Who is the biggest hate-criminal in the world? There’s only one contender and you may be shocked to learn that it’s a female. Worse still, that female is as immortal as she is immoral. For millennia, she’s been hating on humanity, discriminating between different groups and imposing inequality, preventing women from matching the intellectual, cultural and physical achievements of men, flatly refusing to allow sub-Saharan Africans to flourish in science, mathematics and philosophy.
Hateful, horrible and heretical
Yes, let me introduce you to that hateful, horrible and heretical harridan known as Mother Nature. Quite clearly she is the biggest hate-criminal there ever has been and ever will be. Forget the Patriarchy: it’s the Matriarchy, the rule of Mother Nature, that really explains why the world is such an unfair and unequal place. She’s responsible for that vast and on-going hate-crime known as human evolution, whereby human beings in different environments have acquired different bodies, brains and psychologies. In other words, race exists and different races aren’t equal. Mother Nature hasn’t treated Homo as a special, post-biological genus. She didn’t relax natural selection when human beings invented new technologies like fire, the bow-and-arrow, and the written word. Instead, she accelerated it. Neanderthals had to be robust and muscular because they hunted at close range, but that selective pressure was removed when Homo sapiens developed throwing-spears and poisoned arrows. Slender Bushmen bring down giraffe and rhinoceros with ingenuity and cunning, not brute strength and aggression.
But Mother Nature doesn’t commit her hate-crimes at the same rate all over the earth. There are hot-spots of hate, that is, places where human evolution has operated in particularly interesting and complex ways. One of the most intense hot-spots is the Indian subcontinent, the region of Asia that stretches from Pakistan in the west to Bangladesh in the east and Sri Lanka in the far south, with India in the middle. The subcontinent is what you could call an S.S.S.I. — a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Mother Nature has been very busy there for a very long time. Whether you’re interested in geology, zoology, or botany, in archaeology, anthropology or linguistics, in religion, literature or philosophy, the Indian subcontinent is a fascinating place.
But the most important part of its dazzling variety may turn out to be its genetics. It’s one of the places where Mother Nature has most comprehensively blasphemed against the liberal dogma that “We’re All the Same under the Skin.” In fact, we aren’t, and the Indian subcontinent provides abundant proof. The genetic complexity introduced by ancient invasions and migrations was further enhanced by the intricate rules of the Hindu caste system, whereby different professions and classes were banned from intermarriage. This created a whole series of ethnicities and micro-ethnicities, as genetic lines separated, occupied different cultural environments, and evolved in different ways. Literacy and mastery of complex intellectual systems were compulsory for Brahmins, but prohibited for Dalits.
Today, India is one of the most genetically complex and cognitively stratified nations on earth. It has groups with high average IQ and groups with low average IQ. The self-taught Indian genius Srinivasa Ramanujan (1887–1920) was a Tamil Brahmin who contributed more to mathematics in a short lifetime than many millions of sub-Saharan Blacks have in centuries. He was like a supernova outshining all the millions of stars in a galaxy.
You could say the same of the Pakistani scientist Abdus Salam (1926–96). He contributed more to physics in seventy years of life than many millions of Blacks have in centuries. And he won a Nobel Prize in 1979 for his contributions. It was the first scientific Nobel ever won by a Muslim — at least, that’s what infidels outside Pakistan would say. But in Pakistan itself it’s illegal to say Salam was a Muslim, because he belonged to a heretical sect known as the Ahmadis, who are persecuted in Muslim countries (and outside them — see the murder of the Ahmadi shopkeeper Asad Shah in Glasgow). But is it genetically significant that Abdus Salam was Ahmadi? Has the group evolved or preserved higher intelligence by separation and interbreeding? Or were Salam’s caste and clan the important thing? He was a “Jat of Rajput descent from Jhang on his father’s side” and “a Kakazai from Gurdaspur” on his mother’s.
Biology is bigger than biography
These are interesting questions, and I think Salam’s genetics are worth serious investigation. He was a rare scientific supernova in a mostly quiescent galaxy, because the Muslim world has contributed very little to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) in recent centuries. But the Ahmadis are only one of the sects and micro-sects that make the Indian subcontinent such a fascinating place for anthropologists and students of religion. Another and much more famous Indian sect has contributed another human supernova to the world. In fact, he far outshone Salam and Ramanujan, because no special scientific or mathematical expertise was needed to appreciate what he did. I’m talking about Freddie Mercury (1946–91), the lead singer of the world-famous rock-band Queen.
Freddie Mercury was born Farrokh Bulsara in Zanzibar to a family of Parsis, one of the oldest and most interesting religions in the world. Thanks to the film Bohemian Rhapsody, a recently released bio-pic devoted to his life, Mercury is receiving a lot of media attention at the moment. But I can guarantee that only a hate-site like the Occidental Observer will try to speak the full heretical truth about him. Mercury was bigger and more interesting than modern political correctness allows him to be, because mainstream journalists will write about him biographically, but they won’t write about him biologically. That is, they won’t speculate about his genetics or the neurological basis of his homosexuality. And they certainly won’t discuss his death from AIDS in anything but the most cautious and politically pious way.
A Parsi Petri
It’s understandable that liberal journalists keep quiet about his biology, because Mercury was a living embodiment of the hate-scientist Gregory Cochran’s appalling dictum: “Homosexual men are nature’s Petri dishes.” However, in Mercury’s case the Petri dish was interesting long before any virological experiments were conducted there. As noted above, Mercury was a Parsi, so he was the result of a long experiment in genetic separation and interbreeding conducted in the Indian state of Gujarat.
Etymologically speaking, Parsis are Persians, because they descend from Zoroastrians who fled the Muslim conquest of Persia, or modern Iran, from the 7th or 8th century AD. Zoroastrianism itself seems to date from “the early 2nd millennium BC” and was a significant influence on Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Magi of the New Testament, who brought gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh to the infant Jesus, were Zoroastrian priests, and English words like “magus” and “magic,” descending from Latin and Greek, are testament to the respect felt by the ancient world for the occult wisdom of the Zoroastrians. Indeed, ancient Persia and modern Iran are more hot-spots of hate, places where Mother Nature has been at work in fascinating and complex ways. Iranians are not Arabs: they’re genetically, linguistically and culturally distinct, and for their numbers they’ve made a much bigger mark on the world than Arabs have. For example, the world-famous poet, astronomer and mathematician Omar Khayyam was Persian, not Arab (just as the world-famous warrior-sultan Saladin was Kurdish, not Arab). Iranians and Arabs are racially distinct because differences in language and culture have maintained differences in genetics.
Luck and opportunity
Parsis who migrated from Iran to India have adopted Indian languages, but they’ve maintained cultural and genetic differences between themselves and their non-Zoroastrian neighbours. Their high average IQ is one difference from the Indian average: Parsis are famous for their success in business and science. They’re also famous for their philanthropy, and unlike Jews, another set of culturally and genetically distinct over-achievers, they’ve been liked and respected by the majority among whom they’ve lived for many centuries. Even by Parsi standards, however, Freddie Mercury was exceptional: he won much more fame and popularity than any of his genetic kin.
He owed a lot of that to luck and opportunity, of course, but he could not have exploited his luck and opportunities without the high intelligence and creativity granted him by his Parsi ancestry. All members of the rock-band Queen were in fact notable for high intelligence: the guitarist Brian May (born 1947) had a BSc (Hons) in physics, the bassist John Deacon (born 1951) had a BSc (Hons) in electronics and the drummer Roger Taylor (born 1949) had a BSc (Hons) in biology. Mercury never acquired a degree of any kind, but he was the creative heart of the band, one of the best and most charismatic front-men in the history of popular music.
A gay stealing the day
And if you want proof of that, watch the twenty minutes of his performance at Live Aid, the charity concert held at Wembley Stadium in London in 1985. Although the hundreds of millions who watched Live Aid at the time weren’t aware of it, they were being given a masterclass in human bio-diversity. You’ll read in countless places that “Queen stole the day,” but it’s not true. Farrokh Bulsara the Parsi stole the day from the overwhelmingly Northwestern European singers and musicians who performed at Live Aid. Whatever you think of the music when you watch Queen’s performance, you’ll be dazzled by the Mercuriality. Freddie Mercury’s charisma and extraversion are both quantitatively greater and qualitatively different than anyone else’s. Brian May, John Deacon and Roger Taylor were his backing musicians, peripheral figures glimpsed occasionally in the mega-watt glare of their singer. They brought White male competence and dedication to Live Aid, just as White males had supplied the technology for rock music itself, but Freddie Mercury was from a different world.
And he was indeed from a different world, both geographically and genetically. And perhaps microbiologically too. Mercury’s homosexuality was central to his flamboyant, exhibitionist personality, but homosexuality is a biological puzzle. It reduces reproductive fitness and would be eliminated by natural selection if it had a simple genetic basis. So what causes it? The hate-scientist Gregory Cochran suggests that it’s caused by some kind of brain pathogen, possibly associated with urban living. And this “gay germ” hypothesis does account for all the known facts, from the persistence of homosexuality in urban populations to its absence among hunter-gatherers. But the hypothesis has another great advantage: as Cochran himself points out, it causes liberal heads to explode. Liberals really do not like the idea that homosexuality could be caused by a bacterium or virus. It demeans a sacred minority, undermining the dignity and self-worth of oppressed folk who have already suffered far too much.
A disguised form of religion
In short, the gay-germ hypothesis is blasphemous to liberals. And “blasphemous” is the right word, because liberalism, for all its claims to secularism and rationality, is a disguised form of religion. The purpose of liberalism is to meet the psychological needs of liberals, not to explain reality or provide solutions to the problems liberals claim to be concerned about. Homosexuals are a sacred minority whose sexual orientation elevates them above their heterosexual oppressors. How could a sacred minority owe its very existence to a brain pathogen? Blasphemy! But the same liberals would mock creationists for denying that human beings have evolved from apes. Liberals tell creationists that human beings aren’t special. Humans are material beings subject to the same physical laws and evolutionary processes as all other animals. Darwin completed the revolution that Copernicus began, by demonstrating that man had no more sacred and special place in biology than he had in cosmology.
So liberals would say to creationists, but liberals have sacred and special groups of their own. That’s why they’re horrified by the gay-germ hypothesis. It’s so crude, so biological, so subversive of the nobility and specialness of homosexuals. But that’s no reason to suppose that the gay-germ hypothesis is wrong. Liberals can’t reject the gay-germ hypothesis on emotional or ideological grounds. As they themselves would gleefully point out to creationists: Reality isn’t governed by human ideas of right and wrong. Much as liberals might dislike to accept it, Freddie Mercury may have owed his marvelous homosexuality to a mere micro-organism.
A hate-crime called AIDS
We can only speculate about the cause of Mercury’s homosexuality, but he was certainly affected by another micro-organism. It was a fatal one called the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, or HIV for short. This is the retrovirus responsible for the unpleasant disease known as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, or AIDS for short. Freddie Mercury is undoubtedly the most famous victim of AIDS, but no mainstream commentator would contrast his miserable premature death with the longevity of his three heterosexual bandmates, all of whom are still alive in 2018, or with the longevity of his father Bomi Bulsara (1908—2003) and mother Jer Bulsara (1922—2016). You could call AIDS one of the biggest hate-crimes ever committed by Mother Nature, because it has struck disproportionately and devastatingly at two of the most sacred groups in liberal ideology, namely, homosexuals and Blacks.
But Freddie Mercury’s death from AIDS confirmed his status as one of the most biologically interesting entertainers who ever lived. He was a Parsi, a homosexual and a victim of HIV. All three aspects of his life-story offer key insights into the work of Mother Nature. The third and final aspect shows her at her worst, as a multi-million-slaying hate-criminal singling out vulnerable minorities simply because of the way they behave. For liberals, promiscuous sex should not lead to fatal diseases. In an ideal world for liberals, fatal diseases would strike those who condemn promiscuous sex, rather than those who practise it. But we don’t live in an ideal world for liberals. Instead, we live under the reign of Mother Nature, who ignores liberal ideas about the proper regulation of reality. Indeed, by creating AIDS she confirmed the hate-think of St Paul in his Epistle to the Romans: “Men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Jumping from ape to man
Obeying St Paul’s strictures against “unseemly” sex would have prevented the AIDS epidemic among Western homosexuals. And obeying other religious strictures would have prevented HIV infecting human beings in the first place, because Judaism bans the consumption of apes and monkeys. HIV is a mutation of the viral family SIV, the Simian Immuno-Deficiency Virus, which may have infected a hunter of bushmeat in Central Africa when he was bitten by a chimpanzee or came into contact with chimpanzee blood sometime before the First World War. The hunter may then have disobeyed further religious strictures and transmitted the virus to prostitutes in Léopoldville, the capital of the Belgian Congo. Certainly the higher average promiscuity of sub-Saharan Africans was key to the development of HIV, as was increased migration in the region facilitated by industrialization and the building of railroads. But attempted humanitarian interventions by Westerners may have been key to the development of HIV too. Doctors in Africa re-used syringes during vaccination programmes against sleeping sickness, which was an obvious way for the virus to infect new hosts and establish itself permanently.
It’s obviously not right that attempts to prevent one disease should facilitate the spread of another disease, but that is how reality often works. Good intentions do not guarantee good results, but I think Christians tend to disregard this truth or dismiss it as unimportant. The Christian elevation of pure intent over knowledge and caution has been bequeathed to liberalism. However, where Christians seek to win the approval of God and a place among the Heavenly Elect, liberals seek to win the approval of their peers and a place among the Earthly Elect. For example, liberals display their purity of heart by supporting mass immigration and anti-racism. That’s why they are then so reluctant to admit the bad consequences of mass immigration and anti-racism in places like Rotherham and Huddersfield. Indeed, they seek to conceal those bad consequences and to demonize those who want to expose them.
Liberals also displayed their purity of heart by supporting “gay liberation” in the 1960s and ’70s, just as HIV was taking its first big step outside Africa. This was the result of more good intentions with bad results. When Belgium granted independence to the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1960, many educated Whites left the country and UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) brought in Black Francophone replacements from Haiti. The Haitians then acquired HIV from Congolese prostitutes during their stay and took it back with them on their return across the Atlantic. In those days Haiti was a popular holiday destination for American homosexuals, because poverty in the country meant many men and boys there were willing to sell themselves for sex. The poverty and poor governance of Haiti are in fact more of Mother Nature’s hate-crimes, because Blacks have lower average IQs and higher average tendencies to crime and corruption. Blacks are not suited for running an advanced society, as the destruction of Zimbabwe and Chicago has proved in recent decades. But Haiti has been proving it ever since 1804, when Haitian Blacks liberated themselves from French rule.
Gay sex-tourism in Haiti may explain the first known death from AIDS on American soil, that of a Black teenager called Robert Rayford in 1969. He had presented himself for treatment to doctors in St Louis, Missouri, in early 1968. At the time, they were baffled by his symptoms, which he told them dated from late 1966 and which included genital sores, pelvic swelling, chlamydia, shortness of breath, and general debility. But tests in 1987 on preserved samples of his blood and tissues revealed that he had been infected with HIV, probably through work as a male prostitute. Anal intercourse is highly unnatural, because the rectum is not designed for penetration and the rectal walls are thin and easily damaged. Liberals, of course, scoff at the idea of “unnatural sex,” which is why they do not like to face the truth about AIDS and “gay liberation.” Promiscuous, drug-fuelled sex is not natural and the AIDS epidemic among Western homosexuals was not the fault of Ronald Reagan or homophobia.
Haemophiliacs are not a sacred group
Blood transfusions and the use of blood-products aren’t natural either and they were another way in which AIDS was transmitted to unsuspecting people in the 1970s and ’80s. Mother Nature does not take account of good intentions or human ignorance, but the haemophiliacs and others who died after receiving infected blood were not a sacred group to liberals. Homosexuals were and are a sacred group, central to the minority-worship that is such an important part of liberalism. Thanks to his homosexuality, Freddie Mercury is a liberal icon who has even been forgiven the sin of racism. In 1984 Queen performed a series of concerts at the “luxury resort” of Sun City in Bophuthatswana, a nominally independent enclave in what was then the pariah-state of “Apartheid South Africa.” Peter Feldman, a Jewish art critic in South Africa, condemned the concerts held by Queen and other famous Western performers: “They used to say, ‘We’re doing it for our fans, we’re not politicians,’ but the truth is, they didn’t care. They were being paid millions to perform there.”
But Freddie Mercury was gay and Queen’s concerts in “Sin City” are now forgiven, just like the racism of that other liberal icon Gandhi, who lived in South Africa as a young lawyer and called “black Africans Kaffirs, a derogatory term, for a larger part of his stay in the country.” Gandhi was a firm believer in the inferiority of Blacks and objected to their mixing with his own racial group: “About the mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly.” Gandhi was right: racial mixing is a bad idea. It’s unnatural and Mother Nature punishes those who practise it, just as she punished those who practised reckless gay sex. AIDS has been one of the biggest hate-crimes in history, but liberals will never bring the perpetrator to justice. Mother Nature is still at large, still fomenting inequality and punishing those who flout her rules. She gave Freddie Mercury the high intelligence and creativity that allowed him to become a star. Then she killed him for his promiscuity.
Mother’s Little Helpers
But did Mother Nature make Mercury a promiscuous homosexual in the first place? Homosexuality is definitely natural in some sense, because homosexuals don’t choose their sexual orientation. If the gay-germ hypothesis is correct, Mercury owed his homosexuality to a microbe. And if that microbe is associated with urban living, that will come as no surprise. Like the agriculture on which they depend, cities and civilization are profoundly unnatural things. Mother Nature punished human beings savagely when they began to grow crops, keep domestic animals and settle together in large numbers. Populations increased, but men and women had shorter and unhealthier lives. Unlike nomadic hunter-gatherers, they no longer left parasites and pathogens behind but lived on top of them, year in, year out. They also acquired diseases from their domestic animals. And all this had profound effects on their genetics. City-dwellers in Europe and Asia were selected for resistance to diseases like cholera and small-pox.
That’s why these diseases were so devastating when Europeans introduced them to the New World. Europeans weren’t just militarily superior to Amerindians: they were also microbiologically superior. And this was profoundly unfair, if you judge reality by some human standards. But you shouldn’t judge reality by those standards, because reality is governed by Mother Nature, not by human beings. She commits hate-crimes with impunity and she’s never going to stop. Indeed, she’s preparing to commit a whole lot more, because she’s been busy installing collaborationist governments across the Western world. From Trump and Bolsonaro in the Americas to Salvini and Orbán in Europe, more and more Western leaders are beginning to work with Mother Nature. Like Freddie Mercury, liberalism works against her. That’s why, like Freddie Mercury, liberalism is going to die young.