“‘It’s all lies,’” the source said, according to Hersh. “‘The war is over. Russia has won. There is no Ukrainian offensive anymore, but the White House and the American media have to keep the lie going.’”
Duh. ABN
Elite Race Denialism Continues, But New Study Shows the Walls Are Closing In
The Race Denialists are at it again. Black academic Tyler Austin Harper [Email him] (right) has attacked Richard Hanania’s new book The Origins of Woke as an “intellectual and moral failure,” in part because it has highlighted black-white differences in IQ [An Intellectual and a Moral Failure, The Atlantic, September 18, 2023]. It was the elite Leftist magazine’s second attack on Hanania: staff writer Adam Serwer (black and Jewish) targeted him three days earlier in a broadside against The Young Conservatives Trying to Make Eugenics Respectable Again. But as VDARE.com’s Steve Sailer has observed, the black-white IQ gap is probably “the best documented finding in US social science.”
Now a new study from A Genetic Hypothesis for American Race/Ethnic Differences in Mean g [Mankind Quarterly, June 2023] proves again that it really matters.
The term “g” stands for “general intelligence,” which underlies verbal, spatial and mathematical intelligence. It explains why people who score highly in one kind of intelligence test usually score highly on the others. It is strongly genetic.
The study was published in the “controversial” Mankind Quarterly—likely, in part, because the better-known journals have been hijacked by Woke activists pretending to be scholars.
Drawing upon the “Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study,” which sampled more than 10,000 Americans, the authors carefully examined the relationship between self/parental-identified race or ethnicity (called SIRE in the jargon) and key variables. These included the intelligence test administered as part of cognitive study. The authors also explored race differences in many other brain-related measures.
To say that the authors refuted the claims that “race is a social construct,” or that “race differences in IQ score are environmental” is almost too charitable. They annihilated those claims, and showed that the cognitive differences between the races are strongly genetic.
There was “measurement invariance” across the different groups in its sample of diverse European ancestries. In statistics, this means that the same trait—such as intelligence—was measured in all of the European-ancestry samples. Cultural differences could have played no role in making the test unfair to one group but not another.
The authors’ key finding: The more genetic European admixture a non-white had, the more intelligent they tended to be, and these intelligence differences were on g.
One thing about the claims made in the article is all the wrangling between races, tribes and ethnicities is going to disappear as soon as we start having large numbers of digital babies—that is, babies whose parents have selected a large proportion of their genes, a proportion large enough to guarantee high intelligence among many other desirable traits. When this tech is widely available, some parents may still opt for Darwinian chance evolution for their offspring but most will not.
Given the choice of having a genetically super fit and intelligent child for sure or a Darwinian coin-toss kid, most will want the guaranteed smart and healthy one. This constitutes beneficent and beneficial eugenics. No one will be forced to go either way, but the consequences of choosing Darwinian evolution over controlled eugenics will become obvious within a single generation.
Of course human-controlled eugenic evolution could turn out badly, as is true for all new technologies. But there is no doubt we will see enormous improvements in what humans can do in this area within the next few decades. Within 100 years and probably much less, off-body gestation of digital babies will change the entire landscape of human tribalism, pride, competition and so on. I believe there is a very good chance highly intelligent humans produced by voluntary eugenics will look back on us and our concerns today as the last gasps of their selfish, violent, and often grotesque human ancestry. ABN
NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard
Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
Washington D.C., December 12, 2017 – U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3]
Zelensky asks Marina Abramovic to be ambassador for Ukraine
Volodymyr Zelensky has asked Marina Abramović, the performance artist, to be an ambassador for Ukraine.
Ms Abramović, a fierce critic of Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion, said the Ukrainian president had asked for her help in rebuilding schools.
The 76-year-old Serbian is holding her first solo exhibition in the UK and is the first female artist to have a major show in the Main Galleries of the Royal Academy of Arts in London.
Visitors to the exhibition must squeeze between two nude models to enter the show, or opt to bypass what one journalist dubbed the “naked gates”.
“I was the first artist to support the Ukraine war against Russia and to give my voice. It is definitely a repetition of history,” she said in an interview with the Modern Art Museum in Shanghai.
How the US, Through the Greens and the Reds, Is Destroying Europe
[The excerpt below is preceded by a description of the decline of Europe. I recommend the whole piece but have posted this snippet because it is the core point. The essay is not long and clearly written. ABN]
…Now with the events in the Ukraine serving as a catalyst, it is becoming increasingly clear what is actually at hand: the planned and organized destruction of Europe for the benefit of the United States. Only after the collapse of the Soviet Union and socialism in Eastern Europe was it finally possible for the Washington regime to initiate the final phase of a project begun early in the 20th century.
Few realize that after the US conquest and occupation of much of Europe from 1943 to 1945, the Americans set up a local political organization primarily loyal to the US. Nothing new here, as all conquerors and colonizers have always done this throughout history. The US occupation authorities decided to turn the various European Social Democratic parties into their local loyal supporters. This choice was rather obvious, because Europe’s political conservatives and Roman Catholic and Protestant political parties were in favor of the US anyway. They were counting on the US to protect them from Communism.
As a matter of fact in the mid-1940s, Communists were a formidable political force all over Europe. In elections in 1945 and 1946 (in Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Denmark and Norway), between one eighth and a quarter of the electorate voted Communist. In Czechoslovakia (1946) it was almost forty percent, a record. When between 1944 and 1949 the Iron Curtain had been let down across the continent, the US needed a more solid counterweight to neutralize the communist danger in the lands it occupied. Hence the choice fell on the Social Democrats. Although marxist, they rejected revolutionary tactics in order to achieve political ascendancy.
From that moment, ambitious young and promising Social Democrats were made beneficiaries of travel grants and scholarships to the US and of assorted other junkets, turning them into the most loyal supporters of the US. That is, until the fall of the Berlin Wall and the ensuing collapse of the USSR. At that point, all Western European Social Democratic parties embraced neoliberalism (inherently at odds with their original political philosophy), thus becoming merely a kind of conservative parties. The ideological difference between the political Left and the political Right disappeared on the process and the terms were shorn of their political meaning.
However, with the Communist danger out of the way and the Social Democrats having lost their role as a barrier against Communism, the US still needed a reliable and loyal political support base inside their European vassal states. Reinforcement was soon found in the so-called “green” parties, a kind of Social Democratic parties, but with an added environmental platform and often with a decided feminist equity twist as well. These new parties appealed to the growing category of politically naive young urban professionals with romantic notions about “health food” and other fashionable issues. With their insistent clamor for “development aid” for the “Third World” they were also quintessentially racist, though hidden behind a veil of paternalism.
The above essay reminds me to recommend the book Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War by Gerry Docherty. This book overturns conventional views of US and European history. I am only halfway through but very impressed. The chapter on the founding of the US Federal Reserve, which I read last night, is a masterpiece of brevity and historical analysis. The British Empire never ended. It morphed into a combo British-American Empire. It is controlled by the Big Banks, legacy families with immense fortunes, and nouveau riche billionaires willing to join the elite cabal, which the most visible ones all have done, or so it seems. ABN
Cancers Appearing In Ways Never Before Seen After COVID Vaccinations — Dr Harvey Risch
There is evidence that cancers are occurring in excess after people receive COVID-19 vaccinations, according to Dr. Harvey Risch.
Dr. Risch is professor emeritus of epidemiology in the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at the Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine. His research has focused extensively on the causes of cancer as well as prevention and early diagnosis.
In an interview for EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders,” Dr. Risch said patients must now wait months, not weeks, to get an appointment at an oncology clinic in New York.
There is difficulty in observing whether a vaccine can cause cancer, because cancer usually takes time to develop, Dr. Risch said. It can take anywhere from two years to 30 years, depending on the different types of cancer, from leukemia to colon cancer.
“What clinicians have been seeing,” said Dr. Risch, “is very strange things: For example, 25-year-olds with colon cancer, who don’t have family histories of the disease—that’s basically impossible along the known paradigm for how colon cancer works—and other long-latency cancers that they’re seeing in very young people.”
He said this is not how cancer normally develops.
“There has to be some initiating stimulus to why this happens,” he said.
Unnatural evolutionary processes of SARS-CoV-2 variants and possibility of deliberate natural selection
Over the past three years, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has repeatedly caused pandemics, generating various mutated variants ranging from Alpha to Omicron. In this study, we aimed to clarify the evolutionary processes leading to the formation of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants, focusing on Omicron variants with many amino acid mutations in the spike protein among SARS-CoV-2 isolates. To determine the order of mutations leading to the formation of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants, we compared the sequences of 129 Omicron BA.1-related, 141 BA.1.1-related, and 122 BA.2-related isolates, and attempted to clarify the evolutionary processes of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants, including the order of mutations leading to their formation and the occurrence of homologous recombination. As a result, we concluded that the formation of a part of Omicron isolates BA.1, BA.1.1, and BA.2 was not the product of genome evolution, as is commonly observed in nature, such as the accumulation of mutations and homologous recombinations. Furthermore, the study of 35 recombinant isolates of Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2 confirmed that Omicron variants were already present in 2020. The analysis showed that Omicron variants were formed by an entirely new mechanism that cannot be explained by previous biology, and knowing how the SARS-CoV-2 variants were formed prompts a reconsideration of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
This preprint has found evidence indicating that ‘the Omicron variants were artificially synthesized rather than naturally occurring.’ ABN
Why covid mRNA vaxxes were and still are bad news
Filing this under ‘anti-science’ because the way the vaxxes were promoted despite many known deficiencies along with a host of glaring unknowns defies the basic tenets of medical science as well as the scientific method itself. ABN
Mandatory vaccines when the risk of infection is highest in those who have had the most doses
https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292?login=false#407193740
From every angle, we are being driven toward chaos, confusion, unsustainable absurdity. ABN
Sci-Fi Short Film – C600: Malfunction (CHAPTER 1) AWARD WINNING
This film is good. It has many short sections. I have watched almost all of it. The writer, Blake Ridder, has lots of other work on his channel. ABN
American Pravda: Oddities of the Jewish Religion — Ron Unz
Israel Shahak and the Middle East
About a decade ago, I happened to be talking with an eminent academic scholar who had become known for his sharp criticism of Israeli policies in the Middle East and America’s strong support for them. I mentioned that I myself had come to very similar conclusions some time before, and he asked when that had happened. I told him it had been in 1982, and I think he found my answer quite surprising. I got the sense that date was decades earlier than would have been given by almost anyone else he knew.
Sometimes it is quite difficult to pinpoint when one’s world view on a contentious topic undergoes sharp transformation, but at other times it is quite easy. My own perceptions of the Middle East conflict drastically shifted during Fall 1982, and they have subsequently changed only to a far smaller extent. As some might remember, that period marked the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and culminated in the notorious Sabra-Shatila Massacre during which hundreds or even thousands of Palestinians were slaughtered in their refugee camps. But although those events were certainly major factors in my ideological realignment, the crucial trigger was actually a certain letter to the editor published around that same time.
A few years earlier, I had discovered The London Economist, as it was then called, and it had quickly become my favorite publication, which I religiously devoured cover-to-cover every week. And as I read the various articles about the Middle East conflict in that publication, or others such as the New York Times, the journalists occasionally included quotes from some particularly fanatic and irrational Israeli Communist named Israel Shahak, whose views seemed totally at odds with those of everyone else, and who was consequently treated as a fringe figure. Opinions that seem totally divorced from reality tend to stick in one’s mind, and it took only one or two appearances from that apparently die-hard and delusional Stalinist for me to guess that he would always take an entirely contrary position on every given issue.
In 1982 Israel Defense Minister Ariel Sharon launched his massive invasion of Lebanon using the pretext of the wounding of an Israeli diplomat in Europe at the hands of a Palestinian attacker, and the extreme nature of his action was widely condemned in the media outlets I read at the time. His motive was obviously to root out the PLO’s political and military infrastructure, which had taken hold in many of Lebanon’s large Palestinian refugee camps. But back in those days invasions of Middle Eastern countries on dubious prospects were much less common than they have subsequently become, after our recent American wars killed or displaced so many millions, and most observers were horrified by the utterly disproportionate nature of his attack and the severe destruction he was inflicting upon Israel’s neighbor, which he seemed eager to reduce to puppet status. From what I recall, he made several entirely false assurances to top Reagan officials about his invasion plans, such that they afterward called him the worst sort of liar, and he ended up besieging the Lebanese capital of Beirut even though he had originally promised to limit his assault to a mere border incursion.
I skipped this essay when it first came out because Ron can be long-winded and I was short on time. I just read it this morning and believe it will be of interests to readers of this site. ABN
American Buddhist Net 
