A good one from Frost.
I certainly don't agree with everything Frost writes, and his blog list looks like the bottom-of-the barrel scraping of some of the worst HBD sites, but he sometimes produces quality material.
In recent years, biologists have increasingly recognized that evolutionary change can occur rapidly when natural selection is strong; thus, real-time studies of evolution can be used to test classic evolutionary hypotheses directly. One such hypothesis is that negative interactions between closely related species can drive phenotypic divergence. Such divergence is thought to be ubiquitous, though well-documented cases are surprisingly rare. On small islands in Florida, we found that the lizard Anolis carolinensis moved to higher perches following invasion by Anolis sagrei and, in response, adaptively evolved larger toepads after only 20 generations. These results illustrate that interspecific interactions between closely related species can drive evolutionary change on observable time scales.
Posted October 27, 2014 at 11:54 pm ‘Fess up Greg: how many comments, good-natured in the singular but desperate in the collective, have you had to reject for reasons quite different from the usual trolling?
Posted October 28, 2014 at 3:47 am
That’s why I added the P.S.: Lana is happily married.
The Stupid Party. The only party in history that seems to hate its own voters.
Every inch of advance was a concrete step forward toward the goal of an earth inhabited entirely by tall, blond, genetically purebred supermen totally free from even the possibility of racial contamination.
Notice that Adelstein doesn’t object to actual crimes. He simply wants to criminalize speech—particularly if it involves . This fight is international, whether it involves , , or the It’s not just about a anymore. It’s about a war on all peoples who want control over their own destiny—and who think that citizens should decide their own fate, not and their lackeys.
Another blow to pro-immigration arguments.
Longer lives and fertility far below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman are leading to rapid population aging in many countries. Many observers are concerned that aging will adversely affect public finances and standards of living. Analysis of newly available National Transfer Accounts data for 40 countries shows that fertility well above replacement would typically be most beneficial for government budgets. However, fertility near replacement would be most beneficial for standards of living when the analysis includes the effects of age structure on families as well as governments. And fertility below replacement would maximize per capita consumption when the cost of providing capital for a growing labor force is taken into account. Although low fertility will indeed challenge government programs and very low fertility undermines living standards, we find that moderately low fertility and population decline favor the broader material standard of living.
Greg JohnsonPosted October 9, 2014 at 4:31 pmPermalink
If you are a part of a front group, you are in a hostile work environment, etc. then dissimulation is fine. And, on non-essential political principles, it is acceptable to choose them based on electability, regardless of one’s real preferences, e.g., in the UK, I would be for the existing healthcare system, because it is popular. In the US, I would be for private healthcare, because that is more popular, even though I would prefer socialized medicine.
But if you are a political party working to stop the demographic displacement of our people, then you come out with denials of “racism” and love of immigrants, because they add diversity (“Salt in the soup,” to quote the loathsome Nick Griffin), then you have crossed the line into mainstreaming betrayal. You can’t lie about your first principles.
Why? Well, aside from the dishonor (and why would we want to be led by people with no sense of honor?), (1) it repels your most principled and committed and honest followers and replaces them with the cynical and the muddleheaded, (2) it destroys the reasons why someone would vote for you in the first place; why would anyone vote for you as opposed to all the other immigrant loving, non-racist political parties? and (3) such dissimulation never fools our enemies; in fact, it only fools our own people; do we really want to join in the voices who are to lying our people in order to herd them to oblivion? Or do we want to wake them up?
One purpose of vanguardist intellectuals is to constantly monitor politicians and keep them from betraying us on fundamental principles.
The insanity of our immigration rules means that a second-generation Briton wanting to bring granny over for a wedding—still less if they want to get married to someone from abroad themselves—will face huge difficulties, yet they will see an open door to immigration to anyone from the European Union. [Applause.]
Now does anyone, left or right, genuinely support an immigration system where we turn away the best and brightest from our Commonwealth, people with links and family here, in order to make room for unskilled immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. [Applause.]
Jmorphy88Posted September 30, 2014 at 9:39 pmPermalinkI am profoundly disappointed with the lack of support from Jobbik. The way the MP pathetically bowed out of the conference, citing those eeee-vil “U.S. racists”, is an embarrassment to anything that could be called right-wing. It’s time to break with these people once and for all. What a bunch of rotten bastards.