NZ Shootings: Human races and how they were formed

With the message of peace this is Cemendtaur.



After the recent terrorist attack in two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, the issue of race has again re-surfaced.  Was race a motivation behind the terrorist attack, it is being asked.



Let’s talk about human races.  Why do we have Black, White, Chinese, and other races in the world?



When human beings left Africa, everybody in that group looked pretty much the same.  So how come we look so different today?



The race is defined by the color of the skin, the stature, and the facial features of an individual.



The geography a group of people lives in and the food that people eat, make the race of that group.



The process takes many centuries.  Weather—hot or cold—along with the amount of sunlight determines the skin pigmentation.



Humidity in the air defines the shape and form of the nose.



What kind of food people eat defines their statures. When there is more milk and dairy products or other things having a large supply of calcium present in normal diet of a group of people, the larger bone sizes become evident and people are tall.



The hair is also shaped by the humidity and the amount of sunlight that is there at one place.



The process of artificial selection can steer a group of people in a specific direction.  For example, when through a random gene mutation a certain trait shows up in a group of human beings, that trait can become prevalent or obsolete based on the preferences of that group.  The color of the eyes and the hair of a group of people is determined by the process of artificial selection.



Living as hunter-gatherers, human beings moved often and did not let a particular geography work on them. Race is a phenomenon tied to the communities that settled down in one place and let the geography of the place act upon them, for many generations.



Race is not a fixed thing; it is a continuously evolving trait, though the changes taking place in defining the ‘race’ of a group of people are hard to notice in one lifetime.





This is it for today.  Hope to see you next time.

Beyond College bypassing College: How to give the best world-class education to your children, for free

Beyond College bypassing College


With the message of peace this is Cemendtaur





Higher education has been evolving ever since people settled in communities and interest was taken in understanding the physical world.  For a long time, education remained a luxury afforded by the very rich.  In the second phase, education remained under the influence of religion.  Scientific education, independent inquiry is a newcomer—but it quickly took over.



For the last several decades a four-year college degree provided a strong foundation for a lifetime of employment opportunities.  Colleges have done a good job in preparing students for a productive life.



A good college degree starts with general education in various fields and then ends up in specialized studies in the field of student’s choice.



But ideas, like people have expiration dates.  The time is up for colleges as we know them.



Here is how to proceed in these new times.  Use an online resource such as the Khan Academy for basic education in math, all the way to calculus and develop a broad understanding of social sciences. 



Then couple this knowledge with wisdom provided in TED talks.  Watch the 100 most popular TED talks: on life, on health, on fitness, on finances, on happiness, on psychology, on technology, on personal skills, on motivation, on leadership, etc.  That’s it! 



Enter the workforce wisely and keep learning through the Internet.



All this education is free and taking this route you will end up far ahead of anyone still thinking drowning oneself in loans to study at an expensive university is the best strategy to thrive in the modern world.



This is it for today.  Hope to see you next time.

NZ Shootings: Multiculturalism does not work?

Multiculturalism: It is all about sex



With the message of peace, this is Cemendtaur





Multiculturalism is not working.  That’s what Brenton Tarrant wrote in his manifesto.  In support of his opposition for multiculturalism, Tarrant gives examples of sexual abuse cases in the West, those involving immigrants especially the Muslim immigrants.

Let's look at his argument more closely.



First, what is multiculturalism?  A society is multicultural when there are people of different cultures living together.  To understand what this means, let's first define ‘culture.’  In their primary needs of finding security, eating food, and producing children, human beings are not much different than the animals.  How a group of human beings does these things, broadly defines that group's culture.  How you build your houses, is your culture.  How you dress up, is your culture.  What and how you eat, is your culture.  And of course, how you indulge in the process of making babies is also your culture.

Most of the big cities of the western world are textbook examples of multiculturalism.  The majority of people living in such multicultural societies have no problem with this setup.  So, when Brenton Tarrant or other White Nationalists say that multiculturalism does not work, it means that it does not work for them, that they don’t like the idea.



But that argument aside, I am in favor of educating new immigrants to the west about the culture of their adopted country.

Immigrants and especially the Muslim immigrants often come from very conservative, sexually starved environments.  They need to be educated about the norms of the society they are becoming a part of.

They need to be told that when it is said that a woman is free, it really means that.  That a woman is free to dress as she pleases.  Unlike back home, a scantily dressed woman is not offering it to you. That anyone below 18 is considered a child—and other such lessons.



This is it for today.  Hope to see you next time.

NZ Shootings: White Nationalists must be violent?

Violence is the only solution?



In his manifesto, Brenton Tarrant, the terrorist in NZ Mosque killings, writes that violence is the only solution to get rid of immigrants in the western countries.  And he wants to get rid of the immigrants because he is afraid that with time the population of the migrants and their families will grow, and the European-descent people i.e., people Brenton Tarrant cares about, will lose control of the country and descendants of these immigrants will take control of the country.



And Brenton Tarrant has history to back up his views.  This is exactly how Brenton Tarrant’s ancestors took control of Australia and reduced the Aborigines population to the level of insignificant minority.  The European immigrants to the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand took control of the land by force.  They invaded those lands.

So in a way this guy is saying that if violence was justified then; it is justified now.



And we disagree.  Europeans using violence against the local populations of the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand, was not justified in the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and the Eighteenth Centuries, but the world did not speak up because the world did not know AND those lands did not have a written social contract that everyone agreed on.



That’s not the case today.  Countries exist today with strong social contracts called the Constitution and the Laws of the land, and no social contract allows people to kill each other.



So violence by White Nationalists will not stop immigrants from coming to the western countries; it will only marginalize the White Nationalists and defame their legitimate struggle.



This is it for today.  Hope to see you next time.

NZ Shootings: The big issue of immigration

From colonial rule to Christchurch.



Human beings have always moved.  Because of the influence of the global media today, now the movement of people is more obvious and comes into regular discussions.



When the Europeans reached the Americas,  or Australia, or New Zealand, the local populations of those lands got alarmed.  With time the local population was decimated, even when it put up whatever resistance it could put up.  Too bad there was no media to cover the story of the native population’s struggle.



In today’s world, like in yesterday’s world, people move for two reasons: first, for economic reasons, and second, for their own survival, when there is a war or unrest in the country they are living in.  And where do they go?  They go to places that are secure and affluent.  The migrants choose their destination based on two criteria: how easy it is to go there i.e., physical movement to the new country, and that there is minimum language barrier to settle in.

Keep these two criteria in mind and you can tell who will go where.



Nicaragua.  People from Nicaragua would like to go south to a more affluent Spanish-speaking country, and the more enterprising among them would like to go to North, to USA, to get absorbed in the big Spanish speaking community there.



Mali.  People from Mali would like to go to another neighboring French-speaking country, or go to France.



Angola.  People from Angola would like to go to Portugal, but they will settle for South Africa because it is right next door.



And you see the pattern: the colonial rule of Africa, Asia, and the Americas has given people of those lands exposure to the language of their colonial masters, and when given a chance the migrants from these countries go to the most prosperous country speaking that language.



So, European-descent people of USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, should blame the British Empire for the large number of English-speaking migrants they see in their countries.



This is it for today.  Hope to see you next time.

NZ Shootings: The Predictable Muslim Response.

NZ Shootings: The Predictable Muslim Response.



With the message of peace, this is Cemendtaur



I am watching with disappointment, the predictable but pathetic response to the New Zealand killings from the Muslim communities.

It is once again the same mantras of self-pity.  "Islamophobia, Islamophobia, Islamophobia.  Muslims are innocent.  The fear of Muslims is growing.  They are harmless but they are still being killed."



Stop this nonsense!



Read what Brenton Tarrant wrote in his manifesto.  He has no issues with the Muslims
if they stay in their own countries.



And it is time for practicing Muslims living in the western countries to really think about this.  Why are they here?



Muslims are told that Islam is a beautiful religion; that Islam has all the answers; that
Islam is a complete way of life.  So why don’t Muslims use Islam to make
their own Muslim countries, beautiful?



Why do Muslims have to go to places of kafirs to find a good life?

Why can’t they make their own place a nice place to live?



I have an answer for a couple of Muslim majority countries where Muslims cannot do what they should be doing.  Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia.  Yes, these countries are being bombed by foreign powers and Muslims from there have to go somewhere to find refuge.  So why don’t Muslims go to Mecca and Medina?  Why do they go to the western countries to find shelter?



And what about the other Muslim-majority countries?  Why do people from those countries need to go to the West to find a good life?



I would love to hear your thoughts on this.



Hope to see you next time.

NZ Shootings: Should Aborigines start killing European-Australians?

NZ Shooting: Should Aborigines start killing European-Australians?



With the message of peace, this is Cemendtaur



You cannot call Brenton Tarrant an ignorant man.  He is a well-traveled individual and the manifesto he has written shows a high level of intelligence. 



Brenton had a plan and things went by his plan. He killed as many people as he could and then got arrested without himself being killed.



Moreover, he also showed thoughtfulness in selecting his target.

Australia has strict gun ownership laws; so Brenton chose New Zealand for his terrorist act.



You see Brenton, how people are clever to use laws to their advantage. Australia has lenient immigration laws so immigrants can go there, but because of the tough gun laws you could not get guns to kills them there.  New Zealand had relaxed gun laws so you took advantage of those laws.





Of course, it is doubtful if Brenton Tarrant will achieve the ultimate goal he wanted to achieve: to scare away foreigners from the western countries.  For a Syrian refugee New Zealand is still far safer than Syria.



In his manifesto, Brenton Tarrant calls immigrants to the western countries, invaders.  We have a problem with that label. Immigrants are not coming to the western countries with guns.  You know who went to the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa with guns, to invade those lands.  The Europeans did.  Brenton Tarrant’s forefathers were the true invaders. 

So what should the Aborigines do?  Should they start killing European-Australian invaders?  What should the Maoris do?  Should they start killing European-New Zealander invaders?  What should the American Indians do?  Should they start killing European-American invaders?


No.  Nothing like this should happen.



If citizens of the western countries don’t like new immigrants they should make new laws to restrict immigration.  If White Nationalists are not finding this support in the government, then they should understand that the majority of European-descent population of the western countries is not with them.   May be the White Nationalists should find a place where they are in majority and claim that land for themselves.  But no matter what, terrorist acts against unarmed civilians cannot be tolerated. Because in this day and age no social contract can allow citizens to become violent against fellow-citizens.  It is immoral for you to seek your own security from a social contact, and then break the same social contract to harm others.



That’s it for today.  Hope to see you next time.

NZ Mosque Shootings: In defense of the shooter

New Zealand mosque shooting was an event bigger than Trump's election. This terrorist attack will have far-reaching consequences, and the reason is simple: this guy had a manifesto.  You cannot dismiss this guy as a lunatic, a racist, a white supremacist, or an Islamophobe.  He was none of that.  And he has explained very well why he was doing what he was doing.  We certainly disagree with his violent methods to achieve the goals he and other white nationalists want to achieve; but you cannot disagree with the fact the he has a strong logic behind his attack.

I read through many newspapers this morning and I was surprised that most of the newspapers ignored the manifesto the shooter sent on social media before going on his killing spree.

And I see a reason why media outlets would do that: they don’t want to become the mouthpiece of the terrorist.


But I think it is disingenuous.  The people who agree with white nationalists’ agenda, will get hold of Tarrent’s manifesto and will secretly become more entrenched in that ideology.


I am against keeping anything in the closet, no matter how hateful it is.  So, what was Brenton Tarrant’s argument?  The argument goes like this.


Because of the unchecked immigration in western countries, the European population of these countries is shrinking and he does not like it.  He wants to see people of his kind, European descent people, in charge of things in the western countries.  He does not hate foreigners.  He does not hate Muslims. He just wants to see them in their place, back in the home country they have come from.  They stay in their countries, and leave his country to people of his kind, the European-descent people.



So, what’s wrong with this argument?  If there is nothing wrong with the Japanese trying to not lose their country to immigrants; if there is nothing wrong with the Chinese retaining control of their country; what’s wrong with people of European-descent trying to keep control in their hands, of countries they have established?



Let me tell you what’s wrong with his violent method.  The immigration laws that the western countries have made were not made by the immigrants or the Muslims.  These people are just the beneficiaries of the policies the governments of these lands made.  So White Nationalists should have an issue with their governments, and not with the immigrants.  If the nationalists can convince their governments to stop all immigration from non-European countries, then there is not much the immigrants can do.  Similarly, the nationalists can work with their governments to make policies that favor people of European-descent, and give second class citizenship to others; if that happens, what can the immigrants do, but go back to the lands where policies are more favorable to them.



But White Nationalists know very well that in this day and age, such discriminatory policies cannot be made.



So, here is another non-violent way for the White Nationalists, to be around people of their kind and don’t see non-Europeans at all.

You can make small communities where you don’t allow other people to enter.



Let’s see how that experiment works out for you.  It could be the nirvana you are looking for.



I have been asked to keep it short, so this is it for today.  Hope to see you next time.