chickens … home … roost

today on both sides of the atlantic we’ve had a couple of positively shining examples of why it’s NOT a good idea to have all this mass immigration** to the west — especially from particularly violent places (see: chechnya, africa) — and doubly especially from particularly violent places where large parts of the population view us as the enemy, an assessment which frankly isn’t entirely wrong.

first, we’ve got a beheading and disemboweling of a soldier in london by a couple of black muslims — at least one of whom has a local london accent, btw:

“Terror at Woolwich barracks: Attacker tried to behead and disembowel British soldier”

“Terrorism returned to the streets of Britain today as a soldier was murdered by two suspected Islamists who attempted to behead and disembowel him as he left his barracks, in the first deadly attack since the 2005 London bombings.

“One of the suspected killers, who addressed an onlooker with a camera, said the pair had carried out the attack ‘because David Cameron, (the) British government sent troops in Arabic country’.

“As pedestrians stood close by the armed men, he went on: ‘We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you,’ according to footage obtained by ITV News.

“The soldier was ambushed by the two men as he left the base in Woolwich, south-east London, who attacked him and then dragged his body into the middle of the road to pose for photographs while standing over him waving a machete and a gun, according to witnesses….”

you don’t get much more barbaric than hacking someone to death with a machete. and these guys were armed with handguns, so they specifically CHOSE to kill this unarmed soldier in the way that they did. to make a statement, presumably, but this is also often how they deal with their enemies “back in the old country” (or sweden).

no doubt they viewed a soldier as a legitimate target — a soldier who had actually served in iraq and afghanistan, btw — and it is a slightly less crazy choice than a random civilian — but NOT an unarmed soldier who is just walking down the street. that is just cowardly. and, again, the way they killed him was barbaric — and they had a cleaner option (i.e. they had guns). they preferred barbarism.

in the u.s., the plot thickens (as if it wasn’t already thick enough!) in the boston marathon bombings case:

Friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev shot dead by FBI after ‘pulling a knife as he prepared to sign a confession to 2011 triple homicide’

- Ibragim Todashev, 27, reportedly turned violent during an interview with an FBI agent
- He was being interviewed over his ties to Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev
- Todashev, from Chechnya, was shot dead by the agent just after midnight Wednesday
- He had reportedly confessed to the FBI that he played a role in a brutal triple slaying in the Boston area in 2011
- Todashev had met Tsarnaev while he was living in Boston and last spoke him about a week before the bombing
- He was arrested on May 4 in an unrelated incident after he knocked a man unconscious in a fight over a parking space

involvement in a triple homicide AND you beat a guy senseless in a fight over a parking space?! AND you pull a knife on some fbi agents?? wtf is wrong with you?

i’ll tell you what’s wrong with these people: human biodiversity. they all come from populations which are, on average, more violent than western populations. some of these people probably like the violence — they relish it. note that the elder tsarnaev brother as well as this ibragim todashev were both boxers. these people are quick to anger — and quick to act violently when they are angry.

we know that europeans have, for whatever reasons, become less violent on average since the medieval period. why that is remains open for debate, but it is a fact that cannot be denied. this pacification seems to have happened in other populations as well — japan, china, india. but, comparatively speaking, it has NOT really happened in places like sub-saharan africa, the arab world/middle east/north africa/pakistan/afghanistan, amongst certain tribal peoples of south america, etc.

westerners better wake the f*ck up soon to hbd and that different peoples are different and quit importing people from violent societies, otherwise these events are going to become much more common right here on our doorsteps.

this is not to say that some of these peoples don’t have legitimate grievances with us. sam francis was right about Why They Attack Us many years ago (he was right about a lot of things):

“[T]he blunt truth is that the United States has been at war for years — at least a decade, since we launched a war against Iraq in 1991, even though Iraq had done absolutely nothing to harm the United States or any American. Our bombing attacks on Iraq certainly caused civilian casualties, and if they were not deliberate, nobody beating the war drums at the time felt much regret for them. For ten years, we have maintained economic sanctions on Iraq that have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, and we have repeatedly bombed it whenever it failed to abide by standards we imposed on it.

“Under Bill Clinton, we again launched bombing raids against civilians — once against so-called ‘terrorist training camps’ supposedly under bin Laden’s control in Afghanistan and at the same time against a purported ‘chemical weapons factory’ in Sudan that almost certainly was no such thing….

“In all the buckets of media gabble about the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, not once have I heard any journalist ask any expert the simple question, ‘Why did the terrorists attack us?’

“There is, of course, an implicit answer to the unasked question: It’s because the terrorists are ‘evil’; they ‘hate democracy’; they are ‘fanatics,’ ‘barbarians’ and ‘cowards.’ Those, of course, are answers that can satisfy only children. Some day it might actually dawn on someone in this country that the grown-up but unwelcome answer is that the terrorists attacked us because they were paying us back for what we started.

“Let us hear no more about how the ‘terrorists’ have ‘declared war on America….’

“The blunt and quite ugly truth is that the United States has been at war for years — that it started the war in the name of ‘spreading democracy,’ ‘building nations,’ ‘waging peace,’ ‘stopping aggression,’ ‘enforcing human rights,’ and all the other pious lies that warmongers always invoke to mask the truth, and that it continued the war simply to save a crook from political ruin. What is new is merely that this week, for the first time, the war we started came home — and all of a sudden, Americans don’t seem to care for it so much.”
_____

**although as steve sailer keeps pointing out, there are only one or two hundred chechens totally in the u.s., so apparently ANY amount of immigration from chechnya is a bad idea.

_{(note: comments do not require an email.)}

twitter dodgeball

because we’ve all got to choose sides, apparently. (what’s being discussed in this tweet session.)

previously: “to disbelieve in witchcraft is the greatest of heresies”

_{(note: comments do not require an email. dodgeball.)}

in the navy

“okay, okay. you can include some white guys in the picture. just make sure they stand in the back!”

screenshot taken from here.

here’s an ACTUAL graduating class from the navy postgraduate school (praestantia per scientiam – heh!) from 2012:

and here’s one from 2006:

_{(note: comments do not require an email. in the navy!)}

srsly cnn?

“Who’s killing Texas prosecutors?”

“… The killings followed warnings that a white supremacist group might be preparing to take revenge on law enforcement officials who targeted them in 2012. Both Kaufman County prosecutors apparently started carrying guns, but it wasn’t enough.

“It’s unclear whether the killings were linked to the January 31 shooting death of Kaufman County assistant prosecutor Mark Hasse, or to the March 19 death of the prisons chief in Colorado. Authorities say a suspect in that shooting was a onetime white supremacist gang member who died in a shootout with deputies — in north Texas. …”

my money’s on mexican drug cartel mobsters … who have already killed ca. 1000+ police and prosecutors in mexico as of 2009.

_{(note: comments do not require an email. mexican drug cartel mobsters.)}

women and hormones and voting, oh my!

insert fingers into ears and scream LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!!

this would be pretty funny if it weren’t so sad:

“After reader backlash, CNN axes article about how hormones affect women’s votes”

“Following a firestorm of negative feedback, CNN hastily deleted from its website late Wednesday virtually all mention of a study about the effect hormones have on women’s political preferences.

“‘A post previously published in this space regarding a study about how hormones may influence voting choices has been removed,’ a message posted on the website at 8:15 p.m. read. ‘After further review it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN. We thank you for your comments and feedback.’”

mustn’t offend the sheeple’s sensibilities! sheesh. like goofy hormones and SEX never entered into any woman’s (or even any man’s) electoral choice. gimmeabreak!

here’s (some of) the offending post:

“Study looks at voting and hormones”
“Hormones may influence female voting choices

“While the campaigns eagerly pursue female voters, there’s something that may raise the chances for both presidential candidates that’s totally out of their control: women’s ovulation cycles.

“You read that right. New research suggests that hormones may influence female voting choices differently, depending on whether a woman is single or in a committed relationship.

“Please continue reading with caution. Although the study will be published in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Science, several political scientists who read the study have expressed skepticism about its conclusions.

“A bit of background: Women are more likely to vote than men, other studies have found. Current data suggest married women favor Gov. Mitt Romney, in a 19% difference, over President Barack Obama, while Obama commands the votes of single women by a 33% margin, according to the study. And previous studies have shown that political and religious attitudes may be influenced by reproductive goals.

“In the new study’s first experiment, Kristina Durante of the University of Texas, San Antonio and colleagues conducted an internet survey of 275 women who were not taking hormonal contraception and had regular menstrual cycles. About 55% were in committed relationships, including marriage.

“They found that women at their most fertile times of the month were less likely to be religious if they were single, and more likely to be religious if they were in committed relationships.

“Now for the even more controversial part: 502 women, also with regular periods and not taking hormonal contraception, were surveyed on voting preferences and a variety of political issues.

“The researchers found that during the fertile time of the month, when levels of the hormone estrogen are high, single women appeared more likely to vote for Obama and committed women appeared more likely to vote for Romney, by a margin of at least 20%, Durante said. This seems to be the driver behind the researchers’ overall observation that single women were inclined toward Obama and committed women leaned toward Romney.

“Here’s how Durante explains this: When women are ovulating, they ‘feel sexier,’ and therefore lean more toward liberal attitudes on abortion and marriage equality. Married women have the same hormones firing, but tend to take the opposite viewpoint on these issues, she says.

“‘I think they’re overcompensating for the increase of the hormones motivating them to have sex with other men,’ she said. It’s a way of convincing themselves that they’re not the type to give in to such sexual urges, she said….

“‘We still have the ovulatory hormones that have the same impact on female brains as across other species,’ she said. We want sex and we want it with the best mate we can get. ‘But there are some high costs that come with it,’ she said, particularly for women who are already in committed relationships.

“This isn’t the first time hormones have been looked at in connection to voting. Last year Israeli researchers published a study in the journal European Neuropsychopharmacology examined the stress hormone cortisol in voters in Israel. Levels of this hormone were higher in people right before they were about to vote than in the same people when they were not voting.

“Durante’s study on women noted that liberal attitudes favor social equality and tend to be less associated with organized religion. Conservatism is more about traditional values and is linked to greater participation in organized religion.

“The most controversial part of the study is not only that hormonal cycles are linked to women’s preferences for candidates and voting behaviors, but also that single women who are ovulating are more likely to be socially liberal, and relationship-committed women are more likely to be socially conservative, said Paul Kellstedt, associate professor of political science at Texas A&M University.

“One of the major caveats this paper fails to address is that men also have biochemical changes, Kellstedt said….”

that’s a reasonable caveat, and i’d like to see that studied, too — AND written about by the msm!

_{(note: comments do not require an email. people! sheesh.)}

diversity über alles

*update below*

and to h*ll with the kids (apparently).

from the times uk via rotherham politics:

“Confidential papers show a decade of abuse in South Yorkshire”

“Confidential police reports and intelligence files that reveal a hidden truth about the sale and extensive use of English children for sex are exposed today.

“They show that for more than a decade organised groups of men were able to groom, pimp and traffic girls across the country with virtual impunity. Offenders were identified to police but not prosecuted.

“A child welfare expert, speaking under condition of anonymity, said that agencies’ reluctance to tackle such street-grooming networks was ‘the biggest child protection scandal of our time’.

“The Times has published several articles about a pattern of crimes across northern England and the Midlands involving groups of men, largely of Pakistani heritage, and the sexual abuse of white girls aged from 12 to 16.

“We can now reveal evidence from more than 200 restricted-access documents, which show that, in one area, police and child protection agencies have held extensive knowledge of this crime model for ten years, yet have never publicly acknowledged its existence.

“The internal police and social service correspondence, research papers, intelligence reports and case files are a detailed history of alleged child sexual exploitation in South Yorkshire since 2000, focusing on Rotherham. They include a confidential 2010 report by the police intelligence bureaus warning that thousands of such crimes were committed in the country each year.

“It contains explosive details about the men responsible for the most serious, co-ordinated abuse. ‘Possibly the most shocking threat is the existence of substantial and organised offender networks that groom and exploit victims on a worrying scale,’ the report says. ‘Practitioners throughout the force state there is a problem with networks of Asian offenders both locally and nationally. This was particularly stressed in Sheffield and even more so in Rotherham, where there appears to be a significant problem with networks of Asian males exploiting young white females.’ Such groups are said to have trafficked South Yorkshire child victims ‘to many other cities, including Bristol, Manchester, Birmingham, Bradford and Dover’.

“Another confidential 2000 report, for the Rotherham Safeguarding Children Board, noted that such crimes had ‘cultural characteristics … which are locally sensitive in terms of diversity’.

“It said: ‘There are sensitivities of ethnicity with potential to endanger the harmony of community relationships. Great care will be taken in drafting … this report to ensure that its findings embrace Rotherham’s qualities of diversity. It is imperative that suggestions of a wider cultural phenomenon are avoided.’”

i think i’m going to be sick.
_____

update 09/25: a detail from the story of one of the abused girls, “amy” — who was 13 at the time:

“In one incident, an older, married cousin of her main abuser, annoyed after she laughed at a joke about his weight, dragged her across the grass in a park and shoved a tree branch inside her.”

_{(note: comments do not require an email. rotherham.)}

watsoning martin sewell

sewell’s obviously a warlock who must be burnt at the stake. h/t jayman!:

“Martin Sewell, Cambridge Don, Urged To Resign Over ‘Racist And Sexist’ Views”

“A Cambridge academic responsible for mentoring students has come under pressure to resign over his controversial views which have been dubbed by some as racist, sexist and pro-Hitler….”

i like his response – a LOT:

“Sewell told HuffPost in an email: ‘I am neither sexist nor racist, nor am I pro-Hitler.

“‘The real fascism lies with attempting to compromise an academic’s career on the basis of his synthesis of peer-reviewed scientific research. The university has a long tradition of ground-breaking science and freedom of speech, which Cambridge University Students’ Union (CUSU) would do well to respect….’”

i guess the story of this evil, evil man was first brought to light by cambridge university’s student newspaper:

“Cambridge Economics supervisor criticised for racist and sexist views“

“Exclusive: Students have raised concerns about articles written by Martin Sewell, supervisor in Economics and research associate in Land Economy.

“Though Sewell clearly and frequently references the work of other academics, some of his statements have been considered as contentious, offensive or explicitly racist.

“For example, when writing on the significance of race in conjunction with crime, Sewell states, without reference to academic sources:

“‘The most likely reason for the high incidence of black crime is blacks’ lower intelligence and greater impulsivity, which themselves are probably biological in origin….’”

first they say he gives references and then they say he does not. i’m confused. afaics, he’s got plenty of references on his website’s race page — most of the pages seem to have biblographies, in fact. plus, it’s not as though we’re talking about an academic publication here. it’s his private website. and if someone were to have a question about a specific statement on his website, they could just email him for more details.

i hope sewell sticks to his guns! (figuratively, of course.)

here’s his website.

_{(note: comments do not require an email. watsoning.)}

no you’re not

maybe they’re all some of them are americans in the sense of being from latin america, but they’re not americans in the sense of being u.s. citizens. that’s the WHOLE POINT!

_{(note: comments do not require an email. too much cute!)}