For that price, you can buy two nice houses here in the rustiest part of the Rust Belt. And the Rust Belt is better, much better, than you think: Falling population density, lots of forests and trails -- and, best of all, they're 40 years behind in forcing die-versity on us here.

I suspect that unnecessary routine or industrialized killing (as in animal agriculture) inures us, not only to the drama and seriousness of ending a life (making us more likely to become brutal and ignoble in general), but also blurs our vision of the act to the point where we can't see when it really is justified or necessary.

As a wise man told me recently, the topic of killing "is surprisingly nuanced."

To give one little example: I love Nature, and go out of my way not to kill any animal, including insects. I hate poisons, and do not use them in my home. But if a swarm of bees were attacking my child I would kill them all -- and my conscience would still rest easy, and my kindness to all animals would continue unchanged.

And, further: If, say, some kind of alien creature arrived here that could mate with us and produce fertile offspring, and there was a real danger that such matings would result in our permanent replacement or hybridization, and the disappearance of our kind, then I -- who hates nearly all killing, far more than the average person -- would say that a time for extreme nuance had arrived.

And, further: If, say, some kind of alien creature arrived here that could mate with us and produce fertile offspring, and there was a real danger that such matings would result in our permanent replacement or hybridization, and the disappearance of our kind, then I -- who hates nearly all killing, far more than the average person -- would say that a time for extreme nuance had arrived.

To give one little example: I love Nature, and go out of way not to kill any animal, including insects. I hate poisons, and do not use them in my home. But if a swarm of bees were attacking my child I would kill them all -- and my conscience would still rest easy, and my kindness to all animals would continue unchanged.

Yes, nuanced -- i believe that that is the right way to look at it. I suspect that unnecessary routine or industrialized killing inures us, not only to the drama and seriousness of ending a life, making us more likely to become brutal and ignoble in general, but also blurs our vision of the act to the point where we can't see when it really is justified or necessary.

The hostility of some Jews for Jesus is just an intra-ethnic family squabble, just like the wild hostility of some Iranians for the Shah.

nostr:note1w2pmauark5arx7tnruq4dlpttltvy00372nr5ncpwrywjxv8lm0q8v759q

The hostility of some Jews for Jesus is just an intra-ethnic family squabble, just like the wild hostility of some Iranians for the Shah.

God and Nature made the races different; vastly different. If you don't like that fact, your disagreement is with God and Nature, not with me. Insult ignored.

Members of the human population group statistically most likely to burn down their own neighborhoods, or do this kind of thing:

https://audio.nationalvanguard.com/swarm.mp4?_=3

Oh, and by the way, please don't infer from this post that I am a Trump supporter; I am not. It's just that Kamala Harris, obviously, knows approximately as much about economics as the average Walmart shopper.

I am delighted to see that you acknowledge that differing people have differing capabilities.

Yes, we need to end central banking, absolutely. But we also need to end ALL fractional reserve banking, or the bastards will just come back in a "private" guise -- just as censorship has now done. (Americans thought they had banned censorship with the First Amendment, but all the ethnically-distinct oligarchs had to do was establish huge "private" semi-monopolies, and now they censor harder than ever.)

nostr:note1ugckx0r9aqm55npj7hzzpszyqa8qh5rrw8kr9v2du6me2z7kh5zsh5qyqa

Yes, we need to end central banking, absolutely. But we also need to end ALL fractional reserve banking, or the bastards will just come back in a "private" guise -- just as censorship has now done. (Americans thought they had banned censorship with the First Amendment, but all the ethnically-distinct oligarchs had to do was establish huge "private" semi-monopolies, and now they censor harder than ever.)

I think it's great to do such things for personal satisfaction -- I do that sort of thing myself. But I think it's dangerously wrong to imply, as Ross did, that all people are somehow "equal." They're not.

True. The main point, though, is that young women of European descent need to have more children than they are having now, far more, or we are dead as a race. It's that important.

I definitely agree that there's a lot to be said for "happy accidents" in the world of art and creative thinking. But the last part of the Ross quote is dangerously false: "Anything that you're willing to practice, you can do." I, for example, am never going to be a competition-level sprinter. (I don't have the requisite skeletal structure.) And LaKwanda and Jamal are never going to write a concerto to equal the least of Vivaldi's (or even Vivaldi's unknown students), nor revolutionize (or even understand) physics, nor build anything remotely equaling the Temple of Artemis (nor, probably, even a plastic model thereof). They don't have the brain structure. We do no one a favor by pretending otherwise.

nostr:note1x6uktlxp8jda9endn6nef5eql086gnhmmyrdktvflyjk9t2fvkxquz5dnq

I definitely agree that there's a lot to be said for "happy accidents" in the world of art and creative thinking. But the last part of the Ross quote is dangerously false: "Anything that you're willing to practice, you can do." I, for example, am never going to be a competition-level sprinter. (I don't have the requisite skeletal structure.) And LaKwanda and Jamal are never going to write a concerto to equal the least of Vivaldi's (or even Vivaldi's unknown students), nor revolutionize (or even understand) physics, nor build anything remotely equaling the Temple of Artemis (nor, probably, even a plastic model thereof). They don't have the brain structure. We do no one a favor by pretending otherwise.

Bad idea. It reminds of Mencken's proposal, which (updated by me) essentially amounted to this: The kind of person who would refrain from having children to get a prize of a blinged-out Escalade and two gold incisor implants is probably the kind of person we don't want contributing to our gene pool anyway. Except Mencken's proposal would weed out the stupid and decrease their percentage of the population, whereas yours would weed out the intelligent and far-seeing -- a terrible outcome.

nostr:note1lsg9p2jn9cshjpmzm2la865p6vaftm060m33p827yq3eu66techqj27p6w

Bad idea. It reminds of Mencken's proposal, which (updated by me) essentially amounted to this: The kind of person who would refrain from having children to get a prize of a blinged-out Escalade and two gold incisor implants is probably the kind of person we don't want contributing to our gene pool anyway. Except Mencken's proposal would weed out the stupid and decrease their percentage of the population, whereas yours would weed out the intelligent and far-seeing -- a terrible outcome.

If true, this is proof positive that people are fools. I like Ibsen's take: "The minority is sometimes right, and the majority is always wrong." Even if Ibsen was exaggerating for effect, it was a very, very small exaggeration.

nostr:note1suw75npdnv6n8p3w0xhmqmkf0wepgrcywlmx3kfe3cxdw3c2a6as0rk3h4