The Only Good Baby Killer is a Dead Baby Killer

That includes the baby-killer-in-chief.

Doctor who performed abortions shot to death

President Obama said this afternoon that he was “shocked and outraged” by the killing of abortion doctor George Tiller, who was shot while attending church in east Wichita.

“Hate Speech” and “Conspiracy Theory”

I guess I should take it as a compliment. Blog Talk Radio banned my show the Confederate Underground because it’s run by a bunch of evil liberal who call any speech that isn’t of a leftist nature “hate speech,” and who call any speech that isn’t of a neo-conservative nature “conspiracy theory.” Nor are they willing to explain what they mean by these terms, or what about your speech they consider “hate speech” or “conspiracy theory.” Blog Talk Radio is evil, as are the people who run it. These are the titles of the shows I gave:

feticide contraception and abortion

social skills

the war for southern independence

intelligence character and race

modern history and leftism

my thoughts on god

observations

Update: Latest Obamanation: Some Fallen-Catholic Leftist Puerto Rican Diva Who Ain’t that Bright Nomitated for Supreme Court

So, according to Obongo, out of all the Europic male judges from sea to shining sea, some Puerto Rican woman is smarter and wiser than all of them? Then again, he wouldn’t be playing president if he were (fully) Europic. Obongo’s entire career was founded on affirmative blacktion. Surely he seeks to perpetuate the myth that all the races are equal. So when choosing the best subjectivist, baby-killing, feminist, affirmative-action, socialist, he went with someone who’s not only not White, but not a man. Even better.

Even some in the liberal ranks don’t think she can hack it. Here’s an excerpt from the New Republic:

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.” (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, “Will you please stop talking and let them talk?”) Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview withThe New York Times: “She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media.”

Update: To be sure, Sotomayor’s views on abortion rights are unknown. But liberals who have no children tend to side towards the evil end of the feticide debate.

It’s the Philosophy, Stupid

I’m the only one who gets it.

Alex Jones blames this on the “New World Order,” and specifically “bankers.” Jew-haters blame it on everyone with a Jewish last name. “Conservatives” blame it on the “liberals.” Nobody really gets to the root of it like me.

The root of the cultural malady that befalls us is that we live in a cultural Dark Ages fueled by fallen Jews and fallen Catholics. The “falling” of the Jews and Catholics took place during the period known as the “Enlightenment,” or thereabouts. 

We can debate whether fallen Jews or fallen Catholics bear greater responsibility for the foolishness and evil that surrounds us today. The schism between the Catholics and Protestants was perhaps more meaningful at a chronological/temporal level, for it preceded and laid the groundwork for the falling of the Jews out of Judaism, and the ability of the fallen Jews to damage Western culture. But we can argue that the fallen Jews have been the predominant force behind the world’s problems at a physical/spacial level. 

But why did man fall, whether Catholic or Jewish? Because these religions are not perfect. Thus, they are not invincible. They are subject to collapse, as man’s mind seeks greater knowledge than that which those religions can provide. The only reliably solid philosophy is the Philosophy of Life*. That is the ultimate answer to our deepest questions, and solution to our greatest problems.

Both Judaism and Christianity are lacking, and that is what is ultimately responsible for today’s mayhem. If these were perfect and complete philosophies, then one of them would have succeeded by now. 90% of would-be (orthodox) Jews would still be Jewish, and 90% of would-be (orthodox) Catholics would still be Catholic. Instead, the world is fallen. 

To be sure, it will take a very long time for the Philosophy to gain a status of political relevance. But its rise is inevitable – even more so than the rise of the South. The rise of the South is wishful thought. May the South rise and never fall again. But the rise of the Philosophy is ordained by God.  

*Coming soon.

Alex Jones has a Good View of Israel/Zionist Lobby

What to Tell an Evil Liberal

Evil liberals are not open for debate, so once you establish that someone is a liberal in the course of a conversation, give them a one-liner. The best one-liner to give a liberal is this: 

You liberals steal my liberty and my property, and that is a crime punishable by death. 

Commit it to memory, and say it liberally.

Negroes being Negroes

A deranged negro commits a senseless act of violence. Again. This time, the negro punches an elderly blind woman in the face. White men come to her rescue and restrain the monster. Of course, I would’ve “dropped” the monster.

The cost of their presence, whether from affirmative black-tion, incompetence, violence, or evil voting practices, far outweighs their benefit. They should’ve been shipped back to Africa immediately after the cessation of slavery. Better yet, they should’ve never been brought here.

Of course, racial separation – which happens naturally in a free society – would have to happen at a local level before it happens at the national level. We need to recover our liberty, and the freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and, more important, guaranteed by God.

Until that happens, the hits just keep on coming. Literally.

Comment on Commentary Article

The following comment was posted by me under an article at Commentary Magazine:

As a practicing Jew, unlike the Zionist war mongers at Commentary, I see no more reason to “investigate” the Jew-hatred of Ron Paul as I would investigate the Jew-hatred of John Pohoretz. In fact, let’s do that. Let’s write an article about the potential anti-semitism of John Podhortz? Why? Because Zionism and Judaism are two different things, and, like oil and vinegar, they don’t mix.

Zionism is not simply the desire for a Jewish state, nor is it simply the desire for a Jewish state on the land of Israel. Rather, it is a secular obsession with and worship of the ZIONIST state. Ask yourself this: does the “Jewish” state actually go by Jewish law? Of course not. It is not a JEWISH state. It is a ZIONIST state.

There is no greater threat to the Jews of the world than these Zionist war-mongers at Commentary, and the Israel lobby in general, for they seek to undermine what is in America’s self-interest in favor of what is in the self-interest of the Zionist state. These fools besmirch the otherwise good name of the Jews by dragging gentile nations into wars for the Zionist state, like this useless war in Iraq. And because they are technically “Jews” according to Jewish law, and because these sick secularists like to hide behind the good name of the Jews by calling themselves “Jews,” they drag the otherwise good name of the Jewish people in the mud.

I am a supporter of Ron Paul, and I say that those who seek to hoodwink Americans into fighting wars for Israel are the REAL Jew-haters, because they do not practice and study the Jewish faith that prohibits the secular Zionist movement a.k.a. neo-conservatism. He is not anti-Semitic; the Zionists are anti-Semitic! Whereas Ron Paul supports life and liberty for all human beings, the Zionists/neo-conservatives support continued enslavement under big government, and continued entanglements in unnecessary and destructive wars.

Carla Bruni Makes a Fool of Herself

An air-headed model and wife of the Prime Minister of France – another air-head – opens her arrogant mouth and bashes the Pope. Surprise surprise. Among other things:

“I think the Church should evolve on this issue. It presents the condom as a contraceptive which, incidentally, it forbids, although it is the only existing protection,” she told Femme Actuelle, the women’s magazine.

No, it’s not the only existing protection, confused woman. The other is called “abstinence.” Look it up in your French/English dictionary. 

Like Nanci Pelosi, yet another fallen Catholic who deserves to be Pope-slapped.

Abort Obongo

Do I really need to say it? Is it not obvious how much of an Obomanation this is?

The fact that I live in a world choc full o’ nuts does not bear repeating. 

Abortion clouds Obama event at Notre Dame

Why It Is Good to take Breaks While Learning

It is good to take breaks while learning because when you take a break, and when you return to the material, you need to retrieve the data that you stored on the material, and it is that retrieval that serves as a better learning method than mere input of information, though initial input of information is necessary to have information to retrieve. That is also why answering questions is the best way to study for a test. Answering questions requires you to retrieve data that you have stored, and that retrieval does more to help you memorize it than relearning. 

Why? Because when you recall material, you do not merely recall the material; you learn how to recall the material. If you do not have a method by which you recall material, then you will not so easily recall it, as stated in a previous blog entry titled How to Learn.

I Continue to be Surrounded by Evil Idiots Who Need to Learn the Philosophy of Life

This lawyer Rodrigo Rosenberg predicted his own murder on Friday, as you can see in this video. More info’ here. 

People are Perfectly Capable of Evil

This is what happens when “human beings” don’t know the Philosophy of Life. They do, say, and think evil things. You need to know the meaning and purpose of life to be fully human.

My Philosophy of Science Education

Why am I so bored with my science studies? It is extremely boring to me. That is because most of my studies do not consist of learning about anything. They usually consist of formalities that are not educational in any way. This is especially the case with laboratory work. Lab’ reports are not educational. They are extremely boring, because I don’t learn anything from them. The education process should just consist of reading and lectures, and understanding what is read and what is said. Then, after a degree is received and people go to work in the field, they can be an apprentice to a scientist in the lab’ before they do work in the lab’. That is how it should be.

Am I The Only Man in the World Who Isn’t a Pussy?

‘Old South’ frat targeted over Confederate event

Racial insensitivity? That doesn’t make sense. We are sensitive to the fact that you Leftist morons accuse everyone who believes that the South should secede of “racism”, and we don’t care! 

What bothers me most about this is not that Leftards confronted these people who were celebrating Southern heritage, but that they have been buckling under pressure from the Leftards. I would’ve said, “Bring it on, Yankee!”

I Am Not the Only One Who Answers the “Jewish Question” Correctly

JEW-HATERS. Why must they be so stupid? 

Their argument is this. If someone calls himself “Jewish,” or even if someone doesn’t call himself “Jewish” but has a Jewish parent, or even a Jewish grandparent, then that makes him Jewish. 

However, people do not understand that Judaism is a religion. Yes, that’s right. You heard me correctly: Judaism is a religion. It is not a race. You can be any race to be Jewish, and there are Jews of every race. You can even be a negro Jew, as in the case of Ethiopian Jews. 

Furthermore, anyone could convert to Judaism. It’s not easy. But if you really want to do it, you can do it. Just look at any White Jewish person, and there’s an example of a convert, because the White Jew is probably a Khazar whose family converted to Judaism in AD 8-9th Century.

Now you may ask: Why are you stating the obvious? Maybe it’s because the  skulls of Jew-haters are so thick that they are lost on this fact. Indeed, they are, and they are.

The fact that Judaism is a religion, with its own set of belief and practices, and not a race, means that gentiles ought to define someone as Jewish if they actually practice the religion. And here’s another shocker you probably didn’t see coming. One of the easiest ways to tell if someone is Jewish is by asking them if they believe in God BECAUSE JEWS BELIEVE IN GOD. In fact, the concept of God was invented by the Jews. 

And if you really want to determine if someone is Jewish, and not just if someone believes in God, determine if  he follows the Ten Commandments. If he follows the Ten Commandments in accordance with the Pharisaic tradition, at minimum as described by Rav David bar Chaim, then that makes him Jewish enough to be called and considered Jewish. There are other rituals and practices that would make someone “Jewish,” but if they follow the Ten Commandments, then they pass the threshold that separates the Jews from the gentiles. 

Of course, the Jews may not wish to define “Jew” in this way considering that Jewish law defines “Jew” as either someone with a Jewish mother or someone who has converted to Judaism. But here’s the part that Jews and Jew-haters alike don’t get: UNLESS YOU ARE JEWISH, AND OBEY JEWISH LAW, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR YOU TO DEFINE A JEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH JEWISH LAW: AS SOMEONE WHO HAS A JEWISH MOTHER, OR WHO CONVERTED.

Rather, gentiles should define a Jew as someone who practices the Jewish religion. Because gentiles are ignorant of Jewish law, I have offered them an easy way to determine if someone is Jewish or not by using the well-known Ten Commandments as a minimal standard by which to define someone as Jewish. If they do not obey any or all of those Commandments, then they are not Jewish.

Most of whom the Jew-haters call “Jewish” – in fact, virtually 100% of them – are NOT JEWISH, BUT SECULAR.

Fortunately, I am not the only man on the face of the Earth with enough sanity to realize this. There is another man by the name of Lewis Loflin who shares the same philosophy, although it is not as specific and thorough as mine. The following is an excerpt from his website:

I like Burt. He is an actual Jew, that is he believes in God. But Burt is in a trap in that Judaism has been reduced to some pseudo-ethnic group stripped of its religious roots. Thus every atheist, radical Humanist, or Marxist with a Jewish mother is considered a Jew while a devout believer on God and Judaism is rejected for not having a Jewish mother.

Because of the very reasons he states below anti-Semitism is on the rise and is caused by so-called “Jews” that [hate] Western culture, hate Judaism the faith (and often religious Jews as well) [but who] present themselves as Jews. Think of people like Noam Chomsky and George Soros, both bitterly hateful of Judaism and Israel. In my view true Judaism must be connected back to God and Torah and they must renounce those that reject the faith.

The bad news is that far too many people are far too ignorant to realize the difference between a Jew and a non-Jew. They think that just become someone calls himself “Jewish,” then that makes him Jewish. They don’t realize that the reason that some people call themselves Jewish even if they are not Jewish is that THEY WANT TO HIDE BEHIND THE GOOD NAME OF THE REAL JEWS or because THEY WANT TO HOLD ON TO SOME OF JUDAISM, WHILE LETTING GO OF THE REST OF IT. 

Not all pseudo-Jews are bad. But most of them are bad, because most of them do not have the intelligence and fortune to discover the meaning of life to a greater degree than religious Jews. Thus, most people who call themselves Jewish, or who are called Jewish, have philosophical problems, some of which can be destructive for themselves and others. 

The Jew-haters want us to hate everyone who is called Jewish, because 90% of everyone who is called Jewish is fallen and secular and probably Leftist or pseudo-conservative. But there is no need to deal with Jews as a collective body, and lump the evil pseudo-Jews in with the holy paleo-Jews. Rather, it is possible and preferable to treat the “Jews” as you would treat the gentiles, and that is to judge them as individuals. 

Rather than push for the expulsion or internment or murder of anyone and everyone who has a Jewish mother, or who professes to be a Jew, why not just get people to hate tyrants and to love liberty, and to attack those who attack our liberty? Why not just destroy those who wish to strip us of our God-given right to life and liberty? Why go after all who are called “Jewish,” when the real Jews are good people? 

It’s because Christians and atheists – including many who are called “Jews” – have the capacity to hate even the REAL Jews, out of religious intolerance. This ulterior motive muddies the waters of justice, as it leads people to hate all Jews, even though everyone who deserves to be called “Jewish” is virtually 100% likely to be innocent of any legitimate crime, as a result of their good Jewish values. 

Now, is there any problem with expelling people based on race, creed, or ethnicity? Yes, actually there indeed may be times in which we should expel people for this reason. For example, America would be better off without the negroes, and everyone with half a brain knows it. Similarly, Israel would be better off without the Arabs, and everyone with half a brain knows it. But good/real Jews are among the most productive people in the world. I have a saying: 

There is nothing as destructive as a bad Jew, and there is nothing as productive as a good Jew. 

Though there are many “Jews” who are very destructive, it is entirely within their capacity to change their ways at the drop of a hat if they were to learn that it’s not worth being an evil leftist. In the event that certain groups of people should be expelled from the land as a crime  prevention measure, these people should have a genetic predisposition to be criminals or parasites, such as members of inferior races whose lack of intelligence makes it difficult to get their act together.

Say what you will about the “Jews”: there is no disputing that lack of intelligence is not one of their biggest problems. They are the most easily adaptable of all peoples. When Jews came to America with nothing but clothes on their backs, they were able to climb up the corporate ladder in short order. When Jews were prohibited from working in Catholic hospitals because of petty discrimination, they built their own hospitals. In other words, they got their acts together, just like the rest of the White peoples. But negroes have been freed from slavery for over a hundred years – in fact, they arguably had it better under slavery – and they still bitch and moan about how they are oppressed by the White man, and their disproportionately high crime rates are undeniable.

So if any group of people should be expelled from a land as a crime prevention measure, it should be the negroes (Africans) or the mestizos (Mexicans) or the Arabs. But Khazars are the last ones to discriminate against based upon genetic predisposition. It is obvious that simply to demand liberty in the face of tyranny, and to demand wisdom in the face of foolishness, is the best thing to do to prevent crimes committed by any White peoples, whether “Jewish” or non-”Jewish”.

The Douglas Report: Real Health News From Medicine’s Most Notorious Myth Buster

This is interesting.

Should the Palestinian Arabs Have Their Own Land?

I agree with the Pope. The Arabs should have their own independent homeland. It’s called “the rest of the Middle East.” As for creating a new homeland, in addition to the current Muslim nations in the Middle East: it would have to be outside of Israel. The Arabs have already been offered a homeland by the United Nations in 1947, but they rejected it. So they are too late for any part of present-day Israel. If they weren’t such suicidal/violent morons, they would have their own homeland to this day. But because they are such suicidal/violent morons, if they want their own nation, they’ll have to carve it out of Jordan or some other Arab state. But Israel is off limits.

Pope Benedict XVI Doesn’t Have to Apologize for Crimes He Didn’t Commit

If the Jews want to be treated as individuals, and want not to be judged based upon what evil members of their fallen ranks have done, then they should learn to treat gentiles as individuals as well. The Pope does not speak for every Catholic who has ever lived, and the Pope does not speak for every German who has ever lived. He only speaks for himself, and for the Church as an abstraction. Thus, he is blame-free of the approximately 600,000 Jews who were killed during the Jewish Internment of World War II. And his speech was in no need of apology. The previous Popes were also not to blame for the Jewish Internment, so they too did not need to apologize. To the contrary, Catholic priests were also persecuted by the German fascists. 

And if you say, “But the Germans ARE responsible for every crime that every German has committed in the history of Germany,” or if you say, “But the Pope IS responsible for everything that every Catholic has done,” then the state of Israel has just used its own evil illogic to justify the Jewish Internment, because the Jewish Internment was an overreaction to the behavior of the fallen Jewish Communists who were ruining Germany culturally and politically. It was a case in which all Jews were blamed for the crimes of the minority.

If the Israeli whiners were to get a taste of their own illogic, then they justify the Jewish Internment, and it is they who should apologize for it; not the Pope.

Alex Jones files a Lawsuit against Jeff Rense

DENMARK: 9/11 researcher reveals proof of “inside job”

From YouTube channel Hsaive:Submitted by 911truth.dk on Sat, 04/11/2009 -8:27am.

The excellent work by Niels Harrit, Farrer, Jones and Ryan et. al in the recent journal article (Thermitic Material Discovered in WTC Dust) has paved the way for some very good media coverage in Denmark.

At around 10:30 pm on Monday April 6, Harrit was interviewed for 10 minutes during the late news program on one of the two most respected Danish television channels (TV2). 

On Wednesday April 8, Harrit was interviewed for 6 minutes at 8:45 am during a live news and entertainment program on the same channel. In both cases, Harrit, and the claims of the article, were treated with refreshing seriousness and respect.

The first interview has been subtitled in English.

The clip is also available on our server (http://agenda911.dk/article.php?story=nanothermite_tv2news) with links to various alternative (higher quality) formats and the full text of the English subtitles. 

Some readers may want to download a high quality version and mirror it on other servers (put the URL in a comment to this blog entry), in case our server struggles with demand and/or youtube lets us down.

We are working on subtitles for the second 6 min. interview (covers similar material) and will post this later. The journal article has also received reasonably fair coverage in a number of mainstream Danish newspapers (these articles are in Danish, the headlines are translated below):

JyllandsPosten: Researchers: Explosives in dust from WTC

Videnskab.dk: Danish researcher: Explosive nano-material found in dust from WTC

Videnskab.dk: Niels Harrit: Scientific evidence for old knowledge about 9/11

Politiken: 9/11 conspiracy theories revitalised

EkstraBladet: WTC mystery: Nano-thermite in the towers

Ingeniøren: Research team claims to have found nano-explosive in the World Trade Center

Kristeligt Dagblad: Dane resurrects September 11 conspiracy theory

We hope this precedent may serve to encourage journalists in other countries to take the article’s findings seriously, and start looking more critically at 9/11. Do what you can to make them aware of this coveraage in your country.

The Mysterious Death of 9/11 Witness Barry Jennings

This is extremely unsettling. Click below for videos.

The War against Northern Aggression

I found this excellent essay online. Check it out!

Dear Students of American History,

I write this letter in the hopes that the few of you not brainwashed may yet retain the ability to think for yourselves.  The proud grandson of a Confederate soldier here is South Carolina, I write to set the official record straight and to defend my heritage.  You have been lied to.  Not all is as it seems.  Let me explain.

[Continue]

RADIO INTERVIEW

I was interviewed on someone’s internet radio show last night. I do not promote this radio show, its host, or his views. But I think the interview went well. You can listen to it here.

What is Science? or Critique of the Conventional View of Science

Science is the pursuit of knowledge. Another way to put this is to say that science is the investigation into the obscure-yet-important aspects of reality. These aspects of reality are obscure not because they are not important, but because the mind is limited in its ability to know things. If the mind were not limited in its ability to know things, then there would be no need for a formal inquiry into things (science) because everything would be laid bare for all to see. However, due to the restrictions and limitations placed upon the powers of the mind, it is necessary for us to conduct formal, intensive, and specialized inquiries into the nature and constitution of the world in which we live. And these inquiries are science.

What is the method by which we should conduct these formal inquiries? Just to observe reality and to form hypotheses and conclusions based upon those observations is all that we can do to judge the nature of the world in which we live. There is no universal method that we need employ to make our own observations and to form our own judgements. And each of us has our own sets of beliefs and our convictions based upon our own observations and conclusions.

However, it is possible that one person is better informed on an issue than another person, for whatever reason. Thus, there is potential conflict between men over which version of reality is true. Though there is no special method regarding how we form our own conclusions, is there a way to convince others of our own views? Yes.

The way that we would convince others of our own views is to present evidence in support of our views. There are basically two ways to present evidence to people. One way is to show them the evidence, and for them to learn of the evidence. The other way is to call upon the person to remember certain events or experiences, and to call upon him to use his own store of knowledge to support what you believe. The preferred method by which to present evidence is the former, by which observable data is presented.

The reason that the preferred method is to produce the evidence, rather than to call upon what people already know (but may not remember), is not that the former method of argument is of superior merit than the latter, because ultimately we are talking about the same thing: evidence. In the first case the evidence is new to the viewer, and in the second case the evidence is old to viewer. But in both cases, we are dealing with observable data. Rather, the reason that newly presented evidence is preferred over appeals to previously-acquired knowledge is that such appeals may or may not be successful. After all, if people could so easily recall the evidence you wish them to recall, then they would probably have done so by now, and there would be no disagreement. But the fact that there is disagreement typically means that such evidence remains obscure to the viewer. 

The “scientific method” requires that, for a conclusion to be true, it must be based on reproducible evidence. However, people’s beliefs cannot and are not based exclusively on easily reproducible evidence, because there is much evidence that cannot be easily reproduced. Whether we are dealing with evidence that is once-in-a-lifetime in nature, or whether we are dealing with observations so numerous as to be beyond the scope of reproduction, the “scientific method” alone cannot cover all of the bases. 

This can be likened to the limitations of a rear view mirror. There is only a certain range of data that can be conveniently reproduced in a proverbial laboratory, and thus pass as “scientific.” But that leaves an entire world of perfectly legitimate data outside the scope of “science,” just like vehicles that are outside the range of a rear view mirror. And for someone to say that all truths can be demonstrated by “science” – at least in a timely manner – is to make a conclusion that has not been scientifically supported, and cannot be scientifically supported, for science is self-limiting. Thus, science cannot comment on that which is outside the scope of science, as valid and as important as it may be.

Where does that leave us? That leaves us with a better understanding of the role that science plays in our lives. Specifically, science is not the be all and end all of human knowledge. And though science can help us to learn more about the world in which we live, and, most important, convince others of our opinions, in a given argument, science cannot prove anything conclusively. Rather, science can only attempt to convince others of ones own opinions, by way of reproduced and reproducible experiments. This attempt, however, may or may not be successful, because there will always be a larger context to consider, based upon facts and information that lay outside the scope of scientific data and literature. 

Sometimes, our opinions are based on facts that are indeed substantiated by science, but we simply are unaware of this. At other times, however, our views may not be substantiated by science, because science cannot or has not appropriately inquired on the matter. But that wouldn’t necessarily make our views any less correct. Indeed, if you believe that all beliefs should be justified by scientific studies, then the only way you could believe this without being hypocritical is if you prove it with a scientific study, and that study will not necessarily convince me, or anyone else, of that hypothesis. 

Thus, I do not believe that science is limited to the so-called “scientific method,” nor should it be defined in that manner. Rather, the “scientific method” would merely help us to convince others of our opinions, and science is simply the pursuit of knowledge. Plain and simple. Only a Leftist, who has been taught to disregard philosophy, which is comprised of sweeping generalizations that are not easily reproduced in a laboratory, but that are supremely true and important to mankind, would worship the “scientific method,” and insist on defining science only in this most limited sense.

But to do so is nonsense.

Not-So-Great Britain’s Shameful Blacklist

Not-So-Great Britain is a piece of trash, and I hope it goes to hell sooner rather than later. My God visit His vengeance upon the stupid Britons. They are a has-been culture and a has-been people. I have greater admiration for Germans than I do for Britons. Their “values” are stupid and foolish. If they were being tested in the Philosophy of Life, and if that were used as an immigration policy, that would be one thing. But their standard is Leftism. Listen to what this stupid woman bureaucrat says what she “thinks” about the kinds of people who should be allowed in that has-been country that has oppressed Americans and Irish alike. Who would want to visit that palace of pretense anyway?

LONDON (AFP) – The government published a blacklist on Tuesday of people recently banned from the country including a Hamas lawmaker and a Jewish extremist, as well as anti-gay protestors and a far-right US talk show host.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she decided to publish the “name and shame” list — which identifies 16 people banned since last October — for the first time to clarify what behaviour Britain will not tolerate.

“I think it’s important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it’s a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won’t be welcome in this country,” she said.

[Link]

[Here] on how Michael Savage is consideration legal action against Britain’s top security official.

The Evil Leftists Continue to Ruin the Family with Interracial Marriage Propaganda

The evil leftists who run the media continue to depict interracial marriage as an acceptable practice. A recent example of this abomination is found in the “reality” TV show Jon and Kate Plus 8, which is about an Asian man and Europic woman couple who raise two twins and six septuplets together (a total of eight kids). (The Asian man was recently found with another woman sans wedding ring.)

Now, is it true that the ditz cannot find a better man within the Europic race, so she had to marry an Asiatic man? True – it’s not as absurd as a Europic woman marrying a negro or a Mexican. But it’s still an abomination, for the woman can surely find a better mate within her own race. Same goes with any Europic man. Europic men and women can and should find better mates within their own race.

The leftists try to propagandize the Leftist lie that everyone is equal, including all of the races. But the races are not equal. Some races are more evolved than others. Some races have higher average intelligences. And the Europic race, despite the immense stupidity of the average Europic person, remains the most intelligent race in the world, which means that the average Europic man is more intelligent than the average member of any other race. There are many European subraces, but all Europeans are better off finding a mate within their own race. White people are stupid enough as it is. They shouldn’t be dumbing down the gene pool by mating with members of inferior races.

The punishment for miscegenation – which most broadly refers to interracial mating – should be maximal. This Asian man and this Europic woman should be killed, as should all people who pollute the gene pool and sell themselves short by mating outside of their race (unless they repent of their sin and get a divorce). That is not to say that the children should be killed. There is nothing wrong with being a mongrel. Rather, there’s something wrong with making a mongrel. For example, I will not fault Obongo the Socialist Baby Killer for being half white trash and half black trash. But there is never a good reason for anything but a white President.

The Devil Murdered William Cooper

This world has no idea what it lost when it lost William Cooper. This man was a hero. And I think you should learn about him, and about how he died. 

Go here to watch other videos about Bill Cooper.

How to Learn

Everybody makes assumptions about what they see and what they read. People’s assumptions can be accurate or inaccurate. People often make mistakes on tests not because they don’t know the material, but because the material is known, but not recalled. Instead, what is recalled is a false assumption about the question, and not the answer to the question.

Learning consists of two parts: input and recollection. Just to imbibe information is not learning. Another important component of learning is recollection. You need to be able to retrieve the information that you learned. Though you may imbibe information, you may not be able to recall that information within a given time frame. True learning involves not only imbibing information, but practicing the retrieval of the information, because it is by practicing retrieval of the information that the rate at which you can retrieve the information increases. Failure to retrieve information in a timely manner could result in either the negation of the positive, whereby you simply “draw a blank” and do not recall the information, or position of the negative, whereby you recall the incorrect information that you assume to be correct. 

How do you learn? Take in the information, and practice retrieval of the information, with as little aid as possible. It is the actual retrieval of the information – and not merely the consumption of the information – that increases the rate at which you recall the information. The best way to practice retrieval of information is by answering questions. The reason for this is as follows. A question is a partial answer. The slighter the question hints at the answer, the more that you must exercise the power of recollection to “fill in the gaps.” The only way to practice retrieval of information is by answering questions.

Why does the brain work in this manner? Why don’t we retrieve information at the same rate if we imbibed it? Why does the retrieval of that information help to increase the rate of retrieval? Apparently, the act of retrieval allows us to learn a different kind of information. It allows us to learn not just the information per se. Rather, it allows us to learn HOW TO GET TO THE INFORMATION, which can be as important as the information itself, because often we do not directly retrieve information; rather we indirectly retrieve information by way of other information.

By going from one concept to another, we can retrieve otherwise buried and hidden information. And it is this concept chain that we recall when we recall information. Then, because information that we recall loops back into our heads, we imbibe the information about the concept chain that leads us to our desired information. Think of it this way. Imagine that the information is an anchor, and the concept chain is the chain to which the anchor is attached. We want the anchor. But to get to the anchor, we must do so by way of the chain, because the information is buried deeply within our minds. Rarely is the information “readily available”: even if it has just been imbibed. Thus, we need to recall the concept chain that leads us to the information.

So the only way we can practice remembering the information is by remembering the concepts that lead us to the information. Thus, both imbibing information, and regurgitating information, are necessary to learn the information.