Swedish Left Pushing for ‘Skin Color Registry’ to Weed Out Discrimination

The Swedish Left Party has urged the Nordic nation’s Statistics Bureau to start collecting data on citizens’ skin color, ethnicity and religion. The decision to do so was taken at the party congress against the will of the party board, national broadcaster SVT reported.

The motion on “equality data” is designed to eliminate discrimination and bias by identifying the vulnerability of different groups. According to the Left MP Daniel Riazat, one of the masterminds behind the motion, there is no problem whatsoever collecting this sort of data based on the grounds of self-identification and anonymity.

“The most important thing is to have evidence when talking about structural discrimination,” Riazat told SVT, brushing aside the risk of the statistics being misused.

“I’m proud to be an anti-racist speaker in a party that pushes for putting anti-racism in the foreground,” Höj Larsen said, stressing the necessity of highlighting issues such as ethnicity in terms of discrimination.

Incidentally, the very same Left Party vehemently opposes the idea of re-introducing the practice of recording criminals’ ethnicity, which was effectively abandoned in the mid-2000s as “unethical.” Calls to resume “ethnic profiling” started rolling in amid the speculated prevalence of foreign-born citizens in certain crimes, such as sexual assault. According to Riazat, these are completely different debates, despite striking similarities.

“Linking crimes with ethnicity or religion is racism. This debate has been discarded a long time ago,” Riazat explained.

Read the rest of the article at American Renaissance.

California: Mexican Democrat Accused of Running Her Office Like a Mexican Brothel

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
February 19, 2018

Christina Garcia’s only crime was bringing Mexican culture to America

Multiculturalism is ostensibly about mixing other people’s cultures with our culture.

The biggest issue with implementing this plan, however, is that many elements of these cultures we are trying to mix with our own are fundamentally incapable of jiving with the Jewish culture that is promoted as Western culture.

For instance, Mexicans will run everything they are involved in as if it is a sex club.

Typical Mexican government office environment

Because they are like children, and that is considered fun for them. I mean, I’m sure it is fun. However, white people, being adults, tend to try to act like adults in the work place and not turn it into a sex club.

Fox News:

A California Democrat who was featured in Time magazine’s Person of the Year issue for her role in the anti-sexual harassment “#MeToo” movement allegedly urged staffers to play the grade-school classic, “spin the bottle,” after a night of heavy drinking at a fundraiser, Politico reported Sunday.

David John Kernick, 38, who worked in Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia’s office for five months in 2014, filed a formal complaint with the state, claiming that he was dismissed from his job for questioning the game.

Kernick told Politico that they played the game after an evening of heavy drinking. Garcia sat on a floor in a hotel room with about six people that included staff, he told the magazine.

Yeah, I mean – she’s just trying to provoke a staff orgy.

I wonder – have any of the people who promote the Mexicanification of America ever been to Mexico?

Orgies break out in this country after the third drink.

“It was definitely uncomfortable,’’ Kernick said. “But I realized it’s different for a man than for a woman. … You know it’s inappropriate, but at the same time you may wonder, ‘How many women do you work for that act like that?’ You think … ’Maybe she’s just really cool.’’’

It’s uncomfortable for you because you’re a Northern European SQUARE who gets all wigged-out as soon as someone tries to initiate a Mexican-style orgy at an office event.

You know what we call being made uncomfortable by a Mexican-style orgy?

Racism. We call that racism.

I think.

I mean… that seems like it would be racism.

Last week, Garcia was hit with fresh allegations of misconduct in her office, including frequent discussions about sex and alcohol consumption at the Capitol.

The complainants allege that Garcia regularly talked about her sexual activity, including with other members, in front of staff. They also allege Garcia drank alcohol while doing official Assembly business and pressured staff to join her in drinking at the office or at bars.

The allegations came as Garcia is on a leave of absence following news she is being investigated in the groping of a former male legislative staff member in 2014.

Again – where is the surprise here?

She is trying to let loose. She’s fucking the entire staff, then getting drunk at work and telling the staff about the sexual experiences she’s had with the rest of the staff.

Mexican festivities are just warm-ups for the orgy. Again: have none of the people promoting Mexification ever been to Mexico? 

Isn’t this the Mexicanification we were going for?

Or do we just want the shitty parts like gang violence and beheadings?

What exactly is the goal of multiculturalism? 

None of the new complaints involve sexual misconduct, but Gilleon said the former employees considered Garcia’s frequent talk about sex a form sexual harassment.

Racism again.

Nonstop talk about sex is a part of Mexican heritage.

Garcia took a leave of absence Friday after news broke that Daniel Fierro, a former staffer in another office, alleged she rubbed his back, grabbed his buttocks and tried to grab his groin at a legislative softball game in 2014. She denies the claims.

Most people would have found that funny, Daniel.

And even if they were made uncomfortable by it, they would not have been so racist as to bring it up publicly.

We Need to Have a Discussion About Just What the Hell “Multiculturalism” Is – Because I Don’t Think Anyone Knows

If multiculturalism is not allowing foreign cultures to implement their own cultures in our country, then what is it?

What are we actually even talking about here?

Virtually no aspect of Mexican, African, Asian or Islamic culture jives with the Jewish ideal culture of feminism, homosexuality, human rights, etc.

If we wanted true multiculturalism – that is, mixing all cultures of the world together – what we would get is a violent, corrupt, poverty-ridden hyper-sexualized circus.

Blade Runner isn’t even accurate because there is no way a mixed-race society of mostly brown people could ever maintain that level of technology.

You wish.

Blade Runner is what you would get if you had only white people and Asians and had some kind of authoritarian state to enforce atheistic anarcho-consumerism. Even then I think a White/Asian society would come to some kind of natural Techno-Buddha Zeitgeist through artificial intelligence.

But that isn’t the thing.

What we are talking about is all of these different monkey-races coming together to create – to create what?

What the hell are we doing here, people?

Unlike the whackjobs promoting the “multicultural experiment,” I have actually been to all of these countries that these people are calling to have all mixed together, and I am telling you, even if you were able to somehow stop a race war and get all of these people to just seamlessly come together, you would not get anything resembling the stated Jewish vision.

So can someone define exactly what the goal is?

Blood-Sucking Kike Terrorist ((((((Adam Schiff)))))) Says Russians are Behind the Second Amendment!

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
February 19, 2018

If you’ve already accepted that the Russians were behind the election of Donald Trump – via shitposting on social media – then it shouldn’t be a major leap for you to accept that Russians on Twitter are responsible for the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

You see, initially the Founding Fathers said that no one should have guns. Then when they were browsing Groyper accounts on Twitter, they saw some lulzy memes and were like “LMFAOOOOO let’s give everyone guns so they can shoot up schools!”

That is the true factual history that goyim such as Donald Trump and other Nazis don’t want you to know.


“The Russians are very big fans of our Second Amendment,” said Rep. ((((((Adam Schiff)))))) (D-CA) on Friday, during a discussion with MSNBC’s ((((((Andrea Mitchell)))))) as an event hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Washington, DC.

Russians enjoy seeing Americans being murdered, said ((((((Schiff)))))), speaking within the context of Wednesday’s mass murder at a high school in Parkland, Florida.

“They don’t particularly want [a Second Amendment] of their own,” said ((((((Schiff)))))). “They don’t necessarily want lots of Russians running around with lots of guns, but they’re really happy we do. They would like nothing better than if we were shooting each other every day, which sadly, we are.”

Both Mitchell and ((((((Schiff)))))) linked unspecified “Russian interference” in American politics with allegations of “Russian bots” pushing political agitation online with respect to Wednesday’s mass shooting.

The shooter, Nikolas Cruz, was himself Jewish – which shows that not even the chosen ones themselves are immune to the power of Russian shitposting.

Russians actively seek to undermine “gun safety legislation,” alleged ((((((Schiff)))))), saying, “Looking at the Russian use of this horrible shooting in Florida, they would often combine pro-gun-control hashtags with anti-gun-control stories that were really designed to ridicule the movement in favor of gun safety legislation.”

Mitchell claimed, without evidence, that “Russian intermediaries” were both involved with and supporting the NRA across the 2016 presidential election cycles. She cited reporting from McClatchy based on anonymous sources alleging the existence of an FBI investigation into the matter. The claim was repeated by news media outlets such as CNNRolling Stone, and the New York Times.

If you are such a stupid goy that it is just dawning on you right now as you hear these interesting words from the chosen one ((((((Adam Schiff)))))) that the entire foundation of the United States is a Putinist conspiracy, then you are likely asking what it is you can do.

Well, the first thing you can do is support a law which makes it so no non-Jews are allowed to serve in the US government. God’s chosen people are the only ones who truly understand the depth of the Russian threat to our freedoms and our democracy, and are the only ones capable of grasping the fact that in order to stop them, we have to remove all of our freedoms.

You see, the Russians want us to have no freedoms, and in order to make that happen, they have to support our freedoms. Don’t worry if you can’t understand that. Only Jews can understand it, because they are superior. Which is why total control must be given to the Jews immediately.

Gun Control is Code for Population Control – What event would have to happen for the United States to have another Civil War or Revolution?

Joe Jones

Daily Stormer
February 19, 2018

If you disarm a population and only arm the agents of the state, you are only allowing the state to do whatever the hell they want without any fear of repercussions.

“Gun control” is just code for population control.

What event would have to happen for the United States to have another Civil War or Revolution?

Okay, it’s a pretty unlikely event, at least in the near future, but we can still have fun trying to come up with a sort-vaguely-plausible scenario.

To really get in the spirit of the question, let’s start with an all-too-possible trigger for a dystopian scenario:  the U.S. slides into another recession, but this time interest rates are already at rock bottom, so the Fed is helpless to prevent deflation.  Spiraling deflation turns the recession into a major depression that drags on for years, rapidly turning the U.S. into a second-rate power.

The level of hostility and ideological rhetoric gripping the country is deep and vicious.  Each party is convinced that the solutions advocated by the other side are exactly the things that are destroying the country.  Each accuses the other of treason.

One party has rigid control of the House and just barely controls the Senate, but not the presidency.  The party in control of the legislature blames all the problems on the president and vice versa.

Congress blocks all presidential initiatives and refuses to fund the government.  The president vetoes what he sees as disastrous crackpot bills and, citing lack of funds and changed circumstances, refuses to enforce old laws that he believes are contributing to the decline.

Stalemate continues, neither side backs down, the U.S. defaults on its debts, the world economy collapses, and all major problems suddenly get much, much worse.  People are starving, riots break out and are bloodily suppressed, Democrats are lynched in red states, and Republicans are hunted down by angry mobs in blue states.

Sensational news stories break, claiming that the president and senior members of his party had met to secretly decide to suspend the constitution and declare martial law during the next Congressional recess.  The House immediately votes to impeach the president, the vice president, and 47 senators from the president’s party on charges of treason.

The Senate, on a simple majority vote, rules that given the clear and present danger of a traitorous coup attempt, the impeached senators and accused traitors are to be be arrested and cannot vote on questions of impeachment or expulsion.  Immediately afterward, a two-thirds majority of the unimpeached senators vote to expel the impeached senators and to convict the president, the vice president, and the 47 senators of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and remove them from office.

The Supreme Court fractures along ideological lines and issues a 4-4-1 split decision invalidating the decision to “suspend” the 47 senators and therefore invalidating the removal of the president and vice president.  However, the Chief Justice chooses to interpret the murky wording of the 1 separate opinion as meaning that the verdict is “advisory” only, and proceeds to swear in the Speaker of the House as president.

The “new president” orders military units to surround the White House and arrest the “old president” and his criminal supporters.  A Virginia National Guard mechanized battalion makes a pre-arranged dash for the White House in an attempt to comply, but several companies of marines are hastily scrambled from the Navy Yard to block its path.  Civilians throwing Molotov cocktails force the armored units to retreat.

Meanwhile, the “old president” declares a state of civil insurrection and orders a battalion of MPs from Fort Meade and several other nearby units to move on Capital Hill in order to arrest the former Speaker and presidential “pretender.”

More units enter the city from all sides.  Pitched battles are fought along Pennsylvania Avenue, around Capitol Hill, and for control of essential bridges and avenues.  Memorial Bridge is destroyed and the Capitol Building and the White House both take severe damage as all the politicians scatter and retreat to their home states.

Both presidents declare martial law and issue a call for obedience and order.  Red and blue states align according to party.  Fighting breaks out as military units refuse to accept orders from “renegade” officials of the opposite faction.

Mutinies occur in many units, and both sides rapidly purge officers and NCOs who refuse to go along with the winning side.  Pitched battles are fought on some military bases as units choose opposite sides.

Aided by Rutgers ROTC units and a hastily organized Loyalist militia from Newark, the New Jersey Guard is one of several state forces that defy orders and arrest their own governors.

The Joint Chiefs hastily declare neutrality and seize control of northern Virgina and most of DC.  Many military units that have avoided partisan clashes take up defensive positions and attempt to impose martial law in their immediate areas, but the old south and many midwestern states quickly declare for the “Patriots.”

Most of the navy stays neutral, but some ships have to put to sea in haste with skeleton crews and deckloads of refugees as southern naval bases are overrun by Patriot militias and National Guard units.

A guerrilla war breaks out in California, where Patriot militias seize large parts of the state in the east, the south, and the central valley.

The Loyalist states of Colorado and New Mexico are invaded by Patriot units from neighboring states seeking to control strategic air and nuclear assets.  Although officially neutral, Air Force units cripple the invading units and force them to retreat.

The Montana National Guard and local Patriot militias overrun and capture numerous missile silos, but not before the determinedly neutral missile crews manage to sabotage all of the ICBMs and the launch equipment.

The Patriot president calls for a cease fire and immediate partition of the country, effectively calling for the expulsion of the Loyalist states.  A low-yield nuclear explosion is detected in Kansas where Patriot delegates are gathered for a constitutional convention.

The disintegration continues.


Okay, I could go on, but you can see where this is going.

The point is that one of the flaws in our constitutional system – and a crucial flaw in the “it couldn’t happen here” argument – is that each house of congress has the sole, unchecked, and arbitrary authority to determine its own rules.  If one party controls both houses, it is then possible to use those rules and the impeachment powers to expel any sitting members of either house, making a legislative coup d’etat an ever-tempting prospect in times of deep ideological division.

All it takes is belief that the other side is completely evil.  Then any good pretext will do.

Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution provides that “Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.”

Debunking The Noble Savage Myth: Hunter-Gathers Were Not Pacifists Or Egalitarians

by Brett Stevens on February 19, 2018

The Left lies effectively because they use an echo effect. The big papers say the same things, so do the hip blogs and lifestyle magazines, and then when you type in an internet search, all of the results say that same thing because it is popular and therefore it is assumed that this is what you want.

This causes your average person to take a casual look at any topic, see nothing but Leftist propaganda, and assume not only that it is all true, but that to parrot it would make them look enlightened and wise. This happens because Leftist propaganda is based on ironism, or life not being as it appears by common sense to be.

That enables Leftists to have secrets that you do not know. You think the world is logical; well, try again! They have some “revolutionary” new theory about how down is up and up is down, and since you do not know it, you are less than they are.

Such is the case with Leftist propaganda about hunter-gatherers, who the Left insists were both peaceful and egalitarian. These notions comprise part of the “noble savage” myth which states that whatever the first world did to succeed is actually bad because primitive peoples were more “enlightened” than us.

The noble savage myth stabs back at the obvious reality, which is that primitive cultures are in fact savage and unpleasant, and that we in the West rose above that through principles of civilization, duty, and pursuit of actions that complemented what we saw as a natural order and human hierarchy innate to existence.

For this reason, as soon as they could find someone to claim what they wanted to hear, Leftists of all stripes went to work out there repeating the lies and shouting down anyone who noticed otherwise. Witness the germ of the propaganda:

During the twentieth century, anthropologists discovered and studied dozens of different hunter-gatherer societies, in various remote parts of the world, who had been nearly untouched by modern influences. Wherever they were found–in Africa, Asia, South America, or elsewhere; in deserts or in jungles–these societies had many characteristics in common. The people lived in small bands, of about 20 to 50 persons (including children) per band, who moved from camp to camp within a relatively circumscribed area to follow the available game and edible vegetation. The people had friends and relatives in neighboring bands and maintained peaceful relationships with neighboring bands. Warfare was unknown to most of these societies, and where it was known it was the result of interactions with warlike groups of people who were not hunter-gatherers. In each of these societies, the dominant cultural ethos was one that emphasized individual autonomy, non-directive childrearing methods, nonviolence, sharing, cooperation, and consensual decision-making. Their core value, which underlay all of the rest, was that of the equality of individuals.

We citizens of a modern democracy claim to believe in equality, but our sense of equality is not even close that of hunter-gatherers. The hunter-gatherer version of equality meant that each person was equally entitled to food, regardless of his or her ability to find or capture it; so food was shared. It meant that nobody had more wealth than anyone else; so all material goods were shared. It meant that nobody had the right to tell others what to do; so each person made his or her own decisions. It meant that even parents didn’t have the right to order their children around; hence the non-directive childrearing methods that I have discussed in previous posts. It meant that group decisions had to be made by consensus; hence no boss, “big man,” or chief.

If just one anthropologist had reported all this, we might assume that he or she was a starry-eyed romantic who was seeing things that weren’t really there, or was a liar. But many anthropologists, of all political stripes, regarding many different hunter-gatherer cultures, have told the same general story.

…When you read about “warlike primitive tribes,” or about indigenous people who held slaves, or about tribal cultures with gross inequalities between men and women, you are not reading about band hunter-gatherers.

There at the very end you can see the sleight-of-hand: we go from talking about all hunter-gatherers to talking about a specific variety, “band hunter-gatherers,” so that the Leftist talking can extrapolate from one subtype to the whole group.

That is like saying that all white people like deep dish pizza because white people in Chicago like it. He follows this with a lengthy explanation of how hunter-gatherers were not like those primitive Amazon tribes who actually cultivate food, because as soon you engage in agriculture, you are no longer fully egalitarian.

We hear that riff a lot, too. Hunter-gatherers are peaceful but the people who bothered to create civilization, they were the baddies because… they were unequal. Now we are following up an assumption — that all hunter-gatherers are band hunter-gatherers, and that those are peaceful and egalitarian — with another, which is that inequality is the cause of violence.

This is “science,” remember, where you can make all sorts of wide-eyed assumptions that would never be accepted in a halfway decent humanities program because your fellow “scientists” do not understand critical thinking and probably lack the brains to do it. They are ignorant of philosophy, literature, and other disciplines that require not only balancing multiple variables, but dealing with a great amount of ambiguity, which apparently is too much for their tiny little brains. This is why STEM departments churn out robots and English departments graduate a few people of clear thought each year, in addition to the memorization drones that blight every level of education.

That “inequality means violence, so equality means peace” riff comes straight out of the 1960s playbook. People love the idea of pacifism, especially women, because they just want to be accepted for being human, and to stop struggling to do what is right instead of simply participating. It is an understandable desire, but also bad thinking.

Coming on the heels of the previous Leftist nonsense which decided that not only were hunter-gatherers peaceful, but that they were early socialists, now you can read about how poverty kept them from experiencing inequality:

The researchers believe sexual segregation and male dominance in most cultures appeared following the advent of agriculture, as more resources became available.

“There is still this wider perception that hunter-gatherers are more macho or male-dominated. We’d argue it was only with the emergence of agriculture, when people could start to accumulate resources, that inequality emerged,” Mark Dyble, an anthropologist who led the study at University College London.

“Sexual equality is one of a important suite of changes to social organisation, including things like pair-bonding, our big, social brains, and language, that distinguishes humans,” he said. “It’s an important one that hasn’t really been highlighted before.”

…Only when more resources became available, did sexual inequality emerge according to their hypothesis published in Science. This may quite be the case, if we’re to judge from how these sort of people live. Women are involved both in collecting honey and hunting, albeit not as much as men, but at the end of the day, despite there’s a division of labor, the calories each sex brings to the table is fairly equal.

Not only were they socialists, but feminists, too! If you were not aware before that you were reading propaganda, there are enough red flags in this article to make even the most credulous Soviet pause and look covertly over his shoulder. As the old joke goes, in the USSR, you may not be interested in government… but government is interested in you!

Brushing that aside, we can look at their thesis: when people are impoverished, food is divided equally and women contribute as well as men. As with all types of middle class nitwittery, there is a bigotry against wealth among the audience for this piece, and so the authors played up to it.

Yet we should consider what it means for a group to be impoverished. If they are impoverished, they do not have enough for non-contributors, so “share equally” means “share among the contributors” because the group is on perpetual desperation rations. They are all dependent on each other not through cooperation, but because of the fact that their efforts to gain calories are failing. There are no artists, thinkers, composers, or intellectuals being subsidized by the egalitarian hunter-gatherer non-state here. There are only people grabbing whatever they can and dividing up the meager hoard roughly equally because the tribe is so close to starving that they need as many able bodies out there as possible hunting and gathering.

What this means is that the tribe had the same approach before wealth as they do after it. When there is little food, everyone gets a tiny bit, but when there is more food, those who contribute more, get more. Why? Mainly because when there is not much food, people are actually near death, so if you need ’em you feed ’em.

Now that we have use logical analysis to point out where these Leftist assumptions are wrong, let us look at the science of how hunter-gatherers were neither egalitarian nor peaceful which somehow just slipped the minds of all those Leftists busily typing their fawning articles in praise of impoverished socialism:

The hunter-gatherers of East Africa and the Kalahari were unrepresentative in the sense that before the advent and spread of agriculture, hunter-gatherers inhabited not only marginal land that agricultural and pastoralist societies were unable to use and did not want, as they do today, but also mainly lived in the world’s most fertile environments.

…However, after the initial spate of enthusiasm for the peaceful children of the earth, their chief researcher, the Rousseauan Richard Lee,[3, 4] discovered that before the imposition of state authority, these people had more than four times the 1990 homicide rate in the United States, which was by far the highest in the developed world. Similarly, in titles such as Never in Anger, the Inuit of mid-Arctic Canada, one of the sparsest populations on earth, were celebrated as being peaceful.[5] However, it was later revealed that their rate of violent mortality was ten times higher than the United States’ 1990 rate.[6]:145,7

…The tribal-zone theory’s brief moment ended in 1996 with the publication of Lawrence Keeley’s War before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage.[27] Other wide-ranging studies of the evidence[28-32] arrived at remarkably similar conclusions. They all found that there was widespread violence and warfare among both hunter-gatherers and prestate horticulturalists, which resulted in rates of violent death as high as 25% of adult males and 15% of the adult population. Pinker has drawn wide public attention to these finds.[33]

there was widespread violence and warfare among both hunter-gatherers and prestate horticulturalists, which resulted in rates of violent death as high as 25% of adult males and 15% of the adult population

A similar reversal was almost simultaneously taking place with respect to animal violence. Konrad Lorenz’s claim in the 1960s[34] that fighting between animals of the same species is mostly “ritualistic” and mainly involves display has been refuted by field studies that have found high rates of intraspecific killing throughout nature. This is also true of our closest cousins, the chimpanzees, among which intragroup killing, as well as in intergroup fighting and killing to the point of group extermination have been documented.[35-40]

Now we have left ironism behind: things are as common sense would dictate, especially since there is a contiguous pattern demonstrated in animal societies. Primitive tribes were constantly at war, and this did not change when they adopted agriculture and became wealthy, nor were they egalitarian, mainly because they were constantly killing each other, possibly to remove free riders.

The Leftist mythos tells us that when everyone was equally starving, they all worked together in perfect harmony and had no sense of “individualism” or “ego” that made some want to rise above others and have more. They had empathy and that is why they all decided to starve together.

A more sensible retelling looks at modern human behavior: a bunch of slackers gathered together and decided to ostracize or kill anyone who raised the standard above doing a minimal amount of labor. Farming and organized hunts take more effort, so the slacker solution was to scrape up whatever they could and share it so that the group was unified against anyone who might implement social order, organization, agriculture, and — uh oh — hierarchy.

Interestingly, the more effective hunter-gatherer groups were not egalitarian at all:

Kodiak’s Alutiiq and their neighbors, the Eastern Aleutian (Fox) islanders as well as several Northwest Coast “tribes,” such as the Tlingit, shared characteristics such as intertribal warfare, prestige economies including long distance trade in prestige valuables, institutionalized social inequality (social ranking), and slavery. Like these other neighboring groups, Kodiak’s inhabitants subsisted on a mix of fish, sea mammals, shellfish, birds, and plant products. In the traditional terminology of anthropologists, they were hunter-gatherers, but not typical of hunter-gatherers as they have been best known to ethnographers of the 20th century. These were relatively complex hunter-gatherers.

In other words, if you want an effective civilization, you are going to need social ranking and some way to punish the useless people (namely, by enslaving them). The main difference between “complex hunter-gatherers” and “band hunter-gatherers” is that the former were more intelligent and more effective, while the latter languished in poverty.

If we are to be clear in our terminology, we might refer to complex hunter-gatherers — who refused to adopt agriculture even when they traded with other tribes who used it — as simply successful hunter-gatherers. The core of this success was the inequality caused by direct competition:

Herbert Maschner of Idaho State University argues equally forcefully that warfare and other forms of direct competition on lead to inequality; warfare was endemic, for example, on the Northwest Coast.

Unlike “noble savage” theories, this fits with what we know is true of humans today. When people have nothing, they punish anyone who rises above so that the rest of the group is not challenged to excel. When they reverse this process, and reward those who rise above, they gain complex societies and wealth.

In other words, the Leftists have it backwards: wealth is not the cause of inequality; inequality is the cause of wealth.

For a simple example, imagine a tribe where one man is a better hunter than the rest. When he leads the hunting party, they bring back twice as much meat. If they do not reward him, he will simply slumber in contentment with the rest, since he will be punished for wanting more. If they do reward him, everyone eats better, but a natural and inevitable hierarchy will emerge.

Have some more Leftist insanity from someone who argues that social stratification leads us to treat others as objects:

At the same time the stronger sense of ego created a fundamental lack of empathy between human beings. They became more ‘walled off’ to one another, and as a result it became much more difficult for them to empathise with others and to ‘feel with’ them. The individual’s own ego-generated needs and desires began to take precedence over the well-being of others. Other human beings become mere objects, which the individual feels he is entitled to actually use to help satisfy his desires. As a result the brutal oppression and exploitation which is always a feature of stratified societies became possible. The nobles and landowners of feudal societies were so ‘walled off’ within their own psyche – and consequently had such limited ‘fellow-feeling’ – that they did not consider their serfs or peasants to be human beings.

Let us turn this around: the competent see the incompetent as a threat because the incompetent, being unaware of their incompetence, will seize power if given a chance and revert society to band hunter-gatherer levels of poverty, disorganization, and filth.

In this view, hierarchy arose not from the ego, but from practical concerns about competence. The ego may have followed that, but generally, those of less ability seem more egotistical, so that too could be wrong. And the grim fact is that with specialization of labor, people are “using” each other anyway.

When we view this question from the right side around, we see that hunter-gatherers were forced to select a hierarchy based on ability in hunting and war, and may in fact have been more hierarchical because higher population pressure than agrarian societies:

Constant warfare was necessary to keep population density down to one person per square mile. Farmers can live at 100 times that density. Hunter-gatherers may have been so lithe and healthy because the weak were dead. The invention of agriculture and the advent of settled society merely swapped high mortality for high morbidity, allowing people some relief from chronic warfare so they could at least grind out an existence, rather than being ground out of existence altogether.

All of this suggests that, as usual, Leftists have inverted the debate over hunter-gatherers. First they made certain ideas taboo, and then removed them in order to keep an ideological mythos — Rousseauian “noble savages” — from imploding from its own inner contradictions.

That creates a false narrative of hunter-gatherers as early Communists, feminists, and pacifists, when in fact the exact opposite was true. Even more, the Left may have poisoned so much of the narrative that we do not see the likely possibility that “band hunter-gatherers” were a later invention, produced in response to agriculture:

Ethnographically described foragers may be a biased sample that only continued to exist because they occupied marginal habitats less coveted by agricultural people.3 In addition, many foragers have been greatly influenced by their association with more powerful agricultural societies.4 It has even been suggested that Holocene foragers represent a new niche that appeared only with the climatic changes and faunal depletion at the end of the last major glaciation.5

In other words, “band hunter-gatherers” were those driven out of agriculture society by an inability to compete, and their “egalitarianism” may actually reflect a lack of motivation to do more than the minimum. Their ways are far from peaceful, and their nonexistent social order guarantees constant instability.

Our ancestors most likely were “complex hunter-gatherers” who had strong social hierarchy based on ability, allowed the weak to perish, and went after larger animals instead of bush meat, which fit with their higher IQs and general ability, and this was the group that transitioned to farming.

Or, the Left gets it exactly one hundred and eighty degrees wrong, again.


RussiaGate Narrative Collapses In Wave Of Incompetence

by Brett Stevens on February 19, 2018

The Left resembles an alcoholic looking for reasons to drink. Personal tragedy? Phase of the moon? Good for the heart? Oh wait, it’s Washington’s Birthday. Good enough: that will work. In the same way, the Left has decided Trump must go and has been searching for any plausible scrap of justification for that pathological obsession.

At first, they questioned the election results. When it turned out that illegal aliens had voted, they backed off of that one right quick. Then, they questioned his sanity. They accused him of profiting from his office. They claimed his associates were corrupt. And then, they hit on the golden ticket: Russia.

All that was required, the Left reasoned, was to prove that Russia interfered in the election, that it benefited Trump, and that he or his representatives had met with someone from Russia. There! They could make the connections for the voters at least, and bring down the monster. It should be so easy.

The Left set up a handy little system to do this. They took over the investigation of Trump from the NeverTrump GOP, and began a process where they investigated Trump, found dubious data, used that to get warrants, and used those warrants to try to get more substantive data but ended up with more scurrilous conspiracy thinking.

They got their media fodder out of this, which is what they really wanted: a news story every few days about the latest outrage, which keeps their base — who are united by their fears and angers more than desire to create — on their toes and ready to act.

Out of that they produced RussiaGate, or the idea that Russians had intervened in our election on behalf of Donald Trump. As it turned out, Russians had intervened, but it was for their own ends, not Trump. Russian trolls were attempting to destabilize America rather than intervene on Trump’s behalf:

On one day, Nov. 12, 2016, the defendants organized a rally in New York to “show your support for President-elect Donald Trump” while at the same time organizing a “Trump is NOT my president rally” that also was held in New York.

Their goal was straight out of the book of Loki: sew discord in order to weaken America. We should be familiar with this one, since Soviet agents played both sides in the 1960s also, hoping for a clash between Black Panthers, the John Birch society, and “useful idiots” of the Leftist persuasion.

When a foreign power is playing both sides of a debate, it does not mean that they support any side; they just want to cause chaos and discontent because internal division weakens a nation. America’s diversity already divides it internally, so adding a little aggravation to those groups could cause this superpower to stall or fail.

As it turns out, this was not a grand plan because like the Russian interventions of the past seventy years, it had little hope of doing more than garnering a footnote. The small operation was mostly a non-story until the Left in the US picked it up:

Another is that, combining the 37-page indictment with testimony from social media executives before congressional intelligence committees — and there isn’t much in the indictment that the intel committees didn’t already know — the Russian operation, while warranting serious U.S. punishment, emerges as a small, poorly funded operation with a level of effectiveness that is impossible to measure but could be near zero.

The Russia operation has been discussed almost exclusively in terms of Donald Trump, but it did not start out that way. According to the indictment, it began in May 2014 with “the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016.”

In other words, this is a non-story because the collusion element is not there. Trump did not solicit help from the Russians; they did not help him, specifically, but tried to use his campaign to weaken America. They played both sides and probably posted pro-Hillary propaganda as well.

The bigger story here is that American voters are able to be fooled by this nonsense. Foreign powers intervene in our elections all the time, and while we try to fight it back, generally their attempts come to nought, sort of like the propaganda they spew into our newspapers through interviews and press releases.

But the Left, like that alcoholic, needs a reason to drink, or at least to bash Trump. This creates a bonanza situation where any person who comes up with a reason to un-elect Trump will be able to run away with a pot of gold sort of like ((((((Jill Stein)))))) after her attempt at a runoff. It all comes down to self-interest, after all.