Consequences

"For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for the want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for the want of a horse the rider was lost, being overtaken and slain by the enemy, all for the want of care about a horseshoe nail."
- Benjamin Franklin, U.S. Statesman, "Poor Richard's Almanack"

These lines signify the consequences resulting from one misplayed moment in time. Our once-great country is experiencing the results of several earlier, seemingly innocent decisions or actions, now converging upon us with great force. Let's dissect two of those decision-paths.

In most areas of today's America, it's nearly impossible to buy a home on one income, and even with two, the currently-declining market remains hostile to younger buyers. Yet, a mere 50 years ago, a single wage-earner could easily afford the keys to a new home. How did this happen?

There are several factors, of course, but preeminent among them are the rise of the feminist movement coupled with a shift into increasing consumerism fueled by the use of a home's equity as a secondary income source.

Prior to "women's liberation", as promoted by such jewish feminists as Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem and Germaine Greer, men were generally the sole income source per household. The housing market had to remain within the affordability boundaries of that single paycheck, thus pricing was constrained by the active market. Once career women were added into the equation, almost literally doubling the revenue per family, housing prices rose to accommodate the influx of new buying power. At the same time, women, who had been brainwashed by the same relentless radical feminists into believing that their primary work in raising young children was somehow demeaning, now faced the dilemma of trying to work outside the home while still raising those children. By and large, the offspring of working families began to be farmed out to daycare, or "early indoctrination", centers. The negative ramifications of outside, non-maternal daycare on society would require another blog entry to cover.

As housing prices began to rise, the equity (difference between amount owed and current valuation) of homes also began to rise. There began a general cashing out of equity in two ways. First, through outright sale of an existing home and a move to a lower-cost area (i.e., sales by retirees of homes in the Northeast, and a new retirement home in cheaper Florida). Second, the purchase and use of various home-equity loans by those "staying put". In these, homeowners put at stake their very residence for money for various, usually unproductive purchases, from SUVs and hot tubs, to near-useless nominal "educations" for their kids at the rapidly-declining universities nationwide.

In order for the second group of people to continue to make their payments each month without much resistance, housing prices had to continue to escalate so their "investment" was "paying off". Housing construction boomed, and the mortgage market began to admit more and more under- or un-qualified buyers in, with low interest rates to get them in the door. Many of these were adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) which could vary by several points per period. Others were zero down-payment mortgages or worse, in some cases 120% of the appraised value of the home. In extreme cases, the mortgages became negative-equity after the initial rise in rates.

The banksters, knowing that the bubble would not last, began to press their pets in Congress for some guarantees, and they wanted them to extend not only to mortgages, but to all consumer credit. Congress responded by putting in place a bail-out insurance package (similar to the previous Savings & Loan disaster), coupled with much tighter restrictions on bankruptcy and delayed payment plans. The liars in Congress also tossed in a revocation on usury limits ("usury" is usually used to mean "extreme interest rates", but in fact, all interest charges are usury). One missed or even late payment and suddenly, the credit card was at 2.5% interest per month, or the mortgage step kicked in and payments rose 20%.

Now, we see housing markets in which sellers literally can not get out from under their mortgages. They can't file bankruptcy right away, can't avoid making payments on their credit debt, and can find neither sympathy nor any available exits. In the cases where mortgage companies agree to "forgive" a portion of the debt, for which the Federal insurance already covers them, the borrowers face another problem. The sweet, lovable IRS folks will consider the value of that "forgiveness" as income, and it will be taxed at regular rates. We are reverting back to the days of "debtors' prisons" as described by Jonathan Swift and others. We are literally becoming slaves to our indebtedness.

The consumerism of the 1950's led to a desire to have more disposable income, which led to women working outside the home, which led to increased housing prices, which brought us to a national crisis as more and more people attempt to walk away from their financial liabilities. The hangover from this party will be with us for quite a while.

One other situation specifically germane to White people comes to mind.

In 1950, the United States was almost 90% White. The country had, except for Hawaii, been spared the ravages of warfare. Our industry was intact, our finances buoyant, and our future looked very bright. University enrollments boomed, families grew, the housing market expanded through massive "subdivisions" and the suburbs were born. One consequence of this was, White Americans began to have a lot more leisure time, which forked into two results.

First, while our government was busy involving itself with other countries which we should have stayed out of, our people began to see themselves as the great benefactors to the world's "unfortunate" and "underprivileged". It was the time of rise of the great charities, with aid money being sent to Latin America, Africa and Asia. Part of this largesse, or, superiority masked as piously benevolent pity, was that along with money went technology, medicine and education. All that Europeans had worked so hard to conceptualize, invent, develop and put into production was given to non-Europeans for free.

The Third World recipients began to use those gifts. Countries filled with people who'd been having 10 babies so 2 would survive continued to have those 10 babies. However, now 8 or 9 would make it to reproductive age. They became healthier, but placed no limits on their growth. In 1950, there were about 2.5-billion people on Earth. By 2000, that number was SIX billion. Estimates for 2020 are NINE billion, and in the next 20 years, as with the past 50, the growth is expected to be almost entirely among non-Europeans.

Second, we became lazy as a people. Tasks which had been carried out by White Americans were suddenly seen as "beneath us". Again, the media played a huge role in this paradigm shift, portraying the "good life" as material-based and consumer-driven. Our connection with the land, getting one's hands dirty, became utterly undesirable. And so, in America and in Europe, we began to admit more non-White people into our countries as laborers.

Initially, they were sent home when the work was done, but increasingly, they remained here. As their numbers grew, illicit businesses began to rely on them as cheap, off-the-books workers. This savings was entirely redirected toward the comfort of the scumbag owners of those businesses: their golden parachutes, perk packages and new luxury cars in the driveways of their McMansions.

But average 'sheeple' liked it too; they paid less for lettuce and other groceries. And they could afford to have someone trim their hedges, since, with both parents working and the kids increasingly in daycare or playing video games, no one was at home to do it anyway.

To assist the invasion of the United States, a jewish Senator named Emmanuel Celler proposed a bill in 1964, which was passed the following year as The Immigration and Naturalization Services Act of 1965 (INSA), crafted to reverse the ratio of European/non-European immigrants. It was shepherded through by the younger brother of the late President John F. Kennedy, Senator Edward M. "Teddy" Kennedy. A straight-faced Kennedy told the American public,

The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.

As the numbers of, especially, Mexicans began to rise, so too did their political clout. Beginning in the border states and spreading across the country, politicians began to pander to them. Activists began to encourage them to "reconquer" the Southwest, under claim of illegal "taking" by Whites. Today, La Raza ("The Race"), a vehemently Mexican-nationalist group, has offices on most college campuses, as does another Mexican org, MEChA ("Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán", or the "Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan"). Aztlan is their mythical name for the U.S. southwest, which, again, they intend to retake for their own.

While all this was going on, American consumers, being pushed by advertisers to spend, wanted even cheaper products. So the same illegitimate "American" businesses began to send their factories and production facilities offshore, notably to China, India, Pakistan and Indonesia. Other factories began to spring up in Central and South America. While we imported the Third World's jobless, we exported American jobs to their stay-at-home brethren. And as each outsource country, starting with Japan, began to rise to American standards of living from their newfound wealth, the formerly low pricing structure began to rise, and businesses were forced to find new Third World countries to plunder.

So the liberalist mentality of the 1950's led to the stoppage of White American manual labor and the open-door mentality of the 1960's, which led to the influx of immigrants, some legal and most not, which produced a reliance by consumers on low-cost goods, which pushed the export of the low-end job market as well as industrial facilities to the Third World, which led to the transformation of the American economy from production-based to service-based, which was followed by the debasement of the U.S. dollar, which ended in our current spate of invasions of Middle Eastern "rogue nations" who dared to try to leave the dollar behind for the Euro. It also changed the composition of this country from 90% to 62% White, and from 0% to 16% "hispanic".

Imagine if we'd simply said "No" at the times when it would have mattered. For want of a nail, our battle is all but lost.

Two-Way Mirror

While listening to what passes as "news" on the radio this morning, one nugget mentioned was that Hilary Clinton holds a substantial lead over Barack Obama in polls among Democrats. On the Republican front, Mitt Romney has a slight edge over Rudy Giuliani. No mention, of course, was made of Dr. Ron Paul.

In the last off-year elections, voters, especially Democrat voters, crowed about the changes the new Democrat-majority Congress would bring. In fact, nothing changed. Troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan remained the same. Support for Israel's aggressions was completely upheld. The economy continued its decline. The subprime mortgage market lurched toward disaster. And nothing was done to remove the fellow who would be King, nor his cohorts, who are currently infesting the White House. Nothing; no arguments, no actions to countermand his "signing orders", and no impeachment. Proof once again (as if needed) that, as Alabama Gov. George Wallace said back in 1968, "There's not a dime's worth of difference" between the two parties. I'd say the reason is, there aren't two parties.

The military-industrial-commercial-political matrix which is Washington, DC has taken many years to reach the point of interlocking operation. In his departure speech of 1961, President Eisenhower warned us to keep restraints on this network:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

So many people, so many organizations, so many private groups are on the take from government coffers that they are literally dependent upon unrelenting, massive corruption for their continued existence. "Our" President & Co. have borrowed even our great-grandchildren into debt slavery.

We are spending a BILLION dollars, which we don't have and are forced to borrow from China, Japan and other countries, every week to sustain their 'clever plan' in Iraq.

We attacked Iraq, so we are told, because, on the face of it, Hussein attacked Kuwait and so was a "threat to democracy in the Middle East". Kuwait is nothing close to a democratic nation. He moved troops because he was given the green light by April Glaspie, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. It was a perfect excuse to start the war for control, planned since 1996.

The Iraq invasion was actually undertaken for four primary reasons.

First, Hussein had threatened to switch the basis for Iraqi oil-pricing from dollars to euros. In the opinion of the Treasury Dept., this would have triggered a ripple effect across the Arabic nations which would have further debased the dollar worldwide and destroyed its position as the world basis currency, held since the Bretton-Woods Conference. The banksters, whose interest payments would evaporate, would not have that happen. Ironically, the United Arab Emirates, or U.A.E., just did exactly that, but we apparently can't afford to attack them.

Second, Iraq (along with Iran, Kuwait and U.A.E.) was a major provider of oil to China and, to a lesser extent, Japan. Neoconservatives believed that one key to preventing those nations from calling in our massive debt was to regulate their accessibility to MidEast oil.

Third, our destruction of the country would produce massively lucrative, long-term "reconstruction" contracts for such upstanding entities as Cheney's "former" outfit, Halliburton and the Carlyle Group, tied to Bush, Sr.

And fourth, perhaps most important to certain factions, destabilizing Iraq would prevent any possibility of further organized attacks against Israel by Baghdad. There has never been any real plan to rebuild Iraq, nor to re-stabilize it, which has led to the "war without end" scenario touted by the criminals on Pennsylvania Avenue. In fact, Halliburton subsidiaries are, right now, building four huge military command centers ("Contingency Operating Bases") in various locations there, to consolidate control of the country.

Back in the Democrat Party, none, not one, of their candidates has a serious plan for ending the hostilities in Iraq. Nor will any even mention withdrawal from Afghanistan; that country was attacked and placed under occupation to "find Osama bin Laden". In fact, the CIA targeted Afghanistan after the Taliban decided to end or seriously curtail opium production. Much of the CIA's covert budget relies on drug-sale money, and so does operation of much of the entire U.S. economic process. So shortly after we invaded, Bush 'decided' to allow the opium crop to be harvested. And a few years later, the crop had reached record levels. All coincidental, of course.

Of all the major-party puppet-heads now running for office, not a single one will seemingly do anything to benefit the American people, nor return us to a Constitutional government. Only Dr. Ron Paul has resoundingly spoken out in opposition to unConstitutional wars, overarching Federal involvement in state business, illegal infringement upon Congressional processes by the Presidency, and so forth. Because of this, along with the mainstream media's submission-position as a mouthpiece for the two-party system, Dr. Paul is constantly treated as a persona non grata, a curious wacko with suspect ideas who shouldn't even be considered. For that reason alone, people should examine his politics positively.

Dr. Paul will very likely not get the nomination of the Republican Party, of which he is a nominal member. Apart from his proposed assaults on the old-boy system, he is running by denouncing and destroying the position of the Republicans currently in power. Therefore, to run for the Presidency, he must become a third-party candidate; the last of those to win was Abraham Lincoln in 1860. The major parties will do whatever they can to prevent him showing up on national ballots.

So, as we ponder the course of the United States over the next year, I will predict just one thing: If either of the major-parties' final candidates win the Presidency, this country will face irreversible, permanent meltdown. The economy will spiral into hyperinflation, the borders will become completely open with NAU, the wars will spread to every non-jewish nation in the Middle East, and we will become open to true, and truly awful, terrorist attacks.

Dr. Ron Paul is certainly not perfect, and may not be "the answer", but at least he is not part of "the problem".

The Rape of Europe, by Paul Belien

The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch Newspaper "DeVolkskrant" that young Europeans who love Freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will not exist twenty years from now.

While sitting on a terrace in Berlin , Broder pointed to the other customers and the passersby and said, "We are watching the world of yesterday."

Europe is turning Muslim.. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate. "I am too old," he said. However, he urged young people to get out and "move to Australia or New Zealand . That is The only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable."

Many Germans and Dutch, apparently, did not wait for Broder's advice. The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have To be prophetic to predict, like Henryk Broder, that Europe is becoming Islamic.

Just consider the demographics.

- The number of Muslims in Contemporary Europe is estimated to be 50 million.

- It is expected to double in twenty years. By 2025, one third of All European children will be born to Muslim families.

- Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for newborn boys in Brussels , Amsterdam , Rotterdam , and other major European cities.

Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose Islamization. "The dominant ethos," he told De Volkskrant, "is perfectly Voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated.

She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death."

In a recent Op-Ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standard the Dutch(gay and self-declared "humanist") author Oscar Van Den Boogaard refers to Broder's interview. Van den Boogaard says that to him coping with the islamization of Europe is like "a process of mourning." He is overwhelmed by a "feeling of sadness."

"I am not a Warrior," he says, "but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."

Consider that in all of Europe no one under the age of 65 has picked up arms in defense of their country. That task has been borne by the United States since Hitler surrendered in 1945.

As Tom Bethell wrote in this month's American Spectator: "Just at The most basic level of demography the secular-humanist option is not Working." But there is more to it than the fact that nonreligious people tend not to have as many children as religious people, because many of them prefer to "enjoy" freedom rather than renounce it for the sake of children.

Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist.

"If faith collapses, civilization goes with it," says Bethell. That is the real cause of the closing of civilization in Europe .

Islamization is simply the consequence. The very word Islam means "submission" and the secularists have submitted already. Many Europeans have already become Muslims, though they do not realize it or do not want to admit it.

Some of the people I meet in the U. S. are particularly worried about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe . They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the rise among nonimmigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary Anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to anti-Americanism.

People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.

This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of European "Islamophobes" who dare to talk about what they see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (Islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen submission - just like in former days when they preferred to be Red rather than dead.

Europeans apparently never read John Stuart Mill: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war, is worse."

"A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

***

My response: Europeans don't hate Americans (or their Israeli mirrors) simply because they're "willing to fight"; MANY Europeans are fully engaged in fighting for their People, but THAT kind of activity is off-limits under the current communo-fascist rule there. Rather, they despise the Americans because of WHY their GOVERNMENT has chosen to fight, and where. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and soon, Iran and Syria, are NOT being fought for American interests, but for Israeli/Zionist hegemony. The Europeans see that zionist jews like Jack Straw, Nicolas Sarkozy and others are gaining power in their continent, and that such unchecked authority will inevitably lead to both fully open borders and further dilution of European ethnic solidarity (through such schemes as the Sarkozy-proposed Europe/African "trade" alliance), and a simultaneous full-scale support for Israel's murderous actions.

Americans, as a population, are not willing to fight for most anything except their "right" to consume material goods. The average White lemming here knows nothing about history, social sciences, politics or racial identity. He is content to believe whatever CNN, ABC or FauxNews presents as "fact" without question. He has subsumed his natural rights to increasing unConstitutional police-state militarization rather than head to Washington en masse to physically remove the criminals in charge. He wants to "go along to get along", and would rather slit his wrists than "offend" any non-White person. And the government, eager to accommodate him, passes law after law to prevent him from taking meaningful political action.

Unfortunately, I must also part company with Mr. Broder, above, in his advice. New Zealand and, even more, Australia, are subject to the same reductionist policies against their White populations. Last year, Australia had riots at popular Cronulla Beach, in Sydney, pitting White kids against Lebanese muslims; the media blacked it out, blaming the Whites, and the police arrested the White kids. The governments in AUS/NZ are in lockstep with those in Europe (and America), it's just taking a bit longer to make Whites a minority there.

New Zealand Dreams: Fading

For the past several months, I've been trying to find employment in New Zealand, specifically on the South Island. Seems that there are jobs to be had, but those jobs are restricted to the North Island, and more exactly, to Auckland.

Auckland, from all I've been able to gather, is not only a large city, which I abhor per se, but a highly non-European one as well. In fact, as this link shows, New Zealand is being subjected to the same diversification pressures as those applied in all other European-majority countries worldwide. This is on top of the already worked-out European/Maori tenancy. And it's part of the global epidemic we face.

Other, non-European lands are not subject to such border-opening ideology. No one is suggesting that India, Mexico, China, Congo or Indonesia open their cultures to rearrangement from the outside, and certainly not by Europeans. Back in the 1980s, in fact, there was a massive political attack through the world media upon the White inhabitants of South Africa. There was a constant demand that this "racist" majority not be allowed to continue the policies of apartheid, which had kept the races from each others' throats, nor rule over the obvious Black majority there. This ultimately resulted in power being handed over to Blacks by the de Klerk administration.

Since then, every effort, including mass murder, has been directed against Europeans living in Africa, either to have them leave or, barring that, to kill them off. You will not generally read about this in your local news rag. The affected countries have included not only South Africa, but Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia), Kenya, Zaire, etc. This kind of genocidal effort is seemingly fine for non-White nations, but woe betide the European people who simply voice opposition to the contemporary invasions of their homelands. Immediately, headlines appear berating their "racism", "hatred" and "intolerance". They are immediately sent to diversity training, and forced into contrition for their desire to maintain their ancestral environment for themselves.

I have read recently of Japan's increasingly non-Japanese immigrant list, and it seems that the Japanese people, rightly, are beginning to find issues with this foreign overlay upon their land and traditions. The internationalist world press has not weighed in on this yet, but rest assured, they will, and they will portray Japanese nationalism as an evil which must be overcome and stamped out. What then will the Japanese people do?

New Zealand's official immigration site stresses their ongoing critical need for infusions of experienced technical people (I have been a programmer since 1974). Yet the general European-ancestry population is expected to decline over time. And technical jobs on the [predominantly European-ancestry] South Island are extremely difficult to find. What should one make of this?

So the relocation I'd hoped to make to that beautiful place may be drifting out of reach. Fate may yet take me there, but in the meantime, I have to shoot for something I can attain with more certainty. Perhaps a move to New Hampshire or Maine, states with some remaining freedoms not yet encroached upon too heavily by local or federal Leftists or their twins, the red-diaper Neo-conservatives, is in order.

Time will tell, and I do have nearly a year to finalize my plans, but I am beginning to ask myself the question, Why move to a country which may become just as politically correct and unlivable as the place in which I already live? Why indeed? Perhaps I must remain to fight on, closer to my birthplace, within the borders of my home country.

Of course, with things coming to a head the way they are, who knows how long this will be the same country, with the same borders and the same people within? As Eric Thomson would say, "Stay tuned!"