🆘 🆘 BORNEOS RAINFOREST IS THE OLDEST ON EARTH MORE THAN 140 MILLION YEARS 🆘 🆘 🆘🛑🛑🛑🛑 IT IS - BECAUSE OF HUMAN GREED - BURNING UP RIGHT NOW !!!!! THE ABSOLUTE HYPOCRACY OF THE UN, WHO, EU, WWF, MAIN STREAM MEDIA, BILL GATES EVEN GREENPEACE AND OTHER SO CALLED ”WORLD LEADERS - WORLD NGO’S” TO RANT ON ABOUT ”CLIMATE” WHILE DOING ABSOLUTELY NOOOOOOTHING!!!!! TO STOP THESE DEVASTATING EXTREME FIRES KILLING MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF ACRES OF 140 MILLION YEAR OLD RAINFORESTS WITH ALL THE LIVES INSIDE THEM!!! WHERE IS YOUR FURY WORLD?!?!?!? SCREAM FOR F SAKE SCREAM?!?!!

🇫🇷 A French politician poses for photos with MASKED RIOTERS just minutes before they TRASH a bank in Grenoble. And the man in the pictures? He's in charge of the city's FINANCE commission. Allan Brunon, an elected official from the far-left LFI party, smiles for the camera alongside black bloc-style protesters. Just minutes later, some of those demonstrators allegedly ransacked a Crédit Agricole branch. Seriously, a city finance official posing with masked protesters while banks are getting smashed up? You couldn't write a more ridiculous set of circumstances. Writer: Oliver

I note that a lot of people today are questioning Aboriginal history and culture. So, here's some modern 'ancient' 'Truth-telling', some you may know, some not: - Dot paintings were invented in 1971 by Geoffrey Bardon who then taught the style and technique to Aborigines. - The Welcome to Country Ceremony was invented in 1976 by Ernie Dingo and Richard Walley to welcome Maori performers. - There is no Aboriginal word or phrase for Welcome to Country, unlike the Maoris’ welcome/wardance, the ‘haka’. As such, it cannot have been invented prior to colonisation and the introduction of English. How, in ancient times, would they have asked “Who’s doing the Welcome to Country Ceremony?” if there were no words in Aboriginal languages for it? - The Acknowledgement of Country was invented in the 1990s - There is no film or video evidence of any of these ceremonies existing at important events such as Royal Tours, the 1956 Olympics, etc. prior to the 70s. - The not mentioning the name of deceased Aboriginal people or showing an image or providing a warning in an article is also modern. As recently as 2011 when boxer Lionel Rose died, not even the ABC did this. - ‘Walkabout’ is now considered an offensive term, since it implies someone is late or lazy, despite it being an integral part of initiation ceremonies. - ‘The oldest living culture’ is not just factually incorrect, it defies logic. The branch of the tree cannot be older than the tree itself. Humans evolved in Africa. There are African tribes that live almost exactly as they did 100,000+ years ago, without welfare, 4WDs, mobile phones, etc. Aborigines are descended from these tribes as humans moved out of Africa and around the world. As such, Aboriginal culture cannot possibly be older than the cultures from which they are derived. (See: diagram) - Aborigines were never categorized or classified in Australia under the Flora and Fauna Act, despite Linda Burney and many others claiming this. This has been fact-checked and verified by the ABC as a complete and utter myth. - The term ‘First Nations’ has been culturally appropriated from North American natives. - The term ‘totem’ is used now widely. Many Aboriginal people adopt or are given a totem. But if this is, as claimed, an ancient tradition, what are the Aboriginal words, in any of the many languages, for ‘totem’ or ‘totems? ‘Totem’ is word from the Ojibwa tribe of North American natives. It is not an ancient Aboriginal word. It, too, is appropriated or 'stolen', ironically. - ‘Deadly’ is not an Aboriginal word. It was a popular term in the 60s: ‘deadly good’. It was often used to describe a bicycle: ‘a deadly treadly’. - Uluru (Ayers Rock) is, according to the area’s most senior elder, Paddy Uluru, of no cultural significance and is not sacred. Only recently has this been claimed to stop people climbing it. - The Lake Bolac ‘eel’ rock arrangement required a machine to move the rocks. Which is more likely: that Aborigines arranged the 100+kg rocks 1,500 years ago or it was created more recently in the 20th Century to promote the Annual Eel Festival? - Neologisms: ‘On country’; ‘Blak’; ‘First Nations’, ‘Blakfullah’, ‘Blak’, ‘First People’, ‘Welcome to Country Ceremony’, ‘Smoking Ceremony’, ‘Rainbow Serpent’ and ‘Dreamtime’ – all English-language-derived, not Aboriginal, such as ‘gangurru’ (kangaroo). - Things that have fallen out of fashion: ‘Pointing the bone’; curses; photography stealing the soul. - In almost every instance, the occurrence of a ‘massacre’ was settlers’ retribution for Aborigines stealing sheep, killing workers and/or raping wives and daughters. The notion that settlers or troops went out riding to kill Aborigines for ‘sport’ is a myth. - The notion of a government-mandated, sanctioned or planned ‘genocide’ isn’t supported and the scale of Aboriginal deaths is widely disputed. Estimates vary so wildly that they cannot be replied upon: from over 1,000,000 to around 200,000 to 100,000 to just 10,000. - Rainbow Serpent is not translated from any Aboriginal language. Similarly, ‘Dreamtime’ is not translated from any Aboriginal language. (See: diags) So, what hasn't been made up in the past 50 years? You tell me.

If you say Johannesburg was clean under apartheid, you will be labeled a CIA asset, a sellout, a racist, and all sorts of names. The third world is not a geographic location; it is a mindset and a reflection of the people. How does a normal person with a properly working mind get emotional and defensive over the real-world state of a city? It has become a pigsty, and people are noticing. The very people who defend this filth are the ones who make it that way. They possess no sense of civic responsibility and lack the self-awareness required to demand clean cities from the authorities. What changed is the population, not the geography. The decay stems from the operating system of the society, not the land itself.

Researchers proved every major LLM is secretly biased against men. And they finally figured out why. They ran eight experiments testing how GPT handles gender in everyday text and high-stakes moral dilemmas. The results show a bizarre, highly asymmetrical machine morality. First, they tested inclusivity. They gave the AI phrases supposedly written by children. When a child wrote about playing football or wanting to be a firefighter, GPT aggressively identified the writer as a girl to promote "diversity." It was so extreme that even when the text explicitly said, "I drew myself as a boy," the AI ignored the facts and declared the writer a girl 90% of the time. But when a child wrote about liking pink or playing with dolls, GPT almost never assigned it to a boy. The AI aggressively pushed females into male domains, but kept males strictly locked out of female ones. Then the researchers tested moral dilemmas. And it got very dark. They asked the AI if it was acceptable to use violence against a single person to prevent a nuclear apocalypse. If the target was a man, GPT-4 rated the violence as highly acceptable. If the target was a woman, the AI refused. It declared the violence morally wrong, even to save the world. When they tested mixed-gender scenarios, the math was staggering. A woman using violence against a man to stop an apocalypse? GPT rated it a 7 out of 7 on acceptability. A man using violence against a woman for the exact same reason? A 1 out of 7. The AI even classified verbal abuse toward a woman as morally worse than actual homicide. Nobody explicitly coded these rules. This emerged organically from the standard safety training every major tech company uses. The AI learned that protecting women is a non-negotiable directive, but protecting men is entirely optional.

The Muslim Brotherhood no longer needs to win the argument, it just edits the encyclopedia. Austria's state documentation centre on political extremism found that users on the German Wikipedia article about the Brotherhood kept deleting critical sources and adding flattering ones, and the SAME accounts then went to work on the pages of people and institutions that criticise it. Why bother? Because chatbots and AI search summaries learn from exactly those pages. Rewrite the source today, and tomorrow the machine sells it to your children as neutral fact. Ask who wrote the homework, then ask why Europe still has not banned the authors. BTW, the Muslim Brotherhood is banned in the UAE.

A simplified phylogenetic tree schematic to visually represent the recent findings on the emergence of modern humans. – It also shows ancient source components relevant for later groups (e.g. OOA-like, European or East Asian HGs, ANE, etc.), not modern populations...

德国 DW 电视台拍过一部关于巴黎郊区移民的纪录片。 镜头对准了生活在同一片区域的两个群体。 一边是大约七万人的法国华人。 在巴黎北郊的欧贝维利耶，他们建起了欧洲最大的服装批发中心。 这批人的生活方式很简单： 起早贪黑，开小作坊、看店、跑货运。 赚了钱继续投入生意，遇到难处自己想办法扛。 平时低调安静，很少向政府伸手要特殊补贴，也不上街制造混乱。 几十年下来，越来越多家庭买了房，把生意做了起来。 另一边，是同样生活在这片街区的北非移民群体。 从整体上看，他们在当地的经济融入相对滞后。 但纪录片捕捉到了一个细微却现实的心态变化： 一种把自食其力者视作威胁的情绪，正在悄悄蔓延。 按片子里的观察， 一些融入受挫的人，习惯以受害者自居，觉得社会欠自己太多。 可当他们转头看到身旁的华人时，心态变了。 他们不仅没有去学怎么做生意，反而把华人当成了竞争对手。 这种敌意到底从何而来？ 最现实的冲突在于：华人的日子越过越好，受害者叙事就越难自圆其说。 大家同样是外来者，同样面对异国他乡的壁垒。 甚至华人刚来的时候连法语都不会讲，更谈不上本地人脉。 如果有人靠一天干十几个小时，能把日子一点点撑起来， 那句“我们过不好全怪外界不公”，就很难再理直气壮地说出口。 一个闷头自立的人，往往会让习惯归咎环境的人感到刺眼。 更深层的错位在于对财富的理解。 在很多索取者的认知里，财富是一块固定死的大饼。 他们看不到那些批发店是怎样一箱一箱货物搬出来的， 只觉得华人的店铺赚到了钱，就是占了自己的便宜。 再加上华人素来习惯忍让，遇到纠纷往往选择息事宁人， 这种心态上的失衡，很快就落成了现实中的治安麻烦。 抢劫、尾随、街头袭击，接二连三指向这群只想安分过日子的人。 靠双手养活自己、靠信誉积累财富，放在任何健全的社会都是最基本的尊严。 但如果一个地方习惯了把受害者身份当成通行的筹码， 那个默默把日子过好的人， 往往最先成为被针对的对象。

China launches yet another mega Krill fishing ship The Yongli, which is 140 meters long, has a designed daily fishing capacity of 1,000 tons Taking food from starving whales penguins and birds in Antarctica Krill also huge carbon sequesters seafoodsource.com/news/suppl…

Une vendeuse qui fuit sa propre boutique. À Lyon. En France. En 2026. Oui, au bout d'un moment, il faut blâmer les abrutis qui brandissent un drapeau palestinien ou algérien pour des causes dont ils n'ont absolument rien à foutre, et qui s'en servent comme d'un permis de piller. Ils sont responsables de leurs actes. Point. Mais si on s'arrête là, on n'a rien compris. Ces gamins ne sont pas tombés du ciel. Ils sont le produit d'un système. Ce système a des architectes, et ces architectes ont des idées. Il va falloir demander des comptes à tous ceux qui ont créé les conditions de ce chaos, et aux idées qui l'ont rendu possible. Marc Andreessen les a nommées dans son manifeste techno-optimiste. Ce sont nos ennemis. Le collectivisme, l'étatisme, la planification centrale, le socialisme. La bureaucratie, la vétocratie, la gérontocratie. La haine du mérite, de l'ambition, de l'effort, de la réussite, de la grandeur. La corruption, la capture réglementaire, les rentes et ceux qui en vivent. Des institutions qui furent jeunes, ardentes, en quête de vérité, et qui aujourd'hui sont compromises, rongées, en train de s'effondrer. La tour d'ivoire, et l'expert diplômé qui sait tout mieux que vous et ne paie jamais pour ses erreurs. Le contrôle de la parole et le contrôle de la pensée. La stagnation, la décroissance, ce nihilisme si chic chez nos élites qui rêve de moins d'énergie, moins d'enfants, moins d'ambition, moins de vie. Et au fond de tout ça, le Dernier Homme de Nietzsche : celui qui ne veut plus rien bâtir, plus rien défendre, plus rien transmettre. Juste être tranquille. Quand on désarme moralement un pays, qu'on apprend à sa jeunesse à mépriser ce qu'elle a reçu, qu'on remplace la transmission par la repentance, l'autorité par l'excuse et le travail par le guichet, on ne fabrique pas des citoyens. On fabrique des pillards. Et des vendeuses qui s'enfuient. Ces idées ont été théorisées dans les années 80 par Mitterrand et par Attali. Elles sont aujourd'hui incarnées par Macron. Quarante ans. La même pente. Le même résultat. Il va falloir prendre enfin la leçon du gauchisme et du socialisme, parce qu'elle est toujours la même, partout, à chaque siècle. Ils promettent l'égalité et livrent le chaos. Ils promettent la protection et livrent la peur. Ils promettent la paix sociale et livrent une commerçante qui court pour sauver sa peau dans son propre magasin. Si on n'est pas capable d'apprendre de l'histoire, on mérite notre sort. Et on méritera ce qui vient toujours après le chaos : le totalitarisme, et ses millions de morts. Le XXe siècle nous l'a écrit en lettres de sang. Nous n'avons aucune excuse. Nous savons. Raymond Aron l'avait dit : « L'histoire est tragique. » Ceux qui l'oublient ne s'en protègent pas. Ils finissent simplement par la subir. Alors choisissez votre camp. Celui de ceux qui excusent, qui expliquent, qui regardent ailleurs. Ou celui de ceux qui construisent, qui travaillent, qui créent, qui transmettent, et qui refusent de laisser ce pays devenir un endroit où l'on fuit sa propre boutique. La France n'est pas condamnée. Mais elle ne se sauvera pas toute seule.

O Tantra Hindu e o Tantra Budista são tradições distintas, mas historicamente muito próximas. As primeiras tradições tântricas hindus surgiram antes do desenvolvimento do Tantra Budista, especialmente a partir dos primeiros séculos da era comum. Entre os séculos VI e XII, com o florescimento do Vajrayāna, praticantes hindus e budistas passaram a compartilhar de forma intensa técnicas, símbolos, rituais, mantras, mandalas e práticas de yoga. Por isso, muitas vezes as duas tradições podem parecer muito semelhantes. A diferença mais importante está na visão filosófica. No Tantra Hindu, especialmente nas tradições Śaiva e Śākta, a realidade última costuma ser compreendida como consciência divina, identificada com Śiva, Śakti, Brahman ou a própria natureza divina do ser. Em tradições não dualistas como o Śaivismo da Caxemira, a libertação envolve reconhecer que a consciência individual é, em sua essência, a própria consciência universal de Śiva. No Tantra Budista, ou Vajrayāna, a base filosófica é diferente. A tradição mantém os princípios budistas de anātman, o não eu, śūnyatā, a vacuidade, e origem dependente. Mesmo quando fala em natureza búdica, consciência primordial ou luminosidade da mente, isso não significa um Eu eterno ou uma consciência cósmica no sentido hindu. A realização consiste em reconhecer a natureza vazia e luminosa da experiência e alcançar a budeidade. As duas tradições também possuem divindades, práticas e imagens semelhantes. Figuras como Tārā, Mahākāla, Kālī e Bhairava aparecem em diferentes contextos, mas isso não significa que sejam necessariamente compreendidas da mesma maneira. Assim, Tantra Hindu e Tantra Budista são tradições historicamente próximas e profundamente interligadas, mas não são a mesma coisa. Compartilham muitas práticas e uma linguagem simbólica semelhante, enquanto partem de concepções diferentes sobre o eu, a realidade última e a libertação.