Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Unrequited Love

A Valentine for My Dearest White Race…



Roses are Red, Violets are Blue,
I’d rather you weren’t, so in love with the Jews.

Your brother’s a whigger, your sister’s a whore,
You tolerate faggots, until your backside is sore.

You were the race, who put a man on the moon,
Too bad you gave it all up, to dream with Martin the Koon.

You lifted yourself out, from the rabble of Muds,
Only to fall back in it, with football and suds.

You say we’re all equal, to love mankind is divine,
You’ll save all their souls, and trample on mine.

Your other lovers excuse you, they say it’s not your fault,
That you’ve just been deluded, by the Jews you’ve been taught.

But I will not let you, off the hook quite that easy,
You’ve let your brain get too soft, and your heart get too sleazy.

If your life was a test, how you would deal with your status-your fame,
then you’ve failed without prejudice, and you have only your-self to blame.

If you ever get, your head out of your ass,
Just give me a call, but you better do it fast.

'Cause I am not waiting, around for you anymore,
I have decided to replace you, with something I may truly adore.

So please step aside, I'm making some room in,
A more perfect world, for White people…Post-Human.

Thursday, February 08, 2007

More Proof that Being Thin is Deadly


Anna Nicole Smith has been found dead! And what more logical explanation for her condition than that she was dangerously non-fat. After having lost her healthy rolls of flab, she was always a moment away from an early grave. It was so obvious. If only she had managed to remain fat, none of this would have happened.


Here's my point, in case you're not getting my sarcasm. Have you ever noticed that when a fat person dies young, the first thing everyone mentions is that s/he was fat? Not that s/he used drugs and had an aneurysm, or got drunk and drown in the bathtub, but that s/he fought a losing battle against obesity. In this case, if Anna had died while still fat, think of how the news coverage would change. Assuming that a person died young because s/he was overweight is as logical as assuming the person died at that age because s/he wasn't overweight.






But why would the media do that? Fear of fat sells, my pudgy children.

If your response to the preceding line was: "I'm not fat!", you've been mindfucked. After all, what made you think I was talking to you, specifically? Better go nibble your celery sticks and sublimate for awhile.

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Thomas Jefferson: Slave-Raping Semite

According to a story on the BBCNews website, Thomas Jefferson has been found to have carried a rare Y-chromosome most common in the Middle East. The article suggests that Jefferson, and other British, French, and Spanish men who share the rare Y-chromosome are descended from Phoenician traders who, over twenty five hundred years ago, left behind their genetic curse in White Western nations.

No wonder Jefferson used his slaves as a harem, as a Semite would do, rather than as livestock, as a decent White man would do.

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Anti-Racist Opinions and Science DO NOT MIX

But why do they keep cropping up? Here are some examples of misguided opinions that attempt to justify miscegenation within the human population on the basis of scientific insight. Accompanying each opinion is my analysis.

Miscegenation is quite acceptable, since: We are all pink on the inside, forget the external differences.
As a biology student, I have had the opportunity to dissect many mammalian creatures that, as it turns out, were all pink on the inside. By the logic of your aphorism, the differences between monkeys and humans, pigs and humans, and rats and humans are meaningless since we are all pink on the inside. Therefore, your logic permits bestiality, since: We are all pink on the inside.

Miscegenation is quite acceptable, since: The genetic variation between human beings is minimal, and certainly does not permit classification of humans into “races”.
As a biology student, I have had the opportunity to culture microscopic organisms that have infinitesimally smaller genetic variations than one can find between two human beings, even humans of the same parentage. And yet, the difference of but one gene between strains of Escherichia coli results in the ability to produce toxins that can be fatal to humans infected by the toxin-producing strain. In other words, though one may assert: The genetic variation between human beings is minimal, and certainly does not permit classification of humans into “races”, we learn from biology that even slight genetic variations can have horrifying consequences, and so it is advisable to discriminate on the basis of those differences as a matter of safety, no matter how slight those differences are.

Miscegenation is quite acceptable, since: Only through a great diversity of genetic material can a species be strong.
It is important to note this contradicts the second assertion, that the differences between humans are too small to permit classification of humans into races, since how can one possibly know that they are diversifying their genes through miscegenation, if the differences between humans are minimal?

To address the topic of genetic diversity specifically: As a biology student, I have been taught evolution, which suggests that most species that exist today are the result of isolation in breeding populations. Though two species may have evolved from a common ancestor, their isolation permitted them to adapt more efficiently to their differing environments. By the divergence of one common ancestor into two new species, the common ancestor has doubled the chances its genes will move on into the future, since the new species have different means of adapting to environmental changes. Thus, the true diversity of genetic material occurs as populations segregate and become new species; stagnation is the recycling of the same genes and the inability to produce new, adaptable strains from a common ancestor. Without the isolation of genes, speciation would not occur.

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Ruminations from the World Turned Upside Down

Would you say that it is natural to care more for your parents than for someone else's parents?
Would you say that it is natural to care more for your own family than for the family of another?
...Natural to care more for your own city more than for a neighboring city?
…Natural to care more for your own country than for another?
…More for your own language than another?
…More for your own traditions?
…Your own religion?
…Your own culture?
…Your own ethnicity?
…Your own race?

“Wait a minute! Race doesn’t exist!” exclaims prevailing Wisdom.

Well then, let us say to care more for your own color, rather than race.

“It’s foolish to prefer people of your own color! What a silly thing to care about!” exclaims stubborn Indignation.

But is it natural to prefer people who are more like you than those unlike you?

“Of course not! I know all sorts of different people. The world is a magical, diverse place. Some of my best friends are totally different from me! In fact, I don't think preferring those things is at all natural!” exclaims quixotic Utopia.

So how did you spend the holidays?

“Oh, I went back to my hometown, my family got together, we cooked a traditional meal with foods from the old country, we went to church in the morning, we sat around and gabbed about local and national politics that night, the kind of things we care to do.” said oblivious Everyman.



Take a look at the bizzarre plate above. What kind of people are so sick that they would buy such a thing? White people only. I mean, can you imagine a Native American family putting on display in their home a picture of a Dutch child, in clogs, with a windmill over his/her shoulder?