On vaccine hesitancy

This is a response to a comment of Peter, a regular visitor, about whether or not to vaccinate our children, more formally called vaccine hesitancy. I place it as an entry instead of a simple comment because it involves two questions that I consider fundamental: (1) the principle of the non-falsifiable hypothesis as a litmus test of whether we are facing a pseudoscience, and my metaphor of conspiracy theorists who leave the courtroom every time the prosecutor speaks. Peter wrote:

I’m truly surprised that you would express such a credulous stance on this issue, with mine being that vaccination is a branch of medicine just as fraudulent and pernicious as biological psychiatry.

I’m not sure the analogy is adequate. Although psychiatrists cannot present their central hypothesis (that mental illness is a biomedical entity) in a falsifiable way, I suppose that medical science can present, without violating falsifiability, the claim that vaccines prevent, say, smallpox, pertussis or measles. ‘I suppose’ I wrote because I haven’t listened to the ‘prosecutor’ in the case of vaccines. And this brings me to Peter’s second statement:

Finally, you like to speak of listening to the Prosecution and the Defense to come to a fair conclusion about any contentious topic. So to what extent have you given the “Prosecution” a fair hearing on this issue?

For someone who has not entered the courtroom of the debate between those who believe in vaccines and those who don’t, the best analogy wouldn’t be the member of a jury. That would mean spending much time as those members do in American movies. Furthermore, the government compels them not to walk away while listening to both sides. Rather, I would be one of the citizens who listen to the trial from the seats, a layman who is not obliged to follow the case closely but simply wants to get a general idea of the controversy.

To argue, without using much time, that psychiatry is a false science one just has to read my linked article above, or watch any of Robert Whitaker’s videos (whom white nationalists should not mistake for Bob Whitaker). Ideally, in the case of vaccine hesitancy, Peter would link an open debate between ‘lawyer’ and ‘prosecutor’ so to speak. Only if, from that debate, I feel that the prosecutor won (that is, that the vaccine-hesitant POV sounds more scientific) I would use my time to study the subject.

Published in: on March 23, 2020 at 12:30 pm  Comments (13)  

Keto diet might tame virus

A study of last November, just when subject zero was infected with the Chinese virus, found that mice with a high-fat, low-carb diet were better able to resist the flu virus than mice fed food high in carbohydrates.

Published in: on March 22, 2020 at 12:38 pm  Comments (3)  

The Neolithic curse

The Cro-Magnon reconstruction in the
American Museum of Natural History.

Editor’s note: The coronavirus will have to infect 75-80% of the population before achieving what in epidemiology is called ‘herd immunity’. This means that most racially conscious whites will be infected in the next 18-24 months, when herd immunity is reached. The most alarming piece of data I’ve seen in Martenson’s videos is that, if Italians are already panicking with just 0.8% of their population infected, imagine how they will be—and the rest of the nations—with 8%. And let’s not talk about 80% to achieve the herd immunity: two orders of magnitude above the current situation in Italy!

It is critical that racially conscious whites take prophylactic measures by the time of eight, or eighty, percent of infected people. I can’t think of anything better than to provoke a paradigm shift in our bodies, so to speak, as very few can afford a bunker in the countryside. I am referring to the replacement of sugars as the sedentary source of energy to ketone bodies, as it used to be in the nomadic times of the Cro-Magnon. Remember that, biologically speaking, the Cro-Magnon was the highest type of Homo sapiens according to the racial classification of Evropa Soberana at the end of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour.

The present translation, or rather excerpts of other of Soberana’s essays, ‘La maldición oriental: daños dietéticos traídos por la Revolución Neolítica’ (The Eastern Curse: Dietary Damage brought by the Neolithic Revolution), must be read taking into account what I said in my previous post. Soberana started his essay with a biblical quote:

Now the earth is going to be under a curse because of you; with hard work you will make her produce your food throughout your life. The soil will give you thorns and thistles, and you will have to eat wild plants. You will earn your bread with the sweat of your brow, until you return to the same soil from which you were formed: for you are dust and you will become dust! —Genesis.

Cereals are currently the greatest cause of overpopulation, and therefore they are to blame for an increasingly numerous humanity taking more and more resources from the land on which we depend. If these billions of biped parasites are sustainable in the modern world and can continue to produce garbage and pollution, it is exclusively thanks to cereals.

Monocultures (especially rice, wheat, corn, and soybeans) produce cheap, easy, but empty calories like straw or cardboard, and have wiped out the nutritional variety that our ancestors enjoyed. Intensive agriculture has demanded the use of toxic substances and the denaturation of food in exchange for producing more quantity. Humanity’s dependence on cereal grain has caused deforestation (and the destruction of the animal biodiversity that the forests harboured), the uncontrolled and disastrous multiplication of our populations, countless degenerative diseases, the impoverishment of the soil, the advancement of desertification, and more. The number of human beings increased, but their quality drastically decreased.

Neolithic societies would conceive the coming of the cereal (Demeter, Ceres) as something that brought them out of the dark. The truth is that it made their daily life easier, but the degradation of their quality of life began: deformations in the teeth, deterioration of health, metabolism disorder, the appearance of obesity and slow cultivation of a different human type that did not suit the species, but the System: a humble, conformist, candid and satisfied human type. The origins of slave morality, masterfully portrayed by Nietzsche in On the Genealogy of Morality and The Antichrist must be sought in Israel—but not during the Roman occupation, but rather at the end of the Upper Palaeolithic.

The Neolithic completely disrupted human food. Where meat used to be eaten now what was eaten are carbohydrates. As we have seen, during the Palaeolithic the main source of biological energy for humans was fat. From the Neolithic it will be the sugars. Currently, eighty percent of our calories come from cereals, and a significant portion of the remaining twenty percent comes from refined sugars, processed fats, and highly damaging artificial sweeteners. As we can see, there is hardly any room for protein or saturated animal fats.

 
The dawn of starches

Starch is a polysaccharide or complex carbohydrate present as an energy reserve in all green plants. As examples of starchy foods we have rice, wheat, corn, oats, potatoes, cassava (a potato-like tuber that is widespread in the tropics) and others. Due to the strong cereal component of the modern diet, starches supply between seventy and eighty percent of the calories consumed by humanity in typically starchy products such as pasta, bread, rice, couscous, porridge, cakes, flour, cookies, potatoes, pastries in general and the various box cereals. Starches are, no more and no less, the basis of human nutrition today.

However, the question remains as to whether, as human beings, we are evolutionarily adapted to this substance. Animals really adapted to the digestion of starches are called seed predators or granivores. Among them are many birds and pigs, who have huge salivary glands that secrete a wide variety of enzymes designed to break down starches. Humans have the AMY1 gene, which gives us the ability to metabolise starch, but we only have one enzyme capable of breaking it down: salivary amylase or ptyalin.

That we are not biologically equipped for the optimal assimilation of starch is unsurprising. Over millions of years we evolved as hunter-gatherers and our genetics adapted to meats, fats, organs, and wild berries. In evolutionary terms, we started very recently (6,000 years ago in north-western Europe and the Cantabrian Cornice) ingesting massive amounts of starches. All this time our bodies have done nothing but protest and show signs of nonconformity. Paleo-archaeologists are well aware that the fossil record indicates an impressive decline in health and quality of life as agriculture was adopted; so much so that dental defects, osteoporosis and skeletal underdevelopment are often taken as reliable indicators to date the arrival of the Neolithic in a certain area.

In more recent times we have seen a strange starch promotion campaign at the cost of animal fats. Thus, since the 1970s the traditional American breakfast of eggs, bacon, sausages and butter has been gradually replaced by showcase food for hysterical menopausal women: the usual bowl of Special K with skim milk, coffee with saccharin, a slice of bread (naturally, with margarine instead of butter), a tablespoon of virgin olive oil, a glimpse of the latest gossip magazine, and a Coke to carry in your bag. The agricultural industry has increased the consumption of refined carbohydrates because they are the cheapest nutrients to produce; they are sold with an immense profit margin and they constantly innovate the market with a wide variety of products every year. In addition, it is easy to get addicted to them. There is nothing more profitable for the entrepreneur than investing in cereals. Then, of course, we complain about our deplorable state of health and blame everything on cholesterol, regardless of the most discreet culprit: starch.

Since the 1970s, the annual consumption of cereal grains has increased by about 25 kg per person, and the consumption of artificial caloric sweeteners (especially high fructose corn syrup) has increased by 15 kg. At the same time, total caloric consumption has increased 400 more a day since media agencies began stigmatising fat and recommending cereals. In contrast, cholesterol consumption has been dramatically reduced in record time. And yet, with food globalisation, health has suffered a colossal collapse, perhaps not seen since the arrival of the Neolithic: various degenerative diseases such as diabetes, candidiasis and obesity are multiplying at an increasingly rapid rate. The average western citizen is, to the delight of the pharmacological industry—which, let us not forget, feeds on and is enriched by our diseases—, a true and authentic garbage bag.

China is currently the world’s No. 1 cereal producer, followed by the United States. It’s not just about not being adapted to starches. The starch diet can kill and probably is, indirectly, the greatest mass murderer in the history of the planet. Here we will look at some of the many serious problems that cereals pose to human health […].

Published in: on March 21, 2020 at 3:37 pm  Comments (7)  

Keto diet and the 4 words

By trying by all means to prevent contagion from the coronavirus these days I discovered the Ketogenic diet, as the general state of health of our bodies is related to the proclivity to contagion. One might think that a diet rich in animal fats contradicts what I call the four words, but it is not the case.

If it is a matter of ‘avoiding all unnecessary suffering’ it is quite reasonable to emulate Hitler’s initiative to eliminate the slaughterhouses, in case Germany won the war (or Goering’s to eliminate vivisections, which was implemented in the Third Reich). There’s no need to torment mammals in the slaughterhouses or in the labs.

But fishing for basic nutrients could be thought of as ‘necessary suffering’ of sea fish for the health of the white man, at least until we figure out a way to synthesise those nutrients in the laboratory. (In my twenties I was a huge science-fiction fan of Arthur Clarke, who in several of his stories imagined a future where meat will be synthesised by artificial means without the need for any slaughter.) So, this day I did not violate the four words when eating tuna after a pumpkin flower soup.

The need to change our unhealthy eating habits through a Ketogenic diet will be explained in my next excerpt from an article that Evropa Soberana wrote in 2013, before this diet gained immense popularity. At the moment I can only advance a single passage from Soberana’s article about how insulin disorder has a negative effect on the immune system:

Insulin remains floating in the bloodstream long after the sugar has been metabolised. Its most well-known side effect is to produce a new episode of sugar hunger, since insulin excess in our blood needs something to do. It ‘gets bored’ so to speak and demands more sugar to burn.

This in turn will release more insulin, in an undesirable vicious cycle that leads directly to compulsive eating, obesity, and diabetes. However, the subtlest and most damaging side effect of prolonged and frequent insulin surges is that it suppresses the release of growth hormone. Growth hormone is secreted by the pituitary gland, and in addition to promoting height, muscle development, bone density, and fat-burning, it is an important immune and rejuvenating agent.

The Spaniard Soberana wrote the article in his native language. If you want introductory information in English about the Ketogenic diet see especially here, here, here and a response to criticism here (he has responded to what another YouTuber says here and here). Wikipedia has a featured article on the Ketogenic diet here.

Published in: on March 20, 2020 at 3:55 pm  Comments (3)  
Tags:

How did white women get their cute appearance?

(Brief answer: we designed them)

Peter Frost is a Canadian anthropologist. His main research interest has been the role of sexual selection in highly visible human traits, notably diverse hair and eye colors. Other interests include vitamin D metabolism in northern hunting peoples and gene-culture coevolution, such as genetic pacification due to the state monopoly on violence (reduction of propensity for personal violence).

Grégoire Canlorbe: You are best known for your claim that the most plausible origin for the light coloration of skin in Europeans is sexual selection rather than natural selection. Could you remind us of your argument?

Peter Frost: It’s not just light skin. It’s also the extraordinary variety of hair and eye colors. I prefer to begin with them because they are much less explainable by anything other than sexual selection.

Take hair color. Most humans have black hair and one allele for hair color. Europeans have over two hundred for colors ranging from black to blond. The conventional explanation is straightforward: As humans entered higher latitudes, with less solar radiation, there was less selection for dark skin and, consequently, an accumulation of defective alleles for pigmentation. So the number of hair colors grew as a side effect.

That scenario has two problems. First, the genetic linkage between skin color and hair color is weak. If we took all humans with black hair, we would have a group with the full range of skin colors. Second, millions of years are needed to accumulate that many alleles through relaxation of selection. Yet modern humans have been in Europe for scarcely 45,000 years.

Did Europeans get their hair colors from the Neanderthals? According to a study of five alleles for red hair, one of them seems to be an archaic introgression, but the others are of modern human origin. Even if we assume that all of the alleles for hair color had slowly accumulated during the long existence of the Neanderthals, the timeline is still too short—at most three quarters of a million years. Furthermore, even if they all had a Neanderthal origin, we would still need to explain how they reached their current prevalence. Europeans today are only 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal.

That’s not all. Eye color, too, diversified during the same 45,000 years. So two polymorphisms—for hair and eye color—have developed in parallel with different genetic causes and within the same limits of time and space. There must have been a process of selection. Something helped preserve those new colors and pass them on to subsequent generations.

That something, in my opinion, was sexual selection. It begins when too many of one sex have to compete for too few of the other. The latter are in a buyer’s market and can pick and choose among prospective mates. Conversely, the “sellers” are in a worse position and must market themselves as best they can. They succeed by attracting attention and holding it as long as possible, typically by means of bright colors.

Sexual selection is consistent with the evolution of European hair and eye color in four ways:

First, the European color pattern has become more developed in one sex. Specifically, hair and eye colors are more varied among women than among men, with infrequent colors more common among women and frequent ones less common. A UK Biobank study found that red hair is especially prevalent among women, followed by blond hair and light brown hair. Conversely, the same study found that black hair is three to five times less common among women than among men. The different eye colors are likewise distributed more uniformly among women. These sex differences seem to be due to the action of estrogen during fetal development. A Czech study found that face shape was more feminine in blue-eyed men than in brown-eyed men, as if a single factor had feminized both face shape and eye color.

Second, dark colors have given way to brighter colors, even though new dark colors could have been created. Hair is carrot red, not beet red. Eyes are light blue, not navy blue. Brightness increases visual impact, causing the observer to watch the image longer and keep it in memory longer.

Third, broad-spectrum colors have given way to narrow-spectrum, “pure” ones. A pure color has relatively few wavelengths and is restricted to a narrow slice of the visible spectrum. Such colors don’t happen by accident. They are unusual in the natural world and almost always serve to attract attention, either as a warning coloration or as a means to attract a mate.

Fourth, a single color has given way to a variety. A color grabs attention not only by being bright within a narrow slice of the spectrum but also by being novel. If a particular color becomes too common, it will be less novel and less attractive, and the pressure of sexual selection will shift to more unusual ones. A variety of colors will thus coexist and grow in number as more appear through mutation.

But why would sexual selection be stronger in Europe than elsewhere? Keep in mind that most Europeans did not look European until late in time, almost at the dawn of history. As late as the Mesolithic, pale skin and diverse hair and eye colors were confined to Scandinavia, the Baltic countries, and areas farther east. The oldest dating of blond hair goes back 18,000 years in central Siberia. We know all this from DNA in human remains. Inferential methods place the emergence of pale skin within the same time frame: 19,000 to 11,000 years ago according to one research team, and 19,200 to 7,600 years ago according to another. That’s more or less the last ice age, and long after modern humans had come to Europe. As a Science correspondent wrote: “The implication is that our European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years.”

We still need more data, but it seems that the current European phenotype arose during the last ice age, some 10 to 20 thousand years ago, among hunting people who inhabited the plains stretching from the Baltic to Siberia. Their women were subjected to strong sexual selection for two reasons. First, men were fewer in number. In a hunting society, male mortality increases as hunters cover longer distances, and average hunting distance is longest in open northern environments. Second, polygyny was less frequent. Since men provided almost all the food, the effort of providing for a second wife and her children was impossible for all but the best hunters. With few polygynous men, and fewer men altogether, women were in a tough market—too many competing for too few. Even slight improvements in attractiveness could make a big difference.

Why didn’t the new phenotype survive in Siberia? First, the colder and drier climate kept human numbers smaller than in Europe, the Gulf Stream being too distant to exert its warming and moistening influence. So the effects of sexual selection could not survive and accumulate as much, especially when the population contracted at the height of the ice age. Other humans then moved in as the climate turned warmer. Nonetheless, as shown by ancient DNA, the new phenotype did persist in south-central Siberia as late as the fourth century. Its population base had probably become too small to ensure its long-term survival.

Final question: Why are Europeans diverse for hair and eye color but not for skin color? The reason may be a pre-existing sex difference that oriented sexual selection in one direction. In all human populations, girls become lighter-skinned during adolescence, with the result that young women are noticeably fairer than young men. A fair complexion was traditionally valued in women, who would make themselves even fairer by avoiding the sun, by wearing protective clothing, and by using face powders. This gender norm has existed across all cultures with one exception, albeit a big one: the tanning craze of Western women since the early 20th century. Thus, at least in premodern times, fairer women were preferred, and such a preference, under intense sexual selection, would eventually drain the gene pool of alleles for dark skin. This may explain the strange albino-like skin of Europeans.

This episode of intense sexual selection probably did much more than change hair, eye, and skin color. Those effects are the most obvious, and the hardest to explain otherwise.

Other effects might include changes in hair form. Hair form was originally thick and straight across northern Eurasia. It then diversified in Europe during the same narrow timeframe that saw hair and eye colors diversify. From being thick and straight it became thin with diverse textures. About 45 percent of Europeans now have straight hair, 40 percent wavy hair, and 15 percent curly hair. The cause was probably the same desire for novelty that created the palette of hair and eye colors. A novelty effect has in fact been shown in an Austrian study, which found that women tend to change their hair form to a less common one.

__________

Read it all on American Renaissance.

Published in: on March 14, 2020 at 12:01 am  Comments (7)  

Virus – advice for boomers

According to this doc, Vitamin D reduces the probability of respiratory tract infections, such as the Chinese virus (I dislike the World Health Organization’s term, COVID-19). I just started taking daily 10-minute sunbaths on the roof of my house. Hope it helps…

Published in: on March 9, 2020 at 4:34 pm  Comments (6)  

Exponential power

‘The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function’ said scientist Albert Bartlett.

I’ve just added bold-type in my previous post: ‘We’re looking at about 1 million US cases [infected by the virus] by the end of April, 2 million by ~May 5; 4 million by ~May 11, and so on. Exponentials are hard to grasp, but this is how they go’.

To illustrate why people aren’t taking the virus seriously, watch this brief lesson by Chris Martenson explaining exponential power.

Published in: on March 7, 2020 at 6:51 pm  Comments (32)  

Is it time to panic?

I won’t listen to what Stefan Molyneux said yesterday about the coronavirus. I prefer listening to those who don’t have Jewish mothers, like Martenson and Maloney. But I can quote the text below the video. Moly wrote:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

I think most people aren’t aware of the risk of systemic healthcare failure due to COVID19 because they simply haven’t run the numbers yet. Let’s talk math.

Let’s conservatively assume that there are 2,000 current cases in the US today, March 6th. This is about 8x the number of confirmed (lab-diagnosed) cases. We know there is substantial under-[detection] due to lack of test kits; I’ll address implications later of under-/over-estimate.

We can expect that we’ll continue to see a doubling of cases every 6 days (this is a typical doubling time across several epidemiological studies). Here I mean actual cases. Confirmed cases may appear to rise faster in the short term due to new test kit rollouts.

We’re looking at about 1M US cases by the end of April, 2M by ~May 5, 4M by ~May 11, and so on. Exponentials are hard to grasp, but this is how they go.

As the healthcare system begins to saturate under this case load, it will become increasingly hard to detect, track, and contain new transmission chains. In absence of extreme interventions, this likely won’t slow significantly until hitting more than 1% of susceptible population.

What does a case load of this size mean for healthcare system? We’ll examine just two factors—hospital beds and masks—among many, many other things that will be impacted.

The US has about 2.8 hospital beds per 1000 people. With a population of 330M, this is ~1M beds. At any given time, 65% of those beds are already occupied. That leaves about 330k beds available nationwide (perhaps a bit fewer this time of year with regular flu season, etc).

Let’s trust Italy’s numbers and assume that about 10% of cases are serious enough to require hospitalization. (Keep in mind that for many patients, hospitalization lasts for weeks—in other words, turnover will be very slow as beds fill with COVID19 patients.)

By this estimate, by about May 8th, all open hospital beds in the US will be filled. (This says nothing, of course, about whether these beds are suitable for isolation of patients with a highly infectious virus.)

If we’re wrong by a factor of two regarding the fraction of severe cases, that only changes the timeline of bed saturation by 6 days in either direction. If 20% of cases require hospitalization, we run out of beds by ~May 2nd.

If only 5% of cases require it, we can make it until ~May 14th. 2.5% gets us to May 20th. This, of course, assumes that there is no uptick in demand for beds from other (non-COVID19) causes, which seems like a dubious assumption.

As healthcare system becomes increasingly burdened, Rx shortages, etc, people with chronic conditions that are normally well-managed may find themselves slipping into severe states of medical distress requiring intensive care and hospitalization. […]

Published in: on March 7, 2020 at 4:33 pm  Comments (5)  

Coronavirus

Check out Chris Martenson’s almost daily updates on the Chinese virus.

I have decided to freeze this blogsite with this entry. I won’t add more entries until it becomes clear if we shall survive what it seems will become a pandemic by April or May.

Let’s filter out all the noise of the mainstream media. The best information site I’ve found over the internet on the subject is that of Martenson, linked above.

May those who will create the ethnostate survive the pandemic…

Published in: on February 1, 2020 at 12:00 pm  Comments (25)  

Great personalities defend eugenics, 11

by Evropa Soberana

Many things must be destroyed to build the New Order; now we know that Germany was one of those things… That heaven exists, even if our place is hell.

—Jorge Luis Borges
Deutsches Requiem

Those who stand out at this time are once again British and American, whose predominance in science and other fields places them as the most fruitful branch of the current Indo-European world. After the Third Reich, eugenics became a taboo subject. After the fall of Christianity, the antichrist seemed to be meaningless, but in Adolf Hitler the System found the antichrist he needed to keep the flock once again in ignorance and stupidity.

This new eugenics, relying on the knowledge of DNA, genome, modern embryology and genetic engineering, has the possibility of overcoming the eugenics of the Anglo-Saxons and the subsequent ‘racial hygiene’ of the Germans to give birth, in a single generation, to a man so perfect that it would probably constitute a different species from the current Homo sapiens. In this concluding section I emphasise, above all, the new generation of scientists who were brave enough to, like Galileo in his day, express the truth without reservation. We must be encouraged to see to what extent there are important scientific authorities who defend the idea of human inequality and the need to cultivate the best genes.

Ascending as two intertwining snakes, the double helix of DNA, discovered by the controversial English scientist James Watson, contains the key to our biological configuration. While the media, in the hands of the System, are discouraged to say that science belies human equality, dozens of leading scientists, including Nobel prizes, say the opposite. But with the exception of someone of the stature of Watson, their statements generally do not reach the mass media.

Sir Charles Galton Darwin (1887-1962), a grandson of the famous biologist and genius Charles Darwin, was an English physicist who greatly supported the eugenic mentality of his ancestor. After lecturing physics in Manchester he served his country in World War I, was a professor of physics at the University of Edinburgh and the head of a faculty at the University of Cambridge. Along with Von Verschuer, the mentor of Josef Mengele, he was the editor of the racist publication Mankind Quarterly, which articles are often cited in The Bell Curve. He was vice-president, director and president of the Eugenics Society.

‘Eugenics is the study of all agencies under social control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations’ (Francis J. Galton, quoted in Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003, 18).

Alva Myrdal (1902-1986). Mother of two children, Swedish diplomat, head of the Social Science section of UNESCO, promoter of the model of the welfare state, parliamentarian and Nobel Peace Prize in 1982.

Until 1970, the Swedish Government had about 62,000 defective individuals sterilised.

Sweden was a country famous throughout the world, not only for its purity of blood, but for being the homeland of a truly beautiful, healthy, sporty, strong and full of beautiful human specimens. With the repeal of the sterilisation decrees of the unfit and the massive influx of third world immigration, Sweden is now a country as degenerate as any western country, in serious danger that its valuable ‘Viking human capital’ may be extinguished.

This woman joins the list of prominent Scandinavian eugenicists such as Søren Hansen (anthropologist, not to be confused with the current Danish golfer), Jon Alfred Mjøen, Herman B. Lundborg, Tage Kemp, Harr Federley, and Gunnar Myrdal.

Cyril D. Darlington (1903-1981), English biologist, cytologist, botanist, geneticist and eugenicist, famous for being the man who discovered the chromosome.

A member of the Royal Society and recipient of the Darwin Medal, he launched harsh criticism of the Soviet Union’s pseudoscientific stance, denying Mendel’s laws in favour of the communist fallacy of Lysenkoism.

He opposed the 1950 UNESCO statement regarding the racial issue and refused to sign it. In 1972, together with fifty other prestigious scientists, he signed the Resolution on Scientific Freedom Regarding Human Behavior and Heredity, an agreement that ended the worrisome attempts of the System to censor and limit the studies of genetic differences. Darlington defended his colleague John R. Baker (1900-1984), biologist, cytologist and anthropologist, and author of the controversial book Raza (1974).

Konrad Lorenz (1903-1989). Austrian zoologist, ethologist, doctor in the Eastern Front who was taken prisoner by the Russians, innovative investigator of animal behaviour and Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1973.

‘Just as in cancer the best treatment is to eradicate the parasitic growth as quickly as possible, the eugenic defense against the dysgenic social effects of afflicted subpopulations is of necessity limited to equally drastic measures… When these inferior elements are not effectively eliminated from a [healthy] population, then—just as when the cells of a malignant tumor are allowed to proliferate throughout the human body—they destroy the host body as well as themselves’ (A. Chase, The Legacy of Malthus: The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism, New York: Alfred Knopf, 1980, 349).

Roger Pearson. Born in 1927, he is still with us! He was active as a Nordicist anthropologist and English editor of pro-Nazi tendency. His Early Civilizations of the Nordic Peoples is a practical compendium of Nordic history. He founded the Northern League (a controversial Nordic organisation for having several former SS officers such as Arthur Ehrhardt and Nordicist Hans Günther) and famous racist and eugenic magazines Mankind Quarterly and Journal of Indo-European Studies, in addition to being president of the World Anti-Communist League, a notable anti-communist association that attracted a large number of ex-Nazis.

James D. Watson. Born in 1928, like Pearson he is still with us. He was active as a biologist. Very famous after the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of the DNA molecule: the molecule that carries an organism’s genetic code.

Watson recently became famous again for starring in some controversies, such as stating that blacks have less intelligence than whites. In 2007, after the hysterical and sparkling pantomime that the Pharisee fanatics of the media mounted following his insignificant, though perfectly logical statement on Africa, Watson resigned as president of the Cold Harbor Laboratory, where he had worked 43 years. (*)

James L. Hart (born in 1944), American Republican political activist. Hart argues that there are favoured races that invented the car and trips to outer space, and other races that are incapable of such achievements.

He supports unimpeded eugenics, opposes racial integration by claiming that if our ancestors had been ‘integrated’ centuries ago, electric light and aviation would never have appeared. He preaches the need to lead a ‘war against the poverty genes’ which, according to him, accumulate particularly in marginal areas of the West such as Detroit, a predominantly black American city, and in the Third World.

In 2004, Hart introduced himself as a representative of the Eighth Tennessee State District, but his own party boycotted him as a ‘white supremacist’.

__________

(*) Editor’s Note: See what Jared Taylor said about the shaming of Watson in a video: here.

Published in: on September 26, 2019 at 12:06 pm  Comments Off on Great personalities defend eugenics, 11