Daily Archives: 4 December 2015

“White Debt” ???

To a fellow University of Iowa graduate (from the non-fiction program . . . predictably):

LET MY PEOPLE GO!!!

White people, whom you describe as a “moral problem”, have built modern civilization, dragged the rest of the world out of ignorance poverty and disease (against their will in many cases), suffered germ warfare from Asian invaders, suffered slavery (the Black Sea slave trade numbered 5 million almost half the individuals of the North Atlantic slave trade at a time when the world was much more sparsely populated), ended slavery, invented universal ethics and universal laws, and continue to run the only society in the world that tolerates your parasitism, moral relativism, and anti-social propaganda.

Note: Though I’d love give credit to my Slavic ancestors, the world-improving changes are mostly attributable to Western and Northern Europeans. If Slavs did anything right, it was acting as an enormous meat shield against the invading hordes from the East, and slave traders from Turkey and their agents.

So to hell with your whiny, hypocritical, self-loathing, overly deceptive, cultural Marxist status seeking.

mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/magazine/white-debt.html

San Bernadino (great essay)

—“The New Atheists may have the cleanest conscience today in a sense, but it comes at the price of an amazing lack of historical awareness, empathy or sophistication.”—

—“There is, of course, another way of interpreting our troubles with Islam. Islamic fundamentalism can be seen as a very recent development rooted in colonialism and revolt, a kind of Marxism-Leninism-With-Prayers. If you put it that way, many will respond with greater sympathy; the underdog always gets cut some slack, and progressives’ anti-authoritarianism may find itself weirdly aligned with what is, in my opinion, the most authoritarian belief system ever created. Still, we may assume some responsibility for all of this: had the French never colonized Algeria, it’s unlikely that Franco-Algerians would be gunning down cartoonists in Paris.”—

The last sentence (at least part of it) is awful.

—“There is no place for blood and honor and absolutism in the world that is emerging, and Islam will have to adapt, or die.”—

I’m afraid social norms and property rights have to be enforced the old fashioned way — with blood and honor.

poseidonian.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/san-bernardino/

***

It is related to my post about Run Away Underclasses: www.lostrepublic.com/archives/15907

Yet another study showing the obvious: men are better than women at combat

Marine Corps Study Shows That Men Are FAR Better In Ground Combat Than Women

An experimental Marine Corps study looking at female integration into ground combat units has determined that women perform far worse than men.

The study, called the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force (GCEITF), was conducted with 200 male and 75 female volunteers to provide officials with more information on how females perform in ground combat situations.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter intends to open all combat specialties to women at the start of 2016, unlessthe services specifically request exemptions. Those exemptions have to be backed by detailed evidence and must be submitted by October, Christian Science Monitor reports.

What the study found is that women are about 15 percent less powerful than men, and that in terms of performance on the distribution, “the female top 25th percentile of women overlapped with the bottom 25thpercentile for males.” A lack of power means, for example, that men were able to throw their heavy packs on top of the wall, but females required assistance.

Men had better firearm accuracy, hitting targets 44 percent of the time, in comparison to females, who only scored at 28 percent. Male-only squads were also faster.

According to the study, “All-male squads, teams and crews demonstrated higher performance levels on 69 percent of tasks evaluated … as compared to gender-integrated squads, teams and crews.”

Women also were more likely to suffer injuries, a conclusion backed by research from the British Ministry of Defence, which found that because of physiological differences, women are burdened with musculoskeletal injuries at a rate 10 times higher than men. If a woman has to carry a pack more than 25 percent of her bodyweight, her risk of injury skyrockets by five. (RELATED: Military Services Have Until October 1 To Justify Keeping Women Out Of Combat Roles)

In the GCEITF, the actual injury rate for women, focusing on muscles, tendons and ligaments, was 40.5 percent. Men came in with an injury rate of only 18.8 percent. Despite the results of the GCEITF and the fact that no female volunteers passed the infantry officer course opened earlier this year, it’s unknown whether the findings will be convincing enough to persuade Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who has previously gone on record stating that he does not see a reason for requesting an exemption and that ultimately, it’s his call.

thelibertarianrepublic.com/marine-corps-study-shows-that-men-are-far-better-in-ground-combat-than-women/