BlogWonks

Here’s a story that I discovered…

Click here to read about it.

The Government Enables Polygamists and then raids the compound. Can you say, Duh?

Good grief..

Could this be a vision of what we have to look forward to under liberal government?

Girl sent to psych ward for homeschooling, parents billed (via WorldNetDaily.com)

The parents of Melissa Busekros, the German teen who was taken by police from her home and placed in a psychiatric ward because she was homeschooled, now are being billed by the government for the cost of her forced stay, according to attorneys who are working on her case.

WND originally reported more than a year ago when Busekros, then 15, was taken into custody from in front of her shocked family by police officers bearing the following court order:

“The relevant Youth Welfare Office is hereby instructed and authorized to bring the child, if necessary by force, to a hearing and may obtain police support for this purpose.”

She eventually was detained for several months, until she turned 16 and was subject to different German laws, when she simply left the custodial foster family where she had been ordered to stay and returned to her parents, Hubert and Gudrun Busekros, and her five siblings.

Court officials later said they would not challenge her actions, but the underlying court case stemming from allegations from education and social service officials over the teen’s welfare has remained unresolved.

Typical Socialist Liberal Government. Even the UN is not amused:

“Even the United Nations has called on Germany to reform the way it treats homeschoolers. We appeal to the German people and German leadership to do what is right and to protect rather than attack families who choose to homeschool their children,” the HSDLA has noted.

My friends this could very well be a stunning portrait of the United States of America, if we put a Liberal in the White House. I mean, think of it. An All Liberal Congress and Liberal President, Would you want to live like this?

It is a scary thought.

Cross-Posted at my Christian Blog - Wayward Fundamentalist Christian

Fleeing North Koreans — especially Christians — are finding that the Chinese are no big help in providing asylum from the brutality and state-sanctioned killing in North Korea.

Kim Jong Il’s government wields unrestricted power in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and his minions continue to run a de factor concentration-camp system that enslaves tens of thousands, including young children.

Periodically, it publicly executes people for offenses such as stealing state property or other “anti-communist” behavior. The North Korean people also secretly complain of the rising problem of government corruption and extortion by officials.  

While thousands of North Koreans seek asylum in China, it is believed by Human Rights Watch and other human-rights organizations that China actively contributes to the misery of North Koreans by arresting and forcibly repatriating the tens or hundreds of thousands of them — no one knows how many for sure — who live in hiding in China.

Once returned to North Korea, they face abuse, mistreatment, torture, incarceration and sometimes even death. These victims include women, some with children, who may be in de facto marriages with Chinese men.  Some of the worst torture and mistreatment is said to be perpetrated against North Korean Christians
 
Upon their return, North Koreans are punished under a penal code that defines leaving without permission as an act of treason punishable by death.

Yet Chinese government officials — no paragons of human rights — continue to routinely repatriate the North Koreans it finds, saying their plight is a “domestic matter” for North Korea.

This is a violation of Beijing’s duty as a party to the International Refugee Convention and Protocol: people who have a well-founded fear of persecution in their home are not to be repatriated. The Chinese government goes as far as refusing to give the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees access to the border area in order to investigate complaints. This is a bold act designed to coverup the atrocities committed against North Koreans.  
 
The North Korean government ranks among the world’s most repressive, and it respects hardly any basic human rights, according to human-rights experts. The worst treatment by the North Korean government appears to be reserved for those who profess their Christianity, according to the human-rights group Open Doors.

However, the brutal regime denies its citizens the freedoms of information, association, religion, organized political opposition and labor activism. The regime arrests and tortures them arbitrarily and runs large-scale prison camps for those who are accused of having committed a political offense.  
 
Just recently, the World Food Program’s Pyongyang office warned of yet another severe food shortage in the country, noting crop damage from flooding last summer. North Korea’s chronic food shortage, which in the 1990s deteriorated to a famine that killed an estimated one million people, along with the government’s severe repression against its citizens, drove thousands of North Koreans across the border into China, according to Human Rights Watch. 
 
As North Koreans in China continue to face the threat of arrest and forced repatriation, many of them take long and dangerous journeys across China to Southeast Asia, Mongolia and even Western Europe. Yet recently there have been signs that China is more aggressively attempting to arrest even the North Koreans who are simply trying to reach a third country.

According to a Bangkok Post article on Dec. 20, 2007, Thai officials hinted they would tip off Chinese officials on the whereabouts of North Koreans hiding in China before they could cross the Mekong River to arrive in Thailand, which has long been among the most friendly countries for North Korean refugees.  
 
In the past, activists or brokers helping North Koreans were often charged by the Chinese authorities with human smuggling, and the North Koreans were repatriated. According to Human Rights Watch interviews with recent escapees, the North Korean government has hardened its policy against those who cross the border without state permission, including “first-time offenders.”  
 
The government of China is facing its own human-rights problem with its treatment of the people of Tibet. Most nations in the free world have condemned the Chinese officials for their flagrant brutality.

As an emerging power and North Korea’s ally, China is in a position to help ensure real economic and social progress. But without those steps, statements like Qin Gang’s do nothing except demonstrate how grotesquely indifferent Beijing remains to the plight of ordinary North Koreans.  
 
North Korea is a nation cloaked in secrecy, yet enough information was garnered so that it has been topping the list of Christion persecutors for over five years, according to Open Doors.

In no other country in the world are Christians persecuted as severely as in the empire of the North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, the Christian group said.

Human Rights Watch http://hrw.org

To discover how you can help stop the persecution of believing Christians in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, please visit:
http://www.helpNK.com/. The web site contains information on religious persecution including an online petition to the US Congress.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us

   

Christians living in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or North Korea, have suffered government-sanctioned persecution since the brutal communist regime came to power.

However, according to a recent human rights report, North Korean Christians are experiencing more brutality and violence than at any time in history.

The Christian human-rights group Open Doors, based in Holland, reports that North Korea is number one on its annual World Watch List (WWL), which “ranks countries by the “intensity of persecution that Christians face for actively pursuing their faith.”

For the first time, North Korea received over 90 of the maximum 100 points given to the most serious persecutors of practicing Christians.

North Korea, a nation cloaked in secrecy, has been topping the list of Christion persecutors for over five years, according to Open Doors.

In no other country in the world are Christians persecuted as severely as in the empire of the North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, the Christian group said.

According to officials at Open Door, more Christians had been imprisoned last year than the previous year, and the persecution “is getting worse” by the day.

North Korea’s Stalinist system of implementing a Communist economy is based on “total devotion” of the individual to an ideology promoted by the late leader Kim Il Sung and his successor and son, Kim Jong Il, according to observers who visited the isolated nation.

Officials in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea see Christianity as a threat to their philosophy of state control. North Korean authorities, however, deny imprisoning, torturing and killing Christians in the same way they denied working on creating a nuclear weapon.

Open Doors’ International Director Johan Companjen said, “Christians in North Korea say they have become more courageous thanks to [the] prayers,” of fellow believers around the world.

“Perhaps that’s why more believers have been jailed,” he stressed.

To discover how you can help stop the persecution of believing Christians in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, please visit:
http://www.helpNK.com/. The web site contains information on religious persecution including an online petition to the US Congress.

As we observe Easter, we must remember that is a time to reflect on our Savior, Jesus Christ’s suffering on the cross for us and His triumphant rise from the grave 3 days later. It is in that move that God gets the glory and mankind reaps happiness and salvation.

Many churches however want to add to this holy observance by allowing the worldly environmental cause to filter in and take the focus off of what God has done for mankind.

Churches have decided to go “eco-friendly” and order “eco-palms” for Palm Sunday. Never mind that traditions are usurped (the environmentally friendly palms can’t be folded into crosses) and that NAFTA is partly responsible for the “eco-palm” frenzy. We are giving up our traditions to be environmentally correct. Churches are playing into the hands of globalists who crafted trade agreements to undermine the sovereignty of nations ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/world/americas/01palm.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ).  Crafting free trade agreements creates an attitude of dependency of nations, not innovation. It is born from those with ulterior agendas.

In this regard, I ask, do we not have more faith in the Lord Jesus than to think that solely mankind must act to “save the earth”? God is mighty and FAR capable of keeping this planet in balance and in place until He gets ready to shake it (and He will). No matter what mankind tries to do to save the resources of this planet, it will not matter because God (who describes Himself as the “beginning and the end”) knows what will become of the earth in the end. 

If not careful, Christians can get caught up in the environmental fanaticism and not know it. Some may think that going “green” is helping the earth, but they’ve given in to worldly concerns about saving the earth.

I am sure the Lord Jesus is touched by our desire to care for this planet. He also says that this earth is not our home. Don’t get caught up in the cares of this world…

“Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.”–Romans 12:2 (NIV)

Christians cheapen the meaning of Easter when too much light is cast on the creation and not the Creator. 

We have to remember that people who are pushing the environmental agenda stifle other viewpoints as to what is causing changes in the earth. 

NASA scientist Jeff Willis has been studying the ocean floor recording its temperature and has found instead the ocean to be cooling slightly. When looking for answers as to why the icecaps are melting and sea level is rising, Kevin Trenberth of National Center for Atmospheric Research mentions, “The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.”  It’s important to consider viewpoints from a variety of experts (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025).

I firmly believe Global Warming is attributed to the natural cycle of the earth.  We are only a small speck on this earth and in this universe. Humans need not think they have such force to change and alter the very cycle of the planet.

Let’s not put our hope in environmental causes. America, your hope and future is in God, not a movement to revive the earth.  Let Easter be a time when all Christians focus on Jesus’ insurmountable love, that He would lay His life down to take your place as a sinful being before God and ultimately, bring us all back into fellowship with the Almighty through His resurrection.  Let’s put our faith in Jesus and abandon the politically correct “green” environmental movement.

Additional Reading

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report 

*Felicia Benamon is a conservative columnist who writes from a political perspective, but occasionally deviates to write about other concerns facing her country.  A patriotic American, Felicia hopes to motivate others to be more conscious of the current state of affairs in America, and to hold true to the wonderful traditions that make America great.Felicia comes from a military background and is proud to support the men and women who put their lives on the line daily to protect American citizens and who reach out to help those in need across the globe.

Write to Felicia at: FeliciasDesk@aol.com

This is one of the best one’s I have read yet!

History’s greatest paradox by Hal Lindsey (Via WorldNetDaily.com)

Throughout Western culture, today is known as “Good Friday.” Christians commemorate this as the day on which Jesus Christ gave His life as payment for the sins of mankind on a hill outside ancient Jerusalem. The hill was called Golgotha – “the place of the skull.”

Jesus was born in a stable in an obscure village named Bethlehem. He grew up in another obscure village known as Nazareth. He never traveled more than about 200 miles from His birthplace. He was not known beyond Nazareth until He began His public career. And that public career only lasted three short years.

Go read the rest. You know, I haven’t given much thought about ol’ Hal. I always thought that his obsession with end time events was a bit weird, and his association with them tongue babbling rejects at TBN was suspect. But this article was fantastic!

Now, if I could just get him to quote from the KJV, he’d be downright good in my book.
Good show Brother Lindsey!

Cross-Posted at Wayward Fundamentalist Christian

Confirmation that our success comes from the morality of Judeo/Christian ethics.

And that socialism accomplishes the opposite of what it says it does, for very good reasons of which there are many, and they are not surmountable as they are fundamental to it. To surmount them is to no longer have socialism. So these solutions are forbidden by this ’system’, and since the system doesn’t understand “natural” as concept of human actions in the world, it can never realize that it can’t solve the problem. Unlike the MU game in “Gödel Escher and Bach”, the socialist mind CAN get stuck in an endless loop since failure to see the nature of the problem in a “Meta” way prevents them from being able to step out of the loop they are stuck in.

A key difference between computers and the mind, under normal circumstances, minds can step out of the problem and stop the machine when there is no solution ahead. Minds in some way have solved for many cases what’s called the “stopping problem”. Socialists have changed the mental rules and so are now able to get stuck in a loop and never stop trying no matter how much misery it causes. Since misery is an acceptable cost, another break has been disconnected. In fact, a careful examination would show that many of the breaks and such have been removed and socialists behave like trains with no breaks on mountain passes.

Read below and you will find that the places with more socialism have a VERY unproductive mechanics going on.

In the old system in the US, we withheld fruits of society from those that didn’t perform; they then performed and got fruits…

In the socialist system, we do not withhold the fruits of society from those that didn’t perform, this makes these people take out revenge when they don’t get their freebies rather than perform when they don’t.

To put simply… when you don’t give bread to someone that doesn’t pitch in for it, you get someone that joins your social system and participates, making it better.

When you give bread out to those that don’t pitch in, they then think that this is their right, and if you cant continue to give them bread and circuses they will riot and seek revenge, which then creates the authoritarian response to deadly punitive measures to prevent this. You can see this when we attempt to take back a socialist entitlement that’s given…

So here is another major reason it doesn’t work… most of these reasons are fundamental either to the mathematics of the situation, or to our natures as competitive cooperators…

Competition IS life, you can’t stop competition without extinguishing life!

All our DNA is common to all other DNA because from the get go, the better competitor pushed out any potential others, and so everything is descendent from that competitor (from then on, no other starter could be as efficient, and so nothing else evolved as it would have to catch up).

Cooperation, punishment and revenge

Research from The University of Nottingham has shed new light on the way in which people co-operate for the common good — and what happens when they don’t.

In a new international study of 16 countries, published in the prestigious journal Science, economists studied the extent to which some people will sacrifice personal gain to benefit the wider public, while ‘freeloaders’ try to take advantage of their generosity.

Marked national differences arose when freeloaders were punished for putting their own interests ahead of the common good. And whether they accepted their punishment or retaliated in kind depended on what kind of society they lived in, the researchers found.

In countries like the USA, Switzerland and the UK, freeloaders accepted their punishment and became much more co-operative. But in countries based on more authoritarian and parochial social institutions such as Oman, Saudi Arabia, Greece and Russia, the freeloaders took revenge — retaliating against those who had punished them.

Co-operation for the common good plummeted as a result.

In societies where the modern ethic of co-operation with unrelated strangers is less familiar and the rule of law is perceived to be weak, revenge is more common and co-operation suffers, the study found.

Economists are keen to understand the decision-making processes behind co-operation, as working together for the common good is crucial for progress in any society — not least for effectively addressing big issues such as recycling and tackling climate change.

Professor Simon Gaechter and Dr Benedikt Herrmann at The University of Nottingham and Dr Christian Thoni at the University of St Gallen, Switzerland, studied the behaviour of people in 16 cities around the world, from Boston and Bonn to Riyadh, Minsk, Nottingham, Seoul and others. Volunteers played a ‘public goods’ game in which they were given tokens and told they could either keep them all for themselves, or put it into a common ‘pot’ that would yield extra interest that would be shared out equally among all players.

If all volunteers pooled their money then all would come out with more at the end of the game. But if individuals chose to keep the money for themselves — and not contribute anything — they could keep all of it and also benefit from the generosity of others, by sharing in the pooled interest.

Levels of co-operation were remarkably similar across all 16 nations. However, behaviour changed dramatically when everyone’s contributions were revealed — and players were given the ability to ‘punish’ other players. Players could punish each other by taking tokens away from each other, although this option cost the punisher a token as well. As previous studies have shown, players were willing to part with a token of their own in order to punish low investors or freeloaders.

But the Science study also uncovered a new phenomenon. In subsequent rounds of the game, the freeloaders took revenge and hit back at their higher-paying counterparts in what is described as ‘anti-social punishment’. Or at least, they did in some cities — most notably in more traditional societies based on authoritarian and parochial social institutions such as Muscat in Oman, Athens, Riyadh in Saudi Arabia, Samara in Russia, Minsk in Belarus, Istanbul, Seoul and Dnipropetrovsk in Ukraine. Players in these cities showed the highest levels of ‘anti-social punishment’.

The ultimate effect of this is to decrease co-operation between individuals, bringing down contributions and earnings to very low levels.

In other cities — most notably Boston in the US, Melbourne, Nottingham, St Gallen and Zurich in Switzerland, Chengdu in China, Bonn and Copenhagen — this occurred much less often and only freeloaders tended to get punished. These eight cities saw the least ‘antisocial punishment’ meted out, and earnings in the game increased over time.

Simon Gaechter, Professor of the Psychology of Economic Decision-Making at The University of Nottingham, said: “To our knowledge this is the largest cross-cultural difference in experimental games that has been carried out in the developed world.

“Our results correlate with other survey data in particular measures of social norms of civic co-operation and rule of law in these same societies. The findings suggest that in societies where public co-operation is ingrained and people trust their law enforcement institutions, revenge is generally shunned. But in societies where the modern ethic of co-operation with unrelated strangers is less familiar and the rule of law is weak, revenge is more common.

“There are numerous examples in everyday life of situations where co-operation is the best option but there are incentives to take a free ride, such as recycling, neighbourhood watch, voting maintaining the local environment, tackling climate change, and so on. We need to understand why people behave in this way because co-operation is very strongly inhibited in the presence of anti-social punishment.”

Norms of civic co-operation cover general attitudes to the law, for example whether or not citizens think it is acceptable to dodge taxes or flout laws. In societies where this behaviour is widespread and the rule of law is perceived to be ineffective — ie. if criminal acts frequently go unpunished — anti-social punishment is more common.

In a commentary in the same edition of Science, Professor Herbert Gintis of the Santa Fe Institute said: “Anti-social punishment was rare in the most democratic societies and very common otherwise.

“Using the World Democracy Audit evaluation of countries’ performance in political rights, civil liberties, press freedom and corruption, the top six performers among the countries studied were also in the lowest seven for anti-social punishment. These were the USA, UK, Germany, Denmark, Australia and Switzerland.”

He adds: “Their results suggest that the success of democratic market societies may depend critically upon moral virtues as well as material interests, so the depiction of civil society as the sphere of ‘naked self-interest’ is radically incorrect.”

Well, I know a lot of MNDers don’t believe in God and I’m sorry for that but Volume 16 of Chapin’s Inferno is what it is, my friends. Hope you like it and I’ll have two on chivalry in the near future. Now that football is over I find my Sunday afternoons are far more productive than they ever were in the past. Further, don’t forget to hit the “subscribe” button just in case I forget to post them here.

If you have read my work for a while, you will clearly get the impression that I care more for the valid answer than I care what that answer means. for me, I don’t wish to change the facts, to change the meaning, to make my world rosier. To do that is to accept a world model that is skewed, and over time becomes more ineffective at handling the issues of each day.

So its always a breath of fresh air when someone (other than me) takes the time to attempt to set the records straight and lines up all the information WITH SOURCES so that you can go examine it yourself. And when it comes up from every direction as factual as anything in history or the world can be. Its information may be unwelcome because of its content, but the content of my life being based on false information is a sorrier and more unwelcome state to be in.

Her VOX DAY points out that new information from dark places always comes up again. Unlike a lie, truth need not cost maintenance to keep. A lie must be maintained to be kept, the minute the lie is not maintained, the structure starts to melt in the rain of truth and dissolves slowly away.

Leftists, philosophers with an agenda, intellectuals, ingenuous academics, politicians, and ideologues that practices “ism-isms”. They all have to expend a lot of energy to maintain what Goebbels and Hitler referred to as the “big lie”. Recent movies like “pathfinder” have moved the concept of license directly into the place of propaganda worthy of these. While pathfinder pretends to cover the nasty white hordes of Viking white fathers who cruely take pleasure in hacking up women and children, disowning the children and making the first attempts to kick the American Indian out of Eden. Vox addresses a similar bastion in which most of the dialogue is myth.

The Spanish inquisition of the Catholic Church.

So sit back and have the world you knew an hour ago, change into the new world that you can see with new facts in the light of day. Just as Venona transcripts are changing our view of McCarthy, Mitroken Archives changes our view of Russia and the KGB. Biographies of Sanger, Meade, Kinsey and others change what we think of the lies that they promoted as truth for their left leaning socialist remake the world agenda.

Well now The archives of the Catholic Church are slowly being opened, and now we have some more records for historians to pore over. I will also point out that as earth shattering this is, there is a lot more coming down the pike as truth will not be denied over time, only fade. Soon we will hear as to Hitler’s capture of the old Korans, and his rewriting of the text from the original text written by Jewish scribes. The documents were thought to have been destroyed in WWII, when the museum was destroyed. Turns out that like other little secrets, it was not destroyed but lived in the cracks of someone’s home, where its peaking its head out to see the light of day again.

That though will be a story for another day. Here is what Vox has to say on the subject of the Inquisition.

Atheists and inquisition

It is a curious thing considering how often it is brought up in conversation and Internet debate by lay atheists, but in “The God Delusion,” Richard Dawkins conspicuously neglects to detail what he describes as the “horrors” of the Spanish Inquisition. Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett both avoid discussing it altogether. Only reason’s clown, Sam Harris, is sufficiently foolish to swallow the old, black legend, hook, line and sinker, as he attempts to portray the collective inquisitions as one of the two “darkest episodes in the history of faith.”

On June 9, 721 ad., Duke Odo of Aquitaine defeated Al-Samh ibn Malik al-Khawlani before the walls of the besieged city of Toulouse. This battle, followed by the victories of King Pelayo of Asturias and Charles Martel at the battles of Covadonga and Tours, brought to an end a century of remarkably successful Islamic expansion. Over the next 760 years, the Umayyads’ conquests on the Spanish peninsula were gradually rolled back by a succession of Christian kings, a long process disturbed by the usual shifting of alliances as well as varying degrees of ambition and military competence on both sides of the religious divide. The “Reconquista” was completed with the fall of Muslim Granada in 1492 to the Castilian forces of King Ferdinand.

The Spanish Inquisition, which began in 1481, cannot be understood without recognizing the significance of this epic 771-year struggle between Christians and Muslims over the Spanish peninsula. What took the great Berber Gen. Tariq ibn Zayid only eight years to conquer on behalf of the Umayyad Caliphate required almost 100 times as long to regain, and neither King Ferdinand II of Aragon nor his wife, Queen Isabella of Castile, was inclined to risk any possibility of having to repeat the grand endeavor. Isabella, in particular, was concerned about reports of conversos, purported Christians who had pretended to convert from Judaism but were still practicing their former religion. This was troubling, as it was reasonable to assume that those who were lying about their religious conversion were also lying about their loyalty to the united crowns and it was widely feared that Jews were again encouraging Muslim leaders to attempt the recapture of al-Andalus, as they had its original capture eight centuries before. (”It remains a fact that the Jews, either directly or through their coreligionists in Africa, encouraged the Mohammedans to conquer Spain.” The Jewish Encyclopedia (1906). Vol XI, 485.)

An investigation was commissioned, and the reports were verified, at which point the Spanish monarchs asked Pope Sixtus IV to create a branch of the Roman Inquisition that would report to the Spanish crown. The pope initially refused, but when Ferdinand threatened to leave Rome to its own devices should the Turks attack, he reluctantly acceded and issued “Exigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus” on Nov. 1, 1478, a papal bull establishing an inquisition in Isabella’s Kingdom of Castile. One tends to get the impression that Ferdinand was less than deeply concerned about the potential converso threat and may have even been acting primarily to mollify his wife, as he promptly made use of this hard-won new authority to do absolutely nothing for the next two years. Then, on Sept. 27, 1480, the first two inquisitors, Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martín, were named, the first tribunal was created, and by Feb. 6, 1481, six false Christians had been accused, tried, convicted and burned in the Spanish Inquisition’s first auto da fé.

What happened in between November 1478 and September 1480 to inspire this sudden burst of action? While historians such as Henry Kamen pronounce themselves baffled as to what could have provoked the Spanish crown, the most likely impetus was that on July 28, three months before Ferdinand’s decision to appoint the two inquisitors, a Turkish fleet led by Gedik Ahmed Pasha attacked the Aragonese city of Otranto. Otranto fell on Aug. 11, and more than half of the city’s 20,000 people were slaughtered during the sack of the city. The archbishop was killed in the cathedral, and the garrison commander was killed by being sawed in half, alive, as was a bishop named Stephen Pendinelli. But the most infamous event was when the captured men of Otranto were given the choice to convert to Islam or die; 800 of them held to their Christian faith and were beheaded en masse at a place now known as the Hill of the Martyrs. The Turkish fleet then went on to attack the cities of Vieste, Lecce, Taranto and Brindisi and destroyed the great library at the Monastero di San Nicholas di Casole before returning to Ottoman territory in November.

It is one of the great ironies of history that three times more people died in the forgotten event that almost surely inspired the Spanish Inquisition than died in the famous flames of the inquisition itself. Despite its reputation as one of the most vicious and lethal institutions in human history, the Spanish Inquisition was one of the most humane and decent of its time, and one could even argue the most reasonable, considering the circumstances.

The Spanish Inquisition did not attempt to convert anyone to Christianity.

The inquisitors were not slobbering psychotics as portrayed by Dostoevsky and Edgar Allan Poe.

Torture was rarely used, and only when there was substantial evidence to indicate that the accused was lying.
The main reason there was a Spanish Inquisition in the first place is that, unlike in other European kingdoms, Ferdinand and Isabella encouraged Jews and Muslims to convert to Christianity instead of simply expelling them all.

In light of its nightmarish reputation, it will surely surprise those who believe that millions of people died in the Spanish Inquisition to learn that throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, less than three people per year were sentenced to death by the Inquisition throughout the Spanish Empire, which ranged from Spain to Sicily and Peru. Secular historians given access to the Vatican’s archives in 1998 discovered that of the 44,674 individuals tried between 1540 and 1700, only 804 were recorded as being relictus culiae saeculari. The 763-page report indicates that only 1 percent of the 125,000 trials recorded over the entire inquisition ultimately resulted in execution by the secular authority, which means that throughout its infamous 345-year history, the dread Spanish Inquisition was less than one-fourteenth as deadly on an annual basis as children’s bicycles.

If the Spanish Inquisition was, as historian Henry Charles Lea once described it, theocratic absolutism at its worst, one can only conclude that this is an astonishingly positive testimony on behalf of theocratic absolutism. It is testimony to the strange vagaries of history that it should be the Spanish Inquisition that remains notorious today, even though the 6,832 members of the Catholic clergy murdered in the Spanish Republican Red Terror of 1936 is more than twice the number of the victims of 345 years of inquisition.

“the dread Spanish Inquisition was less than one-fourteenth as deadly on an annual basis as children’s bicycles”

A bigger question though is why would such an event that was small in historical proportion, be upgraded so much this way, while the murder of the kulaks by starvation, is given excuses that dont hold up. As the horrors of the Gulags also much worse than the presumed tortures of the inquisition.

In fact, the inquisitors of the camps, had the benifit of more modern medicne and knowlege to actually be able to make the incidents worse. And sadly in fact, they were using their imagined ideas of what the inquisition wasn’t, to create their inquisition.

Yet, we have forgotten…

So much so, that we arent paying attention to the inquisitions still going on today, and they are exclusively the product (again) of socialist states.

Putin’s Torture Colonies

A list of known torture colonies in Russia

This is not Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Russia. It’s Vladimir Putin’s. And correctional colony No. 5, located not far from the Manchurian border, does not even make the list of the worst penal colonies in the country.

So treatment out of site is worse than the video: Preventative Actions in Yekaterinaburg Prison Camp

Peter Allan said more than he thought when he wrote:

Don’t throw the pa-ast away
You might need it some rainy day
Dreams can come true again
When everything old is new again

Socialism gives the state ultimate power to rework peoples lives by fiat (since their plans are going to be unpleasant, they automatically detach from hearing the public – or else a majority will stop them once they realize what they have done - the despair and productivity plummet when the next realization that they cant go back sets in).

Is it then any wonder that Stalin and Mao and others didn’t care about the opinions of the 100+ million people they tortured to death?

Is it any wonder that we have delegated powers to clerks to remove children from homes that police cant even enter without a warrant? By the way, the state has no right to delegate powers since the powers are granted by the people. that is unless the people no longer are listened to, and so no longer can be heard to delegate, so someone has to do it regardless of any din. Its all for the greater good. No?

Is it really for the greater good that habeus corpus is gone? Why would dissolution of posse commitatus be a good thing? Why would allowing corporatists to take property be in the best interest of the people? Well, the state doesn’t have the power to do anything quite yet. The ability to fully ignore the people hasn’t been reached quite yet.

Turns out that limits on power for our state representatives, is the best way to be heard.

Which means that Socialism, Feminism, Communism, and ideological thinking has to eventually be thrown out as its a primitive way to deal with the world by having everyone look through the same eyes from one point. It means that the will, and information, and choices have to flow from the people to the state, not from the state to the people, or else they ignore new options.

As long as socialism is on the table, our leaders do not have to listen to us.

Combine that with the fact that they have ultimate power of life and death with their policies.

The state that can do anything for you, can do anything to you.

In such a state, 10 people can point the finger at the other 9, and all 10 can be in trouble with the state.

The state will stupidly and gladly do its job in exchange for the power to go after every complaint.

Since socialism grants them the power to do anything in the name of any presumed justification and pragmatism, they have the most powerful feelings that one can have. They are in a position to literally play god with the lives of BILLIONS of people and their posterity. The fact that they say they want to make the new socialist man, shows that they see this power and like it, and believe that they are god. After all, the office to them is vacant.

The saying is wrong, its not the “end justifies the means”, it’s the “presumptive end that justifies the means”.

The saying assumed that the justification is valid and reachable not perpetually a carrot out of the grasp of those trying to get there with no way to get there. So now, fantasy, can justify any means that fantasy can dream up.

It can assign any end, even if unreachable, and then commit any act, for that premise reason.

When people feel powerful, they ignore new opinions, study finds

Don’t bother trying to persuade your boss of a new idea while he’s feeling the power of his position – new research suggests he’s not listening to you. “Powerful people have confidence in what they are thinking. Whether their thoughts are positive or negative toward an idea, that position is going to be hard to change,” said Richard Petty, co-author of the study and professor of psychology at Ohio State University.

The best way to get leaders to consider new ideas is to put them in a situation where they don’t feel as powerful, the research suggests.

“If you temporarily make a powerful person feel less powerful, you have a better chance of getting them to pay attention,” said Pablo Briñol, lead author of the study and a social psychologist at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid in Spain. Briñol is a former postdoctoral fellow at Ohio State.

The study was published in a recent issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

This research looks at an issue that has been largely ignored by social scientists, Petty said. Many studies have looked at how the power of a person delivering a message impacts those who receive it. But this appears to be the first study that looks at how the power of the message recipient affects persuasion.

In several related studies, the researchers told college students they would be participating in two supposedly separate experiments. In one experiment, the students role-played in a situation in which one was a boss – in other words, had a position of power – and the other was an employee who simply took orders.

In the second experiment, the participants viewed a fake advertisement for a mobile phone. The ad was designed to see if participants were paying attention to the message, so half the participants received ads with particularly weak arguments for buying the phone (for example, touting that it had a broad currency converter), while the others received strong arguments (the phone could be recharged in just 5 minutes). Participants were then asked to rate how favorably they viewed the phone.

When the role-playing exercise was conducted before viewing the phone ad, those who played boss were more likely than those playing employees to rate the phone similarly — whether they received the strong or the weak arguments.

“The strength of the argument made no difference to those who played the boss – they obviously weren’t paying attention when they felt powerful,” Petty said. “Those who played the employee, who were made to feel powerless, paid a lot more attention to the arguments. They weren’t as confident in their own initial beliefs and weighed the arguments more carefully.”

In a related study, the order of the experiments was essentially reversed. Participants first read the mobile phone ads, and were presented with either the strong or the weak arguments, and wrote down their thoughts while reading it. However, before they actually rated the phones, the same participants took part in the role-playing exercise in which some were the boss and some the employee. Later, they went back and rated the phones.

The results showed that the bosses in the role-playing exercise were now more influenced by the quality of the arguments in the ads.. Those who were low-power employees were not as influenced by the ad quality.

“When power was experienced after the ads had been processed, it gave people confidence in their most recent thoughts, so if they read strong arguments, they rated the phones more favorably. If they read weak arguments, they were much more negative toward the phone,” Petty said.

“Those who were feeling less power weren’t as confident about the validity of their thoughts to the ads, so the strength of the arguments didn’t matter as much.”

What this all means is that it matters when people are feeling powerful – before or after they receive a persuasive message. If the message comes right after their power is made relevant to them, then powerful people will be difficult to persuade because they are confident in their existing opinions. However, if people can be made to feel powerful right after a strong persuasive message, attitude change is more likely because powerful individuals will feel confident in the positive thoughts they generate to the message, Petty said.

For example, if you have strong arguments to get a raise, try not to ask the boss in her office, where she is surrounded by the trappings of power. Bring up the topic in a lunch room or somewhere where there aren’t reminders of who is in charge.

But if you do have to talk in the boss’s office, try to say something that shakes his or her confidence.

“Our research shows that power makes people more confident in their beliefs, but power is only one thing that affects confidence,” Petty said. “Try to bring up something that the boss doesn’t know, something that makes him less certain and that tempers his confidence.”

But once you do make your argument, assuming it is cogent, it is good to remind the boss that he is in charge.

“You want to sow all your arguments when the boss is not thinking of his power, and after you make a good case, then remind your boss of his power. Then he will be more confident in his own evaluation of what you say. As long as you make good arguments, he will be more likely to be persuaded,” Petty said.

Petty said the research casts doubt on the classic assertion that power corrupts people and leads them to negative actions. Instead, what power does is make people more likely to unquestionably believe their own thoughts and act on them, he said.

Both low- and high-power people may have negative thoughts at times, and think about doing something bad. But because high-power people are more confident in their thoughts – and less susceptible to countering views – they are more likely to follow through into action.

“A lot of people may have a momentary thought about doing something bad, but they don’t do it because they can inhibit themselves. A powerful person is more likely to follow through on the negative thoughts,” Petty said.

By the same token, if a powerful person has a positive, pro-social thought, she may be more likely to follow through on that thought and turn it into reality.

“Powerful people are more likely to act on what they are thinking – good or bad – without second guessing themselves,” Petty said.

This is all well and good when you can get the entity bearing power in a location and talk to them. When it comes to leaders of nations, the only people that can do that are manipulators from other nations, and intellectuals they have favored to do their thinking for them. Given that these people can off balance them, they get to control the controller.

Without good limits creating good government, there is no way for the people to have the kind of dialogue with their leaders that will be productive. Their leaders become deaf, dumb and blind, and you know where they stick the cork. From that point on, the leaders can only see through reports, studies, and arguments from the privileged with an agenda to power. Which is why they should be letting the people make the choices in their lives.

Given that leaders today are VERY far from the lives of those they represent, the space for mischief is enormous, and if the person taking up the reigns happens to be a power seeker, they want it precisely because they don’t have to answer to anyone.

A sociopath would find such a place, to be a heaven.

Is it any wonder that when socialism is on the table, the people that go for the state are the people who want absolute power now that it’s available and reachable? And that when the state has grand limits on power, they go elsewhere as there are too many watching them, and too many holding them to their words, and outcomes.

It’s as easy as understanding hunting or fishing. The kind of creature that comes to your party depends on the kind of bait you leave out to attract them. Throw peanut butter in the ocean, and you won’t get many sharks. Show the sharks the blood of their potential victims, and they all show up from miles around to feed.

By allowing socialism, what kind of bait are we putting out, and what kind of leaders does it attract?

We’ve lost ourselves

America was once prosperous in every conceivable way. Now, not only are we on the fast track to a serious financial downfall, but our morals have slid as well.  Arrogance has tarnished a once great country. Complacency has dulled us into thinking that we will continue to be a dominant force in the world.  

Morals are quickly disintegrating. The horrible spirit of pride has taken root.  There is an attitude in our country that “It’s all about me, and what’s in it for me?” And, ”how can I amass more and more money, no matter how I get it?”

We worship money instead of the Creator who enables us through our talents to acquire money.  We do not think about what we are doing, if it is wrong or right.

We claim to be a Christian nation, but we sure don’t act like it.  We aren’t following Jesus’ example of humility. The reason that evil flourishes in today’s society is because the Christian church is not in touch with the Lord as we should, allowing God to work through us.  There is a hurting world out there, what are you doing to bless others? Are you acting selfishly instead?

Stepping on someone else to exalt yourself is NOT the way of a Christian (or any other humble human being). Are you lusting for fame? Are you lusting to get ahead at the expense of others? 

The focus in everything that we do should be on Jesus and not ourselves.  We are only the vessels the Lord Jesus uses to accomplish His work here on earth.  When we humble ourselves in every facet of our lives, God will exalt us.  

Humble. That is the way I once remembered the US to be, and we prospered.  But currently, I believe we are flirting with danger when we think we have achieved #1 status in the world by ourselves and we continue to be influenced by secular and dark forces.

In the world of politics, it is imperative that we as American citizens elect someone who will remember the traditions our Forefathers shed their blood over, and not allow secular forces to inch their way (ever so slick) into every facet of our lives to change it.  We will be held accountable and will reap a whirlwind when we don’t elect honest and reputable politicians to represent us. The people we put in office are a reflection of us. When we allow slick, corrupt politicians and brash leaders to amass power and remain in office to wreak havoc, what does that say about ourselves?

Christians are falling for suave, smooth rhetoric that politicians are throwing out because they are not letting the Lord Jesus guide them. Their eyes are not opened. Appearances are not what they seem.  A politician can be as slick as a serpent and sound very convincing.  But if a Christian has a solid relationship with the Lord Jesus, he/she can see through the ruse.

I often hear the term “enlightened” thrown around…that our society is more enlightened than ever before.  Are we enlightened, really?!  Because we do not seem to be aware of the danger as we slide away from the Christian faith and walk. Being a Christian is MORE than saying you are and believing in Jesus Christ. It is a CONTINUAL, PERSONAL walk with the Lord Jesus. A positive change has to occur within the individual.

This nation is at a serious crossroads.  And it will be a sad day when the citizens of the US wake up and realize that it may just be too late to recover.

The only way I see a recovery for the US is for Jesus Christ Himself to intervene.  The United States needs the Lord Jesus. Will we be humble enough to reach out to Him?  In order to regain our greatness, we must humble ourselves before God Almighty.

*Felicia Benamon is a conservative columnist who writes from a political perspective, but occasionally deviates to write about other concerns facing her country.  A patriotic American, Felicia hopes to motivate others to be more conscious of the current state of affairs in America, and to hold true to the wonderful traditions that make America great.Felicia comes from a military background and is proud to support the men and women who put their lives on the line daily to protect American citizens and who reach out to help those in need across the globe.

Write to Felicia at: FeliciasDesk@aol.com

There is a great chasm between ideas and ideologies. Ideas are limitless; ideologies are nothing but limits on limits, either an idea fits the ideology or it must be forbidden as the ideology must be a monopoly. If it’s not a monopoly, then people will have a choice as to which to follow, which is a choice of whom to follow, which is the choice of whom to remove. So ideologies seek to control the state and have total control, so that they can be the only market for ideas – so that everyone has to come to the lords of ideas in order to have approval for a thought. Only the state, the owners of the monopoly of force, can impose a monopoly on ideas. Groups through aggressiveness can push forth such for a while, but ultimately without the power of the state not inhibiting them, they end up being heard as if they are the keepers of ideas.

Recently, there has been a lot of brouhaha about race, and because of lack of understanding, censorship, and a host of other negative acts having nothing to do with the validity of the premises have now been put in play.

We have entered a bad place because we no longer can accept facts that we don’t like, or have been told not to like, or are being forced by fear of potential consequences to avoid.

We have the situation where the position you take is either representative, of loyalty to the truth, or loyalty to the ideology.

There is a story of a Chinese lord who one day called all his generals to an important meeting. The meeting went as these meeting usually do, till the lord stood up and asked the generals to see the new and wonderful horse. So they all walked outside, and went to view the beautiful horse that the lord had waiting for them. They all looked at it and all could see that it was truly a great animal. Then the lord asked them all to tell him what they thought about his purple horse. Purple horse, the generals wondered. What purple horse. So each general told the lord what he thought about the purple horse.

The next day the lord again called all his generals forth to discuss state matters, and issues, and when they all arrived, they found that many of the other generals were gone. They had been dispatched with in the middle of the night. Each of the remaining generals could easily tell why they were there, as each heard what each had to say about the purple horse. All those that saw and said the horse was purple, survived, for all those people were completely loyal to the lord – no matter what.

So where does that lead us to now?

Well recently the writing appeared on the wall, and the wind blew, and everyone learned which way it blows. When Watson’s lifetime work was destroyed by saying what he thought was the truth, they didn’t just shut down one mans voice and deny him his constitutional right to free speech without consequences (for such consequences are in effect a punishment that favors one speech over another).

It was not a week gone by before top names in genetics started crowing arbitrarily. Now one can see how researchers having anything to do with genetics crowing arbitrarily. “THERE AINT NO SUCH THING AS RACE”.

Meanwhile, they are using RACE, to prove their point. I offer up as an example another article in which a person is declaring RACE to be dead.

Human variation chalked up to natural selection: study

Scientists have found more than 500 genes that account for variations across human populations including skin color, height, and vulnerability to disease, according to a study released Sunday.

By comparing millions of fragments of genetics code from individuals in four groups — from Nigeria, China, Japan and northwestern Europe — they showed that natural selection has played a key role in these differences, according to the study.

The findings hold particular promise for understanding the genetic underpinning of certain diseases.

The researchers, led by Lluis Quintana-Murci of France’s National Centre for Scientific Research pinpointed, for example, the tiny genetic variation in the CR1 gene that has made 85 percent of Africans highly resistant to malaria.

Most other populations in the world do not share this variant, and are thus more susceptible to the mosquito-borne disease.

Other genetic variations — called single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs (pronounced “snips”) — identified by Quintana-Murci and his team could help explain why rates of diabetes, obesity and hypertension differ from one region to another.

Once the specific bit of genetic code responsible for a predisposition to a certain illness or condition has been identified, scientists can then set about trying to find a drug to treat it.

SNPs occur when one of the four chemical building blocks of DNA varies in a particular segment of DNA as compared to other members of the same species.

Some of these genetic mutations have happened through positive selection, which means they provide an advantage in the struggle to survive.

Being resistant to malaria is more useful in sub-Saharan Africa than in Norway, for example.

Others are driven by negative selection, the process by which genetic traits are forced out of a species because they impede survival.

The study, based on the international HapMap catalog of genetic variants within and among populations around the world, found SNPs that account for differences in eye and hair color as well.

“These genes played a role in adapting to our environment, and their mutation gave rise to certain advantages,” said Quintana-Murci.

“But the genes that explain the phenotypic differences between populations only represent a tiny part of our genome, confirming once again that the concept of ‘race’ from a genetic standpoint has been abolished,” he added.

Genotype is the genetic blueprint contained in DNA, while phenotype is the individual organism brought into being based on the instructions contained in that DNA.

The study, published in Nature Genetics, identified 582 genes that mutated through natural selection, probably between 10,000 and 60,000 years ago.

Let me bring into highlight the assertion with no explanation (they have none).

“But the genes that explain the phenotypic differences between populations only represent a tiny part of our genome, confirming once again that the concept of ‘race’ from a genetic standpoint has been abolished,” he added.

This assertion makes no sense. It makes even less sense when he selected his types from RACE GROUPS.
By comparing millions of fragments of genetics code from individuals in four groups — from Nigeria, China, Japan and northwestern Europe — they showed that natural selection has played a key role in these differences, according to the study.

Notice which WORD he selected to use though: abolished not disproved, not refuted.

dis·prove - to prove (an assertion, claim, etc.) to be false or wrong; refute; invalidate:

a·bol·ish - to do away with; put an end to; annul; make void

The two concepts are very different, and we dont get to scientific truth through “Aboslishment”.

What he is trying to assert without actually saying it clearly is that all the differences between humans are generally ‘cosmetic’, and because of all the SAMENESS in us, these cosmetic things amount to nothing, and so race, must be based on cosmetic things, and so amounts to nothing.

The problem is that our definition of race does not fit what race really is in genetic terms. With a valid definition in genetic terms comes an understanding of what things are.

All of this is actually very stupid. There I said it. It’s STUPID. The reason it’s so stupid is that the problem isn’t with the fact, but the problem is what you DO with the facts. What conclusions do you draw, and what do those conclusions lead you to decide.

We are trying to declare something from information that we barely understand yet. That’s something that only ideology can do, since ideology is mapping out the reality that the real world HAS to conform to, or ELSE. by the way, we the people are the or else that ends up being tortured and our lives destroyed by this ‘or else’. the people pushing this are already disconnected from reality and are more blindly loyal than anything else.

They are trying to anticipate what the results will be, and so like lysenkoism they will color the results. EVEN if those results are 180 degrees opposite of what they actually say.

Hopefully I can lend a bit of light to this problem.

RACE does exist and the problem is that the definition of RACE is old and needs to be upgraded to reflect what we know.

As humans have moved and have intermingled the definition of race as we knew it before no longer holds water, as it no longer explains what we see and know.

In the old days race was tied to skin color, and so we have this legacy with it. also race was tied to a presumption that skin color would result in lower fecundity and so their numbers would always be lower.

Now in the modern era, this definition no longer suffices. Race is no longer just skin color (Ashkenazi jews can be seen as a different race with the same skin color as Europeans of different descent). Races presumption of numbers, disenfranchisement (at the hands of other races), and lots of other things, are now arbitrary and capricious.

So we have rare populations who happen to have light skin colors dying out because they are not considered a race. You have groups who are considered a race, but because the assumption is for low population, and we give out prizes based on this none definitive absurdity.

So here is my attempt to lead to a more scientifically correct definition of RACE. I will leave it up to the English majors to make is short and sweeter.

What race represents is actually a real life process in action. Race is the incomplete process of speciation.

When two groups of living things are separated, they speciate. That is there development diverges, and they evolve different solutions to different problems. Sometimes they may even hit upon the same solutions, or sometimes, as with skin color, the solutions are mutually exclusive. You can have protection from the sun at reduced vitamin D production, or you can have lots of Vitamin D production, but have little protection from the sun.

To deny RACE, is to deny speciation, and then to deny evolution, as speciation is key to having all this DIVERSITY. Each new benefit doesn’t get incorporated free and clear, it comes with problems that over time have to also be solved.

So sickle cell anemia, helps solve the problem of immunity to malaria, but those that have it, have the immunity that preserves the value and its existence, but they have yet to separate out the bad effects. Over many generations, eventually, the bad will become more benign and the good will come out in higher relief.

In order for this all to work though. Qualities are kept and traded in bunches.

In a previous article I used card shuffling to describe whats going on.

Take a blue deck of cards and shuffle it, and take a red deck of cards and shuffle it, then randomly mix them together to get two new cards. This is what our genome is doing. think of the card color as having tagged the source of the genetic qualities.

As any card sharp or magician can tell you, moving one card, or quality around is hard. While moving them as a part of a bunch is easy.

So when we mate we mix and match qualities, and how they mix and match depends on this bundling. The qualities are not separate, but they are also not indivisible.

This is where our definition falls apart because we never actually maintained the divisions between races AS INDICATED BY SKIN COLOR, and so are not maintaining the divisions in the quality groups.

Race is an in between process, where we have diverged or speciated enough to have lots of different qualities that are shared by everyone in the local group, but have not stayed apart long enough for these qualities and things to be seen as being much different than the qualities we also have that varies us as individuals in a local group.

So through this, race is a temporary condition. Race is also an important thing in the development of better and better creatures that are more robust.

As the barrier that separates us from another group is removed, we remix, and then we start not selecting incremental improvements, but the big improvements in each races different ‘line of questioning’.

To step back and take a look at this process, you have something that looks like a tapestry being woven, in which groups of threads divide, and combine with other groups of threads.

Race is real because the groups have to meet and combine or else these qualities will forever remain separate (unless they invent them separately). Race as we thought about it in the past is not the valid definition it once was, since the definition was relying on a situation that was temporary, but to them seemed permanent.

What this means is that groups who have been separated from other groups WILL have qualities that are unique to that group. So the Inuit can eat lots of fat and not get ill, but half the Chinese cant drink alcohol since they are missing the code to let them processes it. Red heads need more anesthetic, and Africans need different blood pressure medicine.

So we are on the border of the old definition working for a while, but our ideology is forbidding us from coming up with an IDEA that can describe things correctly, and then lead to merit of action.

THIS is what Watson was really lamenting about but was not so eloquent in saying. He was hitting on the TRUTH that if our ideas don’t match reality, we will be putting band aids on in the wrong place, and will be totally ineffective.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that social programs take money away from other people, and so cause social harm. If the result of the social harm they cause is ineffective use of resources, and incompetence (except when lucky), then the harm is exponential.

As the populations on the planet mix, and marry (if the state lets us rather than destroying marriage and such), then what will happen is that races will stop being important.

Each ‘quality’ we have has a specific track able lineage, and the qualities moved in groups (other wise group things like eyes would not be possible), and they are mixed in groups.

So until we mix it up more, Race will have validity, but not the current definition of race.

There will be qualities that we will find prevalent to groups till those groups intermingle enough that these qualities then are spread out and others fade away.

This process though is slow, and takes a long time. while not taking anywhere as long as it took to develop all these answers to life, it will take thousands of years of allowing us prosperity and freedom to mix, and develop.

Declaring race as being gone is asking the question of the group…

“Who likes my purple horse”

And then promote on that, rather than merit.

Such behavior put a chill on Russian sciences that spanned from 1920-1964, and crippled everything during that time. In fact, most of all the work, if not useful otherwise, ended up being a total waste.

It creates repressiveness in science that created a dark age. Our current ideological declarations will be no different than the catholic churches repressive outbursts (of which I was cured of a long time ago as it has grown up), where they marched heretics in the street for talking against their ideology.

Is there any doubt to the more intelligent and nuanced among us that we are doing the same thing today, that any one that is willing to see what doesn’t tow the ideological line will be declared a heretic. Though the true heretics are the leaders who know that what they are telling people is untrue (or else they wouldn’t know what to protect).

We are about to see all this get twisted up. Students in science now know they HAVE to lie to succeed. This makes it easy to lie to get a grant. This poisons the fountainhead of our wealth of ideas and our wellspring of productivity.

The truth is that it’s better to live with an uncomfortable idea that reflects how things are, than it is to live a lie, so that one keeps tripping over uncomfortable ideas as if they were land mines that keep cropping up blowing the legs off of some poor soul, like Watson.

The fact that you can find useful idiots and fellow travelers declaring something with no proof shows that the wheels of control are turning. That they are now all willing to lie and to ignore reality. To shove reality to the side to protect the ideology so that they are not seen as individuals who can see the white horse, but seen as a herd that sees whatever the leaders tell them to see.

How many fingers do I have up Winston? Or is it Watson?

Brevis esse latoro obscurus fio

The article for which the commentary belongs can be found after the commentary, or one can click here.

<sarcasm>If race is not genetically determined then…</sarcasm>

Its interesting that the work contradicts recent words from the left, and yet, by the time they get to the bottom of the article, they have reapplied “adobo ideology” (makes every idea taste better, even the bad ones). It’s like having tinted glasses on all the time in a pattern of mottled and overlapping colors. Looking at the world through that, it’s no wonder that they don’t have, or develop, a consistent view of the world.

We are defined by the information in the genome, expressed through the structure of cells (which pass on more than just genes), and the potential information that the genome can reach and incorporate. The nurture nature debate is a false argument, in that we are a species whose definition allows for adaptability after conception. Not everything has that ability, but most life does to some degree, and not just for things like injuries. It’s how we adapt over time, and if conditions didn’t change enough, we would stagnate, like the shark, coelacanth, alligators, and crocodiles.

The last examples (alligators and crocodiles), determine sex by temperature in the environment as eggs mature. Their genetic coding lets conditions in the environment determine outcomes. Human genomes sexual determination is through X and Y parings. Both systems are defined by their genomes. One of the two reads world conditions and acts on it; the other relies on random determination.

So all our adaptability, is programmed in, so that we are responsive to things in which being adaptable, allows for greater success in the real world. This muddies our view of the world. We forget that in the absence of our intelligence we wouldn’t be trying to short the system for faster gain, by making judgments outside of reality, and then imposing forces to create an outcome.

Nature, nurture, its 100% both. The result is the synergy of a systems operating in the real world, and the system has such great variability, that even if there are two or more exact copies of the machines blueprints, no two machines turn out exactly the same as no two experience exactly the same in life adaptable pressures. However, this same great variable system is limited; its qualities don’t spontaneously arise across an entity at once, but travel through lineage and either get folded in, or folded out.

Then the mixes of qualities get tested in the crucible of life in the real world, and if it does well, the entity and its group have more kids, and humans develop forward into better and better creatures. If it’s not tested, or the test is shorted out (redistribution), then Neanderthals could have become dominant over the newer smarter humans, as such would make the Neanderthals succeed more than the newer ones who are denied the fruits of their labors. In this way, if the condition can be maintained, Neanderthals would have developed into a parasite of modern man.

What does this mean for traits? Traits can’t happen everywhere at once (if they are simple, they can happen in more than one place at different times, but traits are a product of lineage and a tiny bit of random changes allowed), and so an adaptable trait has an event horizon having to do with location, opportunity, desire, and actual outcomes. Also if there are too many trait differences then mixing them up causes more harm than good (rather than more benefit than bad as in hybrids). So different lineages are forced to forever diverge, partial diversions are race, wider diversions are species, etc.

A person outside the event horizon for red hair will not be able to have red hair unless they are in some event horizon that has a mutation for red hair that is not part of the mutations that make red hair happen today. Red hair is now known to be tied to and is an outward indicator of the inside chemical fact, that red heads are more insensitive to anesthetic – a division of a group, with separate qualities, that others don’t have, is a race, and races overlap, they are not mutually exclusive like species. Race is the engine of human advancement through divergence and recombination’s as they spread out, develop, and then recombine. This quality of red heads proves the position that qualities, like intelligence, sensitivity to light, sensitivity to chemicals, age, and everything else, moves through lineage in chunks and groups.

This truth applies to EVERY quality that makes a living being what they are. A genome is a unique definition that exists to test itself in its time, never ever to be repeated ever again in eternity. How do I know that? Well the human genome is 3.5 billion sequences long, and each position can hold one of four values (actually there are a few other rarer ones, but for the sake of this four will do). So the actual ‘potential’ of the information string is 3,500,000,000 raised to the fourth power a number that is a 1 with around 38 zeroes after it. And all they need is one SNP difference to be a unique person, and have a different mix of qualities. Each of us actually has thousands of these differences, and since the input of the next cell division is the output of the prior cell, these differences actually multiply outward even more than just the number with 38 zeroes after it. Each of us truly touches the infinite.

No two groups that are isolated from each other for a period in time will develop the same way. They will develop different advantages, and these advantages will affect what other qualities in the future are considered advantages. So having hooves will prevent one from developing a huge technological society, the advantage of hooves, denies the other advantages as it limits options. Being too smart is just as bad as being too dumb, and both are extremely contextual when one wants to determine and decide such an arbitrary personal judgment as to what’s ‘best’.

The biggest lesson we can learn from the article below is that what you THINK you are, has a great bearing on your life and even your whole family’s life and lineage, IF YOU LET IT. Myths can act on mind, and mind can make them real (through abstraction). Thoughts become real in actions. In the real world, not academia, or the sheltered inner world of the intelligentsia, the race doesn’t always go to the qualities that we often think are deciding factors in the controlled environments we create for ourselves (if they did, then one could ignore all forms of betting).

This is because our thoughts are a model of the world we operate in, not a true representation of it as we automatically believe it is, and some models are better than others. The more the model is tested in the real world the more effective it is, and life is a model that gets tested in the real world with deadly consequences. Adopt the wrong model, and you adopt a way of looking at the world that either increases or decreases your abilities in that world – regardless of the vanities that the false intelligentsia holds up as good – only what works in the real world, really counts. Not all models of thought are equal. So what model we adapt for ourselves, our framework for looking at the world is important for how we move through the world, and race and our beliefs about race then become important. Whether the model is valid or not. And given that we all don’t have the same exact model, even if given a false one, the same juggling of ideas happens because each of our minds and its adaptable view is defined by our genes in context with our experiences (a model can appear to work because a person who claims to follow it actually doesn’t, and so others will be tricked into lower productivity, while the other seems to make it work).

The smartest have problems for being too smart, just as the dumbest have their problems too. Different qualities are mixed up in different races, because they couldn’t have spread into or out of those races until today, when we are mixing things up in a way that has NEVER happened before in the history of life.

Whether you’re a Neanderthal on your mother’s side is not relevant (and not actually possible) unless you believe you are, and then imagine that defines you, then imagine the limitations of the definition rather than test those limitations to see if they are REAL. Nothing defines you other than your attempt to traverse the world successfully with the real abilities you have, and then pass on your winning genes. Nothing gives you that chance, but freedom to succeed and freedom to fail and see what those skills and abilities mixed up in you can do. Otherwise you’re not succeeding in the real world, but succeeding inside an artificial construct. If that construct fails, so do all the creatures made to live in it.

The issue isn’t that everyone that has a specific quality wins, for that is not true. The issue is that everyone has to find their winning qualities, even if those qualities are lesser than others, and then realize that a homogenous herd of animals all the same could never have such a world with so many wonderful things and so many opportunities for everyone of every level (if not held back by our own governance). They may not be the best hunter, but in a world where the best hunter shares what they have with others that do lesser things in exchange for being a better hunter, it’s no longer only what you can do.

In a common collective, there isn’t such room for such diversity (despite the myth), and in a world where all diversity is treated the same, diversity dies. It no longer becomes a valuable selector. Just as we no longer need an appendix, if we no longer select some diversities as better than others, then the engine that creates new ones dies out as the issue is no longer a point of selection. In this way, life teases out colors from mottled gray. For if there was no distinction of color between red blue and yellow, the world becomes shades of drab gray. If there is no distinction between good and bad, the two melt together into gray.

So our beliefs in what we are can seriously change how we behave, and how we succeed in the world. The inner city youth that believes that he is stuck somewhere IS stuck there in a cage of his own making, or societies making if it tells them the same messages. Replacing false ideas with ideology is replacing bad with worse, as the beliefs make us all gray, it buries what and who we are in favor of a homogeneous herd like result.

If we believe all things are equal, then we no longer believe that one thing is better than another, and then no longer differentiate. And if we don’t differentiate, we don’t develop, we stagnate. This is basic to the system of life. What we choose to ignore, we become blind to, and we no longer use as a method to find our best direction in life. If I can’t say that I can juggle better than most others, then I can’t be a juggler. What’s even more interesting is that in that world, we lose the pleasure of being an audience and entertained! For what would such be if someone came out and did nothing special?

The article below hints at so many things towards issues like this, but it also shows how ideology is crossing the wires and turning the real celebration of diversity into a lip service that accomplishes the opposite, and yet accentuates not positive differences, but only negative ones.

These people can no longer look at the information naked and in the clear, and not try to impose an ideological framework or cast into a preferred framework. If they had many ideologies/frameworks they could see in the clear, because they could play with frameworks and separate the real from the fake through comparisons (like being able to construct a true image from separate photos of one color). This is why an ideology does not allow other ideas to exist for its structure is established before those ideas are fixed, making any idea that doesn’t fit, a threat.

Their minds then are limited to only the answers that are reachable in that framework. Which is why ideology twists contorts and bends to explain things, its model is fixed and imposed arbitrarily, and this forces everything to adapt to the model, rather than the harder way of finding a model that explains the data, and constantly evolve that model to be more and more accurate. Since our perception reality is forced to adapt to the ideology (since reality doesn’t adapt), the ideology has no impetus for change, and in fact, must prevent change to remain what it is (just as speciation must stop so that a hippo doesn’t become a whale).

The longer the ideology exists, the farther and farther the individual that incorporates it must take their mind from the real world (if they are sincere to the ideology and not a heretic), and the deeper they have to move into a dysfunctional world in which facts bend like taffy so that they can be fit into the static model. We lose the mental advantage of adaptability in life. Ideology becomes operationally equivalent to instinct, and our actions become fixed and programmed, without the benefit of reason. Instinct can make an animal run off a cliff, when reason would make it stop, which is why higher order animals have some reasoning ability outside of sheer panic.

Shoving everything into a preconceived and proffered framework puts everyone in a mental lockbox. So rather than free us, ideology imprisons us, and stagnates us from moving through the world, just as surely as a prison and its bars keep one from moving through the world. If a thought is not allowed to occur to you, then how can you realize what stems from those thoughts? Our myths no longer work, they no longer reduce the immense complexity of the world in a useful way, and they change into mental prisons, in which we no longer are free.

In a serious way, Erin Harper has discovered that the truth can set you free, however, no sooner had she tried to fly, then they clipped her wings by trying to shove what they discovered into the preconception of the ideological, rather than the real. They refused to accept that a fact may challenge the validity of the mental model they have accepted as a guide through life, and then force a change to the ideology. While desiring the change of improvement, they are forever locked away from it.

Race does exist, because traits don’t get passed on singularly, they get passed in groups, and if a group with a skin color was more successful than a group with another skin color, then not just the traits of skin color get passed, but other traits that are common to the lineage of that group also get passed. That is unless these lineages mix, as with Erin Harpers lineage, and share the genes in their offspring in some new mix. If they don’t, then they will be tuned to the world that imposes restrictions to them, and juggles costs. Mental ability and other qualities come at a cost. A benefit that costs too much isn’t a benefit, and some benefits, like intelligence are very expensive, and so get pared down when too costly.

In the framework of this ideology is its own vanity that causes this problem. An ideologies origin vanity is that intelligence is the overwhelming benefit, and so from intelligence comes the model, and the model is everything, or it would have to deny that intelligence is everything.

That the more intelligence you have the better it is without end. The manipulations of the intelligentsia (pretenders to intelligence), are only saying that all intelligences are equal so that they can claim to be just as smart as someone who is intelligent (and have bad ideas presented as options and their bad ideas not be denied as such).

If they are equal, then we have to listen to clever people over intelligent people. No longer can someone show that a person is not as smart as they are, and that their facts and the ideas that stem from them should be proffered as having more merit over facts that stem from the ideology. In this way, an uneducated opinionated person who is clever can appear as knowledgeable, or more knowledgeable, than a much more educated person (especially to those that have to depend on such education). What’s worse is that they adulterate the minds of those who come to them to learn.

Some groups are smarter than others, and most of the time, the rest of the world spends a lot of time limiting their advantages, just as a girl that harasses another girl into a mental ward takes the other girl out of the competition. In this way, the Jews are hated in the west, and in the same way, the Chinese are hated in the east.

They never take their ideology to the next level and make it consistent, as that would allow it to evolve into something that they didn’t preconceive, and therefore they can take credit and power for it. It makes for unpleasant cognitive dissonance to those who are intelligent, not intelligentsia.

As an example: ‘Race doesn’t exist’

If race doesn’t exist, then how can you give entitlements for it?

It exists, because we act like it exists. In this way, a large population of peoples, like the Spanish are considered a minority, though they exist literally in the tens of millions, but Latvians, who don’t number more than a few million world wide, and less than 200,000 of them are not considered a minority (Chinese, the most populous group on the planet, are minorities in this model).

In this system the smaller group that is not the numerical minority has to fund the larger groups entitlements, because the larger group has the preferred ideological skin color that the model says must be rewarded. Since the model is fixed and not contextual, it will never be adjusted. So the eventual benefits will accrue till there are only minorities that are defined by skin color having nothing to do with their numerically dominant numbers (cognitive dissonance again).

Who says race isn’t real or doesn’t confer advantages over others in the real world? They have the genetic quality and in our real world it confers an advantage – that’s all that nature ‘cares’ about. We select for blue eyes, we get more blue eyes till blue eyes are dominant. So selecting for race just makes one race more operationally dominant in the world. As long as the state exists to twist the knobs and apply false pressure based on visual skin color, we will be driven off track from what works in the real world and the more we become prisoners of the contrived and invented realities we construct.

If race didn’t exist, then how could she now consider that she isn’t of one race (black), but now belongs to a new group of races (Eskimo)? Race doesn’t exist, so then she isn’t either of them. Note that their intelligence has been cut off, and so they no longer feel the cognitive dissonance of getting to the assertion that there is no race, by illustrating that a person who believes their skin color denotes race, has a false belief as to what race they are, that is corrected by genetically determining their RACE.

Can we honestly sit there and say that we can’t tell Eskimos from Africans? However when we create a human equivalent of a mutt, can we always tell the source of parentage? No, the qualities get mixed, and so the qualities that were unique to a race and come with the race, get mixed and so the new person shares them, and they may be separated from race, or they may remain. Without the original races, there would be no mixing of these superior qualities from different areas and lineages, and there would be much less Darwinian progress and adaptation in our slow mating species as we share the qualities, and NATURE not ideology, decides which of them are better, by our children, and our children’s children’s success.

[A large part of this comes from a very ingenious abuse of immerging information in genetics, and using our ignorance to get the first word in on a subject to attempt to insure that the outcome is what they want. This is shoving the data into a model (ideology), to control the thoughts of those who subscribe to the model as their myth for navigating the world. By doing this, they slow down progress, and control outcomes, as the real information, and the real view, is totally obfuscated and skewed, and remains so till a long process of weeding out the lies (after all, hasn’t anyone noticed that they are telling us what’s there before the researchers have found out?), and correcting the falsehoods. In this way, Lysenkoism destroyed Russian genetics, and in this way, they are going to destroy clear progress by preloading the outcomes before we get the information. This because they made the mistake of tying their validity to a false assertion in biology based on nothing but the fact that this assertion is more mentally appealing to compassionate people, and so makes a nice tool for sociopaths to manipulate the groups into the leader’s desired outcomes over the public’s desires that they are supposed to serve].

<sarcasm>There must be a defect for insensitivity to cognitive dissonance</sarcasm>

DNA analysis unlocks students’ pasts

For most of her life, Georgia State doctoral student Erin Harper thought of herself as African-American with French ancestry.

But through a DNA analysis project in her biopsychology class last spring, Harper learned her ancestors traveled out of east Africa, through Asia and over the Bering land bridge to what is now North America, a lineage often carried by Eskimos.

“My family and I were in disbelief, and kind of amused,” Harper said. “We were like, ‘Eskimos, what?’ But it made me want to know more and dig even deeper into my ancestry.”

Harper is not alone. Many Georgia State students who participated in the project had similar reactions when they received answers to such basic human questions as, “Who am I?” and “How did I get to where I am today?”

Next week, biopsychology professor Scott Decker will invite a new class of students to participate in the project and learn about their collective ancestry. The exercise not only teaches students the complexities of DNA, evolution and human migration, but it also can change their perspective on race, Decker says.

“What this project says is, ‘Race doesn’t exist,’” he said. “Any observable differences between us are climatic adaptations. We all have the same emotions, thoughts and decision-making processes.”

Using a DNA collection kit, Decker’s students will scrape their cheek cells and send samples to be compared