almost anything else in my adult life.

Posted by: Buffoon | September 3, 2010 2:25 PM

I will be happy to visit Palestine some day. :-) As the Soviet Union fell, so will Zionism.

Meantime I am here, in my country, America, which my ancestors co-founded in the 1630s.

Posted by: John de Nugent | September 3, 2010 4:50 PM

Meantime I am here, in my country, America, which my ancestors co-founded in the 1630s.

And my ancestors were there to welcome yours when they arrived. Fortunately for you my ancestors were friendly to yours, didn't slaughter them, didn't put out bounties on their heads, didn't steal their lands and rape their women. Of course despite all of that my ancestors were the earliest allies of "your country." Which was also my ancestor's country when it was founded in 1789 as Michael Heath corrected you, which appears to be your role in life, to make woefully ignorant and incorrect statements.

Now to correct another one:

I can see by the lengthy commentary that you self-hating whites are starting to get worried.

After all, the Solutrean holocaust is one you don't give a damn about. But lefties are supposed to be against genocide....

Actually I happen to be a "half-breed," you'd likely call me a "mud," but not to my face, at least not more than once. Your "Solutrean holocaust" is a fiction. We liberals don't fret over the destruction of Alderran either. Why? Because it's fiction. If you read through the thread you will see a number of comments that provide the evidence necessary to utterly shatter your myth.

You have no human remains.

You have no explanation why the points you claim as evidence don't appear until thousands of years after Solutrean tools vanish in Europe.

You have no evidence to support how or even why they would come to the Americas.

You have no evidence that a "genocide" even occurred.

You have no evidence that the alleged Solutrean settlers in the Americas were even "white." This is especially critical given that the ancestors of "white Europeans" didn't arrive until thousands of years after the Solutrean.

You expect us to get worked up over a piece of fiction? Next you're going to tell us that Gone With the Wind was an accurate portrayal of slavery and "Mammy" just loved "Miss Scarlet."

Posted by: dogmeat | September 3, 2010 11:49 PM

yet the white percentage of the US population has plummeted -- from 90% to 55% in one lfetime.

That qualifies as an endangered species under the 1974 Endangered Species Act.

So white folks are a separate species now?

Posted by: peaches | September 4, 2010 1:44 AM

Um, I was kind of thinking of asking a few archaeological-type questions, like if the Solutreans, according to Ian's recap of the theory, "migrated across in stages by following the edge o the polar ice cap as they hunted seals etc;"
1. Where did they get the flint to make spear points? Archaeologists have spent a considerable amount of time tracing out paleolithic sources of flint, but I'm not sure they've found any accessible from ice floes.
2. What did the Solutreans use spears for? Seals, as far as I know, would be hunted with harpoons.
3. Where, exactly, did the Solutreans go? At present, the Gulf Stream runs up the coast of Norway, leaving open water far into the Arctic. Wouldn't this have presented a barrier to migration around the polar ice cap?

Have the people positing the Solutrean genocide theory worked on these problems? Making claims about my ancestry, attitudes toward race, etc., is all very well. But it doesn't help identify sources of flint. And that's the real problem that I see with this theory.

Posted by: hoary puccoon | September 4, 2010 1:59 AM

"I can see by the lengthy commentary that you self-hating whites are starting to get worried."

How do you know I, for example, am white?

And why do you care?

Posted by: Ian Gould | September 4, 2010 3:00 AM

Well, Ed's facing the wrong way in that picture to determine if he has an occipital bun, but he obviously has a chin, so he doesn't really look like a Neandertal. (I've finally been fatigued into compliance on the spelling.)

Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge | September 4, 2010 3:28 AM

Megafauna in the Americas also went extinct with the new waves of human migration from Beringia. Or was it a major climate event that caused their extinction and a newly created coastal land route that allowed the Beringians to settle in the Americas?

And were the Solutreans or Clovis people the source of the mysterious haplogroup X?

Posted by: joe neanderthal | September 4, 2010 5:47 AM

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1406/features/dna2.htm

"

How did haplogroup X get to North America? Some X has been found in Mongolia, but it's definitely not common in modern Asia. It can, however, be found in about 4 percent of the present day European population. Genetic anthropologists suggest that the presence of X in North America points to an early migration westward from Europe. By looking at the various mutations within haplogroup X, scientists are able to use that "genetic clock" to estimate when those early Europeans would have arrived. Depending on how large a group they assume headed west, they come up with two time ranges - either between 36,000 and 23,000 years ago or between 17,000 and 12,000 years ago.

"

Posted by: joe neanderthal | September 4, 2010 8:04 PM

Well Joe, it would probably go like this:
A group of humans lives in the Middle-Eastern savanna
+ 30Kya A small group move westward, these become Europeans*
+ 20Kya A larger group goes eastward, these become Amerindians
Each carry the same haplogroup X to opposite ends of the earth.
Not very mysterious is it? That's the 'standard' model, based on large-scale genetic studies across the world (no woo required). - Dingo
----
* There is believed to have been migrations much later (10Kya-4Kya) into south-eastern Europe, but that's not relevant to the haplogroup X story.

Posted by: DingoJack | September 4, 2010 10:34 PM

"There is a consensus in the scientific literature that says a particular meteor event exterminated the dinosaurs. Would you come up with an alternative hypothesis, spend your college years and personal fortune trying to disprove that consensus? Probably not."

How do you think the Chixchalub impact hypothesis displaced the previous consensus?

Coming up with a radical new hypothesis is the surest path to what passes fro fame and fortune in academia. That's assuming, of course, you can prove it.

Posted by: Ian Gould | September 6, 2010 3:20 AM

Buffoon said:

"The idea that I can't disagree (rationally, no less) with something without being a stupid, rabid, flat-earthing "denialist" unworthy of the air I take in pisses me off more than almost anything else in my adult life."

Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up. You are a stupid, rabid, flat-earthing denialist unworthy of the air you take in.

John de Wingnut said:

"I can see by the lengthy commentary that you self-hating whites are starting to get worried."

No, I for one just find you very very funny. Internet tough guys usually are.

"Dress British" (i.e., call yourself "Brayton," like Bronstein called himself Trotsky) "and think yiddish," right?"

Oy vey. How does one dress British?

Posted by: Coryat | September 7, 2010 12:54 PM

MacTurk "Does anyone have a suggestion about where I could post the whole exchange?"
Have you considered the internet?

Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 8, 2010 9:14 AM

I hope that "MacTurk" (what an interesting name for a white man, "MacTurk"....rather openly a race renegade, I should say -- why DO you call yourself Mac"Turk"?? ), I hope that he DOES post our correspondence. And the following as well! While it may cause you lefties to foam at the mouth more, it will mobilize my own target demographic even more.

MacTURK (again, strange name for a supposed Irishman)favors more Third World immigration to Eire, my ancestral country, which translates directly into what we see Europe-wide: muslim gang rapists entering Ireland.

(Be sure you include the WHOLE correspondence, MacTURK, with corroborating links. I have copies of it all to keep you honest, if that is even possible.)

And how do you counter this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE9SWkofy

And this traitor takes no responsibilty for the horrendous result, muslim gang rapists doing what comes natural, gang-raping white women. (Any woman who does not convert to Islam is automatically a sex slave, says the Koran. THIS is why conquered populations converted quickly to Islam after the 600s AD! Any non-muslim could be enslaved! Go ahead, DENY IT! And btw, why do you lefties favor muzzie immigration, which in its medieval and misogynistic attitudes contradicts everything you stand for? Hmmmmm? I know why -- the Jews who are manipulating you want to use these aggressive, dark-gene hordes to thereby destroy the white indigenous peoples. and their genes. Yet in Israel intermarriage (with ANY non-Jews) is prohibited by Israeli law! Go ahead and deny it, Brayton! Will you CONDEMN Israeli bans on intermarriage?)

(And remember, MacTurk, to publish this correspondence as well, the followup to ours. It will go up on MY blog.)

Ireland is experiencing a crime wave, like the rest of Europe, from your beloved women-hating muslim immigrants. And, psychopathic hypocrite that you are, MacTURK, you are just fine with that ocean of women's tears and the blood on your hands, like all self-righteous liberals.

The main thing for you leftopaths is that you FEEL yourselves compassionate, and you FEEL sneeringly superior and look your noses down on "heartless rightwingers." You are on a nauseating liberal trip of moral arrogance, and damn the consequences for ordinary people. Don't tell me how you CARE about the little people! They are being raped, robbed and killed! The results of your policies are proven tragedy.

America also, like Eire for the last decade, was not engulfed by crime until YOU liberals took over completely in the 1960s. Now look at the mess YOU have created. But it's allll gooood... as long as you can FEEL the moral superiority, your addictive mind drug. You are junkies on hypocritical moral snobbery, on that, and on sicko, masochistic white self-hatred. Jews talk about "self-hating Jews." Well, look in the mirror and see a "self-hating white."

"Here, muzzie, rape my sister to make up for white oppression!"

(Oh, please DO publish this far and wide on the Net....MacTURK. In fact, hand it out on the streets of Dublin, Delvin or anywhere in Eire -- or Ulster, too. I'll get even more hits on my blog.)

I remember a fat cow waddling out of the voting booth in Iowa in fall 2007 after voting for Barack Insane Obongo and saying:

"I just voted for Barack Obama because I like the way he makes me FEEL about America and the way he makes me FEEL about MYSELF." (On ABC News)

WELL, ISN'T THAT AN ADMISSION WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT?

HOW WE FEEEEEEEEL, NOT THE PRACTICAL EFFECT ON REAL PEOPLE?

By the way, "Brayton," you did not come out of yor faux-goy closet, COME CLEAN, and deny directly you are a Jew despite your "Breton-Brayton" story.

I am of pure British-Isles stock, I HAVE GROWN UP WITH THIS BREED, and you with your wide mug do NOT have a narrow, British-Isles face. You are at least in part an Ashkenazi Jew, no matter what you lyingly claim, and a typical dissembling Hebrew to boot.

And your suffisant, arrogant expression and leftie blog just add to the indications pointing to what I say. I have pretty good jewdar after 32 years of dealing with your sorry ilk, and after a childhood growing up around Jews on the East Side of Providence, RI. And as I stated above, I know an Anglo and an Irish face, too, at 20 paces. Those are MY ethnic people -- and you are NOT.

Now read my blog today, and bray and wail about 178 WHITE skeletons, DNA-tested, from 5000 BC found in Florida. Read it and weep, hate-filled leftopaths. Because the "advanced Native Americans" down there in Florida with their advanced textiles and other technology in 5000 BC had European DNA.

(It is the FINAL item here: http://johndenugent.com/jdn/2010/09/08/english-monomania-of-the-neanderthals-windover-pond-florida-finds-178-skeletons-of-ancient-solutreans/)

I suppose Dr Lorenz will be out selliing oranges along the freeway pretty soon now that he has come out and confirmed genetically the Solutrean hypothesis. You lefties will surely get him fired or make him pipe waaaaaay down.

And then you turn around and condemn the nazis ..... for "intolerance." Pharisaic, hate-mongering, truth-suppressing hypocrites.... If you could, I am sure you would destroy all 178 white skeletons.

We whites are the Native Americans. Get used to it. The science is with us, and it has been for decades, since James Adovasio in the early 1970s at Meadowcroft Rock Shelter.

And long after the Solutrean Age (22,000 BC to 17,000 BC) whites were still flourishing in North America, as here in Florida.

And we will CONTINUE to live in our sacred native continent of North America. We will reclaim ALL our sacred white lands around the world.

Brayton, go back to Khazaria with your Ashkenazim. and MacTurk, join your Turks. You are found out.

Posted by: John de Nugent | September 8, 2010 11:27 AM

Well said John. The pussies in the government and media here are doing their damndest to ignore what is happening to our country. Thanks for the lowdown on Ollie Steeds and his editing hatchet job.By the way the jew History chanell went orgasmic over 'Ireland's Nazis' Wouldn't stop showing it over here.Well I'm glad we were able to do Colonel Skorzny a favour. Look at all the scumbags Israel has harboured starting with all the ones who spied on the US and were then discretely shown the door to the promised land while the jew media is screaming blue murder over the russian spies

Posted by: From Ireland | September 8, 2010 3:09 PM

Wait, calling racist pseudoscientific tripe what it is (racist pseudoscientific tripe, in case you missed the memo*) makes this blog a "hate" site?

I think I took a wrong turn at Bizarroville.

_________________________________
*Or maybe you don't read right-to-left. Learned that trick from Emmanuel Goldstein!

Posted by: The Christian Cynic | September 8, 2010 7:22 PM

@The "Christian" Cynic: Yes, this site is a hate site, judging by the many hate-filled, anti-white comments here. Hey, you're already in Bizarroville, and I suspect you've been there a long time. Who brainwashed you? They've done a fine job. Watch a lot of TV? If what Mr. de Nugent says is just "racist pseudoscientific tripe," then why are you so upset about it? Does it clash with your mental programming? So, in your view, anything claimed by Jewish academics or scientists is golden, pure truth, and you accept their pronouncements unreservedly, without a hint of suspicion that they might have a racial agenda. But any white European who challenges your mental programming is a "racist," spewing "pseudoscientific tripe." Like most of the supporters of this pathetic blog, you are a brainwashed, close-minded fool, whose only response is name-calling and juvenile remarks. You white-hating leftists have nothing intelligent to say on the subject that Mr. de Nugent has brought up, so give your keyboards a rest.

Posted by: From America | September 9, 2010 12:55 AM

Classic projectionism, classic strawman attackism. Classic all kinds of stuff. It doesn't get better than that folks. There is little hope for that one, I'm afraid.

Posted by: 386sx | September 9, 2010 1:23 AM

"So, in your view, anything claimed by Jewish academics or scientists is golden, pure truth, and you accept their pronouncements unreservedly, without a hint of suspicion that they might have a racial agenda."

Pretty much the only person on this thread citing the works of Jewish scientists (and doing so approvingly) is John De Nugent.

Posted by: Ian Gould | September 9, 2010 1:29 AM

@Ian Gould: Yes, you Jews ARE lying and hiding the truth about MANY things. One prime example is your "6 million" figure claimed for your Holohoax, which is the most monstrous LIE and CON JOB of all time. The actual number of prisoners who died in ALL of German labor camps COMBINED was 271,304, and not all of them were Jews. This was documented by the International Red Cross, which had their people stationed in all of the German camps as monitors to insure humane treatment of the prisoners. See the Red Cross document here:

http://www.natallnews.com/printer.php?id=5261

None of the German camps were designed as "death camps," and there was no gassing of prisoners. They were LABOR camps for the German war effort. The only prisoners executed were those who had engaged in sabotage. The only gas chambers in any of the camps were small clothing delousing chambers, used for delousing prisoners clothes, in an ultimately futile attempt by the Germans to prevent the typhus epidemics which were sweeping through the camps. Typhus is carried by lice. It didn't help that the Allies had bombed and destroyed all of the railway lines leading into the camps, thereby preventing food supplies from reaching the prisoners. This Allied-caused malnutrition, combined with the lice-borne typhus epidemics, is what caused 271,304 prisoners (not all of whom were Jews) to die. See Wikipedia article on typhus here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemic_typhus

Although the above Wiki article doesn't mention it, I've read elsewhere that one of the main physical manifestations of a typhus infection is the inability to eat and corresponding extreme weight loss - hence, the emaciated corpses that are endlessly shown being bulldozed into a ditch by the Allies. Those were all typhus victims, as was Anne Frank, who BTW, did not write any of the letters attributed to her, since they were written with a ballpoint pen, which were not in public use until after WWII.

As for the so-called gas chambers, know that Zyklon-B was a PESTICIDE. Its only purpose was to kill the lice which many of the Eastern European Jews were infested with, since they were exceptionally filthy people. This is why all of their hair was shaved off, why they were forced to take showers, and why their clothes were either burned or fumigated with Zyklon-B to kill the lice. The Germans wanted Jewish slave labor as repayment for all the wrongs done by Jews to Germany after WWI. Slave labor for the German war effort was the whole purpose of the camps, so it was not in their interests to have all of their prisoners dying of typhus. Hence, their use of Zyklon-B on the prisoners clothes, in small clothing delousing chambers.

Being cyanide-based, Zyklon-B leaves a blue residue on the walls of any enclosed area where it is used. There were blue stains on the walls of the small clothing delousing chambers, as expected, but no stains at all on the walls of the infamous so-called "gas chamber" at Auschwitz, a room which was actually built by the Soviets after WWII.

As a side note, did you know that Auschwitz, the infamous so-called "death camp," had a brothel, a library, and a swimming pool for the prisoners? There was also a prisoner orchestra which performed concerts for the other prisoners, and an artists studio were prisoners were allowed to paint. There were many births which occurred in the camps, because the male and female prisoners were allowed to mingle freely after work hours. They were also allowed to send letters to relatives outside the camps. If you're going to kill all of your prisoners, why provide them with all these amenities? Contrast this relatively humane treatment with the fate of Soviet gulag prisoners, who really WERE sent to death camps. An estimated 60 million Russians were worked to death in the gulags by the Jewish-run Soviet Union government, and they certainly had none of the amenities which the Germans provided to their prisoners. They were "disappeared," and never heard from again. The Soviets did not allow the Red Cross in any of their gulag camps, for the obvious reason that they were in fact, death camps.

Eisenhower, Churchill, and de Gaulle each wrote voluminous histories of World War II, and none of them mentioned gas chambers or mass killings of Jewish prisoners by the Germans. You would think that Eisenhower, whose ethnicity was Swedish-Jewish, and is quoted as saying that he hated Germans, would have mentioned mass killings of Jewish prisoners if such killings had actually occurred. Similarly, Churchill, who was also part-Jewish, failed to mention any gas chambers or mass killings of Jews. Was it because Eisenhower, Churchill, and de Gaulle were clueless about what happened during WWII, or because they were poor historians? I think not.

Then there's all those wonderful fables told by "Holocaust survivors," like the one about the woman who said that, as a child, she escaped from Auschwitz and was then adopted by a pack of wolves, and lived in the forest, hiding from those evil Germans. Or, how about the one where the nice Jewish woman would bring bread to the nice Jewish man who was imprisoned behind the camp fence every night? A nice story, except that they were later forced to admit that they had actually met in New York, and were probably never in any camps. There's also the story about the Jewish woman who, as a child, hid inside the camp latrines from those evil Germans, who wanted to send her to the gas chambers. These stories are so ludicrous they defy belief. The amazing thing is that anyone believes these vile liars. But there's no business like Shoa business - you Jews have extracted billions of dollars in reparations from Germany, and all of it is based on monstrous lies.

I could go on, but what's the point? While I haven't provided URLs for everything I've said, it also isn't my job to educate you. Do your own research - and by that, I don't mean Wikipedia, which is in fact Jewish-controlled media, just like the MSM. But anyway, I'm wasting my time presenting facts to you clueless and oh-so-clever clowns. Facts mean nothing to people like you. You will simply extract a sentence or two out of everything I've said, and reply with a few smart-ass remarks, in an attempt to dismiss everything I've said. I will admit that you're very good at that kind of treachery. You are intellectual cowards.

Posted by: From America | September 9, 2010 8:49 PM

MacTURK (again, strange name for a supposed Irishman)...

And again and again and again... Amazing how hung up these people can get about the most irrelevant things ("Raging Bee? Strange name for someone who supposedly likes cats...").

The weak mind is like a microscope: it magnifies small things and can't handle big ones.

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 10, 2010 11:53 AM

"From America," are you serious? You decry name-calling and insults, then turn around and say de Nugent's comments are the most intelligent ones here? Is your irony meter working? De Nugent has been engaging in ad hominem since his very first post here.

AL,

I wouldn't be at all surprised if "From America" wasn't simply a sock puppet for JDN, he's been pushing like crazy for people to go to his blog ever since his first post.

Posted by: dogmeat | September 10, 2010 1:53 PM

John de Nugent - I don't know if you're completely delusional or just lying, but the fact is you will never accomplish anything. You're an impotent little Nazi who will die an impotent little Nazi, and nothing you've said or done will have any affect on America.

Posted by: Taz | September 10, 2010 2:06 PM

JdN:

You teach? God help your students.

Posted by: wheatdogg | September 12, 2010 12:22 PM

John de Nugent "Your messiah Obama is imploding and soon so will your entire agenda."
1. You're new here, aren't you?
2. Obama's agenda ≠ "our"^* agenda

...
* As though everybody here is both a lefty and agrees on the same agenda. Few people here, for example, agree with my practically utopian emphasis on State-subsidized puppies for everyone.

Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 13, 2010 12:00 AM

The "Christian" Cynic wrote:

"Also, as a good friend of mine once argued, the "do your own research" gambit is tiresome. If you can't show what research, then suggesting that your opponent do more research is an empty accusation - you have to back up your own claims, not make the other person do your dirty work for you."

FYI, I only put the "Christian" in your moniker in quotes because I suspect you're actually a Jew, like most of the supporters of this pathetic blog. I really don't care how "Christian" you are - Christianity is merely an offshoot of Judaism, with all that implies. Christianity is the perfect complementary religion for Judaism - the Jews stab Christians in the back, steal from us, and slap our faces in every way possible, but we Christians "turn the other cheek." It would be so wrong to offend "God's chosen people" by daring to object to their non-stop criminality. I believe that Christianity was expressly designed for that purpose, too - it keeps the Gentile masses passive, weak, and non-rebellious in the face of non-stop Jewish aggression and theft. The Jewish Rothschilds are said to have been the Vatican's bankers since 1823. That would help explain why the Catholic Church is totally in favor of massive illegal immigration from Mexico, in defiance of the immigration laws of the United States. The Rothschilds are doing the same thing in Europe, through their control of the EU - massive immigration, legal and otherwise, from Africa and the Middle East, all designed to destroy white society in Europe, and make whites a dispossessed minority in their own countries. This massive immigration of non-whites is only happening in America and in Europe - the two formerly all-white regions of the Earth.

It's instructive the way you casually apply derogatory labels to me - "crackpot," "white supremacist," "racist." A typical Jew/communist tactic. You can't muster a logical argument against anything I've said, so you resort to name-calling.

If I spent a lot of my time finding and posting URLs for all the facts I mentioned, would it make any difference to you? Would it change your mind, and make you see the error of your ways? No, it wouldn't, because you are a brainwashed, close-minded, liberal fool, and, if you really are white, a race traitor (my turn at name-calling). You would merely ridicule any URLs I provided, because they are not part of the Jewish-owned mass media that you are so in love with. You would say that any websites I provided were "obviously biased," as if the Jewish-owned and controlled media is truthful, fair, and objective. LOL! I guess that's why there's never a negative word about Israel or her crimes in the American media. I guess that's also why there is non-stop propaganda that 9/11 was carried out by 19 Arabs with box-cutters, coordinated by a sick man in a cave in Afghanistan. Have you ever heard of the Lavon Affair in 1954, or the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967? But let me guess - the Jewish-moderated-and-controlled Wikipedia probably says that those were "just accidents," right? And you, being a brainwashed, gullible liberal fool, believe that wholeheartedly, I'm sure. There's no reasoning with foolish people like you - it's a waste of time.

Posted by: From America | September 13, 2010 2:26 AM

From America - BWHAhAhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

"FYI, I only put the "Christian" in your moniker in quotes because I suspect you're actually a Jew, like most of the supporters of this pathetic blog. I really don't care how "Christian" you are - Christianity is merely an offshoot of Judaism, with all that implies. Christianity is the perfect complementary religion for Judaism - the Jews stab Christians in the back, steal from us, and slap our faces in every way possible, but we Christians "turn the other cheek." It would be so wrong to offend "God's chosen people" by daring to object to their non-stop criminality. I believe that Christianity was expressly designed for that purpose, too - it keeps the Gentile masses passive, weak, and non-rebellious in the face of non-stop Jewish aggression and theft."

So let me see if I got this right?
You think Christian Cynic is really a secret Jew, but it doesn't matter how much of a Christian (s)he is, because Christianity is really just a form of Judaisms anyway*? Then you think that those nasty Jews stab you nice Christians (who are nothing more than nasty Jews really, remember?) in the back, steal from you, then slap you in face (why would someone stab a person in the back, and slap them in the face?) and all you nice Christians do is actually follow the precepts of your own religious beliefs (how unusual, you guys never have before). Then you seem to think that Jews are consistently involved in crime (any evidence of this bald assertion?) and that your religion (which you claim to believe in) is designed to keep you as weak and stupid victims? (So why not just quit being a Christian?) Am I right so far? - Dingo
-----
* An assertion so unimportant you place it in your lead sentence and devote two overlong paragraphs frothing at the mouth over, completely ignoring the passage you quoted until your last paragraph. Lucky you don't work in journalism (or any profession requiring any kind of writing skill).
OBTW & FYI: - Actually I'm not a Jew or even vaguely related to one (I don't have that honour).

Posted by: DingoJack | September 13, 2010 3:57 AM

FYI, I only put the "Christian" in your moniker in quotes because I suspect you're actually a Jew, like most of the supporters of this pathetic blog.

Says the man who writes off other people's arguments because he pathologically needs to accuse them of being Jewish.

Did you seriously say this with no trace of self-awareness or irony?

Just so we're all clear here, what the fuck year do you think it is? You do know it's not 1952, right?

Posted by: Leni | September 13, 2010 4:33 AM

Whew! Part three ... [in bite-sized chunks, this time]

"It's instructive the way you casually apply derogatory labels to me - "crackpot," "white supremacist," "racist." A typical Jew/communist tactic. You can't muster a logical argument against anything I've said, so you resort to name-calling."

Bravo, to type that with a straight-face whilst doing nothing but 'name-calling', is sheer genius.
Firstly, your 'argument' is nothing more than vitriolic claims about everyone in the world being a Jew (I doubt if you're even sure about yourself); and then you have the balls to complain about other people merely criticising your posting. [golf clap]

"If I spent a lot of my time finding and posting URLs for all the facts I mentioned, would it make any difference to you? Would it change your mind, and make you see the error of your ways? No, it wouldn't, because you are a brainwashed, close-minded, liberal fool, and, if you really are white, a race traitor (my turn at name-calling). You would merely ridicule any URLs I provided, because they are not part of the Jewish-owned mass media that you are so in love with."

Ah - the ol' "if I can't win 'em over with irrelevant crap, or get 'em to do my work for you (YOU made the extraordinary claim genius, YOU'VE got to provide the evidence to back it up) then I'll try 'you'll never believe me/ my evidence is being hidden by [insert 'aliens', 'the gubbernant', 'jews', or whatever here]/ my dog et it!'"
Sorry Sparky that won't fly. Creditable, peer-reviewed sources (not from the media (mainstream or not), and absolutely not from Wikipedia or it's ilk). If your evidence is so flimsy it can't even stand looking at, it's not worth bringing up.

"I guess that's why there's never a negative word about Israel or her crimes in the American media. I guess that's also why there is non-stop propaganda that 9/11 was carried out by 19 Arabs with box-cutters, coordinated by a sick man in a cave in Afghanistan."

Clearly you were on you home planet when Israel used the passports of foreigners for an assassination, or when they invaded their neighbours (several times), or killed people on a aid flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip. Weirdly all the 'Jewish-controlled' newspapers reported it critically (even that bastion of 'Jewishness' FOX news managed to just about do it. You remember FOX? Owned by the 'Jewish' Murdochs and the very 'Jewish' Prince al Waleed bin Talal.
No genius, despite your irrelevant examples, that what the actual evidence shows. It must be galling for your ilk that reality has a liberal bias (or is it that liberals has a reality bias?) - Dingo
----
The projection (and the rest of the Dunning-Kruger inspired Authoritarian mindset) is strong an this one.

Posted by: DingoJack | September 13, 2010 5:45 AM

Ian Gould,

Do you or do you not favor the submergence of Jews in Israel in the bottomless seas of the Third World and Jewish reproductive amalgamation with said Third-Worlders? If "no", your genocidal hypocrisy as against European peoples will have been laid bare.

Answer me, now.

And be forewarned, no obfuscation on your part as against the decisive commitment of the Jewish state and organized Jewry in diaspora for Jewish genetic continuity will be convincing. I am able to refute that readily. So answer straight, if at all.

Posted by: Amalek | September 13, 2010 6:40 AM

Amalek - First YOU must answer MY questions:
a) What exactly is the 'white' race and who belongs to it?
b) What exactly is the unique genetic basis for a separate 'white' race?
c) Why is the 'white' race better than any other 'race'?
d) What is so good about 'white' culture anyway, and why, especially, should it be preserved?
While you're working on those, I'll go get my popcorn and drinks ready for you to wheel out your so called decisive evidence for your hypothesis about "the decisive commitment of the Jewish state and organized Jewry in diaspora for Jewish genetic continuity". No doubt from creatable, peer review journals by experts in the field of human genetics, can't wait!. - DingoJack

Posted by: DingoJack | September 13, 2010 6:56 AM

Dingo has apparently yet to progress beyond epistemological and moral kindergarten:

a) What exactly is the extent of Dingo's personage and what precisely belongs to it?

b) What exactly is the unique genetic basis for Dingo's separate personage?

c) Why is Dingo's personage better than any other personage?

d) What is so good about Dingo's production per cultural artifice, and why, especially, should it be preserved?

While he's working on that, I'll go get my popcorn (and drinks) and breathlessly await the decisive answers as to why all that Dingo is and has produced should not be rendered presently destroyed, seeing as he presumably will have failed to demonstrate his indispensability and lack of utter fungibility with the rest of humanity. The earth has a all too precarious carry capacity, we must cull the herd in some places, you know.

LOL!

Gould,

You a Jew or your name just sound like it?

Posted by: Amalek | September 13, 2010 7:39 AM

"Gould,

You a Jew or your name just sound like it? "
"Gould" is an Anglo-Saxon name meaning "golden-haired" which dates back to the Domesday Book at the very latest.

My English Jewish ancestors who left that country for Scotland around the 16th century brought it with them, where they got it, I've no idea.

Posted by: Ian Gould | September 13, 2010 8:29 AM

Dear Amalek,

Tell me sir have you ever visited the planet Earth?

Sincerely

Posted by: Matty | September 13, 2010 10:09 AM

Dingo has apparently yet to progress beyond epistemological and moral kindergarten:

What's next in the progression? Obfuscation and Red Herrings 101?

a) What exactly is the extent of Dingo's personage and what precisely belongs to it?

Was this supposed to be some clever "gotcha?" An individual person is clearly and unambiguously defined. "White" race is not. I'll concede that there are people that are unambiguously "white," but there are more than enough ambiguous cases for any reasonable person to conclude that "white" is not at all sharply defined at the peripheries. This is evidenced by the simple fact that de Nugent and his sycophants here have fumbled over whether or not Ed is "white." For the record, I would have lumped Ed in as unambiguously white, but I guess when you clowns whipped out the rulers and started measuring Ed's facial proportions to conclude he looked vaguely "Jewish," you've seriously undermined even the idea of an unambiguous white person.

b) What exactly is the unique genetic basis for Dingo's separate personage?

What the hell kind of question is this? It doesn't even make sense. Note that the counterpart question that Dingo asked DOES make sense, but your attempt to ridicule it through caricature falls flat. An individual person is not distinguished by their genetics, and no one here claimed so. If that were the case, identical twins would be the same person, but clearly they are, to use your bloated terminology, "separate personages." Your question is absurd. Now answer Dingo's question, which is completely legitimate: What is the genetic basis for a "white race?" Is there a "white allele?" A set of "white alleles?" And if so, does everyone you consider "white" share the entire set, or just part? And if only part, how much of that part is sufficient to get you classified as "white?"

I don't doubt that there are "white" people in the subjective and very loose sense of just looking at someone and saying "well, he looks like a white guy." But since you've clearly given a lot of thought* to the topic of race, surely you have a more rigorous definition of "white" that is unambiguous at the genetic level, and not as sloppy and subjective as just looking at someone and saying "he's white." So let's hear it.

*Quantity of thought ≠ quality of thought.

c) Why is Dingo's personage better than any other personage?

d) What is so good about Dingo's production per cultural artifice, and why, especially, should it be preserved?

I can't speak for Dingo, but if he's anything like me, he's not going to lose any sleep over his culture not being preserved. Cultures change, get over it. I don't expect my way of life to be "preserved" at all. A thousand years from now, our descendants almost certainly will have different values, different language, different political systems, different technologies, different literature, different art, different music, different entertainment, different hobbies...not to mention different phenotypic traits. Culture is like a genepool. It changes. Your fantasies of static "white" people and "white" culture going all the way back to the "white" Solutreans are just that: fantasies.

Posted by: AL | September 13, 2010 10:46 PM

@Leni (#134): Yes, I know "what the fuck year it is," you nasty little bitch - it's 2010, and America is now totally controlled by Zionist Jews. They control our money supply (through the all-Jewish "Federal" Reserve System - an unconstitutional cabal of privately-owned Jewish banks), our government (the Senate and House have a disproportionate number of Jews, as admitted in a Haaretz article), the Presidency (through Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod - puppet-masters of Obama), the judicial system (most lawyers and judges are Jewish), the media (all major newspapers and television/cable companies are Jewish-owned), and the educational system (most professors are Jewish). This coordinated, hostile takeover of America is exactly what they did in Germany after World War I, which is why the Germans got fed up with them, and elected Hitler.

I sometimes wish it still was 1952 - America was around 90% white then, with correspondingly low crime rates, because the Jews hadn't yet completely taken over and ruined our country. The disastrous 1965 immigration act co-sponsored by Jacob Javits (Jew) and Ted Kennedy (Jew-puppet) ensured that all future immigration to America would be 90% non-white, from third-world countries, whereas prior to 1965, 90% of immigration to America was from white Europe. Now crime rates are skyrocketing, and white people are well on the way to becoming a dispossessed minority in the country that they founded and built, thanks to Jewish subversion and treason. America is well on the way to becoming a country similar to current-day South Africa, where white people are routinely butchered by savage blacks wielding machetes, or Brazil, a mixed-race cesspool of crime and violence. America is finished. Thank you, Jews!

Posted by: From America | September 14, 2010 1:04 AM

@Ian Gould (#137) - Gosh, you are so clever and witty! By your twisted logic, then yes, I'm a Jew. Do you have something valuable I can steal? Send it to me now, or I'll blackmail you.

Posted by: From America | September 14, 2010 1:11 AM

From America

".....I sometimes wish it still was 1952 - America was around 90% white then, with correspondingly low crime rates, because the Jews hadn't yet completely taken over and ruined our country....."

I sometimes wish it was still 1552. America was 0% white then, and crime was non-existant. Look what all you whities have done to my country!!

Posted by: mandas | September 14, 2010 1:27 AM

FromAmerica @150:
America is well on the way to becoming a country similar to current-day South Africa, where white people are routinely butchered by savage blacks wielding machetes, or Brazil, a mixed-race cesspool of crime and violence.

From Alpha Centauri B is more like it ...

Whites are not routinely butchered by anyone in South Africa. I know. I lived there. And you? Maybe you're thinking of the recent murder of white supremacist fuckwad Eugene TerreBlanche, who was hacked to death in his bed, in retribution for his own violent (and lethal) treatment of some of his black workers.

Black savages? Do you get your info about Africa from 1940's B-movies? Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, and even Jacob Zuma can hardly be described as savages. TerreBlanche came closer to that description, frankly.

Brasil is a cesspool of crime and violence? Yeah, right. Like you know. Dude, white folks vacation in Brasil. Vá se foder.

Mixing the races does not cause crime, idiot. There is violent crime, robbery, burglaries, etc. even in white communities. Rural Kentucky, which is about 99% white and Christian, has serious problems with meth labs and painkiller abuse.

Seriously, you need to get out more, FromAmerica. Get away from your insulated little bubble of Internet-fed fear and hate and see the real world.

Posted by: wheatdogg | September 14, 2010 2:00 AM

Modusoperandi, I perhaps did not make myself clear. The correspondence in question is some nine pages, which would take up too much room here. I was looking for suggestions of specific websites.

However, judging by JDN's responses here, it is unnecessary to publish the correspondence. The wee racist loon has cut his throat very well all by himself.

I am at a loss to understand how I could, by myself, be responsible for "a crime wave, like the rest of Europe, from your beloved women-hating muslim immigrants" when I have not been permanently resident in Ireland since 1986. Verily, the racial and moral responsibility of all that failed policy making doth weigh heavily on my slender shoulders.

Respect, yet again, to Ian Gould, for pointing out that there is no record of any such crime wave. And it is nice to know that I am "openly a race renegade" and also a "psychopathic hypocrite", but I did mention earlier that JDN goes to personal abuse at light speed.

As for the statement that posting will "mobilize my own target demographic even more", I would ask "What demographic?". It seems to consist of JDN, amaloon and From America, which could cause breeding problems, reinforcing recessive genotypes, etc. Oh yes, Mr de Nugent believes that the "white European" is recessive. The whole genotype is recessive, it seems.

Re his daft idea about "I am of pure British-Isles stock", the best response is by dingojack(http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/09/de_nugent_continues_his_idiocy.php).

The internet name I use - MacTurk - was chosen because I saw it on a food vendor's kiosk outside Prague Main Rail Station. I liked it, and it reflects parts of my life so far. I am an Irish citizen, and there are written records of my family going back to about 600AD.

From America, your statement that "Auschwitz, the infamous so-called "death camp," had a brothel, a library, and a swimming pool for the prisoners" merely shows that you did not do the research.

There was an orchestra in Auschwitz 1, which was the arrival and processing centre, not the main extermination centre, which was Auschwitz 2(Birkanau). The orchestra played to lend an air of normality.

There was also Auschwitz III(Monowitz), which was a labor camp. The prisoners worked as slave workers for the Buna-Werke factory of the IG Farben group.

The brothels were used to terrorise German women, to prevent them committing sexual "race crimes", and were not open to any but trusties and so-called "Nordic" prisoners. The swimming pool was originally built as a fire pond. Again, it was not open to the vast majority of prisoners.

Posted by: MacTurk | September 14, 2010 8:35 AM

From America spewed forth: "Oh, sorry - "arse" for Mr. Harrison (a.k.a. "The Limey Jew")"

Not that it matters, but I'm an Australian of partial Irish, mostly Saxon descent, you dumb fuck. Honestly now, is Jew just the word you use to mean 'people who disagree with me'?

You also vomited forth: "Where are your links to Jewish "peer-reviewed journals" for all the bullshit you spewed in your rant #135? Hmmmmmm? Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black, is it not? It's perfectly fine when you and the other fools on this blog fail to include any sources, but if I do it, it's a crime, and I'm a "crackpot," "white-supremacist," "racist," etc."

At any time did I even hint at taking you to task for not referencing your bullshit? Can you read for comprehension? I'll be charitable and assume that your screen so covered in spittle, sweat and semen that your view is obscured. This pot isn't calling the kettle except a denialist rabid cowardly jew-fearing fuckoff with too much time on his hands and not enough time spent meeting other people.

I won't be providing you with any links - it's trivially easy to find this stuff out for yourself and it would be good for you to try. Go on, give it a go - see if you can put away your moral and intellectual cowardice long enough to even type a neutral search term into google. (For the hard of thinking, that means instead of typing 'Evidence that the filthy jew bitch Anne Frank didn't write shit' you type something more like 'Anne Frank diary ballpoint pen claim'.)

Incidentally, it's not your lack of citations that makes you a white supremacist racist crackpot - it's what you say that has made that clear to all.

Could you define 'race'? You've been asked to do so several times in several different ways and I don't think you've attempted it yet, you fucking internet-tough-guy coward.

(I won't worry too much about the coherency of your answer, anything would do - I imagine it must be hard to keep your thoughts straight while typing with one hand and fwapping away with the other in your excitement at all the unwarranted attention you've been getting)

Posted by: Lee Harrison | September 14, 2010 12:14 PM

I really have to ask, given the alleged superiority of the "White Race" why is it:

-Jews control the government
-Jews control the banks
-Jews control the media
-Asians developed the technology necessary to conquer and colonize much of the world (gunpowder)
-Middle Easterners developed the technology necessary to travel the vast distances necessary to implement that conquest (navigation tools, mapping, math, etc.)
-Native Americans developed a far superior calendar while Europeans were still trying to figure out why the planets didn't go around the earth the way they were certain it did

If the "White Race" was so superior, wouldn't it have come up with all of these ideas and wouldn't it be in control?

Also, if the "superior" Solutrean "White Race" was so superior to the "savage" Native Americans who arrived 5,000 years later as you allege, why didn't the "White Race" conquer the inferior savages?

None of your arguments make any sense even if we pretend that your racial arguments aren't utter and complete bullshit to begin with. Even if we pretend your "White Race" is superior, you create your own problem of why your "White Race" hasn't conquered and maintained control of all of the world. It's obvious you want to do this, it's obvious your cronies want to do this, it's obvious your predecessors wanted to do this (Hitler, etc.), why is it that their "obvious" superiority didn't lead to easy conquest of the "inferiors?"

Posted by: dogmeat | September 14, 2010 1:57 PM

For someone who is obsessed with ancestry so much, From America sure is sloppy and incompetent at surmising everyone's ancestries. What do we call people who are incompetent and sloppy with their obsessions... oh yeah, that's right they're called kooks.

Posted by: 386sx | September 15, 2010 3:33 AM

@mandas (#154) and dogmeat (#155): And thus, we come back around what Mr. de Nugent has said, and the original focus of this discussion. I won't try to repeat in detail what Mr. de Nugent has already said here numerous times, and with supporting links, etc. But ancient white people (Solutreans) did arrive in the Americas before the Siberians (Indians). Those ancient white people were then genocided by the warlike Indians. So, yes, Indians committed violent crime against white people in ancient America, just as their Hispanic descendants do today.

Posted by: From America | September 16, 2010 1:10 AM

Mr. Brayton, I see that you censored my last reply to "wheatdogg." The liberal loons who support your pathetic blog have slammed me nonstop for not including URLs to support what I've said. But when I finally do, replying to "wheatdogg" with links to numerous articles and two videos, you censor my reply. Typical. You can't stand to hear the truth, and won't allow a real debate, because you know you're wrong - about everything. You are an intellectual coward. So, unless you post this comment, I won't bother you liberal wack-jobs anymore - I have better things to do, anyway. Then you can all have fun agreeing with each other and slagging the white race, with no dissenting opinions allowed. Your supporters had the nerve to label me as an "authoritarian," who wants to suppress people's freedom of speech - talk about hypocrisy and "projectionism." YOU are the one suppressing freedom of speech.

Posted by: From America | September 16, 2010 3:09 PM

Who here claimed you were out to "suppress people's freedom of speech?" The claim is that all this Solutrean genocide nonsense is untenable, not that you are violating free speech. Quit being paranoid. If your comment didn't get through, it probably got jacked by scienceblogs' screwy comment system. I've gotten lost comments as well. If Ed wanted to censor ideas he didn't agree with, none of your silly comments would've made it through.

Posted by: AL | September 16, 2010 3:38 PM

Try reformatting your reply before you bitch about censorship, dumbass. The comments here go up pretty much immediately after you hit post. Do you seriously think Ed sits in front of his computer 24/7 and in real time, waits for you to hit post just so he can intercept and block your posts? Obviously, the format of your comments screwed around with scienceblogs' system, so reformat it and post it again.

Or not. I could not care less about hearing more Solutrean nonsense that even the original purveyors of the hypothesis wouldn't agree with.

Posted by: AL | September 16, 2010 3:48 PM

Here is a video of your black communist hero Nelson Mandela, singing with some of his tribesmen about killing white people...

Got any videos of Mandela actually killing white people, or ordering such killing?

Oh, and I've sung along with "Come Out Ye Black-and-Tans" in Irish pubs too. That doesn't mean I actually support killing British soldiers.

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 16, 2010 5:44 PM

@Leni (#173): Did you expand the video's description by clicking the down-arrow, as I suggested? It explains the "white" person standing next to Mandela in the video. He is a Jew named Ronnie Kasrils - the former South African National Intelligence Minister. Kind of like the Michael Chertoff of South Africa. And there he is, singing about killing white people. I'm sure he had nothing to do with the massacres, though, because G_d knows, Jews are never guilty of anything.

@Raging Bee (#174): No, but I'm sure Mandela isn't bothered at all by the massacres of South African white farmers, and probably approves of them. Here are two more videos about those massacres. The number of South African white farmers killed by blacks now stands at around 3800 since black rule began in 1994:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT34ymDKMhQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S71PbichSw

Posted by: From America | September 16, 2010 7:14 PM

Here are photos of some of the approximately 3800 white South African farmers brutally murdered by blacks since black rule began in 1994. As brainwashed liberals, I'm sure you approve of these murders, since these simple white farmers were obviously all "racists," who "had it coming to them." Right? But what if your family was tortured and killed in this manner?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmdkBeqmC4Q

Johannesburg is now #7 on this list of the world's most dangerous cities. Under white rule, Johannesburg wasn't even on any such list, because the blacks were kept relatively under control:

http://www.realclearworld.com/lists/most_dangerous_cities/johannesburg.html?state=stop

Posted by: From America | September 16, 2010 7:32 PM

@Ian Gould (#157): FBI crime statistics are based on local police reports from every city in the United States. Local police routinely under-report crime in their cities, to make themselves look good to their superiors. Here's an example from Atlanta:

http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/crime6.aspx

As Mark Twain once said, there are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Yes, Hispanics are included in the white crime statistics, which is blatantly unfair to whites, since Hispanics commit crime at a much higher rate.

Posted by: From America | September 16, 2010 8:42 PM

"FBI crime statistics are based on local police reports from every city in the United States. Local police routinely under-report crime in their cities, to make themselves look good to their superiors."

I see and this tendency to alter the figures ot make themsleves look better has icnreased over tiem - and has don so even faster than the supposedly soaring criem rate?

In further evidence of your blatant stupidity, you've confused two totally sepaarte issues.

The point about Hispanics being counted as white in census figures (not in crime statistics) prior to 1970 is that the US was never 90% "white" in the sense you use the term.

Posted by: Ian Gould | September 16, 2010 9:09 PM

@DaveL (#181): Why, I think the conclusions are obvious, Dave! We should arrest all white people in America for being "racists," and throw them all into jail, or into "re-education camps." The higher crime rates of blacks and hispanics are obviously due to the evil white man oppressing them. I'm sure you can agree with that.

Posted by: From America | September 16, 2010 10:34 PM

@Ian Gould (#182): No, idiot - you're not even understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that the real crime rate is not even being reported, and that the local police in every major U.S. city lower their crime rate stats a small percentage each year, in an effort to show improvement over their last year's crime rate stats. What don't you understand about that? And learn how to spell, please. This blog does have a rudimentary spell-checker, you know. Your brain is as backward as your spelling.

Posted by: From America | September 16, 2010 10:43 PM

Why do people feel bad after they shoot a dozen neo-nazis with a Browning HP?

They've got a bullet left.

Posted by: Ian Gould | September 16, 2010 11:28 PM

@Ian Gould (#188): And thus, your true Jewish character is revealed. Have I spoken about killing anyone here, even in jest? No - I haven't. You would have made a good Bolshevik in the Soviet Union - shooting Gentiles in the back of the head.

Posted by: From America | September 16, 2010 11:53 PM

Have you ever read "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand? I was the "Gail Wynand" character as a child.

So you're a blow-hard, self-important manipulator who ultimately fails? Sounds about right.

Posted by: dogmeat | September 17, 2010 12:16 AM

um... )

Posted by: Leni | September 17, 2010 12:19 AM

"Being one of the very few "gringos" in the area, I was often singled out for fights, and was once beaten up pretty badly by a Mexican gang, solely because I was white..."

Translated from the bullshit-ese: "I and six of my skinhead friends, armed only with baseball bats were bravely defending our race and nation from a blind 80-year-old chicana when her six year old granddaughter came along and kicked our arses."

Posted by: Ian Gould | September 17, 2010 12:27 AM

what's the difference between dogshit and a neo-nazi?

Dogshit smells better and is easier to scrape off your shoes

Posted by: Ian Gould | September 17, 2010 1:42 AM

@DaveL (#181): Why, I think the conclusions are obvious, Dave! We should arrest all white people in America for being "racists," and throw them all into jail, or into "re-education camps." The higher crime rates of blacks and hispanics are obviously due to the evil white man oppressing them. I'm sure you can agree with that.

I'm not playing your game. I'll let other people argue about socioeconomic factors and you can accuse them of making excuses for criminals. I'm not doing that - I just want to know, if we accept your claims at face value, what conclusions and policies you think they justify. So answer the fucking question.

Posted by: DaveL | September 17, 2010 6:04 AM

Well, it's clear that my comments ARE being suppressed by someone. I see that "wheatdogg" is allowed to post a 6-page diatribe, but I am no longer able to even post a short comment. So, I will bid you liberal clowns adieu. Have fun jacking each other off.

Posted by: From America | September 17, 2010 7:55 AM

America,

You are not being prevented from replying. This blog automatically holds for approval any comment that has too many links (more than two, I think), because it often represents spam. The way to get around that is to post multiple comments, or to just use the URLs of the link, minus the http:/www part.

Also, if you're trying to post several comments in a row, quickly, it may make you wait a bit because the software doesn't let one person post a whole bunch of comments in a very short time (presumably another anti-spam measure).

So either you misunderstand what's going on, or you're making up an excuse to run away instead of admitting your arguments have been soundly rebutted.

Posted by: James Hanley | September 17, 2010 8:03 AM

Aww - did the nasty adults point and laugh at your idiotic non-arguments supported by non-evidence by non-experts?
Did they point out that you forgot how to count to two (only two links, otherwise Scienceblogs puts you in the sin-bin)? What a damn shame!
Don't let the door hit ya head-receptacle* on the way out!

Buh bye, don't come back now! - Dingo
-----
* or in less 'Amalekesque' language, your ass

Posted by: DingoJack | September 17, 2010 8:17 AM

Well, it's clear that my comments ARE being suppressed by someone. I see that "wheatdogg" is allowed to post a 6-page diatribe, but I am no longer able to even post a short comment.

"From America's" last comment is self-refuting. For some reason I find that fitting.

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 17, 2010 11:51 AM

Sorry, Emily, I can't resist a TV quote:

We ... are ... Nomad.
We are complete.
We are instructed.
Our purpose is clear.
Sterilize imperfections.
Sterilize imperfections.

That's From America to a T (as in Tiberius?).

Posted by: wheatdogg | September 17, 2010 12:14 PM

James Hanley, #211:

Does anyone believe that he even has functioning circuits? I think he died a while ago and his typing fingers are just still running due to inerita.

Posted by: Chiroptera | September 17, 2010 12:34 PM

I am no longer able to even post a short comment.

Are you trying to top yourself for irony and straightforward wrongness? This ranks up there with your claim that America was once an all-white continent. If you're too stupid to figure out how to format your comments or space your posting times out to get past this blog's anti-spam auto-measures, even after it has already been explained to you, then perhaps you should do the white race a favor and remove yourself from its genepool. Can't have the stupid diluting the Aryan Master Race.

Posted by: AL | September 17, 2010 1:43 PM

From America, #215: A few final comments....

Promise?

Posted by: Chiroptera | September 17, 2010 2:34 PM

I think this blog and the blog censors are probably from Israel, if I'm not mistaken. That would explain the predominantly Israel readership. Most other commenters probably don't get through the blog censors very often.

Posted by: 386sx | September 17, 2010 2:47 PM

John de Nugent is not an American patriot. He is a festering smallpox sore on the ass of the United States and the entire world. He has no right to the term patriot.

Posted by: BrianX | September 17, 2010 2:55 PM

I think JdN speaks through FA. The bit about checking the time (post 215 above). When JdN needs to rest and removes his arm from Fas ass, thus shutting him down, JdN cleans and checks his watch.

Posted by: dean | September 17, 2010 3:02 PM

@From Amalek's Sock Drawer: It's also apparent to me that for most of you, commenting on blogs like this one is your JOB, and you are most likely being PAID to do it.

Just because you apparently could never bring yourself to write a coherent argument without financial incentive doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

Normal people, who have jobs and real lives, don't have the time or desire to spend so many hours on the Internet

Speak for yourself; none of the comments I make around here take longer than maybe ten minutes to compose, even when I'm multitasking. Again, just because it takes hours for you to bash out semi-coherent text doesn't mean nobody else can think quicker.

By the way, I actually support Palestine. Which I suppose makes me an Islamofascist race traitor. At least come up with some insults other than ones based on "Jew"-- it's not that hard.

Posted by: Emily | September 17, 2010 3:07 PM

Sorry, From America. You were wrong when you made random accusations about people being Jews, you were wrong when you made an accusation that you were being censored, and now you continue to persist in being wrong when you accuse the people here of not being American based on the rigorous evidence of a time stamp on the comments. As rigorous as stone tool similarities proving a genocide, eh?

I live in San Jose, California (which is in America, not Israel, genius). I work in healthcare and am on call to be scheduled for odd hours of work assignments. So yes, sometimes that means I do have spare time at 1 or 2am in the morning (my time) to read and comment. No, I'm not paid to comment. I see stupid shit, I ridicule it. This whole Solutrean nonsense and watching de Nugent brand everyone a Jew was some stupid shit I saw, so I ridiculed it. You really want to stretch your conspiracy theory this far and assume that commenters here are paid? Riight. And I'm sure you and Amalek are paid by de Nugent to be professional fawning sycophants. OK, I don't really believe that, but while we're entertaining unproven conspiratorial notions and shifting the burden of proof....

Posted by: AL | September 17, 2010 3:25 PM

DaveL "...now you think we're all Israeli propaganda agents?"
I am. MOssad. I'm just in it for all the extra holidays.

Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 17, 2010 5:04 PM

Ah, yes - now I'm "paranoid." How very predictable of you, Dave Lieberman

Try something more French Canadian.

- more attacks and name-calling. Follow that script! Michigan, huh? I live in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - can you prove that I don't?

Prove it? No. However, considering you come on this blog using the nickname "From America" and make Rio out to be a subhuman hellhole I think it's safe to say you don't. Let's hear your Portugese.

Anyway, the Israeli "hasbarats" I referred to are not limited to Israel, and therein lies the flaw of your argument. There are most likely Jews in every country who are working as hasbarats for Israel. So your claim that you live in Michigan means nothing, even if it's true.

Most likely? Do you realize you just showed less skepticism to outright wild speculation about secret Israeli propaganda agents than towards someone's claim to live in Michigan?

You literally think it's more credible that the Israeli government has planted sleeper agents overseas to debate you on blogs than it is that a white man in Michigan thinks you're an idiot?

Posted by: DaveL | September 17, 2010 6:19 PM

Actually, Fuck America, I'm not a communist at all. I am a democratic socialist, but those are not the same thing. And I'm not a faggot, I'm bisexual, so I'm only half faggot. (Well, closer to 1/4.)

Hmmm, my father's brother was a quarter faggot democratic socialist, perhaps you saw him at the meetings? ;o)

Posted by: dogmeat | September 17, 2010 6:45 PM

A few final comments and observations (if your censors even allow this to go through). No, none of you have successfully rebutted ANYTHING I've said. You've just engaged in a lot of name-calling, which I've unfortunately allowed myself to be goaded into on several occasions, and you've posted your own shallow opinions as "evidence" for your claims.

Actually I've asked a number of questions, some to you directly, others directed at your "friends," none of which you've even attempted to address. Add to that the idea that you believe statistics from the federal government are unreliable but some dude's YouTube video is a viable source is really rather disturbing. It's the kind of reasoning that would leave high school freshman rolling on the floor laughing.

Posted by: dogmeat | September 17, 2010 7:04 PM

Wow. Three sub-functional Christian Identity types of varying degrees of delusion in one thread? Makes me feel like I'm back in Idaho again. Now I need some brain bleach and a long shower.

(shakes head sadly)

Dumber than advertised and twice as noxious.

The MadPanda, FCD

Posted by: The MadPanda, FCD | September 17, 2010 8:03 PM

Leni - yes, but do you like piña coladas and getting caught in the rain? :) Dingo

Posted by: DingoJack | September 17, 2010 8:21 PM

Probably yes, DJ, but I oh hate that song!

Even more OT: Even as a child I hated it. I have this memory of being trapped in a Buick with that song playing and not being able to do anything about it because my Mom wouldn't change the station. Or let me jump out of a moving vehicle. I think I might have actually cried.

Posted by: Leni | September 17, 2010 8:37 PM

@Leni: That's one worth remembering!

Posted by: Emily | September 17, 2010 8:45 PM

I apologize for my poor editing skills. I did not mean to imply that The Mail and RealClearWorld are disreputable. Now, as for the The Sun ...

Posted by: wheatdogg | September 17, 2010 9:00 PM

"What is your fixation with Jews and Israel?"

Some people need an external reason to explain why they're miserable failures who weight 350 pounds, live in the parent's basement; have never had a job that pays better than minimum wage and have never had consensual sex without paying for it.

Posted by: Ian Gould | September 17, 2010 9:17 PM

A point worth considering: if there were migrants to the Americas from Europe and they died out or were killed off, what of it? (Note that I don't call them "white"; on this timescale skin color is irrelevant.) There's no shortage of violence, even genocide, throughout human history. Such migrants would be just another group of unlucky bastards in a world that had no sense of civilization. (Now back to reality, where such people have as much reality as Joseph Smith's Lamanites and Nephites.)

Posted by: BrianX | September 17, 2010 11:27 PM

Emily's right! Here's proof! - Dingo

Posted by: DingoJack | September 18, 2010 12:30 AM

I thought the Soultrain genocide was when Elvis took his, "look white, sing black" message to the nation, and everybody stopped listening to Mitch Miller and Lawrence Welk. I mean, when was the last time you heard any polka in the top 40?

Posted by: hoary puccoon | September 18, 2010 2:41 AM

Hey man, I typed an addendum to my "last post I'll ever make here," and the post never went up! Why are you censoring me, you Joo scumbags? I'm giving more money to de Nugent and I'm going to beat up some more Mexicans!

Posted by: AL | September 18, 2010 3:34 AM

Dingo--

Well, yeah, but "Weird Al" Yankovic has the mitochondrial W (weird) gene from his mother. This is a *proven fact* much more solid than the Solutrean hypothesis. (Meaning, it doesn't have tons of evidence against it.) So the Soultrain hypothesis rules!!!

Posted by: hoary puccoon | September 18, 2010 6:39 AM

Solutreans were first and when they tried to teach beringians how to act like civil humans the beringians slaughtered the solutreans. Beringians just don't want to admit it.

Posted by: klt | October 3, 2010 4:59 PM

Yankingyourselfoff @ 259:

And you sound like a piece of fecal dirt with vocal chords; what are we to make of that?

Posted by: democommie | October 22, 2011 7:55 AM