The other day, I spotted an article about a structure which was uncovered during a dry spell at Lake Biel in Switzerland. What archaeologists found was a series of uniform piers, indicating that it was a dock or some sort of hut. According to the dating method used, the piers were about 6,000 years old.
While this is indeed an ancient structure, other relics have been found in Europe which indicate that humans were living there with relatively advanced technologies, as far back as 700,000 years. Stone artifacts found in Anglia, UK were conclusively dated as the earliest sample of human activity on the European continent so far. And of course, because Europe has been densely populated for a long time, older sites may exist but be impossible to locate.
This finding disrupts the mantra of the "out of Africa" (OOA) theorists.
According to that group, ape-like prehumans crossed the genetic line, became human, then later migrated north from the African continent to populate Europe and Asia. They claim that, during a massive ice age, the first group, which became the Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalis), migrated to Europe about 350,000 years ago. Neanderthal man apparently supplanted any pre-human, Homo erectus who may have sporadically left Africa in earlier times. The later migration of Homo sapiens then overtook and eliminated the Neanderthals, about 30,000 years ago, which would thus be the absolute age of the Europeans.
Using these timelines, then, there is no easy way to explain who the flint-makers of Anglia were, if we rely on the OOA theory. Those Anglian people, obviously human, were there twice again as far back as the Neanderthals.
There's another problem with the OOA concept. Using DNA analysis, scientists can now, with good precision, determine one's geoethnic ancestry. In other words, it's possible to pinpoint which general racioethnic group one's genes belong to by geographic region of origin. There is a great deal of overlap in some of these groups, as would be expected from interbreeding over the years. We may find that some Indian groups share DNA with southern Chinese groups and so on. Northern Chinese, Korean and Japanese people have been found to have some DNA which is shared with Europeans. None of this happened because of recent interactions; the so-called "marker genes" have ancient origins.
The big problem is, while some DNA is shared among Europeans and Asians, including several marker genes, none of the marker genes specific to African ancestry are present in Europeans, and are only present in some southern Asians, traceable to established later African emigration patterns.
The OOA idea also relies on mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down on the X-chromosome, and they attempt to relate groups using what they call "observed mutations" to those genes. They claim that such mutation patterns can be traced because of their regularity. However, examples of ethnic groupings known to be have arisen more recently contain mitochondrial DNA mutations of greater apparent antiquity than older groupings.
When Darwin was writing "Origin of the Species", he focused on differences among the finch populations in the Galapagos chain. They were categorized into different species, often based on relatively minor differences, such as beak length or plumage coloration. Darwin's major criteria were, effective uniqueness of the "adaptation" and heritability. A bird who was adept at digging grubs from tree bark was considered quite different from another which caught insects on the wing, but only if their offspring shared those behaviors and the same ecological niche.
Lions and tigers, while often able to produce fertile offspring (the lack of which ability is a trivial, yet popular, fallback argument among some scientists to prove species uniqueness), would never normally choose to do so. In similar manner, Grevy's zebras (Equus grevyii) don't mate with the more common Grant's (Equus quagga), although they produce fertile offspring. Mule deer almost never crossbreed with Whitetails. Mountain gorillas avoid mating with Lowland gorillas. These animals recognize their own "kind" and act instinctively to preserve their genetic heritage. In addition, these different species often live in close proximity to one another, yet maintain separate space.
No one considers the natural segregation of various zebra species, or big cats, or gorillas to be "racist", or more appropriately "species-ist".
There are unmistakable visual differences among the basic European, African and Asian group phenotypes. No one can honestly say they would confuse Wesley Snipes' ancestry with Pierce Brosnan's or Jackie Chan's. Of course, there are many people who would politically disallow such observations.
In addition, there are physiological, psychological, intelligence, social and other divergences. As many as 29 distinct physical differences exist between European, or Asian, and African people. Asians, again particularly from northern areas, share much more with Europeans. Visually, Europeans and northern Asians have many physiological aspects in common. One noticeable trait often possessed by older European groups, such as the Finns and Hungarians, is an "almond shaped" eye, reminiscent of the Asian epicanthic fold.This would indicate a common ancestry point between them.
Finally, if we assume that Africans are closer to the original human prototype offered by the OOA folks, and we further accept that evolution is an "upward progression", then the farther from the root stock, the more "developed" the animal. This perspective places Africans at the lower end of evolutionary progression. Is that what the OOA people intended?
One possible refutative theory is the "Many Points" concept. In this, pre-human, ape-like beings did originate in Africa, but migrated north over many millennia before evolving to the Homo sapiens species level. This argument is supported by the many fossilized remains of Homo erectus found around the world, all from approximately the same epoch.
Using this theory as a starting point, prehumans could have evolved independently (as among Europeans, Africans and say, Samoans), or semi-independently (as between Europeans and northern Asians), and simultaneously reached their final "human form" in several places. This would account for the most basic human similarities, and also for lack of shared genetics between those who separated much earlier in time.
It would also explain how humans in what's now England were making spear points seven-thousand centuries ago without interfering with later, different humanoids arising (Neanderthals among them) from the original remaining prehumans. If this is in fact what happened among humans, we are not all the same, we are at least dissimilar enough to be different subspecies of Homo sapiens, and perhaps are different enough to be entirely separate species altogether.
Environments shape the evolution of species, and it's ludicrous to presuppose that humans who evolved on the savannahs of Kenya would be the same as those who arose in the freezing winters of central Europe or north Asia. Yet, according to the talking heads running the Looking Glass world in which we live, we are expected to believe that those differences do not matter, or that they don't exist at all.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
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,
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.
- 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.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
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:
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".
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.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 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.
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".
Thursday, October 11, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
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!"
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!"
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Stand And Deliver
In the 1900 census, people of European ancestry comprised a bit under 35% of the world's population. Apart from our almost entirely homogeneous homelands in Europe, we, as an aggregate People, were the primary majority in North America, Australia and New Zealand. The population explosions in India and China had not yet happened, and would not until Western science, medicines, health care and sanitation measures were adopted there.
In those days, Europeans were fractionated, divided ethnically and fighting over various imperial states, and over land disputes within the European continent. In the United States, Whites held an 89% majority, with Blacks making up almost all of the remainder.
As the populations of other nations in other continents began to swell, White populations began to stagnate. Then came the wars: World War One, a.k.a. "The Great War", or "The War To End All Wars". In that foolish conflict borne of interethnic jealousies and petty grievances, and financed on both sides by the Rothschilds and other alien banksters, almost 20 million people died, and almost all of those were Europeans and their kin. Twenty million White people who would never be parents perished, and with them their unborn posterity.
Just over twenty years later, after simmering without resolution, the resumption of war engulfed the same nations, this time armed with more lethal weaponry, yet financed by the same people. Not counting the death claims of the Asiatic jews living in Europe, the White death toll was about 62 million men, women and children.
In two generations, Europe lost eighty-two million of her children, and thus all of their children...who would never be.
After the war, we remained, as before, the absolute majority in our lands. But in the 1950s, our nations began to crack. The British government began to extend citizenship rights to Commonwealth members, to West Indians, East Indians and Arabs in the former colonial entities. And they began to arrive in the British Isles, first as a trickle, then in droves.
In America, the Eisenhower administration began the relentless drive to exterminate segregation in neighborhoods, schools and the workplace. Formerly White public schools were opened to Black children, at National Guard gunpoint. White universities were forced to admit Black undergraduates. White employers were no longer able to hire and fire employees at will from companies they owned, nor were White homeowners allowed to sell their homes to whomever they chose. So-called affirmative action programs began, along with other plans to elevate "the underprivileged" to "White status"; these programs, along with the expanding Social Security scam, were referred to, with no small irony, as "entitlements". Curiously, no such programs were imposed on Black institutions. Nor Black businesses. Nor Black neighborhoods. Yet, White people did not invade, nor even appear to any extent in, those places. Why, you might ask, is that?
While this was going on, migrant workers from Mexico began the first stirrings of labor organization. Although not citizens, and in the country by the grace of the government, they began to believe they were somehow entitled (there's that word again) to benefits which were never due them.
As the 1960's progressed, other countries back in Europe began to open their doors to non-European immigration. Germany started its infamous "Gastarbeiter" (guest worker) program, admitting manual laborers from Turkey and other Asian countries in response to the spurious claims of the Leftists in power that there were simply not enough Germans willing to do the work (sound familiar, America?). France opened its borders to Algerians, Moroccans and those from the Ivory Coast. And so it spread across the continent.
Fast forwarding to 2007, Britain is increasingly non-White. London now has a White plurality, no longer a majority. Germany is 11% non-White. France, where it's forbidden by law to publish racial statistics (and why is that, again?), is estimated to be 13% non-White, although some estimates reach 18%. In Goteborg, Sweden, there are muslim-majority areas which are "no-go" zones for Swedes. Holland, with its burgeoning Indonesian and other Asian populations, is expected to be majority non-White within another two generations. I read recently a prediction from a credible source that, barring a change in course, a similar fate awaits Russia: by 2070, they too will be a minority in their own land.
The "Scottish National" [sic] Party has top administrators who are Asians. These are second, and now third, generation residents who somehow consider themselves "Scots". Meaning, I suppose, that if I were to move to China, in two generations my descendants would transmogrify, genetically, into Chinese.
America, in 107 years, went from 89% White, 10% Black, 1% Other; to 62% White, 15% "hispanic" (Western hemisphere mestizo), 13% Black, 7% Asian, and 3% Other. And these numbers are probably inflated on the White side; it doesn't take into account the 15-30 million illegal Mexicans, nor many of the East Indian and Chinese H1b visa holders who never left when their visas expired 15-20 years ago, nor the others from various countries smuggled in through our non-existent borders.
The grimmest statistic isn't even included among these. It's our percentage of the world's population that is of gravest concern. We have plummeted from over a third of all the alleged Homo sapiens on the planet to just 8.5%. That's all.
If White people were an 8.5% minority in America, do you suppose the new majority would extend the same overarching rights to us, as a minority, as we did to them? Do you suppose we'd be protected, provided with special laws for our benefit, granted monies for school, home ownership and business start-ups? If not, why not?
When we were absolute majorities in our own lands, when we could insulate ourselves and live among our kin, we were, in a sense, protected. We had our "walls" around us, and we were with family. We always took it for granted, and we fought among ourselves, sometimes viciously, as families often do. Germans fought French, English fought Irish, Swedes fought Norwegians. We held asinine grudges against members of our own blood. And in many places where our heads are still firmly lodged in our hindquarters, such as Northern Ireland or Quebec, we still do.
As our homelands are being overtaken by non-European, non-White populations, with "our" governments complicit and aiding the incoming masses, we are faced with a problem. The ship we have been sailing upon, filled with our kinsmen, has no port to sail to. Europe, our ancestral home, is being taken from Europeans, and by extension, from White people worldwide. All of the White majorities are dropping in both relative and absolute numbers. And while the immigrants are being stuffed into place, our children are encouraged to outbreed with non-White partners.
Of the population of America, for instance, about 100-million people are young Whites of child-bearing age. If all of those kids accept the mantra of racial merging, we will have lost them and their lineage forever. In one swoop, nearly twenty percent of all the White people alive on the Earth will be, in effect, gone. Thus, once the remaining European-Americans die off, we will literally cease to exist within our former place on this continent.
If the 50-million White males in this example were all, as trendiness and countless shows on the HGTV and MSNBC networks dictate, to have children with Asian women, we will not only have lost those men, but the 50-million-plus White children who would have been theirs. Those men alone represent just under 10% of all White people on Earth. The 50-million Asians, though, are but a tiny fraction of their race. The loss of their offspring will not be missed or even noticed. In the Chinese homeland, most parents, restricted to one child, have not have chosen to bear females anyway. In their minds, better for the women to be blended away, far away.
We are no longer having enough babies to replace our existing populations. White women are putting off childbearing longer, often permanently. When they do have children, they are often having them with non-White men. Our population, therefore, continues to decline. However, this is not the case for all people, as this article shows
A man named David Lane, who died recently in Federal prison, wrote some verses several years ago as a tribute both to our women and our future generations. Those verses read:
When we were secure in our lands, when we held a majority status there, when we could determine our own lives and direction without interference from outsiders, from illegal criminal aliens, from the media and the internationalists, it was okay for us to squabble and fight.
Today, there can be no fighting over English travesties of two hundred years ago, or German intrusions of the 1940s, or French sovereignty in Canada. Today, we must put aside tribal labels and unify in action as one People, the children of Europa. We must take action to prevent and reverse the crushing pressure upon our nations which tries to grind them into dust. We must stand against the oppressors who smother us with dispossessive, destructive and genocidal policies. Otherwise, soon, we will be a dusty footnote in the history of human existence, staring back across the Rainbow Bridge in grieving at our mistakes.
In those days, Europeans were fractionated, divided ethnically and fighting over various imperial states, and over land disputes within the European continent. In the United States, Whites held an 89% majority, with Blacks making up almost all of the remainder.
As the populations of other nations in other continents began to swell, White populations began to stagnate. Then came the wars: World War One, a.k.a. "The Great War", or "The War To End All Wars". In that foolish conflict borne of interethnic jealousies and petty grievances, and financed on both sides by the Rothschilds and other alien banksters, almost 20 million people died, and almost all of those were Europeans and their kin. Twenty million White people who would never be parents perished, and with them their unborn posterity.
Just over twenty years later, after simmering without resolution, the resumption of war engulfed the same nations, this time armed with more lethal weaponry, yet financed by the same people. Not counting the death claims of the Asiatic jews living in Europe, the White death toll was about 62 million men, women and children.
In two generations, Europe lost eighty-two million of her children, and thus all of their children...who would never be.
After the war, we remained, as before, the absolute majority in our lands. But in the 1950s, our nations began to crack. The British government began to extend citizenship rights to Commonwealth members, to West Indians, East Indians and Arabs in the former colonial entities. And they began to arrive in the British Isles, first as a trickle, then in droves.
In America, the Eisenhower administration began the relentless drive to exterminate segregation in neighborhoods, schools and the workplace. Formerly White public schools were opened to Black children, at National Guard gunpoint. White universities were forced to admit Black undergraduates. White employers were no longer able to hire and fire employees at will from companies they owned, nor were White homeowners allowed to sell their homes to whomever they chose. So-called affirmative action programs began, along with other plans to elevate "the underprivileged" to "White status"; these programs, along with the expanding Social Security scam, were referred to, with no small irony, as "entitlements". Curiously, no such programs were imposed on Black institutions. Nor Black businesses. Nor Black neighborhoods. Yet, White people did not invade, nor even appear to any extent in, those places. Why, you might ask, is that?
While this was going on, migrant workers from Mexico began the first stirrings of labor organization. Although not citizens, and in the country by the grace of the government, they began to believe they were somehow entitled (there's that word again) to benefits which were never due them.
As the 1960's progressed, other countries back in Europe began to open their doors to non-European immigration. Germany started its infamous "Gastarbeiter" (guest worker) program, admitting manual laborers from Turkey and other Asian countries in response to the spurious claims of the Leftists in power that there were simply not enough Germans willing to do the work (sound familiar, America?). France opened its borders to Algerians, Moroccans and those from the Ivory Coast. And so it spread across the continent.
Fast forwarding to 2007, Britain is increasingly non-White. London now has a White plurality, no longer a majority. Germany is 11% non-White. France, where it's forbidden by law to publish racial statistics (and why is that, again?), is estimated to be 13% non-White, although some estimates reach 18%. In Goteborg, Sweden, there are muslim-majority areas which are "no-go" zones for Swedes. Holland, with its burgeoning Indonesian and other Asian populations, is expected to be majority non-White within another two generations. I read recently a prediction from a credible source that, barring a change in course, a similar fate awaits Russia: by 2070, they too will be a minority in their own land.
The "Scottish National" [sic] Party has top administrators who are Asians. These are second, and now third, generation residents who somehow consider themselves "Scots". Meaning, I suppose, that if I were to move to China, in two generations my descendants would transmogrify, genetically, into Chinese.
America, in 107 years, went from 89% White, 10% Black, 1% Other; to 62% White, 15% "hispanic" (Western hemisphere mestizo), 13% Black, 7% Asian, and 3% Other. And these numbers are probably inflated on the White side; it doesn't take into account the 15-30 million illegal Mexicans, nor many of the East Indian and Chinese H1b visa holders who never left when their visas expired 15-20 years ago, nor the others from various countries smuggled in through our non-existent borders.
The grimmest statistic isn't even included among these. It's our percentage of the world's population that is of gravest concern. We have plummeted from over a third of all the alleged Homo sapiens on the planet to just 8.5%. That's all.
If White people were an 8.5% minority in America, do you suppose the new majority would extend the same overarching rights to us, as a minority, as we did to them? Do you suppose we'd be protected, provided with special laws for our benefit, granted monies for school, home ownership and business start-ups? If not, why not?
When we were absolute majorities in our own lands, when we could insulate ourselves and live among our kin, we were, in a sense, protected. We had our "walls" around us, and we were with family. We always took it for granted, and we fought among ourselves, sometimes viciously, as families often do. Germans fought French, English fought Irish, Swedes fought Norwegians. We held asinine grudges against members of our own blood. And in many places where our heads are still firmly lodged in our hindquarters, such as Northern Ireland or Quebec, we still do.
As our homelands are being overtaken by non-European, non-White populations, with "our" governments complicit and aiding the incoming masses, we are faced with a problem. The ship we have been sailing upon, filled with our kinsmen, has no port to sail to. Europe, our ancestral home, is being taken from Europeans, and by extension, from White people worldwide. All of the White majorities are dropping in both relative and absolute numbers. And while the immigrants are being stuffed into place, our children are encouraged to outbreed with non-White partners.
Of the population of America, for instance, about 100-million people are young Whites of child-bearing age. If all of those kids accept the mantra of racial merging, we will have lost them and their lineage forever. In one swoop, nearly twenty percent of all the White people alive on the Earth will be, in effect, gone. Thus, once the remaining European-Americans die off, we will literally cease to exist within our former place on this continent.
If the 50-million White males in this example were all, as trendiness and countless shows on the HGTV and MSNBC networks dictate, to have children with Asian women, we will not only have lost those men, but the 50-million-plus White children who would have been theirs. Those men alone represent just under 10% of all White people on Earth. The 50-million Asians, though, are but a tiny fraction of their race. The loss of their offspring will not be missed or even noticed. In the Chinese homeland, most parents, restricted to one child, have not have chosen to bear females anyway. In their minds, better for the women to be blended away, far away.
We are no longer having enough babies to replace our existing populations. White women are putting off childbearing longer, often permanently. When they do have children, they are often having them with non-White men. Our population, therefore, continues to decline. However, this is not the case for all people, as this article shows
Between now and 2050 world population growth will be generated exclusively in developing Countries
Between now and the middle of the next century world population will most likely increase by some 3.68 billion people - all of these increase will be contributed by the developing countries (see Table C1_2). In fact, the population of the developed nations as a group will most likely decline by almost 10 million people between now and the year 2050 - according to the UN medium variant projections. Most of this population growth in the developing world will occur during the next 30 years: between 1995 and 2025 the population in developing countries will increase by 2.3 billion; between 2025 and 2050 it will "only" grow by 1.39 billion.
A man named David Lane, who died recently in Federal prison, wrote some verses several years ago as a tribute both to our women and our future generations. Those verses read:
We must secure the existence of our People, and a future for White children, that the beauty of the White, Aryan woman will not perish from the Earth.[Note: 'Aryan' comes from the Farsi word for "noble", and was a term the Persians, our racial cousins, applied to themselves. It is not, despite the rhetoric of the unbridled, a 'racist' term].
When we were secure in our lands, when we held a majority status there, when we could determine our own lives and direction without interference from outsiders, from illegal criminal aliens, from the media and the internationalists, it was okay for us to squabble and fight.
Today, there can be no fighting over English travesties of two hundred years ago, or German intrusions of the 1940s, or French sovereignty in Canada. Today, we must put aside tribal labels and unify in action as one People, the children of Europa. We must take action to prevent and reverse the crushing pressure upon our nations which tries to grind them into dust. We must stand against the oppressors who smother us with dispossessive, destructive and genocidal policies. Otherwise, soon, we will be a dusty footnote in the history of human existence, staring back across the Rainbow Bridge in grieving at our mistakes.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Don't Look Down
"Times change, people don't" is a phrase I heard my father use a lot. The ancient Greeks complained about many of the same things we do now: the costs of living, political corruption, the pitfalls of relationships and so on. They enjoyed sports, family gatherings, and leisure activities. And, sadly, they also fought wars.
Tens of millennia have not altered the basic underpinnings of human behavior. And over those years, many of the rhythms of life remained the same: tied to the seasons, cooperative, and family-centered. We grew crops, tended animals, and raised our kids. We unconsciously worked to become like our parents, to live a life similar to theirs. Traditions were handed down and over time, different families spread far enough apart to become separate entities. But on the whole, the similarities, both horizontal (across tribes and nations) and vertical (across time), far outweighed the differences. The river of our predecession ran back smooth and straight.
However, quite recently in our history, we began to see fluctuations in those two coordinates. It began with a disconnection from our past, a superimposition of the unending present upon the path leading down from our ancestors, through us, to our unseen descendants. When roots are cut, the tree shall ultimately die. And can it not be said that those who lose that thread are dying now?
We decided that the "old ways" were archaic. Male and female life roles were rejected. The family was diminished. The mental exercise-made-real which we call money became more important than our time. Any lifestyle was a go, provided it had not generally been accepted before. "Role reversal" became a media-promoted goal. We left behind traditions, norms and values.
The second tremor started with our separation from our extended families. Neighborhoods began to change, homogeneity disintegrated. Dislocation prevailed. We walked through Alice's mirror and we were changed, alright.
During the 1990's, after the hand-over of power from de Klerk to Mandela in South Africa, I heard a remarkable comment. A friend who was in no way racially-oriented said, "White people were said to be the oppressors in South Africa because they were a small intolerant minority not yielding to the deserving Blacks and 'Coloreds'. Yet, in America and the UK, Whites were seen in the same way, but this time because they were the intolerant majority!"
Was that the March Hare, chuckling?
Although these divergences began the destructive cancer which is now long upon us as a People, the most immediately dangerous changes occurred in the recent past. Prior to the 20th Century, humans had no practical way to self-exterminate. That changed in the mid-1940's. We now live in a world where today literally could be our last, as a People and as a species. We might even permanently sterilize the planet forever. True and absolute 'Götterdämmerung', the 'Twilight of the gods'. Why would even Thor's son wish to live in such a barren world?
We have stayed away from our posts for a long time, three generations now. Over that time, we moved from a life of continuity to one of perpetual paranoia. Why?
I was told recently that moving out of the path of full-bore lunacy was actually "running away". The person who said that lives in a very different world than I do. My daily life tells me, in hundreds of ways, subtle and not so, that things are not getting better. My reality check tells me that, unless about 200 million people say, "Enough!", nothing will change. And even if the tide turns, the results may be unavoidable.
We are at a point of confluence, a merger of dozens of forces. Not supernatural hocus-pocus, but real-life freight trains of misdirected fate: the teetering economy, destruction of privacy, expansion of police-state activities, dispossession of certain groups by others, alignments of foreign powers and so on. This is a time when things will break in one of two directions. Either a groundswell will break us out of our current situation and re-establish rational equilibrium, or the world becomes a huge self-destruct mechanism. It's our call.
Tens of millennia have not altered the basic underpinnings of human behavior. And over those years, many of the rhythms of life remained the same: tied to the seasons, cooperative, and family-centered. We grew crops, tended animals, and raised our kids. We unconsciously worked to become like our parents, to live a life similar to theirs. Traditions were handed down and over time, different families spread far enough apart to become separate entities. But on the whole, the similarities, both horizontal (across tribes and nations) and vertical (across time), far outweighed the differences. The river of our predecession ran back smooth and straight.
However, quite recently in our history, we began to see fluctuations in those two coordinates. It began with a disconnection from our past, a superimposition of the unending present upon the path leading down from our ancestors, through us, to our unseen descendants. When roots are cut, the tree shall ultimately die. And can it not be said that those who lose that thread are dying now?
We decided that the "old ways" were archaic. Male and female life roles were rejected. The family was diminished. The mental exercise-made-real which we call money became more important than our time. Any lifestyle was a go, provided it had not generally been accepted before. "Role reversal" became a media-promoted goal. We left behind traditions, norms and values.
The second tremor started with our separation from our extended families. Neighborhoods began to change, homogeneity disintegrated. Dislocation prevailed. We walked through Alice's mirror and we were changed, alright.
During the 1990's, after the hand-over of power from de Klerk to Mandela in South Africa, I heard a remarkable comment. A friend who was in no way racially-oriented said, "White people were said to be the oppressors in South Africa because they were a small intolerant minority not yielding to the deserving Blacks and 'Coloreds'. Yet, in America and the UK, Whites were seen in the same way, but this time because they were the intolerant majority!"
Was that the March Hare, chuckling?
Although these divergences began the destructive cancer which is now long upon us as a People, the most immediately dangerous changes occurred in the recent past. Prior to the 20th Century, humans had no practical way to self-exterminate. That changed in the mid-1940's. We now live in a world where today literally could be our last, as a People and as a species. We might even permanently sterilize the planet forever. True and absolute 'Götterdämmerung', the 'Twilight of the gods'. Why would even Thor's son wish to live in such a barren world?
We have stayed away from our posts for a long time, three generations now. Over that time, we moved from a life of continuity to one of perpetual paranoia. Why?
I was told recently that moving out of the path of full-bore lunacy was actually "running away". The person who said that lives in a very different world than I do. My daily life tells me, in hundreds of ways, subtle and not so, that things are not getting better. My reality check tells me that, unless about 200 million people say, "Enough!", nothing will change. And even if the tide turns, the results may be unavoidable.
We are at a point of confluence, a merger of dozens of forces. Not supernatural hocus-pocus, but real-life freight trains of misdirected fate: the teetering economy, destruction of privacy, expansion of police-state activities, dispossession of certain groups by others, alignments of foreign powers and so on. This is a time when things will break in one of two directions. Either a groundswell will break us out of our current situation and re-establish rational equilibrium, or the world becomes a huge self-destruct mechanism. It's our call.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
