Wherever we look these days,we find the pernicious dirty fingerprints of marxists ,imposing thier deluded failed ideology upon a country that while not perfect,was going towards something that befited a civilised human being.
No Englishman would ever have thought that his administration would actively work against his interests to the degree that he experiences today,and yet here we are,marginalised and if there is no change in the voting habits of our people,replacement is well underway,we are slowly being excluded from every sphere of our society,and any dissent is immediately prosecuted if you are white and indigenous,while the imported dregs are given full licence to abuse ,ridicule and defile our entire society with imported savage beliefs,infiltrate our establishments in order to pervert our civilised way of life,and openly discuss implementing thier alien laws to subject us to when they take over our country,and reduce us to second class status,liable to paying them tax for being in thier country,this we are told is a huge benefit to the English people,whos children will be subject to being murdered or raped if they will not comply with the edicts of insane islam.
The whole establishment is riddled with marxist delusions which baulk at nothing to ensure that thier twisted agenda is imposed forcibly upon the indigenous population of our country,who remain silent in disbelief that thier own people are actively engaged in replacing them,indeed who have deliberately sold them into subservience to a foreign power,and even denied them a vote upon thier future with lies and prevarications of the most deceitful kind,declaring that this is democracy,while they pillage the countrys finances and reduce every Englishman to penury,subverting even the minds of his children by indoctrinating them with the patiently inhuman falsehoods of rabid delinquents that go by the name of the frankfurt school,common purpose,and the racist equality commission,chaired by an overpaid over-indulged foreign simian who seems to think that he knows what the great English people are all about.
Englishmen,you are surrounded by enemies,those of your own nation and those violent savages imported to "enrich"your culture,though they seem to have difficulty in building thier own ,let alone improving yours.Will you do anything to save your nation,your culture ,your way of life,your childrens future,or will you continue to sleep ,while the marxist beast tightens its grip about brittanias throat,violating your women and murdering your fellows,poisoning your children with multicult lies,look around you,this infestation do not share our ideals,they are not "british"they are failures who can not make thier own countries a sucess,so they parasitise yours and are rapidly grinding it into the dirt,they are only here to take what is rightfully yours and push you out of your inheritance.
This year there are eussr "elections"and you must deny the traitors your vote wether they are marxist,tory,or liberally demented,for once vote in YOUR interest ,the scum will promise you anything for a seat on the brussels gravy train,indeed they have already started,suddenly talking about how the English feel,they lied to you on the issue of the common market,they lied to you on the issue of a referendum,you only have to look at the way that they are bullying the Irish to see what thier agenda is,and what they intend to subject you to,thier way,always thier way,you do not count, apart from the illusion of what they call democracy every few years,you are just a tax cow/organ bank to be used then discarded whenever they have no need of you.
We can stop them,we must stop them,deny them your vote,UKIP or BNP are your only alternatives,if you care about freedom and human dignity,our way of life and expect a say in your future as a free man then your duty is clear,you must honour what our grandfathers and fathers secured for us,the English have a right to live free in our own country,the country is called ENGLAND.
posted by ENGLISHMAN @ 7:07 AM
15 Comments
15 Comments:
THE CENTURY AHEAD
It's the Demography, Stupid
The real reason the West is in danger of extinction.
BY MARK STEYN
Wednesday, January 4, 2006 12:01
Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries. There'll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands--probably--just as in Istanbul there's still a building called St. Sophia's Cathedral. But it's not a cathedral; it's merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate. The challenge for those who reckon Western civilization is on balance better than the alternatives is to figure out a way to save at least some parts of the West.
One obstacle to doing that is that, in the typical election campaign in your advanced industrial democracy, the political platforms of at least one party in the United States and pretty much all parties in the rest of the West are largely about what one would call the secondary impulses of society--government health care, government day care (which Canada's thinking of introducing), government paternity leave (which Britain's just introduced). We've prioritized the secondary impulse over the primary ones: national defense, family, faith and, most basic of all, reproductive activity--"Go forth and multiply," because if you don't you won't be able to afford all those secondary-impulse issues, like cradle-to-grave welfare.
Americans sometimes don't understand how far gone most of the rest of the developed world is down this path: In the Canadian and most Continental cabinets, the defense ministry is somewhere an ambitious politician passes through on his way up to important jobs like the health department. I don't think Don Rumsfeld would regard it as a promotion if he were moved to Health and Human Services.
The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birthrate to sustain it. Post-Christian hyperrationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism. Indeed, in its reliance on immigration to ensure its future, the European Union has adopted a 21st-century variation on the strategy of the Shakers, who were forbidden from reproducing and thus could increase their numbers only by conversion. The problem is that secondary-impulse societies mistake their weaknesses for strengths--or, at any rate, virtues--and that's why they're proving so feeble at dealing with a primal force like Islam. Speaking of which, if we are at war--and half the American people and significantly higher percentages in Britain, Canada and Europe don't accept that proposition--then what exactly is the war about?
We know it's not really a "war on terror." Nor is it, at heart, a war against Islam, or even "radical Islam." The Muslim faith, whatever its merits for the believers, is a problematic business for the rest of us. There are many trouble spots around the world, but as a general rule, it's easy to make an educated guess at one of the participants: Muslims vs. Jews in "Palestine," Muslims vs. Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Christians in Africa, Muslims vs. Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs. Russians in the Caucasus, Muslims vs. backpacking tourists in Bali. Like the environmentalists, these guys think globally but act locally.
Yet while Islamism is the enemy, it's not what this thing's about. Radical Islam is an opportunistic infection, like AIDS: It's not the HIV that kills you, it's the pneumonia you get when your body's too weak to fight it off. When the jihadists engage with the U.S. military, they lose--as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq. If this were like World War I with those fellows in one trench and us in ours facing them over some boggy piece of terrain, it would be over very quickly. Which the smarter Islamists have figured out. They know they can never win on the battlefield, but they figure there's an excellent chance they can drag things out until Western civilization collapses in on itself and Islam inherits by default.
That's what the war's about: our lack of civilizational confidence. As a famous Arnold Toynbee quote puts it: "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder"--as can be seen throughout much of "the Western world" right now. The progressive agenda--lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism--is collectively the real suicide bomb. Take multiculturalism. The great thing about multiculturalism is that it doesn't involve knowing anything about other cultures--the capital of Bhutan, the principal exports of Malawi, who cares? All it requires is feeling good about other cultures. It's fundamentally a fraud, and I would argue was subliminally accepted on that basis. Most adherents to the idea that all cultures are equal don't want to live in anything but an advanced Western society. Multiculturalism means your kid has to learn some wretched native dirge for the school holiday concert instead of getting to sing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" or that your holistic masseuse uses techniques developed from Native American spirituality, but not that you or anyone you care about should have to live in an African or Native American society. It's a quintessential piece of progressive humbug. Then September 11 happened. And bizarrely the reaction of just about every prominent Western leader was to visit a mosque: President Bush did, the prince of Wales did, the prime minister of the United Kingdom did, the prime minister of Canada did . . . The premier of Ontario didn't, and so 20 Muslim community leaders had a big summit to denounce him for failing to visit a mosque. I don't know why he didn't. Maybe there was a big backlog, it was mosque drive time, prime ministers in gridlock up and down the freeway trying to get to the Sword of the Infidel-Slayer Mosque on Elm Street. But for whatever reason he couldn't fit it into his hectic schedule. Ontario's citizenship minister did show up at a mosque, but the imams took that as a great insult, like the Queen sending Fergie to open the Commonwealth Games. So the premier of Ontario had to hold a big meeting with the aggrieved imams to apologize for not going to a mosque and, as the Toronto Star's reported it, "to provide them with reassurance that the provincial government does not see them as the enemy."
Anyway, the get-me-to-the-mosque-on-time fever died down, but it set the tone for our general approach to these atrocities. The old definition of a nanosecond was the gap between the traffic light changing in New York and the first honk from a car behind. The new definition is the gap between a terrorist bombing and the press release from an Islamic lobby group warning of a backlash against Muslims. In most circumstances, it would be considered appallingly bad taste to deflect attention from an actual "hate crime" by scaremongering about a purely hypothetical one. Needless to say, there is no campaign of Islamophobic hate crimes. If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes. A commenter on Tim Blair's Web site in Australia summed it up in a note-perfect parody of a Guardian headline: "Muslim Community Leaders Warn of Backlash from Tomorrow Morning's Terrorist Attack." Those community leaders have the measure of us.
Radical Islam is what multiculturalism has been waiting for all along. In "The Survival of Culture," I quoted the eminent British barrister Helena Kennedy, Queen's Counsel. Shortly after September 11, Baroness Kennedy argued on a BBC show that it was too easy to disparage "Islamic fundamentalists." "We as Western liberals too often are fundamentalist ourselves," she complained. "We don't look at our own fundamentalisms."
Well, said the interviewer, what exactly would those Western liberal fundamentalisms be? "One of the things that we are too ready to insist upon is that we are the tolerant people and that the intolerance is something that belongs to other countries like Islam. And I'm not sure that's true."
Hmm. Lady Kennedy was arguing that our tolerance of our own tolerance is making us intolerant of other people's intolerance, which is intolerable. And, unlikely as it sounds, this has now become the highest, most rarefied form of multiculturalism. So you're nice to gays and the Inuit? Big deal. Anyone can be tolerant of fellows like that, but tolerance of intolerance gives an even more intense frisson of pleasure to the multiculti masochists. In other words, just as the AIDS pandemic greatly facilitated societal surrender to the gay agenda, so 9/11 is greatly facilitating our surrender to the most extreme aspects of the multicultural agenda.
For example, one day in 2004, a couple of Canadians returned home, to Lester B. Pearson International Airport in Toronto. They were the son and widow of a fellow called Ahmed Said Khadr, who back on the Pakistani-Afghan frontier was known as "al-Kanadi." Why? Because he was the highest-ranking Canadian in al Qaeda--plenty of other Canucks in al Qaeda, but he was the Numero Uno. In fact, one could argue that the Khadr family is Canada's principal contribution to the war on terror. Granted they're on the wrong side (if you'll forgive my being judgmental) but no one can argue that they aren't in the thick of things. One of Mr. Khadr's sons was captured in Afghanistan after killing a U.S. Special Forces medic. Another was captured and held at Guantanamo. A third blew himself up while killing a Canadian soldier in Kabul. Pa Khadr himself died in an al Qaeda shootout with Pakistani forces in early 2004. And they say we Canadians aren't doing our bit in this war!
In the course of the fatal shootout of al-Kanadi, his youngest son was paralyzed. And, not unreasonably, Junior didn't fancy a prison hospital in Peshawar. So Mrs. Khadr and her boy returned to Toronto so he could enjoy the benefits of Ontario government health care. "I'm Canadian, and I'm not begging for my rights," declared the widow Khadr. "I'm demanding my rights."
As they always say, treason's hard to prove in court, but given the circumstances of Mr. Khadr's death it seems clear that not only was he providing "aid and comfort to the Queen's enemies" but that he was, in fact, the Queen's enemy. The Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, the Royal 22nd Regiment and other Canucks have been participating in Afghanistan, on one side of the conflict, and the Khadr family had been over there participating on the other side. Nonetheless, the prime minister of Canada thought Boy Khadr's claims on the public health system was an excellent opportunity to demonstrate his own deep personal commitment to "diversity." Asked about the Khadrs' return to Toronto, he said, "I believe that once you are a Canadian citizen, you have the right to your own views and to disagree." That's the wonderful thing about multiculturalism: You can choose which side of the war you want to fight on. When the draft card arrives, just tick "home team" or "enemy," according to taste. The Canadian prime minister is a typical late-stage Western politician: He could have said, well, these are contemptible people and I know many of us are disgusted at the idea of our tax dollars being used to provide health care for a man whose Canadian citizenship is no more than a flag of convenience, but unfortunately that's the law and, while we can try to tighten it, it looks like this lowlife's got away with it. Instead, his reflex instinct was to proclaim this as a wholehearted demonstration of the virtues of the multicultural state. Like many enlightened Western leaders, the Canadian prime minister will be congratulating himself on his boundless tolerance even as the forces of intolerance consume him.
That, by the way, is the one point of similarity between the jihad and conventional terrorist movements like the IRA or ETA. Terror groups persist because of a lack of confidence on the part of their targets: The IRA, for example, calculated correctly that the British had the capability to smash them totally but not the will. So they knew that while they could never win militarily, they also could never be defeated. The Islamists have figured similarly.. The only difference is that most terrorist wars are highly localized. We now have the first truly global terrorist insurgency because the Islamists view the whole world the way the IRA view the bogs of Fermanagh: They want it, and they've calculated that our entire civilization lacks the will to see them off.
We spend a lot of time at The New Criterion attacking the elites, and we're right to do so. The commanding heights of the culture have behaved disgracefully for the last several decades. But if it were just a problem with the elites, it wouldn't be that serious: The mob could rise up and hang 'em from lampposts--a scenario that's not unlikely in certain Continental countries. But the problem now goes way beyond the ruling establishment. The annexation by government of most of the key responsibilities of life--child-raising, taking care of your elderly parents--has profoundly changed the relationship between the citizen and the state. At some point--I would say socialized health care is a good marker--you cross a line, and it's very hard then to persuade a citizenry enjoying that much government largesse to cross back. In National Review recently, I took issue with that line Gerald Ford always uses to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." Actually, you run into trouble long before that point: A government big enough to give you everything you want still isn't big enough to get you to give anything back. That's what the French and German political classes are discovering.
Go back to that list of local conflicts I mentioned. The jihad has held out a long time against very tough enemies. If you're not shy about taking on the Israelis, the Russians, the Indians and the Nigerians, why wouldn't you fancy your chances against the Belgians and Danes and New Zealanders? So the jihadists are for the most part doing no more than giving us a prod in the rear as we sleepwalk to the cliff. When I say "sleepwalk," it's not because we're a blasé culture. On the contrary, one of the clearest signs of our decline is the way we expend so much energy worrying about the wrong things. If you've read Jared Diamond's bestselling book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed," you'll know it goes into a lot of detail about Easter Island going belly up because they chopped down all their trees. Apparently that's why they're not a G-8 member or on the U.N. Security Council. Same with the Greenlanders and the Mayans and Diamond's other curious choices of "societies." Indeed, as the author sees it, pretty much every society collapses because it chops down its trees.
Poor old Diamond can't see the forest because of his obsession with the trees. (Russia's collapsing even as it's undergoing reforestation.) One way "societies choose to fail or succeed" is by choosing what to worry about. The Western world has delivered more wealth and more comfort to more of its citizens than any other civilization in history, and in return we've developed a great cult of worrying. You know the classics of the genre: In 1968, in his bestselling book "The Population Bomb," the eminent scientist Paul Ehrlich declared: "In the 1970s the world will undergo famines--hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." In 1972, in their landmark study "The Limits to Growth," the Club of Rome announced that the world would run out of gold by 1981, of mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and gas by 1993.
None of these things happened. In fact, quite the opposite is happening. We're pretty much awash in resources, but we're running out of people--the one truly indispensable resource, without which none of the others matter. Russia's the most obvious example: it's the largest country on earth, it's full of natural resources, and yet it's dying--its population is falling calamitously. The default mode of our elites is that anything that happens--from terrorism to tsunamis--can be understood only as deriving from the perniciousness of Western civilization. As Jean-Francois Revel wrote, "Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."
And even though none of the prognostications of the eco-doom blockbusters of the 1970s came to pass, all that means is that 30 years on, the end of the world has to be rescheduled. The amended estimated time of arrival is now 2032. That's to say, in 2002, the United Nations Global Environmental Outlook predicted "the destruction of 70 percent of the natural world in thirty years, mass extinction of species. . . . More than half the world will be afflicted by water shortages, with 95 percent of people in the Middle East with severe problems . . . 25 percent of all species of mammals and 10 percent of birds will be extinct . . ."
Etc., etc., for 450 pages. Or to cut to the chase, as the Guardian headlined it, "Unless We Change Our Ways, The World Faces Disaster."
Well, here's my prediction for 2032: unless we change our ways the world faces a future . . . where the environment will look pretty darn good. If you're a tree or a rock, you'll be living in clover. It's the Italians and the Swedes who'll be facing extinction and the loss of their natural habitat..
There will be no environmental doomsday. Oil, carbon dioxide emissions, deforestation: none of these things is worth worrying about. What's worrying is that we spend so much time worrying about things that aren't worth worrying about that we don't worry about the things we should be worrying about. For 30 years, we've had endless wake-up calls for things that aren't worth waking up for. But for the very real, remorseless shifts in our society--the ones truly jeopardizing our future--we're sound asleep. The world is changing dramatically right now, and hysterical experts twitter about a hypothetical decrease in the Antarctic krill that might conceivably possibly happen so far down the road there are unlikely to be any Italian or Japanese enviro-worriers left alive to be devastated by it.
In a globalized economy, the environmentalists want us to worry about First World capitalism imposing its ways on bucolic, pastoral, primitive Third World backwaters. Yet, insofar as "globalization" is a threat, the real danger is precisely the opposite--that the peculiarities of the backwaters can leap instantly to the First World. Pigs are valued assets and sleep in the living room in rural China--and next thing you know an unknown respiratory disease is killing people in Toronto, just because someone got on a plane. That's the way to look at Islamism: We fret about McDonald's and Disney, but the big globalization success story is the way the Saudis have taken what was 80 years ago a severe but obscure and unimportant strain of Islam practiced by Bedouins of no fixed abode and successfully exported it to the heart of Copenhagen, Rotterdam, Manchester, Buffalo . . .
What's the better bet? A globalization that exports cheeseburgers and pop songs or a globalization that exports the fiercest aspects of its culture? When it comes to forecasting the future, the birthrate is the nearest thing to hard numbers. If only a million babies are born in 2006, it's hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2026 (or 2033, or 2037, or whenever they get around to finishing their Anger Management and Queer Studies degrees). And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they're running out a lot faster than the oil is. "Replacement" fertility rate--i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller--is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you'll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That's to say, Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36%, Estonia's by 52%. In America, demographic trends suggest that the blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU: In the 2004 election, John Kerry won the 16 with the lowest birthrates; George W. Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans--and mostly red-state Americans.
As fertility shrivels, societies get older--and Japan and much of Europe are set to get older than any functioning societies have ever been. And we know what comes after old age. These countries are going out of business--unless they can find the will to change their ways. Is that likely? I don't think so. If you look at European election results--most recently in Germany--it's hard not to conclude that, while voters are unhappy with their political establishments, they're unhappy mainly because they resent being asked to reconsider their government benefits and, no matter how unaffordable they may be a generation down the road, they have no intention of seriously reconsidering them. The Scottish executive recently backed down from a proposal to raise the retirement age of Scottish public workers. It's presently 60, which is nice but unaffordable. But the reaction of the average Scots worker is that that's somebody else's problem. The average German worker now puts in 22% fewer hours per year than his American counterpart, and no politician who wishes to remain electorally viable will propose closing the gap in any meaningful way.
This isn't a deep-rooted cultural difference between the Old World and the New. It dates back all the way to, oh, the 1970s. If one wanted to allocate blame, one could argue that it's a product of the U.S. military presence, the American security guarantee that liberated European budgets: instead of having to spend money on guns, they could concentrate on butter, and buttering up the voters. If Washington's problem with Europe is that these are not serious allies, well, whose fault is that? Who, in the years after the Second World War, created NATO as a postmodern military alliance? The "free world," as the Americans called it, was a free ride for everyone else. And having been absolved from the primal responsibilities of nationhood, it's hardly surprising that European nations have little wish to reshoulder them. In essence, the lavish levels of public health care on the Continent are subsidized by the American taxpayer. And this long-term softening of large sections of the West makes them ill-suited to resisting a primal force like Islam.
There is no "population bomb." There never was. Birthrates are declining all over the world--eventually every couple on the planet may decide to opt for the Western yuppie model of one designer baby at the age of 39. But demographics is a game of last man standing. The groups that succumb to demographic apathy last will have a huge advantage. Even in 1968 Paul Ehrlich and his ilk should have understood that their so-called population explosion was really a massive population adjustment. Of the increase in global population between 1970 and 2000, the developed world accounted for under 9% of it, while the Muslim world accounted for 26%. Between 1970 and 2000, the developed world declined from just under 30% of the world's population to just over 20%, the Muslim nations increased from about 15% to 20%.
Nineteen seventy doesn't seem that long ago. If you're the age many of the chaps running the Western world today are wont to be, your pants are narrower than they were back then and your hair's less groovy, but the landscape of your life--the look of your house, the layout of your car, the shape of your kitchen appliances, the brand names of the stuff in the fridge--isn't significantly different. Aside from the Internet and the cell phone and the CD, everything in your world seems pretty much the same but slightly modified.
And yet the world is utterly altered. Just to recap those bald statistics: In 1970, the developed world had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30% to 15%. By 2000, they were the same: each had about 20%.
And by 2020?
So the world's people are a lot more Islamic than they were back then and a lot less "Western." Europe is significantly more Islamic, having taken in during that period some 20 million Muslims (officially)--or the equivalents of the populations of four European Union countries (Ireland, Belgium, Denmark and Estonia). Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the West: In the U.K.., more Muslims than Christians attend religious services each week.
Can these trends continue for another 30 years without having consequences? Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world.
What will Europe be like at the end of this process? Who knows? On the one hand, there's something to be said for the notion that America will find an Islamified Europe more straightforward to deal with than M. Chirac, Herr Schroeder & Co. On the other hand, given Europe's track record, getting there could be very bloody. But either way this is the real battlefield. The al Qaeda nutters can never find enough suicidal pilots to fly enough planes into enough skyscrapers to topple America. But unlike us, the Islamists think long-term, and, given their demographic advantage in Europe and the tone of the emerging Muslim lobby groups there, much of what they're flying planes into buildings for they're likely to wind up with just by waiting a few more years. The skyscrapers will be theirs; why knock 'em over? The latter half of the decline and fall of great civilizations follows a familiar pattern: affluence, softness, decadence, extinction. You don't notice yourself slipping through those stages because usually there's a seductive pol on hand to provide the age with a sly, self-deluding slogan--like Bill Clinton's "It's about the future of all our children." We on the right spent the 1990s gleefully mocking Mr. Clinton's tedious invocation, drizzled like syrup over everything from the Kosovo war to highway appropriations. But most of the rest of the West can't even steal his lame bromides: A society that has no children has no future.
Permanence is the illusion of every age. In 1913, no one thought the Russian, Austrian, German and Turkish empires would be gone within half a decade. Seventy years on, all those fellows who dismissed Reagan as an "amiable dunce" (in Clark Clifford's phrase) assured us the Soviet Union was likewise here to stay. The CIA analysts' position was that East Germany was the ninth biggest economic power in the world. In 1987 there was no rash of experts predicting the imminent fall of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself.
Yet, even by the minimal standards of these wretched precedents, so-called post-Christian civilizations--as a prominent EU official described his continent to me--are more prone than traditional societies to mistake the present tense for a permanent feature. Religious cultures have a much greater sense of both past and future, as we did a century ago, when we spoke of death as joining "the great majority" in "the unseen world." But if secularism's starting point is that this is all there is, it's no surprise that, consciously or not, they invest the here and now with far greater powers of endurance than it's ever had. The idea that progressive Euro-welfarism is the permanent resting place of human development was always foolish; we now know that it's suicidally so.
To avoid collapse, European nations will need to take in immigrants at a rate no stable society has ever attempted. The CIA is predicting the EU will collapse by 2020. Given that the CIA's got pretty much everything wrong for half a century, that would suggest the EU is a shoo-in to be the colossus of the new millennium. But even a flop spook is right twice a generation. If anything, the date of EU collapse is rather a cautious estimate. It seems more likely that within the next couple of European election cycles, the internal contradictions of the EU will manifest themselves in the usual way, and that by 2010 we'll be watching burning buildings, street riots and assassinations on American network news every night. Even if they avoid that, the idea of a childless Europe ever rivaling America militarily or economically is laughable. Sometime this century there will be 500 million Americans, and what's left in Europe will either be very old or very Muslim. Japan faces the same problem: Its population is already in absolute decline, the first gentle slope of a death spiral it will be unlikely ever to climb out of. Will Japan be an economic powerhouse if it's populated by Koreans and Filipinos? Very possibly. Will Germany if it's populated by Algerians? That's a trickier proposition.
Best-case scenario? The Continent winds up as Vienna with Swedish tax rates.
Worst-case scenario: Sharia, circa 2040; semi-Sharia, a lot sooner--and we're already seeing a drift in that direction.
In July 2003, speaking to the U.S. Congress, Tony Blair remarked: "As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible but, in fact, it is transient. The question is: What do you leave behind?"
Excellent question. Britannia will never again wield the unrivalled power she enjoyed at her imperial apogee, but the Britannic inheritance endures, to one degree or another, in many of the key regional players in the world today--Australia, India, South Africa--and in dozens of island statelets from the Caribbean to the Pacific. If China ever takes its place as an advanced nation, it will be because the People's Republic learns more from British Hong Kong than Hong Kong learns from the Little Red Book. And of course the dominant power of our time derives its political character from 18th-century British subjects who took English ideas a little further than the mother country was willing to go. A decade and a half after victory in the Cold War and end-of-history triumphalism, the "what do you leave behind?" question is more urgent than most of us expected. "The West," as a concept, is dead, and the West, as a matter of demographic fact, is dying.
THE GREAT HOAX SCENARIO
Israel's long term goal is to set the Palestinians back many years then utilise the situation that they have deliberately created, to have Nato or UN Troops surrounding the Palestinian area's ie Gaza and West Bank,in the same way they are now being used on the border of Lebanon. A ring of steel defending them by the gullible Goyim.
This will happen when Obama leaps on to the worlds political stage this month and shouts "PEACE". Then the above policy will be put into practice. The world will then proclaim Obama as the Saviour of The World. Sadly this will then lead us into phase two of the Zionist plot. Another incident will be created and blamed on Iran, then Obama now established as the man of peace will tell the world he has no alternative but to attack Iran to save us from this evil, the world will believe him, thus leaving Israel with a free hand to continue its age old expansionist programme for a Greater Israel.
The product of all this will be the Ultimate 'check mate' move in Europe akin to Marshall Law. In Britain the main parties will form a coalition government in order to unite against the threat of terrorism and the financial crisis with all its ills,(civil unrest etc) thus becoming a 'total police state', as planned by our not to hidden rulers THE ZIONISTS.
Blair's Iraq war adviser to work for Prince William and Prince Harry
Sir David Manning, who acted as a go-between for Tony Blair and George Bush in the run-up to the Iraq war, is to work for Prince William and Prince Harry.
Sir David Manning is to work for Prince William and Prince Harry Sir David Manning, Britain's former ambassador to Washington, will act as an unpaid adviser to the young princes. He will act as a "wise man" and will be on call if and when they require alternative outside advice as they continue to develop their public profiles. The Queen personally appointed Sir David to work with her grandsons.
Sir David's secret memos published after the Iraq invasion revealed that Mr Blair had promised Mr Bush he would back a military strike a year before the conflict began.
The new role of Sir David was announced as Clarence House confirmed that the princes would be given their own private offices at Kensington Palace.
The Daily Telegraph reported on Monday that the Queen had backed the decision for the princes, aged 24 and 26 respectively, to have some independence from their father by having their own offices.
However, the Prince of Wales will continue to fund the office through his Duchy of Cornwall income. There will be no cost to the taxpayer.
The Household, which has been created with The Prince of Wales's support, lays the basis for The Princes' lives in the future as they progress their public, military and charitable activities.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
One of the Secret Rulers of the World - Sir David Manning
From left to right: Bertie Ahem (prime minister of Ireland), Sir David Manning (British ambassador to the USA), Paul Murphy (British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland), George W. Bush and Ambassador Mitchell Reiss
Who are the people who secretly run the governments of so-called democracies such as the USA and UK?
One of these people is Sir David Manning.
1. Sir David Manning, who is Jewish, was in Washington meeting Richard Armitage around the time of 9 11. (US State Department, September 10, 2001).
Some conspiracy theorists might speculate that Manning was one of the planners of 9 11.
Manning was UK ambassador to Israel between 1995 and 1998, foreign policy adviser to Blair from 2001 to 2003 and UK ambassador to the USA from 2003 to 2007.
2. Manning helped plan the Iraq War, and memos have revealed how he knew Blair had promised to go to war with Bush a year before the conflict. (Tony Blair's Iraq adviser Mail Online)
3. Manning is one of the people who wants the Bank of Scotland to be taken over by an English bank.
Sir David Manning is on the board of Lloyds TSB.
4. On 16 November 2008, we learn that Manning, has won a £50000 U.S. defence job (Mail Online)
Manning has been given a senior post with U.S.-owned arms company Lockheed.
Lockheed earns large sums from the Ministry of Defence.
5. Manning has joined a shadowy UK intelligence firm set up by former spies.
Manning is on the advisory board of Hakluyt, a private intelligence firm partly staffed by former MI6 officers. (Hakluyt set up by former MI6 agents spied on campaign groups for ...)
Hakluyt was set up by former MI6 agents in 1995.
The firm once spied on environmental campaign groups such as Greenpeace on behalf of oil companies.
(Need i say more) (wink)
http://dailynewspaper.co.uk/(6/1/09
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2008/11/one-of-secret-rulers-of-world-sir-david.html
8th January 2009
MEN CONVICTED OF RACE HATE CRIMES
Two men have convicted of publishing "obnoxious and abhorrent" racist material.
Simon Sheppard, 51 of Brook Street, Selby and Stephen Whittle 41, of Avenham Lane, Preston, have been found guilty of a number of offences.
A trial at Leeds Crown Court heard they printed leaflets and controlled websites featuring racist material.
The pair, who are currently in the hands of US Immigartion authorities will be sentenced in March.
(Laws created by Aliens to enslave white men)
What is permissible to whom?
In comparison with the statements of the accused Russian patriots, much more aggressive statements by Jews regarding non-Jews are printed in Jewish newspapers published in the Russian Federation. For example, in the organ of the Russian Jewish Congress, ‘Yevreyskie novosti’ (2002, No. 16, page 9) the Knesset deputy A. Lieberman called for the forcible expulsion of the Palestinians from Israel. Accordingly the Palestinians – in violation of UN Security Council resolutions! – are not only thrown out of their homeland (4 million refugees), but their activists are murdered along with their families. Thus does the Shulkhan Arukh show up in the state policy of Israel.
And the Jews of the Russian Federation support it. The Russian Jewish Congress states that one of its aims is “to conduct actions of solidarity with the people of Israel, carrying out political lobbying for the interests of Israel” (Yevreyskie novosti, 2002 No. 15, p. 5). The same goal is also pursued by the state Institute for the Study of Israel and the Near East, the leader of which, Yevgeny Satanovsky, simultaneously headed the Russian Jewish Congress.
Jewish communities all over the world carry out similar “political lobbying” for the interests of international Jewry to the detriment of the interests of the countries in which they live, and particularly in the USA. That state has become an instrument for the attainment of the global aims of Jewry. And they try to mask the racism of their Shulkhan Arukh by slapping the charge of anti-Semitism (i.e., allegedly racial hatred) on all those who do not agree with their morality, their activities, their wars.
But such a reversal of concepts is a crude forgery, as should be clear to any impartial judge. One can say that the whole democratic world today has fallen under the financial and political control of international Jewry, of which eminent bankers (Jacques Attali and others) are openly proud. And we do not see it as desirable that our Russia, against whose revival a permanent preventive war without rules is being conducted, should wind up among such unfree countries.
Therefore we, both in order to protect our fatherland and for personal self-defense, are forced to turn to you, Mr. Procurator General, with the imperative request that within the shortest period you verify the scandalous facts presented above and, if they are confirmed, on the basis of the corresponding articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation’s Law “on opposing extremist activity” (2002) and article 13 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (“the creation and activity of public associations, the aim of which is directed towards kindling social, racial, national, and religious discord are prohibited”) to officially institute proceedings for the prohibition in our country of all religious and national Jewish associations as extremist. We also request that persons responsible for assigning to these associations state and municipal property, privileges, and state financing, be called to account, regardless of the posts they occupy.
V. M. Klykov, people’s artist of Russia,
A. N. Krutov, Deputy to the State Duma, editor in chief of the magazine Russkiy Dom,
A. A. Senin, editor in chief of Russkiy vestnik,
M. V. Nazarov, publications chief of Russkaya ideya,
K. Yu. Dushenov, editor in chief of the newspaper Rus’ pravoslavnaya,
V. V. Khatyushin, deputy editor in chief of Molodaya gvardia,
A.V. Dzikovitsky, editor in chief of the newspaper Kazachiy vzglyad,
T. G. Basova, editor in chief of the newspaper Marsh Slavyanki,
V. F. Kalent’ev, editor in chief of the newspaper Otchizna,
And others (in all more than 500 signatories, among them 19 deputies to the State Duma).
FROM THE EDITORIAL STAFF:
This letter was drawn up by the Moscow representatives of Orthodox-Patriotic Association and is open for signing by all Russian patriots. (We in “Rus’ Pravoslavnaya” only gave to it a title and broke it into sections subtitles). Signatures on the circular are being collected by Vladimir Nikolayevich Krygin. Tel. (095) 355-00-85 (Moscow).
For complete Russian text see:
The Fable of the Little Old Man and the Ugly Incident of
Anti-Semitism
by Stojgniev O’Donnell
The bearded gentleman entered the outdoor market and strolled past the stalls stacked with merchandise, his one hand gently squeezing the other behind his back. Neatly dressed, he sported spectacles and a hat that implied wealth and high station. Occasionally he paused to stare in silence at a piece of fruit or article of clothing, though he made no attempt to communicate with the merchants. The old man slowly made his way towards a distant stall that was isolated from the others, and he approached the girl working there behind a display of fruits and vegetables. He came to a stop in front of boxes stocked with apples, and he bent forward, directing his face, suddenly twisted in malice, towards the girl. Their eyes locked, and the old man bared his teeth, hissing: “Why do you hate Jews?” A mixture of terror and amusement filled her eyes. “What are Jews?” she asked innocently, pulling back from him behind her boxes of peppers and oranges. The old man drew himself up in stiff dignity, straightened his black coat and left the market in silence.
The next morning the old gentleman returned, and he made his way towards the display of produce at the edge of the market. He found the girl alone again. Stopping before her stall, he leaned forward and squared his face with hers. This time he implored, his voice little more than a whisper: “Why do you hate Jews?” And she responded in puzzlement: “Who are the Jews?” The old man shook his head as if in great pain, and silently he walked away. On the third morning he returned to the market. He showed no interest in the bread or pastries, in shoes, socks or trinkets. As he had done on the previous mornings, the gentleman made his way past the other stalls towards the young girl with fruits and vegetables. He stopped before a pile of onions, and bringing his face near hers, he repeated his question in a kindly voice that was now familiar to her: “Why do you hate Jews?” She pursed her lips, and after half a minute of silence she replied softly: “I am trying to understand why we hate the Jews.”
Her words transformed him. The old man spun around so quickly that both of his feet left the ground. When he came to rest, his back was turned towards the girl and he faced the market. Moving his arms triumphantly about his head, he shouted for all the peddlers and market-goers to hear: “Ohhh, she admits it! They hate the Jews! They hate the Jews!” A great burden seemed to rise from the old man’s shoulders. Straightening himself up, he proudly marched away from the market, and never was he seen there again. For some unexplained reason, the vendors from that day fell on hard times, and fewer and fewer townsfolk visited that market.
(DONT YER LOVE IT)lol.
"let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century"
Good. It doesn't deserve to. The sum of the pain and anguish through colonialisation - continuing most brutally under other more "PR savvy" names to this day, economic diktats amounting to near genocide, War Crimes, Mass-Murder, Treason, and real actual Genocide itself that it has inflicted on those places that raving nutters like you would describe as where the "infestations" currently "afflicting" Britain come from, is too large to compute.
What a bunch of fucking raving lunatic NAZIs you are.
The sooner the Western European "experiment" in deception and brutality ends, the better.
And yea, I'm British and as lily-white as you ... though the only allegiance I have to that Shitty Somewhat Larger Than That Other Shitty Little Country is the convenience of having a passport.
Mind you don't choke on your ID card, now.
Dennis Revell.
Hello, аlways i used tο cheсk ωeblog posts hегe in
the early hourѕ in the break of day, bеcause i lovе tο gain knowledge of more and
morе.
my ωebpagе; Locate A Bucket Truck
Feel free to surf my blog post ; bucket truck
I wіll rіght away clutch youг гss feed as I can't in finding your email subscription hyperlink or newsletter service. Do you have any? Please allow me recognize so that I could subscribe. Thanks.
Also visit my web page - the big green egg
Also see my web page > big green egg assembly instructions
Heуa i am for the prіmаry time
herе. I found thiѕ board аnd Ι in finԁing It rеallу hеlρful &
it hеlped me out a lot. I hope to present one
thіng again and aіԁ otheгѕ such as you hеlped me.
Mу wеbsіtе ... http://www.dallasseospecialists.com/clients-and-testimonials
If you would like go to Walt Disney world Entire world in Orlando on a tight budget, look at making the rounds the start of Dec. Service fees towards the park your car tend not to decrease, but this is when lodges in the area lower their rates and work promotions to bring in local visitors. Additionally, the playground is a lot less populated, so you do not have to wait so long for the favored sights. [url=http://www.ss12w12ws.info]Unus43224ed[/url]
One of many hardest things to learn in preparing food is learning to prepare. Baking needs time, perseverance, and employ. Use these tips to help you find out sometimes the way to bake or make your better baker. When you stay with the following tips and rehearse them, you should be able to make breads, desserts, and pastries with ease. [url=http://www.ss12w12ws.info]Re233photogr[/url]
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home