How Black Kids got into Harvard

new book exposes:

T.M. Landry College Preparatory (also known simply as T.M. Landry) was an unaccredited, co-educational private college-preparatory school in Breaux Bridge, Louisiana for grades K–12. The school initially made headlines for its 100% acceptance rate into 4-year colleges, but received negative attention in 2018 as the subject of an investigative report by The New York Times, detailing allegations of abuse of students and fabrication of transcripts and college applications. In 2019, the Federal Bureau of Investigation launched an investigation on the school.[1] Following the controversy, the school's co-founders, Michael and Tracey Landry, stepped down from the school board but continued to serve as teachers at the school.[2] As of 2022, the school has been closed.

Who could have seen that coming? Even PBS tv says it was all a scam.

Standardized tests like SAT and ACT were supposed to let colleges assess students like these, but many colleges dropped them after George Floyd and covid. Now they are bringing them back.

Professor puts Whites on Classical Pedestal

A Vassar college professor has this specialty:

Curtis Dozier is an internationally recognized expert on how extremists and hate groups invoke Greco-Roman antiquity to promote their politics.

He even has a book on the subject, where anyone who cites the Classics gets called a White supremacist. It gets a scathing review in (Jewish) Commentary magazine:

Curtis Dozier’s The White Pedestal is a godsend to white nationalists. If ever they needed a book to encourage the false impression that “white nationalism” simply means defending basic virtues and acknowledging obvious facts, this is it. ...

Unfortunately, Dozier believes “white nationalist thought” includes not just patently bigoted notions—e.g., “The white race is superior to all others”—but also completely defensible views—e.g., “Hierarchy is natural and desirable.” Each chapter argues that seemingly innocent admirers of Greece and Rome are trafficking in a mode of logic that “the far Right” also uses. ...

It is actually possible for educated people to know a lot about ancient Greece and Rome, to see even their heroes as flawed and their geniuses as limited, and still to wonder at their invaluable gifts to posterity. Most people naturally hope to preserve and cherish what’s best about the civilization they inherit. Curtis Dozier wants to convince them that they must either join him and his fellow travelers in “resisting and subverting the process that established ‘classics’ as a discipline in the first place,” or else abet the triumph of “white supremacy.” I can think of no better way to swell the ranks of actual, self-avowed racists than to force a choice between those two options. If Dozier really wants to know who’s burnishing the appeal of white nationalism, he should look within.

The Titanic Black Pill

The 1997 movie Titanic is considered one of the most successful movies of all time. Women in particular thought that it was the greatest love story.

Among red pillers, Rose is one of the great movie villains. One of the main aims of civilization is to tame the malevolent instincts of women, and Rose is a good example.

Rose betrays her rich and devoted finance in order to have one night with a slightly more exciting homeless man. She steals the rich man's extremely valuable diamond, lets the poor man die, and becomes an alpha widow.

After the shipwreck, she gets married and has a family, but never really loves them. She throws her stolen diamond into the ocean, rather than leave an inheritance for her family. She is pathologically selfish and narcissistic throughout the movie.

Pearl Davis explains this in a video from about a year ago. She points out Rose's big movie line:

I would rather be his whore than your wife.

Nobody thinks this movie is misogynist. It was extremely popular with women. They recoil with horror at the suggestion that Rose is evil.

It is not so much that Rose decides to be evil, but she follows female human nature. The movie is a big lesson about unchecked female behavior.

I started to say that this was a red pill movie, but now I think it is black pill. Here is a description of the difference:

The Black Pill and Red Pill are both terms used in online communities to describe different perspectives on society and human behavior. The Red Pill is associated with a belief in traditional gender roles, self-improvement, and a rejection of mainstream narratives. It encourages individuals to seek out the truth and take control of their lives. In contrast, the Black Pill is a more nihilistic viewpoint that emphasizes the futility of life and the inevitability of suffering. It often leads to a sense of hopelessness and resignation. While both perspectives offer critiques of society, the Red Pill tends to focus on empowerment and personal growth, while the Black Pill leans towards pessimism and despair.

In the movie, achieving a successful relationship with Rose is impossible. She has no redeeming qualities, except that she is pretty.

Yes, I know that 99% of the reviews say that Rose is the hero, not the villain. The fact that her behavior is so acceptable to so many is revealing. Not only that, but women see this as the greatest movie ever. They see her character as admirable. That is the real black pill. The movie is fiction but the universal admiration is real.

If you google black pill, you will find sources saying that it is misogynist. That is like saying the Titanic movie is misogynist. It is, in the sense that the female protagonist is such a bad person.

I asked an AI LLM about this, and it said I was all wrong. It said "the movie positions Rose as a heroine of self-liberation, not consistent selfishness or narcissism." It cites her mother favoring the engagement, her near suicide, and her posing nude.

In the movie, it is not really a near suicide. As Jack points out, if she really wanted to kill herself she would have jumped before he arrived. No, she was just trying to get attention.

As for posing nude before the homeless guy Jack, the AI says:

The nude drawing scene isn't just about nudity — it's about vulnerability, trust, artistic expression, and reclaiming her body from being treated as an object (Cal sees her as a trophy; Jack sees her as a person). Rose says, "It's overwhelming... being with you." It's a moment of genuine intimacy and rebellion against her repressed life. The film treats it as empowering, not trivial — part of her awakening to passion, independence, and living authentically.

Cal was proposing to marry her and make her rich. Jack was using her for a one-night stand. The AI is reflecting conventional wisdom here. The modern accepted view of self-liberation is for a pretty girl to pose nude for a homeless man she just met.

the film's intent is clear: her arc is about breaking free from oppression, not entitlement. ...

The movie's core message is that Rose rejects that path [marrying Cal] to choose authenticity, adventure, and self-determination.

Living the life of an alpha widow is a much worse oppression than anything from Cal. She would have been freer and happier taking her mother's advice.

These are harsh, modern interpretations (often from online forums like Reddit) that project cynicism onto a fictional romantic tale. ...

James Cameron crafted it as a celebration of love inspiring a full life — Rose fulfills her promise to Jack by surviving and thriving, including building a family.

Cameron's other movies have some strange messages. Especially the Avatar movies.

Here is a recent comment:

Titanic? Really? I had more empathy for the guy whose car they defiled than either character. Hundreds of actual real people died on that ship so we could have a back drop to a trite and unbelievably sappy romance about fictional characters? The ending was beyond annoying too with the whole throwing a unique priceless heirloom into the ocean, you know to "let go" of Jack. you know -- that boy she knew for almost 4 whole days.

Mohammedan Woman may lead Britain

London news:

Tony Blair has effectively endorsed Shabana Mahmood as a future Labour leader, praising her as "brilliant" and "impressive" during a joint public appearance at a Tony Blair Institute event.

Ms Mahmood used the platform to deliver a personal and political manifesto, highlighting her determination to overcome social media abuse as a "brown Muslim woman".

The event comes amid speculation that Ms Mahmood is a frontrunner to potentially succeed Sir Keir Starmer.

Constantinople was besieged many times, starting in 626 AD until it finally fell in 1453. England is not even putting up a fight.

New York city just elected a Mohammedan Indian Socialist major. The Netherlands just approved a young homosexual prime minister.

Update: New interview: "London Is NO LONGER A British City" | Peter Hitchens.

Also from London:

Men who correct women over any disagreement could be hauled before disciplinarians under plans being weighed up by the Green Party.

Leaders are considering broadening the party's definition of misogyny to the point that 'any disagreement' could lead to men facing sanction.

The 1967 Plan to Limit Population

Kingsley Davis was a great XX century USA demographer who coined the terms "population explosion" and "zero population growth". In 1967 he proposed policies to limit population growth:

Squeeze consumers through taxation and inflation, make housing very scarce by limiting construction, force wives and mothers to work outside the home to offset the inadequacy of male wages, yet provide few childcare facilities; encourage migration to the city by paying low wages in the country and providing few rural jobs; increase congestion in cities by starving the transit system; increase personal insecurity by encouraging conditions that produce unemployment and haphazard political arrest.

He nailed it. White fertility declined rapidly, and a 1965 immigration law resulted in the USA being flooded with Third World migrants to replace the Whites.

Complaints about Grok AI

AP reports:

Grok has been criticized for generating manipulated images, including depictions of women in bikinis or sexually explicit poses, as well as images involving children.

Maybe that is illegal in some countries, but in the USA, ads and social media have such stuff all the time.

Some images are illegal, but then it would also be illegal for Grok to generate such images internally for testing.

For decades, it has been easy to cut and paste someone's head to a naked body. Such pictures can be in poor taste, but I am not sure much can or should be done about it. There is a very long list of text, images, sounds, and videos, that some people say are offensive. AI can make such pictures more realistic, but it has also conditioned us to not take these seriously.

Grok was forced to reverse course after it appeared to make antisemitic posts, including comments that praised Adolf Hitler, saying it was taking down “inappropriate posts.”

The chatbot Grok shared several antisemitic posts, including the trope that Jews run Hollywood, and denied that such a stance could be described as Nazism.

I agree with Grok that Nazism does not mean saying that Jews run Hollywood.

I sometimes hear people complain that AI has reached a plateau, and is not much better than ChatGPT of a couple of years ago. Not true. The AI models have been progressing at a fairly steady pace for ten years, with no end in sight. Progress in just the last couple of months has been remarkable.

Why Fox News Fired Tucker Carlson

There is currently a big Jewish push to control the news media. It is supposedly triggered by Nick Fuentes, but appears to be much more driven by criticism of Israel waging the Gaza War.

I did not realize that the Jews got Tucker Carlson fired.

The Times of Israel reported in 2023:

In a move that shocked many, Fox News announced on Monday that it had “parted ways” with Tucker Carlson, the US network’s most-watched host, whose on-air embrace of white nationalist conspiracy theories had defined its editorial voice since 2017.

The channel did not give a reason for Carlson’s departure in its press release, which said that his last program aired Friday. ...

To the Anti-Defamation League, the firing was long overdue. The group’s leader Jonathan Greenblatt called for Fox to fire Carlson in 2021, after the host first promoted the white-supremacist Great Replacement theory on air.

“It’s about time,” Greenblatt said on Twitter. “For far too long, Tucker Carlson has used his primetime show to spew antisemitic, racist, xenophobic & anti-LGBTQ hate to millions.”

Glenn Greenwald posted a video today on ADL Demands Censorship of Tucker, Hasan Piker, Nick Fuentes and More. As he explains, it is all about Israel.

Why did you have real bullets?

I am not sure whether the Minnesota ICE shooting was justified, but consider this:

After Renee Wood’s death, someone — apparently her partner, Becca — screaming: “Why did you have real bullets?”

Yes, the perp was a lesbian, and her lesbian lover wonders why police use real bullets.

Also news:

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent who fatally shot Renee Good last week in Minneapolis, Jonathan Ross, suffered internal bleeding to the torso following the incident, according to two U.S. officials briefed on his medical condition. ...

Kristi Noem, the Homeland Security secretary, previously acknowledged that Ross was taken to the hospital after the shooting and was released the same day. She said he was recovering from his injuries, describing him as an experienced law enforcement officer who believed he was defending himself and fellow agents.

There was some disagreement over whether the perp hit the officer. Apparently she rammed her car into him hard enough to hospitalize him.

Online, I see people complaining about AWFULs. That stands for Affluent/Angry, White, Female, Urban, Liberal/Leftist. Somewhat like a Karen. I think I need to criticize White women more often.

Meanwhile, here is a good rant about Black women. It points out that Black women are hardly ever criticized. There are indeed lots of Black women who say dopey things all the time, and most public figures are afraid to say anything.

Update: NY Times video analysis says the officer was not run over or in great danger.

How progressives dismiss challenges

An article in The Atlantic magazine starts:

Progressives often follow a particular pattern when they want to dismiss a phenomenon that challenges their beliefs. The writer Rob Henderson summed it up in a tweet in 2021: “Step 1: It’s not really happening Step 2: Yeah, it’s happening, but it’s not a big deal Step 3: It’s a good thing, actually Step 4: People freaking out about it are the real problem.” This was the left’s archetypal response to any number of excesses and abuses perpetrated under the banner of social justice, including cancel culture, the outbursts of violence during the so-called racial reckoning of 2020, and the violations of even basic fairness at the peak of the #MeToo movement.

Scott Adams, RIP

News:

Scott Adams, who kept cubicle denizens laughing for more than three decades with Dilbert, the bitingly funny comic strip that poked fun at the absurdity of corporate life, before racist remarks got him pink-slipped, died Tuesday. He was 68.

His comic strip was once the most popular. He also wrote some very popular books. He eventually got canceled for some obscure comments about an opinion poll.

He also had a podcast with some brilliant analyses of why Donald Trump was popular.

Schumer Proposes Censorship Resolution

Left-wing Jews are also attacking free speech. Democrat Jew Senator Chuck Schumer introduced this resolution:

RESOLUTION

Condemning white supremacy, hate, and antisemitism, and efforts to give a platform to these dangerous ideologies.

Whereas Nick Fuentes is a white supremacist leader, organizer, and podcaster; Whereas Fuentes identifies himself as a ‘‘White Identitarian, race realist, ‘Jewish aware’, counter-Zionist, authoritarian’’; ...

(5) popularized the phrase ‘‘six million cookies’’ to express doubt about the 6,000,000 Jews killed during the Holocaust; ...

Whereas Fuentes used the 2017 ‘‘Unite the Right’’ rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, during which hundreds of torch-bearing demonstrators chanted ‘‘Jews will not replace us’’, to mainstream his ideology;

Schumer is a Jew who has worked for decades to replace us with foreigners.

Whereas Fuentes has repeatedly peddled the white suprema- cist ‘‘Great Replacement Theory’’, which Fuentes calls the ‘‘Great Replacement REALITY’’, an antisemitic, racist, and xenophobic conspiracy theory that claims that Jews are orchestrating the replacement of native white Europeans from their countries by non-white immigrants;

Whereas, on June 6, 2024, Fuentes posted that ‘‘there are basically two things that are going on: White genocide and Jewish subversion’’;

Whereas, in March 2023, at a rally in Maryland, Fuentes declared, ‘‘I love Hitler’’, and targeted ‘‘Talmudic Jews’’, which is a white supremacist and antisemitic term for Jewish people, saying, according to reporting, that ‘‘Talmudic Jews need to either leave the county or be converted’’;

I would assume that a Talmudic Jew is a Jew who follows the Talmud, just as a Biblical Christian is a Christian who follows the Bible. How is this antisemitic?

The word antisemitism is coming to mean opposition to genocide.

(4) advancing the dual-loyalty trope by saying that Jewish Americans are loyal first to Israel and that ‘‘they have this international community across borders, extremely organized, that is putting the interests of themselves before the interests of their home country’’; and

(5) claiming that he sees ‘‘Jewishness’’ as the defining trait of his political opponents;

Schumer is extremely loyal to Israel, as noted in his Wikipedia article:

Schumer has called himself "Shomer Yisrael" or "Guardian of Israel", an epithet he has used for years. ...

In a March 2025 interview with Bret Stephens, Schumer said, "My job is to keep the left pro-Israel."

Yes, I think Jewishness is the defining trait of Fuentes' political opponents. No one else would complain about six million cookies.

The resolution goes on to attack Tucker Carlson and Heritage Foundation for not going along with Jewish censorship demands.

Judeo-Christianity Must Die

Some Christians posted a video plugging a book:

The Hyphenated Heresy | Why Judeo-Christianity Must Die

Judeo-Christianity is not just shorthand how two religions share an Old Testament text. It is a fundamentally different religion that has bankrupted American evangelicals to support a state in the Middle East that has nothing to do with the Bible, Christ, or true religion.

This is about Christian Zionism. It is very common for evangelical Christians to be pro-Jewish and pro-Israel.

I previously posted Christian Zionism is a Heresy.

It gives this explanation for how Judaism is different:

40:18 Or um you can swear and cross your fingers and be deceitful. Notice this. My goodness. When you think of, oh yeah, there really is a long heritage, a long history precedent of of this lawyer type religion. That's what Judaism is. is the religion of lawyers.

40:36 It's litigation. And it's and it's the whole thing is trying to find loopholes to somehow be able to tip your hat to God while defrauding and robbing your common man. And so, um, already in terms of swearing or oath or giving your words. And again, 2,000 years, it's only gotten exponentially worse. But even at the time of Christ, they were saying, well, you know what? You can swear by the temple, the house of God. My father's house shall be a house of prayer for all nations. You can take that and swear by it. Blasphemy. Um, and you can do this and not be bound by your word. So, you can say, "Look, I promise that I'm going to uh to pay you this amount for this service or this good, and I give you my word by the temple." And what was it really?

Like, it's childish. It's it's it's lawyers using, you know, highlevel litigation and vernacular, but really it's imagine a 5-year-old child just with technical jargon, but a 5-year-old child, the equivalent is, um, dad, yeah, I'll do what you say. Um, and then later on doing the exact opposite. And when you're called out for it, saying, "Well, yeah, I said that, but I had my fingers crossed behind my back." Doesn't count. That's what they were doing.

The Oct. 7 Hamas attack has sharpened the divide between Zionists and others.

There are lots of non-religious reasons for supporting Israel, but this addresses the religious issues. In particular, they say that Judaism is the most anti-Christian of the major world religions. Israel just caters to Christians to the extend that it cements USA support.

The video also attacks the commonly-repeated notion that Judaism and Christianity share a common foundation.

Separately an orthodox Jew Trump-supporting law professor published a WSJ op-ed on how Jewish conservatives are conspiring to purge the right-wing of anyone not loyal to the Zionist cause:

Mr. Roberts’s infamous video was most sharply criticized for invoking antisemitic tropes such as “venomous coalition” and “globalist class.” The deeper problem with his message was its neglect for the integrity of the institution Mr. Roberts leads. He declared unconditional fealty to Tucker Carlson, who he said “always will be a close friend of the Heritage Foundation.” He defended Mr. Carlson’s softball interview with Nick Fuentes, a fringe figure who has denied the Holocaust. And Mr. Roberts said he wouldn’t be “attacking our friends on the right” or “canceling our own people,” referring respectively to Messrs. Carlson and Fuentes.

But the Heritage Foundation has no power to cancel anyone. All it can do is protect its own integrity by declining to associate with unsavory figures like Mr. Fuentes. That’s what National Review editor William F. Buckley did in 1962, when he denounced John Birch Society leader Robert Welch who claimed, among other things, that Dwight Eisenhower was a communist, and whose organization disseminated antisemitic propaganda even while professing to oppose antisemitism.

This is just dishonest Jewish supremacy. Fuentes does not deny the Holocaust, and was certainly attacked by Roberts and Carlson. Fuentes is not even the real target here. These Jews are mainly going after Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and others who have fallen away from Zionism, like Charlie Kirk.

It is funny how they all cite Buckley trying to cancel the JBS 62 years ago. He was just slandering a political rival.

The world is lining up against Israel, and what it is doing in Gaza. Wikipedia says:

The Gaza genocide is the ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war.

Much of the world now favors kicking the Jews out of Israel. It is very strange that right-wing Jews are now focusing so much hatred on conservatives who are mostly pro-Jew and pro-Israel.

Catholic Princeton professor and Trump-hater Robert P. George has joined the attack, citing "the moral principles of the Judeo-Christian tradition". I heard that his wife is a Jew. There are no such principles. According to Wikipedia, the term Judeo-Christian was redefined and popularized during the Cold War in an attempt to invoke a unified American identity opposed to communism.

It appears to me that many Christians are being deceived and bullied into supporting anti-Christian religious views. Maybe they are worried about being called anti-semitic. In today lingo, everyone is either an anti-semite or a genocidal baby killer. There is nothing wrong with rejecting the beliefs of a rival religion.

Best Movie of Century: Parasite

The NY Times published 100 Best Movies of the 21st Century List, and first place is the 2019 Korean Parasite!

This is baffling. I suspect that the movie would not have done so well, if in English or set in the USA. Hollywood would not make a movie like this.

If you have not seen it, the main point is that rich people are much too nice to poor people. A rich family is consistently nice to some poor grifters who turn out to have no redeeming values. The rich should have never trusted the poor for anything.

This movie was so widely praised that I believe that everyone liked its elitist message. Do not trust poor people. Keep them away from your family, unless they are carefully controlled and supervised. They are poor because they lack the good character of respectable people, and even if you give them an honest break, they are still disgusting criminals.

If someone smells bad, then trust your instincts and assume that he is a disgusting person. Do thorough background checks. Do frequent checks to make sure that some low-life is not taking advantage of you.

Many critics praised the movie's unflinching honesty. By this I assume they mean that honest decent people achieve the good life by being good citizens, while poor people are like vermin to be avoided.

If you watch the movie, just pretend the Parks are Whites, while the Kims are Blacks.

I asked an AI LLM, and it said that the movie maker intended a more nuanced interpretation, and that it's an indictment of a world where honest paths lead nowhere for many. But that is not the movie at all. The Kims do get honest jobs and kindness, and they turn into evil monsters anyway. There is no ambiguity. The Parks are nice people throughout the movie, and the Kims are very bad.

Reviews by left-wing critics usually have some commentary about rich people have better lives than poor people, sometimes citing data that is not in the movies. They see what they want to see. Yes of course rich people have more than poor people, by definition. But the movie itself does not speak out against this at all. If anything, the movies suggests that poor people should be more limited in their opportunities, so that they do not ruin the lives of nice people.

I conclude that this movie is being praised for its unflinching honesty, but no one wants to say what it is honest about. Because admitting it is elitist.

The False Theory of Cognitive Dissonance

The New Yorker magazine reports:

It’s hard to overstate how influential the theory is today. “You almost certainly can’t get through an introductory psychology class without hearing about cognitive dissonance,” Adam Mastroianni, writer of the psychology Substack “Experimental History,” told me. The phrase has been invoked to explain why environmentalists eat meat and why some Trump supporters play down the President’s connections to Jeffrey Epstein.

The article explains the contrived origin of the theory, and how attempts to replicate studies have failed.

Wikipedia defines:

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is described as a mental phenomenon in which people unknowingly or subconsciously hold fundamentally conflicting cognitions.[1][2] Being confronted by situations that create this dissonance or highlight these inconsistencies motivates change in their cognitions or actions to reduce this dissonance, maybe by changing a belief, by explaining something away,[2] or by taking actions that reduce perceived inconsistency.[3] ...

Festinger's cognitive dissonance theory is still one of the most influential social theories in modern social psychology.

Of course people do try to resolve conflicting evidence and beliefs. No issue there. It is the psychology theorizing about this that is dubious. If you ever hear someone say that something is explained by the theory of cognitive dissonance, the explanation is almost certainly incorrect.

Common Ancestors

Yes, very unsettling.

The Chief Justice on the Declaration

There are two stories about the American founding -- one that the USA was to be an egalitarian paradise for all people on Earth, and one that it was White supremacist for the benefit of the WASPs living there.

Chief Justice John Roberts has published his end of year report.

A quarter of a millennium later, the Declaration of Independence stands as one of the most widely read and emulated political documents in history. Its preamble articulates the theory of American government in a single passage that has been hailed as “the greatest sentence ever crafted by human hand.”7

That sentence — likely the principal work of Jefferson, with light edits from Franklin and Adams — proclaims: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”8

It enunciated the American creed, a national mission statement, even though it quite obviously captured an ideal rather than a reality, given that the vast majority of the 56 signers of the Declaration (even Franklin) enslaved other humans at some point in their lives.

No, those signers did not enslave anyone. While many did own slaves, they did not approve of enslaving Africans and shipping them to America.

The Declaration goes on to complain about "merciless Indian savages". It did not intend to make citizens out of Negroes or Indians.

A few years later, the Constitution preamble reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It later provides for the banning of the slave trade, but not slavery itself.

Note that there is no mention of being for the benefit of foreigners who might wish to come.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 allowed citizenship for free White Christians of good character, and for children of two citizen parents.

Neanderthals were the Most Advanced Humans

I have often complained about people who deny that Neanderhals were humans. Almost every article about them says that "we" outcompeted the Neanderthals and drove them extinct.

However most of the evidence indicates that European Neanderthals had bigger brains and were more advanced than the African homo sapiens.

A new NY Times article sumarizes some of the recent evidence:

Neanderthals, who flourished across Eurasia for hundreds of thousands of years before vanishing around 40,000 years ago, had a notable return to the scientific spotlight in 2025.

More than a dozen high-profile scientific studies explored all sorts of aspects of their existence, from their love lives (they probably kissed Homo sapiens) to potential flaws in their red blood cells that may have hastened their decline.

Biology professor Jerry Coyne, an expert on speciation, adds:

For a long time I’ve maintained that Neanderthals, which most anthropologists seem to think are a species different from Homo sapiens, in fact constituted a population that was H. sapiens. That, at least, is a reasonable conclusion if you use the Biological Species Concept, which defines populations as members of the same species if, when they meet under natural conditions in nature, can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. And we know that’s true of Neanderthals and “modern” H. sapiens, because we carry some Neanderthal genes (I have some), and that means the two groups hybridized and that the hybrids backcrossed to our ancestors—and were fertile.

DNA evidence shows that Neanderthals and African homo sapiens interbred, with today's non-African humans being descended from both.

His fieldwork in Spain indicates that Neanderthals independently fashioned cave art and jewelry, such as decorated seashells, between 65,000 and 115,000 years ago, tens of thousands of years before similar finds linked to Homo sapiens in Africa or their arrival in Europe. ...

A study in Science Direct detailed how Neanderthals in modern-day Serbia were elite hunters, executing daring, commando-style ambushes and dramatic cliff drives to corner wild goats in treacherous terrain. Fifty thousand to 70,000 years ago, in what is now Israel, neighboring Neanderthal groups practiced distinct, culturally transmitted methods for butchering animals, according to research published in Frontiers in Environmental Archaeology. And in a paper in Science Advances, scientists working a site in Germany found that Neanderthals were extracting marrow fat from bones 125,000 years ago, long before early Homo sapiens were doing anything similar. ...

The study, detailed in Science Advances, highlighted three items that showed clear evidence of having been intentionally shaped and used for drawing. One remarkable discovery was a two-inch yellow “crayon” from roughly 42,000 years ago, which microscopic analysis showed had been repeatedly sharpened, indicating that it was likely a valued tool. The implement had clearly been modified through grinding and scraping.

Dr. d’Errico argued that the crayon must be attributed to Neanderthals rather than modern humans: It was found in a site known to have been occupied by Neanderthals, and preceded the era when Homo sapiens were widely accepted to have arrived in that area. Researchers called the artifact a crayon, he said, based on its function and specific wear patterns, which strongly confirmed its use for marking a surface, possibly skin or rock. Tiny signs of friction and applied pressure, not just the object’s shape alone, suggested it had been used as an artistic tool.

Note that even this article calls the Africans "modern humans" to distinguish them from Neanderthals, as if the Neanderthals were not modern or not human. On the contrary, this evidence shows that Neanderthals were more modern and more human than the African homo sapiens.

I used to follow some the evolutionist v creationist debates. The evolutionists would argue that the Neanderthals were a separate species, contradicting the Bible somehow. The creationists argued that the Neanderthals were human, possibly descended from Adam and Eve. It is amusing that the evolutionists turned out to be wrong.

And yet the evolutionists seem to want to cling to the idea that the true humans were the Africa homo sapiens, because they are closer to African apes, and maybe descended from an African Adam and Eve.

Civilization Founded on Rational Thought

James Marriott writes in the London Times:

The Dark Ages, as I am hardly the first to remark, seem to be returning. Occult forces we believed the Age of Reason had banished forever are swarming back into public life. ...

It is becoming clear we have drastically undervalued the rare and precious achievement of a civilisation founded on rational thought. Ironically, as the Dark Ages return, the Enlightenment philosophers and scientists who campaigned against zealotry and ignorance — and to whom we ultimately owe the entire miracle of scientific modernity — are patronisingly downgraded by revisionist historians.

He goes on to complain about some podcasters with farfetched theories.

This is a common view of history, and it is wrong.

Universities were invented during the Dark Ages. We own scientific modernity to the Dark Ages, not those Enlightenment philosophers.

To the extent that the Dark Ages suffered economic decline, it was mostly because the Islamic world had disrupted Mediterranean trade routes. The Roman Empire had previously kept these routes open.

If you really believe that Europe created a civilization founded on rational thought, and you want to follow their example, then the first thing is to keep out the Mohammedans.

George Floyd Video killed 10,000

Publicity about the death of George Floyd led to a huge spike in Black murders. The murder is only now returning to normal.

Derek Chauvin has an appeal pending, but he has no chance. He has a good argument that he was just following standard police procedure, and did not contribute to Floyd's death. But freeing him might lead to riots, so he will stay in prison.

Someday people will be asking about how the world went mad around 2010-20. Floyd's death had a huge impact, but it is impossible for any rational person to believe that the cops had any intent to kill Floyd, or that the incident somehow proves systemic racism against Blacks. And yet that is what most people said.

Not Fit to be Ohio Governor

The Jewish lobby is in an all-out attack against Nick Fuentes, and anyone who even talks to him. He also infuriates feminists, as he argues to keep women out of politics.

Fuentes frequently and harshly criticizes Pres. Trump, and says his main priority for the 2026 election is to defeat Indian-American Republican Vivek Ramaswamy in the 2026 Ohio gubernatorial election.

Here is what puzzles me -- his chief opponent is a Jewish Democrat woman!

The problem with Ramaswamy is not just that he is a Hindu first generation immigrant, or that he is a con man who made his fortune by overselling a useless product. It is that he arrogantly tries to define America in a way to make it more suitable for Hindoo immigrants. He also promotes Indian immigration to replace dumb Americans.

He ran for President as a natural born citizen, but in this video he admits that his father is not a citizen, and his mother was not when he was born. Thus he would not qualify as a natural born citizen, under some definitions, as he was an anchor baby.

He attacked Fuentes in a speech as having no place in the conservative movement, getting this response:

3:52 Well, you know what, Vivek Ramaswamy and Ben Shapiro, I think it's time for both of you to go home.

This is my home. Okay? I was born here. My parents were born here. My grandparents were born here. My grandparents fought in World War II. I am a Catholic. I was baptized. I was confirmed. I observe Christmas and Easter. I speak English not as a second language, as a first language. I play baseball. I eat hot dogs. This is my country.

4:36 We will allow you to live here as a guest if you respect our customs, our heritage, our traditions, our identity. We may even give citizenship to your great grandkids if they are patriotic Americans.

But if you come into my country from India, from [ __ ] Poland or Russia where these Jews come from, if you come into my country and start telling me what it is to be an American, who is and isn't American, you come into my country and start telling me that being European and being Christian and speaking English has nothing to do with America. And someone who got their citizenship from an H1B visa after getting a green card is just as American as someone that came on the Mayflower, you have worn out your welcome and it is time for you to go home.

5:40 That's what that means. Because you do not belong here. You have no respect for this country. And here's the difference. When my ancestors got to this country from Italy, they kissed the ground when they arrived and they learned to speak [ __ ] English.

It will interesting to see what the Ohio voters do with someone who insults Americans in this way.

Female Instincts Undermine Civilization

The Black Pigeon video channel says:

8:55 No great civilization, unfortunately, whether we like it or not, has ever lasted after handing women full sexual autonomy. The civilizations that did dominate, well, they enforced strict patriarchy, arranged marriages, male authority, and restricted freedom. These weren't cruelties. They were engineered for societal survival, guaranteeing reproduction, unity, and strong lineages.

I guess we have more free speech now, and he was previously banned for saying things like this:

0:06 if women's sexual preferences are liberated and go unchecked they destroy civilizations. if women are allowed to choose harems. for if women are allowed a voice in matters that pertain to the safety of a nation then that nation will die inevitably

0:21 it's as simple as that once you realize this you understand the entire basis behind civilized society and if not you'll understand by the end of this video ...

14:46 this is why we've never seen a feminist civilization aside from very short spans at the end of great empires.

14:57 the signs of decline are already observable while many countries are sliding into social decline. the canary in the coal mine is the self-described humanitarian superpower that pursues a feminist foreign policy.

15:10 when looking at sweden it's one of the most gender equal countries on earth and while they've become the rape capital of europe they're flushing their culture and country down the toilet and pressing forward in their civilizational suicide at an ever accelerating pace.

15:26 the total and complete feminization of sweden and its men have allowed their women to invite their country's own destruction through the importation of millions of unassimilatable and aggressive people from completely alien cultures.

15:43 not only are they borrowing money to fund the colonization of their country but they are now even creating gender imbalances that will have severe and lasting repercussions on their society's future and they await their doom with smiles of tolerance and passivity calm as hindu cows

He cites some academic research to back up some of what he says.

I am sure he is over-simplifying the research, but what if he is right? What would we do about it?

Probably some people would say that our modern liberal principles of feminism, democracy, egalitarianism, etc. require us to just put our heads in the sand and accept the consequences.

We have had a lot of social changes in the last 50 years, and many of them seemed to be without anyone even considering the long-term consequences. For example, importing Somalians to Minnesota or legalizing same-sex marriages. And changes to family law regarding divorce, alimony, and child custody. Maybe some of these are related to declines in child fertility. I do not think that the lawmakers or judges even considered the consequences.

The Most Influential Books

The Economist magazine, supposedly the most intellectual news magazine, has announced The most influential books of all time:

00:50 - Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley
02:54 - A Room of One's Own, by Virginia Wolf
07:00 - Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austin
08:42 - Harry Potter, by JK Rowling

All four written by women.

For comparison, I asked Grok:

The Bible
The Quran
The Republic by Plato
On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes
1984 by George Orwell
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling

I am stunned by the inclusion of silly children's books, and women's books.

I would have included Euclid's Elements, Ptolemy's Almagest, Newton's Principia, Maxwell's Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Von Neumann's Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, and Bourbaki's Elements of Mathematics.