i was here first!

i tend get just a little really, really, REEEALLY tired of a debate when the discussion just goes ’round and ’round in circles endlessly because it hasn’t been based on reality:

“my people deserve to keep this nation because we’ve been here since the neolithic!”
“well, my people have been here since the PALEOlithic, so we reeeally deserve it!”
“the united states stole california/new mexico/arizona/texas from mexico, so we should get it all back!”
“the american indians didn’t have a concept of private property, so they didn’t really own north america, so it was ok for us to move in and settle the land!”
“those bushmen never really did anything useful with the land except wander around after game, so it was good that us bantu took it and did something with it!”
“god said we’re the chosen people and he gave us this land to be ours furevah! (it says so right in this book here.)”
“manifest destiny!!!”

wtf people?! do you ever listen to yourselves? you sound like a bunch of kids on the playground screaming, “it’s mine! I CALL!!” (do kids even say that anymore?)

anyway, i was going to write a long post about how ridiculous all these “arguments” are and that they’re all just self-delusional excuses for getting what you want (i.e. more territory/resources), but i find that henry percy over @ the american thinker has already covered the topic admirably. take it away henry!:

“In short, human history is the story of groups of people moving across vast distances, laying claim to territory, killing or subjugating the earlier inhabitants, intermingling with them, and moving on. The right by which any group lays claim to a piece of land is ultimately enforced by — force.”


this is the way that dear ol’ gal, mother nature, works. we humans are animals and, just like lots of other creatures, we try to grab more territory if and when we can ’cause, well, extra resources might just mean that you can spread your genes a little farther than you woulda done otherwise. and that’s what it’s all about.

so, the next time some illegal immigrant says he and his “raza” want california back ’cause us gringos took it away from them unfairly, don’t get into a debate about it. just say “nah nah nah nah naaah nah!!!” (and maybe run like h*ll.)

(note: comments do not require an email)


thilo “saracen”

over @ altright, scott locklin points out that herr politically incorrect himself, thilo sarrazin, has a kinda crazy name considering that he’s criticizing all the muslim immigration to deutschland.

i mean, sarrazin (SARACEN)?? c’mon thilo … you gotta be kidding?!

well, the name is of french origin (thus the hugenot connection is probably correct) … and it can mean one who fought in the crusades.

now THAT is ironic!

(p.s. – i also linked to this in my first post on thilo … which was also my first post! woo-hoo!)

(note: comments do not require an email)

the unbearable unfunniness of political correctness

via gates of vienna, some guy in the uk milked the cash-cow of political correctness (to the tune of thousands of dollars, apparently) by whining like a little girl complaining that his (*sniff*) feelings were all hurt when someone told a politically incorrect joke about his (the whiner’s) ethnic group during some presentation or other.

and THEN, when a journalist at “the spectator” made fun of the whole sitch (as one would do, natch) … well, the sh*t rained down on HIS head, too! read all about it here:

“Why can’t anyone take a joke anymore?”

good question.

my own ethnic background (a european group) has been the butt of what are now considered politically incorrect jokes for decades … h*ll, probably for centuries. i’m just old enough to remember when ethnic jokes were actually told (“mommy, did people reeeally used to tell jokes about different peoples?” “yes, little timmy, and they were d*mn funny, too!”) and i was never offended by any of the ones i heard about my own group. h*ck, a lot of them were actually funny, and most of them characterized my people very well! and i can’t recall anyone else i knew in my group being offended by them, either.

nor have i ever been offended by jokes about women, come to think of it. (well, i am offended by vulgar, tasteless jokes of all sorts … but not because they have to do with an ethnic group or women or whatever).

what’s wrong with people nowadays? (is it something in the water?) lighten up folks!

anyway, here’s something to cleanse your mental palate – a clip from a 1970s british show called “mind your language” about a bunch of foreigners in an english language class. it wasn’t the funniest british sitcom ever, but some of the stereotypes were great: the german au pair and japanese man from the electronics company always arguing about who is more efficient, germans or the japanese; the greek and the italian men always fighting over the french girl (who is a floozie); the pakistani (“infidel!”) and the sikh (“jack*ss!”) always at each others’ throats; the chinese girl always quoting chairman mao. ;-) Ah. The good old days…

oh. and a bonus! one of my all-time favorites. “mexican-americans don’t like to get up early in the morning so they do it real sloooow….” :-D

update 09/26: “Sense of humour failure: Council slaps ban on mother-in-law jokes for being ‘offensively sexist'” & “Muslims demand apology for New Zealand minister’s joke” (via gov where u can read those jokes for urself)

(note: comments do not require an email)

say it ain’t so, thilo!

thilo sarrazin, the great german embarassment, is at it again.  quick!  somebody call the pc police!

the daily mail reports:

A leading member of Germany’s central bank has caused outrage by claiming that Jews are identified by a particular gene.

Thilo Sarrazin, who is on the board of the the Bundesbank in Frankfurt, said in a newspaper interview: “All Jews share a certain gene. Basques (Spanish separatists) have particular genes, that distinguishes them from others.”

German’s Jewish community today reacted with horror and accused him of anti-Semitism and attempted racial profiling.

“Whoever tries to define Jews by their genetic make up succumbs to racism,” said Stephan Kramer, secretary of the Central Council of Jews in Germany.

poppycock. poppycock, i say! how else would anyone define jews – or any other human population – than by their genetic make up?

ok, so thilo’s not correct in saying that jews share just one gene (if that’s what he really said). what they share is a set of particular genes/alleles, which makes them easily identifiable as a unique population of humans.

ya’ll will remember this from, gosh, TWO-AND-A-HALF YEARS AGO (hello pc-people! wake up!) [from plos genetics via information processing]:

i won’t even pretend to understand exactly what this graphic shows (apparently it’s of an analysis of the principal components in the genetic variation in a sample of 4000 european and ashkenazi jewish individuals, whatever that means); but the upshot is, the pink represents ashkenazi jews while the red (and other colors) represents other people of european descent.

in other words, you can define ashkenazi jews (and other european groups) by the collection of genes/alleles that they share in common.

simple, really.

more from dennis mangan.

(note: comments do not require an email)