This probably sucked
December 24, 2008
Two lost in snow after trip to Boise County hot springs
After getting separated from their friends, the Treasure Valley pair spent the night in the cold, walking barefoot with little clothing on.A late-night party at a Boise County hot springs last weekend was a blast for a group of Treasure Valley 20-somethings - until two people got separated from the group and spent the night wandering barefoot and half-naked through the snow.
"I think it's a miracle they survived," Idaho State Police Trooper David Anthony said.
The woman and man who spent the night lost had to be carried out of the woods of Pine Flats campground, where one of their friends found them lying in the snow Sunday morning. ISP did not release their names.
The woman told her rescuers she couldn't feel anything below her waist and was lying on the ground shaking. She was suffering advanced hypothermia.
"The guy was much more coherent than the girl," said Anthony, who was called to the campgrounds about 19 miles east of Garden Valley Sunday.
"He said he couldn't feel his feet."
A Boise County snowplow driver called for help at about 9 a.m. Sunday, after friends of the missing man and woman flagged him down as he was plowing Idaho 17 (the Banks-to-Lowman Highway).
Anthony said the group of six - four men and two women - were drinking alcohol while soaking in the Pine Flat hot springs Saturday night.
At some point, one of the men in the group, whose socks and shoes were wet, made a run for it back to their vehicle.
"He just took off running and left everybody behind, leaving these people stranded," Anthony said.
"He had the one little LED flashlight."
Several members of the group were able to stumble their way through the snow back to the vehicle, where they apparently spent the night.
"I would speculate that they were intoxicated when they got back to the truck," Anthony said.
The two who couldn't find their way back were scantily clad and lucky to have survived a night of temperatures in the mid-20s, snow and wind gusts of 15 to 20 mph.
Anthony said the woman was wearing a jacket and nothing else - no socks, no shoes, no clothes.
The snowplow driver found a blanket to wrap her in until an ambulance arrived.
The man was wearing only wet long-john pants and a glove on one foot; his toes were white from frostbite. Anthony believes he also may have had on a wet, icy jacket, which he took off when the snowplow driver gave him a dry coat.
Anthony tried to get the man to walk with him to meet emergency personnel, but the man said he couldn't walk.
"He said, 'I blew my knee out. ... I was hiking all night,' " Anthony said.
"I said, 'Dude, why didn't you just go back to the hot tub?'
He said, 'I couldn't find the hot tub.' "
Anthony hoisted the man over his shoulders in a fireman's carry and hauled him up the snowy hillside to where the woman had been carried by one of her friends.
Both the man and woman were taken by ambulance to a Boise hospital for treatment.
Anthony did not know the extent of their injuries.
He said panic, hypothermia and intoxication contributed to the bad choices that the group made Saturday night.
But perhaps their biggest mistake was failing to prepare for the weather conditions and possible emergencies in the relatively remote area, Anthony said.
At the very least, they should have brought boots, winter clothing suitable for the conditions and flashlights for everyone, Anthony said.
"They were very unprepared," he said.
Good preparation, which would include water, food and a first aid kit, can be the difference between life and death.
In February 2007, three young people who found themselves snowbound in Boise County without emergency gear or supplies weren't as lucky as the group last weekend. An 18-year-old girl died of exposure.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/localnews/story/613579.html
Katy Moeller: 377-6413
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
2008 financial meltdown roots
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=312766781716725
Stop Covering Up And Kill The CRA
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 11/28/2008
Regulation: The Community Reinvestment Act is to blame for the financial crisis, but it so powerfully serves Democrats' interests that they'll do anything to protect it — including revising history.
The CRA coerces banks into making loans based on political correctness, and little else, to people who can't afford them. Enforced like never before by the Clinton administration, the regulation destroyed credit standards across the mortgage industry, created the subprime market, and caused the housing bubble that has now burst and left us with the worst housing and banking crises since the Great Depression.
The CRA should be abolished, along with the government-sponsored enterprises that fueled the secondary market for subprimes — under pressure from Clinton, who ordered HUD to set quotas for "affirmative action" lending at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
But powerful Democrats in Washington want to protect the act — along with Fannie and Freddie — and spin the subprime scandal as the result of too little regulation, not too much.
"Repealing or weakening the CRA would be a mistake," warns Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who argues that the CRA should be strengthened.
Dodd, the top recipient of Fannie donations and himself a beneficiary of a sweetheart mortgage brokered by a subprime lender, recently invited one of Clinton's top enforcers of the CRA to testify.
"The notion that CRA has caused this problem is a pernicious thought," said former Comptroller of the Currency Gene Ludwig. "These are not truthful statements. The CRA has helped to create a better and sounder world for finance, not the opposite."
Dead wrong. But the mainstream media believe it, and have attacked those, including this paper, who dare to tell the truth about the crisis. Already the debacle has erased $13 trillion in wealth, while putting taxpayers on the hook for up to $8 trillion in bailouts.
"The latest salvo from conservatives began via a Sept. 15 editorial in Investor's Business Daily, titled 'The Real Culprits In This Meltdown,' " grumbled a column distributed by Scripps Howard News Service. "Its editorial blamed President Clinton for today's mess."
As we said, Clinton beefed up the CRA and used it to force banks to subsidize poor communities with close to $1 trillion in high-risk loans and other commitments that flouted underwriting rules.
Yet, somehow, these media-driven myths keep getting in the way of actual facts, such as:
Fact: The 1977 law was only lightly enforced until Clinton added teeth to it in 1994 and launched an anti-redlining campaign against banks, led by Ludwig, Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros (and later Andrew Cuomo) and Attorney General Janet Reno that lasted into this decade.
Minority homeownership rates, which had been flat, began a steep rise in 1995, and home prices soon followed, stoked by easier lending. Numerous bank officials complain that they still feel pressured by CRA regulators to make inner-city loans they know are at great risk of defaulting.
Myth: The CRA could not have led to financial Armageddon, because the overwhelming share of subprime mortgages came from lenders that were not banks and not regulated by the CRA.
Fact: Nearly 4 in 10 subprime loans between 2004 and 2007 were made by CRA-covered banks such as Washington Mutual and IndyMac. And that doesn't include loans made by subprime lenders owned by banks, which were in effect covered by the CRA.
Last year, when the bubble burst, bank subprime loans totaled $142 billion, dwarfing those made by lenders.
What's more, the biggest subprime lender, Countrywide, while not subject to the law, still came under federal pressure to make risky loans in minority communities.
Clinton created a separate department at HUD to police "fair lending" at Fannie and Freddie and also at lenders like Countrywide, which became Fannie's biggest client. In 1994, Countrywide became the nation's first mortgage lender to sign with HUD a "Declaration of Fair Lending Principles and Practices."
As a result, Countrywide made more loans to minorities than any other lender — and not surprisingly, was one of the first lenders swamped by loan defaults.
Other lenders felt the heat from Reno's Justice Department, which prosecuted them for failing to operate enough branches in black neighborhoods. Reno put the entire banking industry on notice about the CRA and her enforcement program.
Myth: The CRA did not force anyone to do subprime loans or take excessive risks.
Fact: Subprime loans were the vehicle banks used to satisfy CRA compliance, and Clinton and his regulators encouraged their use. Before Clinton took office, subprimes were virtually unheard of. By the time he left, they made up more than 9% of the market for mortgage originations. Today they're 20%.
"It's instructive to go back to the early stages of the subprime market, which has essentially emerged out of the CRA," ex-Fed chief Alan Greenspan said in recent testimony on the roots of the crisis.
Clinton pushed banks to grant mortgages to minorities with poor credit by using "flexible" underwriting standards — or risk being branded racist. Rules were weakened to the point where welfare and unemployment checks were accepted as qualifying income.
Myth: Greedy investment bankers, who securitized and sold subprime mortgages, drove us to the credit crisis, not government.
Fact: Clinton's regulatory policies led to the creation of this new risk on Wall Street. His CRA amendments created the subprime market, and only after he pressured Fannie and Freddie to socialize the risk and guarantee the profit from the subprime loans did Wall Street get involved in a big way.
The exotic securitizations that have gotten so much of the blame were a symptom, not the cause, of the crisis.
The architects of the crisis want to divert attention from their own culpability by blaming the markets rather than their own regulations mandating that banks make high-risk loans based on race.
In fact, regulations had almost everything to do with this mess. And instead of strengthening them to atone for the alleged "sins of capitalism," we should be abolishing them.
Two bills in the House would be a good place to start. HR 7264, which has nine co-sponsors, would repeal the CRA. And HR 7094, with 17 co-sponsors, would dissolve Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
During the last severe slump, President Reagan deregulated the economy, saying: "Government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem." He's as right today as he was then.
Stop Covering Up And Kill The CRA
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 11/28/2008
Regulation: The Community Reinvestment Act is to blame for the financial crisis, but it so powerfully serves Democrats' interests that they'll do anything to protect it — including revising history.
The CRA coerces banks into making loans based on political correctness, and little else, to people who can't afford them. Enforced like never before by the Clinton administration, the regulation destroyed credit standards across the mortgage industry, created the subprime market, and caused the housing bubble that has now burst and left us with the worst housing and banking crises since the Great Depression.
The CRA should be abolished, along with the government-sponsored enterprises that fueled the secondary market for subprimes — under pressure from Clinton, who ordered HUD to set quotas for "affirmative action" lending at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
But powerful Democrats in Washington want to protect the act — along with Fannie and Freddie — and spin the subprime scandal as the result of too little regulation, not too much.
"Repealing or weakening the CRA would be a mistake," warns Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who argues that the CRA should be strengthened.
Dodd, the top recipient of Fannie donations and himself a beneficiary of a sweetheart mortgage brokered by a subprime lender, recently invited one of Clinton's top enforcers of the CRA to testify.
"The notion that CRA has caused this problem is a pernicious thought," said former Comptroller of the Currency Gene Ludwig. "These are not truthful statements. The CRA has helped to create a better and sounder world for finance, not the opposite."
Dead wrong. But the mainstream media believe it, and have attacked those, including this paper, who dare to tell the truth about the crisis. Already the debacle has erased $13 trillion in wealth, while putting taxpayers on the hook for up to $8 trillion in bailouts.
"The latest salvo from conservatives began via a Sept. 15 editorial in Investor's Business Daily, titled 'The Real Culprits In This Meltdown,' " grumbled a column distributed by Scripps Howard News Service. "Its editorial blamed President Clinton for today's mess."
As we said, Clinton beefed up the CRA and used it to force banks to subsidize poor communities with close to $1 trillion in high-risk loans and other commitments that flouted underwriting rules.
Yet, somehow, these media-driven myths keep getting in the way of actual facts, such as:
Fact: The 1977 law was only lightly enforced until Clinton added teeth to it in 1994 and launched an anti-redlining campaign against banks, led by Ludwig, Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros (and later Andrew Cuomo) and Attorney General Janet Reno that lasted into this decade.
Minority homeownership rates, which had been flat, began a steep rise in 1995, and home prices soon followed, stoked by easier lending. Numerous bank officials complain that they still feel pressured by CRA regulators to make inner-city loans they know are at great risk of defaulting.
Myth: The CRA could not have led to financial Armageddon, because the overwhelming share of subprime mortgages came from lenders that were not banks and not regulated by the CRA.
Fact: Nearly 4 in 10 subprime loans between 2004 and 2007 were made by CRA-covered banks such as Washington Mutual and IndyMac. And that doesn't include loans made by subprime lenders owned by banks, which were in effect covered by the CRA.
Last year, when the bubble burst, bank subprime loans totaled $142 billion, dwarfing those made by lenders.
What's more, the biggest subprime lender, Countrywide, while not subject to the law, still came under federal pressure to make risky loans in minority communities.
Clinton created a separate department at HUD to police "fair lending" at Fannie and Freddie and also at lenders like Countrywide, which became Fannie's biggest client. In 1994, Countrywide became the nation's first mortgage lender to sign with HUD a "Declaration of Fair Lending Principles and Practices."
As a result, Countrywide made more loans to minorities than any other lender — and not surprisingly, was one of the first lenders swamped by loan defaults.
Other lenders felt the heat from Reno's Justice Department, which prosecuted them for failing to operate enough branches in black neighborhoods. Reno put the entire banking industry on notice about the CRA and her enforcement program.
Myth: The CRA did not force anyone to do subprime loans or take excessive risks.
Fact: Subprime loans were the vehicle banks used to satisfy CRA compliance, and Clinton and his regulators encouraged their use. Before Clinton took office, subprimes were virtually unheard of. By the time he left, they made up more than 9% of the market for mortgage originations. Today they're 20%.
"It's instructive to go back to the early stages of the subprime market, which has essentially emerged out of the CRA," ex-Fed chief Alan Greenspan said in recent testimony on the roots of the crisis.
Clinton pushed banks to grant mortgages to minorities with poor credit by using "flexible" underwriting standards — or risk being branded racist. Rules were weakened to the point where welfare and unemployment checks were accepted as qualifying income.
Myth: Greedy investment bankers, who securitized and sold subprime mortgages, drove us to the credit crisis, not government.
Fact: Clinton's regulatory policies led to the creation of this new risk on Wall Street. His CRA amendments created the subprime market, and only after he pressured Fannie and Freddie to socialize the risk and guarantee the profit from the subprime loans did Wall Street get involved in a big way.
The exotic securitizations that have gotten so much of the blame were a symptom, not the cause, of the crisis.
The architects of the crisis want to divert attention from their own culpability by blaming the markets rather than their own regulations mandating that banks make high-risk loans based on race.
In fact, regulations had almost everything to do with this mess. And instead of strengthening them to atone for the alleged "sins of capitalism," we should be abolishing them.
Two bills in the House would be a good place to start. HR 7264, which has nine co-sponsors, would repeal the CRA. And HR 7094, with 17 co-sponsors, would dissolve Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
During the last severe slump, President Reagan deregulated the economy, saying: "Government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem." He's as right today as he was then.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Race in America in 2008
well said,, I'd add the senseof entitlement also, every race/culture has some historical greivance. American blacks hang on to theirs very well.
from ace....
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/278081.php
Let me sharpen that up: There's no one left to blame. I don't know how long that mindset will take to sink in -- perhaps it never will -- but blacks have long grown accustomed to blaming not failure itself but failure to even try on presumed white racism making such efforts futile.
Well, enough of that.
The worst aspect of racism -- in terms of actual impact -- in this country is not white racism, but hyperbolically overstated black claims of white racism, which in turn create a sense of futility, anger, and ultimately powerlessness and stagnancy in the black community. The idea that learning or success is "white" is devastating to black advancement, and there's nothing whites or the government can do to change that. Blacks have to change that mindset themselves, and give up on a basically oppositional culture which seems to state that whatever whites might do is haram.
from ace....
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/278081.php
Let me sharpen that up: There's no one left to blame. I don't know how long that mindset will take to sink in -- perhaps it never will -- but blacks have long grown accustomed to blaming not failure itself but failure to even try on presumed white racism making such efforts futile.
Well, enough of that.
The worst aspect of racism -- in terms of actual impact -- in this country is not white racism, but hyperbolically overstated black claims of white racism, which in turn create a sense of futility, anger, and ultimately powerlessness and stagnancy in the black community. The idea that learning or success is "white" is devastating to black advancement, and there's nothing whites or the government can do to change that. Blacks have to change that mindset themselves, and give up on a basically oppositional culture which seems to state that whatever whites might do is haram.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
progressive fakers
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/277587.php
from ACE..
I've been trying to write this for a month, with no luck. I just dashed off a sketchy email about this, and since this is the closest I've come to getting this into words, I'll post it. Otherwise I'll never write it.
I can't help but notice a lot of the "Republicans' most enamored of Obama, and most disgusted by Palin, are upper-class twits. Either by birth or by adoption of their culture.
I'm betting wallace and schmidt are, too.
A lot of this is pure class/cultural disgust at those boisterous,declasse blue collar types.
Hey, Palin got shit done in Alaska. But blue collar morons are goodat fixin' shit, aren't they? As David Brooks noted, Obama can easilycite Neibhur in conversation. (However you spell his name.) That'sthe important thing, you know.
The lower classes DO. The upper classes ARE.
It was one thing when George W. Bush, a patrician plainly comfortable with the blue collar sector of the country, ran for office. Sure, he adopted a lot of the tastes and assumptions of the blue collar working-stiff class (and apparently he was pretty genuine about that), but we could all rest easy knowing, by blood, he was a good solid upper-upper class Connecticut aristocrat.
Sarah Palin? Not only was she born blue collar, but, unlike Scranton Joe Biden (Obama love 'im), she disgustingly has refused to evolve past the bitter, clingy station she was born to.
For God's sake, she was a Governor. She could have gained entry to the soft (as in arriviste) upper class at any time she set her mind to it.
And yet she refused.
The hell, man? It's like she just doesn't want to become better than she is.
Again: I've written on this too many times in the past to write it again.
So I'll just link this old piece. To not alienate the PUMAs still here, I'll note that "liberals" means the liberals you don't like, either.
The aristocracy has always sought to differentiate itself from the hoi polloi by signaling other aristocrats via the conspicuous display of manners and opinions marking them as elite. In the 1920's, for example, the highborn would talk about opera and symphony, but never popular music-- popular music was for the lower classes, and if you enjoyed a pop song, it was best to keep that to yourself. They would discuss live theater but never filmed features-- again, the first was accpetable, the latter declasse. And of course there is all that stuff about eating and drinking.
Gosford Park catalogued much of this, especially in the screenwriter's commentary, which, for my money, was more interesting than the actual movie.
We still have a moneyed aristocracy, of course. And I imagine that many of those old rules still apply (although, quite frankly, I wouldn't know for certain).
What I find interesting from a sociological standpoint is liberals' aping of the opinions and manners of the aristocracy, usually with a healthy infusion of kneejerk progressive politics, as a new form of differentiation from the masses whom they so clearly despise. Just as the old middle classes would also attempt to mimic the behaviors of the wealthy, so too do today's liberals -- even those who aren't very wealthy at all -- seek to emulate the codes and mores of the leisure-class to show that they, too, belong in the company of the elite.
Quick proof: Go find any liberal. Ask him what he thinks about USAToday. If he does not immediately say "McPaper," I will buy you a Filet-O-Fish or McRib (your choice; supplies are limited).
Now, USAToday is neither an especially good paper nor an especially bad one; it's not really remarkable in any way. But the word has come down from the liberal aristocrats that the proper attitude towards USAToday is that it is a McPaper, and so that's what they all say, even if (as is usually the case) they've never so much as read the paper before in their lives.
They call it McPaper because of a series of faux-aristocratic biases -- the "mom and pop" local operation is always more virtuous than the national franchise, anything that smacks of mass-appeal is to be automatically despised, etc. -- and they say it's a McPaper, over and over again, for the same reason 1920's aristocrats all talked about the operas they usually slept through-- to signal to other "Progressive Elites" that they Belong, that They Are Part of the Higher Class.
from ACE..
I've been trying to write this for a month, with no luck. I just dashed off a sketchy email about this, and since this is the closest I've come to getting this into words, I'll post it. Otherwise I'll never write it.
I can't help but notice a lot of the "Republicans' most enamored of Obama, and most disgusted by Palin, are upper-class twits. Either by birth or by adoption of their culture.
I'm betting wallace and schmidt are, too.
A lot of this is pure class/cultural disgust at those boisterous,declasse blue collar types.
Hey, Palin got shit done in Alaska. But blue collar morons are goodat fixin' shit, aren't they? As David Brooks noted, Obama can easilycite Neibhur in conversation. (However you spell his name.) That'sthe important thing, you know.
The lower classes DO. The upper classes ARE.
It was one thing when George W. Bush, a patrician plainly comfortable with the blue collar sector of the country, ran for office. Sure, he adopted a lot of the tastes and assumptions of the blue collar working-stiff class (and apparently he was pretty genuine about that), but we could all rest easy knowing, by blood, he was a good solid upper-upper class Connecticut aristocrat.
Sarah Palin? Not only was she born blue collar, but, unlike Scranton Joe Biden (Obama love 'im), she disgustingly has refused to evolve past the bitter, clingy station she was born to.
For God's sake, she was a Governor. She could have gained entry to the soft (as in arriviste) upper class at any time she set her mind to it.
And yet she refused.
The hell, man? It's like she just doesn't want to become better than she is.
Again: I've written on this too many times in the past to write it again.
So I'll just link this old piece. To not alienate the PUMAs still here, I'll note that "liberals" means the liberals you don't like, either.
The aristocracy has always sought to differentiate itself from the hoi polloi by signaling other aristocrats via the conspicuous display of manners and opinions marking them as elite. In the 1920's, for example, the highborn would talk about opera and symphony, but never popular music-- popular music was for the lower classes, and if you enjoyed a pop song, it was best to keep that to yourself. They would discuss live theater but never filmed features-- again, the first was accpetable, the latter declasse. And of course there is all that stuff about eating and drinking.
Gosford Park catalogued much of this, especially in the screenwriter's commentary, which, for my money, was more interesting than the actual movie.
We still have a moneyed aristocracy, of course. And I imagine that many of those old rules still apply (although, quite frankly, I wouldn't know for certain).
What I find interesting from a sociological standpoint is liberals' aping of the opinions and manners of the aristocracy, usually with a healthy infusion of kneejerk progressive politics, as a new form of differentiation from the masses whom they so clearly despise. Just as the old middle classes would also attempt to mimic the behaviors of the wealthy, so too do today's liberals -- even those who aren't very wealthy at all -- seek to emulate the codes and mores of the leisure-class to show that they, too, belong in the company of the elite.
Quick proof: Go find any liberal. Ask him what he thinks about USAToday. If he does not immediately say "McPaper," I will buy you a Filet-O-Fish or McRib (your choice; supplies are limited).
Now, USAToday is neither an especially good paper nor an especially bad one; it's not really remarkable in any way. But the word has come down from the liberal aristocrats that the proper attitude towards USAToday is that it is a McPaper, and so that's what they all say, even if (as is usually the case) they've never so much as read the paper before in their lives.
They call it McPaper because of a series of faux-aristocratic biases -- the "mom and pop" local operation is always more virtuous than the national franchise, anything that smacks of mass-appeal is to be automatically despised, etc. -- and they say it's a McPaper, over and over again, for the same reason 1920's aristocrats all talked about the operas they usually slept through-- to signal to other "Progressive Elites" that they Belong, that They Are Part of the Higher Class.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
how to spot girly men
Physical Strength, Fighting Ability Revealed In Human Faces
ScienceDaily (Oct. 25, 2008) — For our ancestors, misjudging the physical strength of a would-be opponent might have resulted in painful –– and potentially deadly –– defeat.
Now, a study conducted by a team of scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara has found that a mechanism exists within the human brain that enables people to determine with uncanny accuracy the fighting ability of men around them by honing in on their upper body strength. What's more, that assessment can be made even when everything but the men's faces are obscured from view.
A paper highlighting the researchers' findings appears in the current issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society.
"Assessing fighting ability was important for our ancestors, and the characteristic that the mind implicitly equates with fighting ability is upper body strength," said Aaron Sell, a postdoctoral fellow at UCSB's Center for Evolutionary Psychology and the paper's lead author. "That's the component of strength that's most relevant to premodern combat. The visual assessment of fighting ability is almost perfectly correlated with the perception of strength, and both closely track actual upper body strength. What is a bit spooky is that upper body strength can even be read on a person's face.
Sell conducted the study with Leda Cosmides, a professor of psychology and co-director of the Center for Evolutionary Psychology; John Tooby, a professor of anthropology and also co-director of the Center for Evolutionary Psychology; Michael Gurven, an associate professor of anthropology; and graduate students Daniel Sznycer and Christopher von Rueden.
The study consisted of four sections, each of which asked the test subjects to assess the physical strength of individuals based on photographs of their faces, their bodies, or both. Subjects were asked to rank the physical strength or fighting ability of the people in the photographs on a scale of one to seven. When the photographs depicted men whose strength had been measured precisely on weight-lifting machines, the researchers found an almost perfect correlation between perceptions of fighting ability and perceptions of strength. "When you see that kind of correlation it's telling you you're measuring the same underlying variable," said Tooby.
They also found that perceptions of strength and fighting ability reflected the target's actual strength, as measured on weight-lifting machines at the gym. In other sections of the study, the researchers showed that this result extended far beyond the gym. Both men and women accurately judge men's strength, whether those men are drawn from a general campus population, a hunter-horticulturalist group in Bolivia, or a group of herder-horticulturalists living in the Argentinian Andes.
Leg strength was measured along with upper body strength in both the United States and Bolivian populations, but the results showed that perceptions of men's strength and fighting ability reflect upper body strength, not that of legs. "That makes sense," said Cosmides. "If, for example, you're trying to lift something really heavy, or run a long distance, your lower body –– your legs –– will also be significant. But for fighting at close quarters, it's the upper body that really matters."
Added Tooby: "Whether people are assessing toughness or strength, it's upper body strength they implicitly register. And that's the critical information our ancestors needed in deciding –– or feeling –– whether to surrender a disputed resource or escalate aggressively."
The researchers suggest that the ability to judge physical strength and fighting ability serves different, but equally important, purposes for men and women. In men, the mechanism is a barometer for measuring potential threats and determining how aggressive or submissive they should be when facing a possible enemy. For women, the mechanism helps identify males who can adequately protect them and their children. Men have a lot more experience with rough and tumble play and direct experience with fighting, yet women are just as good at assessing these variables. The authors also point out that neither men nor women fare as well in assessing women's strength. This is entirely expected because, ancestrally, inflicting violence was mostly the province of men.
"The next step is to isolate what it is in the face that indicates upper body strength," said Sell. He suggests that the correlation may lie in the heavier brow ridge and thicker jaw that result from increased levels of testosterone. "Many studies have been done on the effects of testosterone on the face. There's a good chance testosterone is involved in regulating the body for battle, and men with high testosterone –– those with a heavy brow ridge and thicker jaw –– developed bodies that were more prepared for combat."
"One reason we evolved the ability to perceive physical strength in the face may be that it's where we focus our attention when we look at someone," said Cosmides.
"Even if we are able to see someone's body, we always look at the face. It's so rich in social information –– what a person is thinking or feeling –– and adding the assessment of physical strength is a huge benefit. A person who is angry and strong offers a much greater threat than the person who is angry but weak."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081022135809.htm
Adapted from materials provided by University of California - Santa Barbara.
ScienceDaily (Oct. 25, 2008) — For our ancestors, misjudging the physical strength of a would-be opponent might have resulted in painful –– and potentially deadly –– defeat.
Now, a study conducted by a team of scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara has found that a mechanism exists within the human brain that enables people to determine with uncanny accuracy the fighting ability of men around them by honing in on their upper body strength. What's more, that assessment can be made even when everything but the men's faces are obscured from view.
A paper highlighting the researchers' findings appears in the current issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society.
"Assessing fighting ability was important for our ancestors, and the characteristic that the mind implicitly equates with fighting ability is upper body strength," said Aaron Sell, a postdoctoral fellow at UCSB's Center for Evolutionary Psychology and the paper's lead author. "That's the component of strength that's most relevant to premodern combat. The visual assessment of fighting ability is almost perfectly correlated with the perception of strength, and both closely track actual upper body strength. What is a bit spooky is that upper body strength can even be read on a person's face.
Sell conducted the study with Leda Cosmides, a professor of psychology and co-director of the Center for Evolutionary Psychology; John Tooby, a professor of anthropology and also co-director of the Center for Evolutionary Psychology; Michael Gurven, an associate professor of anthropology; and graduate students Daniel Sznycer and Christopher von Rueden.
The study consisted of four sections, each of which asked the test subjects to assess the physical strength of individuals based on photographs of their faces, their bodies, or both. Subjects were asked to rank the physical strength or fighting ability of the people in the photographs on a scale of one to seven. When the photographs depicted men whose strength had been measured precisely on weight-lifting machines, the researchers found an almost perfect correlation between perceptions of fighting ability and perceptions of strength. "When you see that kind of correlation it's telling you you're measuring the same underlying variable," said Tooby.
They also found that perceptions of strength and fighting ability reflected the target's actual strength, as measured on weight-lifting machines at the gym. In other sections of the study, the researchers showed that this result extended far beyond the gym. Both men and women accurately judge men's strength, whether those men are drawn from a general campus population, a hunter-horticulturalist group in Bolivia, or a group of herder-horticulturalists living in the Argentinian Andes.
Leg strength was measured along with upper body strength in both the United States and Bolivian populations, but the results showed that perceptions of men's strength and fighting ability reflect upper body strength, not that of legs. "That makes sense," said Cosmides. "If, for example, you're trying to lift something really heavy, or run a long distance, your lower body –– your legs –– will also be significant. But for fighting at close quarters, it's the upper body that really matters."
Added Tooby: "Whether people are assessing toughness or strength, it's upper body strength they implicitly register. And that's the critical information our ancestors needed in deciding –– or feeling –– whether to surrender a disputed resource or escalate aggressively."
The researchers suggest that the ability to judge physical strength and fighting ability serves different, but equally important, purposes for men and women. In men, the mechanism is a barometer for measuring potential threats and determining how aggressive or submissive they should be when facing a possible enemy. For women, the mechanism helps identify males who can adequately protect them and their children. Men have a lot more experience with rough and tumble play and direct experience with fighting, yet women are just as good at assessing these variables. The authors also point out that neither men nor women fare as well in assessing women's strength. This is entirely expected because, ancestrally, inflicting violence was mostly the province of men.
"The next step is to isolate what it is in the face that indicates upper body strength," said Sell. He suggests that the correlation may lie in the heavier brow ridge and thicker jaw that result from increased levels of testosterone. "Many studies have been done on the effects of testosterone on the face. There's a good chance testosterone is involved in regulating the body for battle, and men with high testosterone –– those with a heavy brow ridge and thicker jaw –– developed bodies that were more prepared for combat."
"One reason we evolved the ability to perceive physical strength in the face may be that it's where we focus our attention when we look at someone," said Cosmides.
"Even if we are able to see someone's body, we always look at the face. It's so rich in social information –– what a person is thinking or feeling –– and adding the assessment of physical strength is a huge benefit. A person who is angry and strong offers a much greater threat than the person who is angry but weak."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081022135809.htm
Adapted from materials provided by University of California - Santa Barbara.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Monday, August 11, 2008
top 10 battle rifles
AK
M16
SMLE
M1 Garand
FN FAL
Mauser 98K
Styr AUG
Springfield 1903
Stermguver 44
Springfield M14
M16
SMLE
M1 Garand
FN FAL
Mauser 98K
Styr AUG
Springfield 1903
Stermguver 44
Springfield M14
Favorite baby girl names
Ilsa
Gina
Greta
Heidi
Inga
Jenna
Lena
Martha
Monika
Veronika
Annika
Dannika
Elsa
Ingalyn
Katja
Molly
Tonja
Betty
Claudia
Leisel
Gina
Greta
Heidi
Inga
Jenna
Lena
Martha
Monika
Veronika
Annika
Dannika
Elsa
Ingalyn
Katja
Molly
Tonja
Betty
Claudia
Leisel
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
gotta use it-derr
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080702091346.htm
Erectile Dysfunction Lower In Men Who Have Intercourse More Often
ScienceDaily (July 3, 2008) — Having intercourse more often may help prevent the development of erectile dysfunction (ED). A new study reports that researchers have found that men who had intercourse more often were less likely to develop ED.
See also:
Health & Medicine
Erectile Dysfunction
Men's Health
Sexual Health
Diseases and Conditions
Hormone Disorders
Gynecology
Reference
Sexual dysfunction
Erectile dysfunction
Orgasm
Testosterone
Analyzing a five-year study of 989 men aged 55 to 75 years from Pirkanmaa, Finland, the investigators observed that men reporting intercourse less than once per week at baseline had twice the incidence of erectile dysfunction compared with those reporting intercourse once per week. Further, the risk of erectile dysfunction was inversely related to the frequency of intercourse.
Other factors that may affect the incidence of ED, such as age, chronic medical conditions (diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, cerebrovascular disease and depression), body mass index and smoking were included in the analysis of the data.
Erectile dysfunction incidence was 79 cases per 1000 in men who had reported sexual intercourse less than once per week, dropping to 32 cases per 1000 in men reporting intercourse once per week and falling further to 16 per 1000 in those reporting intercourse 3 or more times per week.
In addition, the frequency of morning erections predicted the development of complete erectile dysfunction, with an approximate 2.5-fold risk among those with less than 1 morning erection per week compared with 2 to 3 morning erections per week
Writing in the article, Juha Koskimäki, MD, PhD, Tampere University Hospital, Department of Urology, Tampere, Finland, states; "Regular intercourse has an important role in preserving erectile function among elderly men, whereas morning erection does not exert a similar effect. Continued sexual activity decreases the incidence of erectile dysfunction in direct proportion to coital frequency."
The study clearly indicates that regular intercourse protects men from the development of erectile dysfunction, which may, in turn, impact general health and quality of life. The investigators advise clinicians to support the sexual activity of their patients.
Erectile Dysfunction Lower In Men Who Have Intercourse More Often
ScienceDaily (July 3, 2008) — Having intercourse more often may help prevent the development of erectile dysfunction (ED). A new study reports that researchers have found that men who had intercourse more often were less likely to develop ED.
See also:
Health & Medicine
Erectile Dysfunction
Men's Health
Sexual Health
Diseases and Conditions
Hormone Disorders
Gynecology
Reference
Sexual dysfunction
Erectile dysfunction
Orgasm
Testosterone
Analyzing a five-year study of 989 men aged 55 to 75 years from Pirkanmaa, Finland, the investigators observed that men reporting intercourse less than once per week at baseline had twice the incidence of erectile dysfunction compared with those reporting intercourse once per week. Further, the risk of erectile dysfunction was inversely related to the frequency of intercourse.
Other factors that may affect the incidence of ED, such as age, chronic medical conditions (diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, cerebrovascular disease and depression), body mass index and smoking were included in the analysis of the data.
Erectile dysfunction incidence was 79 cases per 1000 in men who had reported sexual intercourse less than once per week, dropping to 32 cases per 1000 in men reporting intercourse once per week and falling further to 16 per 1000 in those reporting intercourse 3 or more times per week.
In addition, the frequency of morning erections predicted the development of complete erectile dysfunction, with an approximate 2.5-fold risk among those with less than 1 morning erection per week compared with 2 to 3 morning erections per week
Writing in the article, Juha Koskimäki, MD, PhD, Tampere University Hospital, Department of Urology, Tampere, Finland, states; "Regular intercourse has an important role in preserving erectile function among elderly men, whereas morning erection does not exert a similar effect. Continued sexual activity decreases the incidence of erectile dysfunction in direct proportion to coital frequency."
The study clearly indicates that regular intercourse protects men from the development of erectile dysfunction, which may, in turn, impact general health and quality of life. The investigators advise clinicians to support the sexual activity of their patients.
Monday, June 23, 2008
suckst to be unarmed, polygamy really works
Double tap.
hmmm, seems islam is in somehow linked. Throw in some unarmed Euros and some punk North Africans can now rape anyone
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/06/rape-in-gare-du-midi.html
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/06/making-world-safe-for-pederasty.html
hmmm, seems islam is in somehow linked. Throw in some unarmed Euros and some punk North Africans can now rape anyone
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/06/rape-in-gare-du-midi.html
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/06/making-world-safe-for-pederasty.html
Saturday, June 21, 2008
white on brown
see the origional post
eventually you will see some ethnioc clensing. The police will turn their back to natives vs. immigrant crime.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/06/greatest-betrayal-in-history.html#readfurther
The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.This post was compiled from comments made on one of last night’s posts.
The scale of violent crime white people are being subject to in countries such as Sweden resembles warfare. Not only does the state not protect people against this racist violence, it actively sides with the attackers. Which means that the social contract is now dead and buried in most Western countries. The state is either expensive and irrelevant or it is an outright enemy.The numbers in Sweden, and no doubt elsewhere, are worse than we are told. They are being heavily manipulated by the authorities and the media, who claim that the massive increase in rapes is caused by:
A.
The warm weather/global warming,
B.
Alcohol,
C.
Internet dating sites, and
D.
A technical increase due to the fact that women suddenly report rape more frequently than before.These are the explanations that are mentioned. There is no other.Suggesting that it has something to do with mass immigration of alien cultures is quite literally banned by law. A Swedish man was arrested, brought in front of the local court and sentenced for “hate speech” for carrying a sign during a demonstration suggesting that rape was linked to immigration.Meanwhile, Norwegians are being told that we need to hire thousands of more cops to contain the massive increase in crime brought on by mass immigration (which is still supposed to be “good for the economy), a mass immigration that will not only continue but increase. Nobody among the Leftist media elites says it should stop, they say it should continue indefinitely, and there are more and more hysterical witch-hunts against “racism” by the white indigenous people. It’s state-sponsored ethnic cleansing of the native population, cheered by our own media and intellectuals, in short: The greatest betrayal in history.This is part of a massive and prolonged campaign of psychological warfare against whites in general that has been going on for several generations now, to strip whites of any sense of pride or self-respect. The current Swedish “conservative” prime minister has stated in public that his county’s traditional culture was merely barbarism, and that anything good was imported from abroad. While Swedish girls get gang raped by Muslim immigrants who are met with “respect for their diverse culture,” Swedish boys are being systematically indoctrinated with radical Feminism, in the most extreme cases being forced to wear female clothes and take female names by kindergarten teachers.On the International Women’s Day, March 8 2008, the columnist Marte Michelet in the left-wing pro-Multicultural Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet attacked “brown” feminists. And no, by that she did not mean feminists with a dark skin, but those championing “Fascist,” racist and Islamophobic forces. She is the daughter of the Communist writer Jon Michelet and was until 1998 the leader of the Red Youth, the country’s “revolutionary youth league.”Many Marxist feminists, who have for generations worked to break down Christianity and the nuclear family in the West, now passionately embrace Islam, the most repressive religion on earth. Marxists do not care about “women’s liberty.” They do not care about anybody’s liberty. They support anything that can destabilize the West. The fact that a newspaper that has been at the forefront of radical Feminism for generations now suddenly warns against “Islamophobia” and “prejudice” against the world’s most anti-female religion is highly revealing.Attacks on Western history in order to instill shame into Western youths, a shame that militates against their thinking that their civilization is worth defending, are very common, especially targeting female students. Here is a quote from the book Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t by Robert Spencer:- - - - - - - - -
A white American student, ‘Rachel,’ unwittingly summed up this attitude when she told American Indian professor Dr. David Yeagley in 2001: ‘Look, Dr. Yeagley, I don’t see anything about my culture to be proud of. It’s all nothing. My race is just nothing…. Look at your culture. Look at American Indian tradition. Now I think that’s really great. You have something to be proud of. My culture is nothing.’ Yeagley mused: ‘The Cheyenne people have a saying: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground….When Rachel denounced her people, she did it with the serene self-confidence of a High Priestess reciting a liturgy. She said it without fear of criticism or censure. And she received none. The other students listened in silence, their eyes moving timidly back and forth between me and Rachel, as if unsure which of us constituted a higher authority….Who had conquered Rachel’s people? What had led her to disrespect them? Why did she behave like a woman of a defeated tribe?’I have engaged in endless debates with people who see no relationship between traditional economic Marxism, as promoted by Karl Marx himself, and today’s “cultural Marxism.” But they miss the point. The most important mutation that happened with the various strains of Marxism during the twentieth century was that they understood that the traditional doctrine that a Socialist society was “inevitable” was incorrect. Their revolutions didn’t happen, in the West at least. But this didn’t mean that they gave up their end goals, which have largely remained the same.They just changed the strategy needed in order to achieve these main goals, and focused on breaking down Western culture in every way, until there was no resistance left to implement their totalitarian society. That’s what has been going on for decades now, where traditional attitudes to marriage etc. have gradually become banned by law. Turning Western women, especially white women, into weapons of mass destruction against their own civilization has been a key component of this strategy, and unfortunately a rather successful one.Also, I don’t buy this “blaming Western men” stuff. I’m tired of it. If we are guilty of anything, it is of being too kind too Western women, and letting them get away with their nonsense too often.If women want to be taken seriously, they should take responsibility for their own actions. Women cannot attack men for decades and blame them for being male chauvinist pigs, generally evil, stupid and weak and then expect men to come rushing to their defense to clean up the problems women themselves voted to create.There are still a few sensible self-designated feminists left in the West, but they clearly constitute a minority. I’ve been told by radical feminists that rape is a weapon used by men — that is, men in general — to keep women down. This is also the line Swedish feminists usually take regarding rapes: It’s about the “patriarchy,” not about mass immigration. Swedish men are just as bad as the Taliban, as one prominent feminist famously said.As one of Marilyn French’s characters said, “All men are rapists, and that’s all they are.” In Norway in 2008, we had a case where a native teenage girl had been gang raped by Muslim immigrants, and the four female judges voted in favor of giving the rapists a “discount” on the minor compensations they were sentenced to pay to the victim. The one dissenting judge was the one male. As the female blogger Nina commented, this and other cases indicate that we need fewer female judges, not more.Women are simply too soft and emotional to be performing these kinds of tasks. The effect of radical Feminism is to treat all men as criminals, except those who really are criminals, who should receive soft treatment. All men are rapists, except those who actually are. They are victims of “society.” Despite the fact that Muslim immigration has triggered an unprecedented wave of anti-female violence, women still vote disproportionately for pro-immigration parties, and yell “racism” at men who suggest it’s not a good idea.Women cannot be cruel to decent men and kind to evil men and expect that this has no consequences in the long run. Why should Western men worry about women who show us nothing but hostility? Maybe we’ll just be patriarchal simpletons, drink beer, fart and watch football on TV?What we are dealing with in the Western world is demographic warfare closely aligned with psychological warfare, aimed at breaking down our self-confidence and self-awareness to the point where our technological superiority is rendered useless because we are ashamed of ourselves or incapable of articulating what we should fight for. Sun Tzu in The Art of War said that wars are won in the temples before they are fought. The mass media are the temples of our time, which means that we are currently losing badly.Robert D. Kaplan says that he “re-read both The Art of War by the 6th-century BCE Chinese court minister Sun-Tzu and On War by the early 19th-century Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz. What struck me straight away, thanks to my recent travels-in-arms, was not what either author said, but what both assumed. Both Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz believe — in their states, their sovereigns, their homelands. Because they believe, they are willing to fight. This is so clear that they never need to state it, and they never do… Both oppose militarism, but accept the reality of war, and from that acceptance reason that any policy lacking martial vigor — any policy that fails to communicate a warrior spirit — only makes war more likely.”According to Clausewitz, “In affairs so dangerous as war, false ideas proceeding from kindness of heart are precisely the worst…The fact that slaughter is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms.”As a final note on this whole sorry state of affairs — the Swedish parliament passed a law yesterday which orders comprehensive electronic surveillance of all citizens:
Swedish lawmakers voted late on Wednesday in favour of a controversial bill allowing all emails and phone calls to be monitored in the name of national security.This law will make Sweden more totalitarian than even the former Communist dictatorship of East Germany.
eventually you will see some ethnioc clensing. The police will turn their back to natives vs. immigrant crime.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/06/greatest-betrayal-in-history.html#readfurther
The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.This post was compiled from comments made on one of last night’s posts.
The scale of violent crime white people are being subject to in countries such as Sweden resembles warfare. Not only does the state not protect people against this racist violence, it actively sides with the attackers. Which means that the social contract is now dead and buried in most Western countries. The state is either expensive and irrelevant or it is an outright enemy.The numbers in Sweden, and no doubt elsewhere, are worse than we are told. They are being heavily manipulated by the authorities and the media, who claim that the massive increase in rapes is caused by:
A.
The warm weather/global warming,
B.
Alcohol,
C.
Internet dating sites, and
D.
A technical increase due to the fact that women suddenly report rape more frequently than before.These are the explanations that are mentioned. There is no other.Suggesting that it has something to do with mass immigration of alien cultures is quite literally banned by law. A Swedish man was arrested, brought in front of the local court and sentenced for “hate speech” for carrying a sign during a demonstration suggesting that rape was linked to immigration.Meanwhile, Norwegians are being told that we need to hire thousands of more cops to contain the massive increase in crime brought on by mass immigration (which is still supposed to be “good for the economy), a mass immigration that will not only continue but increase. Nobody among the Leftist media elites says it should stop, they say it should continue indefinitely, and there are more and more hysterical witch-hunts against “racism” by the white indigenous people. It’s state-sponsored ethnic cleansing of the native population, cheered by our own media and intellectuals, in short: The greatest betrayal in history.This is part of a massive and prolonged campaign of psychological warfare against whites in general that has been going on for several generations now, to strip whites of any sense of pride or self-respect. The current Swedish “conservative” prime minister has stated in public that his county’s traditional culture was merely barbarism, and that anything good was imported from abroad. While Swedish girls get gang raped by Muslim immigrants who are met with “respect for their diverse culture,” Swedish boys are being systematically indoctrinated with radical Feminism, in the most extreme cases being forced to wear female clothes and take female names by kindergarten teachers.On the International Women’s Day, March 8 2008, the columnist Marte Michelet in the left-wing pro-Multicultural Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet attacked “brown” feminists. And no, by that she did not mean feminists with a dark skin, but those championing “Fascist,” racist and Islamophobic forces. She is the daughter of the Communist writer Jon Michelet and was until 1998 the leader of the Red Youth, the country’s “revolutionary youth league.”Many Marxist feminists, who have for generations worked to break down Christianity and the nuclear family in the West, now passionately embrace Islam, the most repressive religion on earth. Marxists do not care about “women’s liberty.” They do not care about anybody’s liberty. They support anything that can destabilize the West. The fact that a newspaper that has been at the forefront of radical Feminism for generations now suddenly warns against “Islamophobia” and “prejudice” against the world’s most anti-female religion is highly revealing.Attacks on Western history in order to instill shame into Western youths, a shame that militates against their thinking that their civilization is worth defending, are very common, especially targeting female students. Here is a quote from the book Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t by Robert Spencer:- - - - - - - - -
A white American student, ‘Rachel,’ unwittingly summed up this attitude when she told American Indian professor Dr. David Yeagley in 2001: ‘Look, Dr. Yeagley, I don’t see anything about my culture to be proud of. It’s all nothing. My race is just nothing…. Look at your culture. Look at American Indian tradition. Now I think that’s really great. You have something to be proud of. My culture is nothing.’ Yeagley mused: ‘The Cheyenne people have a saying: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground….When Rachel denounced her people, she did it with the serene self-confidence of a High Priestess reciting a liturgy. She said it without fear of criticism or censure. And she received none. The other students listened in silence, their eyes moving timidly back and forth between me and Rachel, as if unsure which of us constituted a higher authority….Who had conquered Rachel’s people? What had led her to disrespect them? Why did she behave like a woman of a defeated tribe?’I have engaged in endless debates with people who see no relationship between traditional economic Marxism, as promoted by Karl Marx himself, and today’s “cultural Marxism.” But they miss the point. The most important mutation that happened with the various strains of Marxism during the twentieth century was that they understood that the traditional doctrine that a Socialist society was “inevitable” was incorrect. Their revolutions didn’t happen, in the West at least. But this didn’t mean that they gave up their end goals, which have largely remained the same.They just changed the strategy needed in order to achieve these main goals, and focused on breaking down Western culture in every way, until there was no resistance left to implement their totalitarian society. That’s what has been going on for decades now, where traditional attitudes to marriage etc. have gradually become banned by law. Turning Western women, especially white women, into weapons of mass destruction against their own civilization has been a key component of this strategy, and unfortunately a rather successful one.Also, I don’t buy this “blaming Western men” stuff. I’m tired of it. If we are guilty of anything, it is of being too kind too Western women, and letting them get away with their nonsense too often.If women want to be taken seriously, they should take responsibility for their own actions. Women cannot attack men for decades and blame them for being male chauvinist pigs, generally evil, stupid and weak and then expect men to come rushing to their defense to clean up the problems women themselves voted to create.There are still a few sensible self-designated feminists left in the West, but they clearly constitute a minority. I’ve been told by radical feminists that rape is a weapon used by men — that is, men in general — to keep women down. This is also the line Swedish feminists usually take regarding rapes: It’s about the “patriarchy,” not about mass immigration. Swedish men are just as bad as the Taliban, as one prominent feminist famously said.As one of Marilyn French’s characters said, “All men are rapists, and that’s all they are.” In Norway in 2008, we had a case where a native teenage girl had been gang raped by Muslim immigrants, and the four female judges voted in favor of giving the rapists a “discount” on the minor compensations they were sentenced to pay to the victim. The one dissenting judge was the one male. As the female blogger Nina commented, this and other cases indicate that we need fewer female judges, not more.Women are simply too soft and emotional to be performing these kinds of tasks. The effect of radical Feminism is to treat all men as criminals, except those who really are criminals, who should receive soft treatment. All men are rapists, except those who actually are. They are victims of “society.” Despite the fact that Muslim immigration has triggered an unprecedented wave of anti-female violence, women still vote disproportionately for pro-immigration parties, and yell “racism” at men who suggest it’s not a good idea.Women cannot be cruel to decent men and kind to evil men and expect that this has no consequences in the long run. Why should Western men worry about women who show us nothing but hostility? Maybe we’ll just be patriarchal simpletons, drink beer, fart and watch football on TV?What we are dealing with in the Western world is demographic warfare closely aligned with psychological warfare, aimed at breaking down our self-confidence and self-awareness to the point where our technological superiority is rendered useless because we are ashamed of ourselves or incapable of articulating what we should fight for. Sun Tzu in The Art of War said that wars are won in the temples before they are fought. The mass media are the temples of our time, which means that we are currently losing badly.Robert D. Kaplan says that he “re-read both The Art of War by the 6th-century BCE Chinese court minister Sun-Tzu and On War by the early 19th-century Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz. What struck me straight away, thanks to my recent travels-in-arms, was not what either author said, but what both assumed. Both Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz believe — in their states, their sovereigns, their homelands. Because they believe, they are willing to fight. This is so clear that they never need to state it, and they never do… Both oppose militarism, but accept the reality of war, and from that acceptance reason that any policy lacking martial vigor — any policy that fails to communicate a warrior spirit — only makes war more likely.”According to Clausewitz, “In affairs so dangerous as war, false ideas proceeding from kindness of heart are precisely the worst…The fact that slaughter is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms.”As a final note on this whole sorry state of affairs — the Swedish parliament passed a law yesterday which orders comprehensive electronic surveillance of all citizens:
Swedish lawmakers voted late on Wednesday in favour of a controversial bill allowing all emails and phone calls to be monitored in the name of national security.This law will make Sweden more totalitarian than even the former Communist dictatorship of East Germany.
super sucks to be unarmed
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/06/poster-boy-for-gang-rape.html#readfurther
The Poster Boy For Gang Rape
by Baron Bodissey
If you live anywhere near Sydney, Australia, the name “Bilal Skaf” is synonymous with “Racist Lebanese Gang Rapist”. Of course, since Mr. Skaf isn’t white, he can’t actually be a racist, but those poor benighted pale-skinned Australians don’t know that.
Mr. Skaf was the ringleader of a gang of Lebanese-Australians who preyed on white teenage girls, and this makes some Australians think that he is a racist who committed hate crimes against white Australians. But organs of the knee-jerk liberal press view the anger directed at Mr. Skaf as the reaction of right-wing extremists who have seized the opportunity to take advantage of uninformed public opinion and generate a backlash against the Lebanese minority, most of whom are innocent and law-abiding, and don’t deserve the enmity generated by the case.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Some background on Bilal Skaf is in order. In a series of trials he was convicted and sentenced for masterminding and participating in several gang-rapes back in 2000. His sentence was reduced on appeal, and then increased again when the convictions for later offenses kicked in.
And now, as if to break new ground in the definition of the word “chutzpah”, Bilal Skaf is protesting that his notoriety as a convicted gang-rapist precludes his ever getting a fair hearing in an Australian court of law:
Convicted rapist Bilal Skaf claims his name is so synonymous with a Sydney gang sex crime he will never be able to get a fair trial.
And the 26-year-old is asking the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal to reduce his sentence, saying his victim — who was held at gunpoint and raped by up to 14 men — suffered no significant harm.
Skaf brought his case before the criminal appeals court for the third time today, asking for his latest conviction to again be quashed or his sentence cut.
He shot to notoriety after receiving a record 55-year sentence following three back-to-back gang rape trials.
In searching for photos of Mr. Skaf to use for this post, I noticed that very few are available. All the news articles I could find used the photo shown at left in the pair below.
As you can see, that particular photo makes Bilal Skaf look like a choirboy — if in fact the Muslim Lebanese-Australian community had any choirboys.- - - - - - - - -
But look at the other photo, the one on the right — which can only be found on various hateful right-wing extremist blogs and other organs of Australian patriotism — in which Mr. Skaf posed holding a handgun with a rifle in his lap. Not quite the same fellow, is he? But the MSM obviously wants its readers to think of him in only one way.Is Mr. Skaf really a (mostly) innocent victim?
Skaf’s barrister Andrew Haesler SC said “unremitting” publicity had etched Skaf into the public imagination, making it impossible to find an impartial jury.
“If an advertiser were trying to achieve a brand name for a gang rapist, Bilal Skaf has achieved this aim. The product for gang rapist in western Sydney is Bilal Skaf,” Mr Haesler said.“(Skaf’s name) has become synonymous with rapes committed by people of the Muslim faith in western Sydney and… with gang attacks on young women.
”Is that an unreasonable situation for Bilal Skaf to find himself in? His crimes have been established by the time-honored English Common Law system of a trial by a jury of his peers, and the testimony of witnesses has been entered into the public record supporting the verdicts against him. Why shouldn’t he be the poster boy for racist Lebanese gang rape in Australia?
What other fate would be more suitable?
The poster boy helped earn his reputation by telling one of his victims, “You deserve it because you’re an Australian”.
That is: “Because you’re white, grew up speaking English, and accept the Anglo-Saxon norms of Australia, I am justified in treating you in the most bestial fashion.”
Bilal Skaf didn’t pluck this attitude out of the air. He was able to think this way, to plan his crimes and carry them out, because at least a significant subset of the Lebanese community in Australia shares it with him.
Yet many people, particularly those in positions of civil authority in the Anglosphere, prefer to deny this fact, minimize it, or ignore it.
But not everybody is turning away from the uncomfortable truth. At Mr. Skaf’s sentencing, the judge had this to say:
The offender was the leader of a brutal gang of rapists who, on three occasions, raped four young women. His activity and those of his gang spread terror in Sydney in August 2000 just before the commencement of the Olympic Games.
The activities of the gang were organised by the use of mobile phones, and there was a considerable degree of planning and coordination involved in each set of attacks. As is common with rapists, the gang members treated each of their victims with callous indifference and considerable cruelty.
The courts must attempt to protect society from the possibility that those who have been caught will engage in this type of activity again.[…]
What this trial showed was that [Bilal Skaf] was the leader of the pack, a liar, a bully, a coward, callous and mean.He is, in truth, a menace to any civilised society.
These crimes are very serious crimes. Sexual intercourse without consent is always a serious crime.[…]
As I have earlier remarked these crimes were carefully planned and coordinated. The degree of planning and coordination distinguishes these crimes from other cases of gang rape which have been reported from time to time, which are often, if not usually, perpetrated by intoxicated men who have seized an opportunity which has been presented to them.
None of these crimes happened on the spur of the moment. None of the assailants was in any way affected by alcohol or drugs. In my opinion, the evidence of the three trials establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the offender was the leader of the gang on all occasions and must be regarded as the worst of all offenders. He is a menace to society. He has declined to give any explanation of the reasons for these attacks and refuses to express any remorse or contrition.
The alarming trend is not the heinous rapes themselves — although they are alarming enough — but the desire of the Western elites to pretend that they are something else, that they are ordinary crimes committed by high-spirited, rowdy, or misguided “youths”.
The Sydney gang-rapes — like those in Sweden, Britain, Belgium, France, and elsewhere — are a civilizational attack. We, the people of the West, are perceived as a culture on the way out, a spent scene.The rapist asserts the dominance of himself and those who are most like him. Any passive acquiescence to the crime makes it all the more likely that it will recur.
Bilal Skaf deserves to be the poster boy for gang rapes in Australia. Let’s continue to keep him in mind.
The Poster Boy For Gang Rape
by Baron Bodissey
If you live anywhere near Sydney, Australia, the name “Bilal Skaf” is synonymous with “Racist Lebanese Gang Rapist”. Of course, since Mr. Skaf isn’t white, he can’t actually be a racist, but those poor benighted pale-skinned Australians don’t know that.
Mr. Skaf was the ringleader of a gang of Lebanese-Australians who preyed on white teenage girls, and this makes some Australians think that he is a racist who committed hate crimes against white Australians. But organs of the knee-jerk liberal press view the anger directed at Mr. Skaf as the reaction of right-wing extremists who have seized the opportunity to take advantage of uninformed public opinion and generate a backlash against the Lebanese minority, most of whom are innocent and law-abiding, and don’t deserve the enmity generated by the case.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Some background on Bilal Skaf is in order. In a series of trials he was convicted and sentenced for masterminding and participating in several gang-rapes back in 2000. His sentence was reduced on appeal, and then increased again when the convictions for later offenses kicked in.
And now, as if to break new ground in the definition of the word “chutzpah”, Bilal Skaf is protesting that his notoriety as a convicted gang-rapist precludes his ever getting a fair hearing in an Australian court of law:
Convicted rapist Bilal Skaf claims his name is so synonymous with a Sydney gang sex crime he will never be able to get a fair trial.
And the 26-year-old is asking the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal to reduce his sentence, saying his victim — who was held at gunpoint and raped by up to 14 men — suffered no significant harm.
Skaf brought his case before the criminal appeals court for the third time today, asking for his latest conviction to again be quashed or his sentence cut.
He shot to notoriety after receiving a record 55-year sentence following three back-to-back gang rape trials.
In searching for photos of Mr. Skaf to use for this post, I noticed that very few are available. All the news articles I could find used the photo shown at left in the pair below.
As you can see, that particular photo makes Bilal Skaf look like a choirboy — if in fact the Muslim Lebanese-Australian community had any choirboys.- - - - - - - - -
But look at the other photo, the one on the right — which can only be found on various hateful right-wing extremist blogs and other organs of Australian patriotism — in which Mr. Skaf posed holding a handgun with a rifle in his lap. Not quite the same fellow, is he? But the MSM obviously wants its readers to think of him in only one way.Is Mr. Skaf really a (mostly) innocent victim?
Skaf’s barrister Andrew Haesler SC said “unremitting” publicity had etched Skaf into the public imagination, making it impossible to find an impartial jury.
“If an advertiser were trying to achieve a brand name for a gang rapist, Bilal Skaf has achieved this aim. The product for gang rapist in western Sydney is Bilal Skaf,” Mr Haesler said.“(Skaf’s name) has become synonymous with rapes committed by people of the Muslim faith in western Sydney and… with gang attacks on young women.
”Is that an unreasonable situation for Bilal Skaf to find himself in? His crimes have been established by the time-honored English Common Law system of a trial by a jury of his peers, and the testimony of witnesses has been entered into the public record supporting the verdicts against him. Why shouldn’t he be the poster boy for racist Lebanese gang rape in Australia?
What other fate would be more suitable?
The poster boy helped earn his reputation by telling one of his victims, “You deserve it because you’re an Australian”.
That is: “Because you’re white, grew up speaking English, and accept the Anglo-Saxon norms of Australia, I am justified in treating you in the most bestial fashion.”
Bilal Skaf didn’t pluck this attitude out of the air. He was able to think this way, to plan his crimes and carry them out, because at least a significant subset of the Lebanese community in Australia shares it with him.
Yet many people, particularly those in positions of civil authority in the Anglosphere, prefer to deny this fact, minimize it, or ignore it.
But not everybody is turning away from the uncomfortable truth. At Mr. Skaf’s sentencing, the judge had this to say:
The offender was the leader of a brutal gang of rapists who, on three occasions, raped four young women. His activity and those of his gang spread terror in Sydney in August 2000 just before the commencement of the Olympic Games.
The activities of the gang were organised by the use of mobile phones, and there was a considerable degree of planning and coordination involved in each set of attacks. As is common with rapists, the gang members treated each of their victims with callous indifference and considerable cruelty.
The courts must attempt to protect society from the possibility that those who have been caught will engage in this type of activity again.[…]
What this trial showed was that [Bilal Skaf] was the leader of the pack, a liar, a bully, a coward, callous and mean.He is, in truth, a menace to any civilised society.
These crimes are very serious crimes. Sexual intercourse without consent is always a serious crime.[…]
As I have earlier remarked these crimes were carefully planned and coordinated. The degree of planning and coordination distinguishes these crimes from other cases of gang rape which have been reported from time to time, which are often, if not usually, perpetrated by intoxicated men who have seized an opportunity which has been presented to them.
None of these crimes happened on the spur of the moment. None of the assailants was in any way affected by alcohol or drugs. In my opinion, the evidence of the three trials establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the offender was the leader of the gang on all occasions and must be regarded as the worst of all offenders. He is a menace to society. He has declined to give any explanation of the reasons for these attacks and refuses to express any remorse or contrition.
The alarming trend is not the heinous rapes themselves — although they are alarming enough — but the desire of the Western elites to pretend that they are something else, that they are ordinary crimes committed by high-spirited, rowdy, or misguided “youths”.
The Sydney gang-rapes — like those in Sweden, Britain, Belgium, France, and elsewhere — are a civilizational attack. We, the people of the West, are perceived as a culture on the way out, a spent scene.The rapist asserts the dominance of himself and those who are most like him. Any passive acquiescence to the crime makes it all the more likely that it will recur.
Bilal Skaf deserves to be the poster boy for gang rapes in Australia. Let’s continue to keep him in mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)