Thursday, June 30, 2016

Sunday, June 19, 2016

The Balkanization of America

A year ago the U.S. Bureau of the Census published a report which revised previous estimates of the future population of the United States. According to the Census Bureau, there will be 400 million people in the United States in the year 2050. One important fact about this figure is that it is much greater than the optimum population for a land area the size of the United States. Another important fact concerns the nature of that population. In 2050 the United States will consist of several blocs of minority groups. There will be no majority group. By 2050 European Americans, who for the first 200 years of the existence of the United States had been its majority population group and who had founded and maintained its culture, laws, and economic life, will find themselves in the minority.

There is yet another important fact to be noted about this mass of 400 million people. This is a fact which suggests that the United States of 2050 will be America Balkanized, an America without Americans, an America in which citizens will identify with their minority status and forget about the nation as a whole. This is the fact that three of the four major population blocs will constitute visible minorities. Three of the four blocs -- European Americans or Whites, African Americans or Blacks, Asian Americans or Yellows -- will be what the anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith has called "macrodiacritic" groups. That is, more than 90 percent of their members are visibly identifiable. The fourth bloc, Hispanic Americans, is a conglomerate created by the Federal bureaucracy. Hispanics, who can belong to any race, will no doubt still be a political bloc.

Indeed, all four blocs will be relentlessly political, locked in a struggle to determine how the increasingly scarce economic goods and natural resources are to be distributed to each group. Can a nation so wracked by internal struggle long endure? History suggests not. History suggests that by the time that America lacks Americans to the extent that Yugoslavia now lacks Yugoslavs, it will undergo a more or less painful process of deconstruction. That time may, in fact, occur long before 2050.

The predicted great shift in the composition of the U.S. population is attributed by the Census Bureau to an estimated yearly influx of 1 million legal immigrants. There may be an equal number of illegal immigrants entering the United States each year. The overwhelming majority of immigrants, both legal and illegal, come from the Third World. Another factor which will radically change the ethnic composition of the population -- a factor given less attention by the Census Bureau -- is the differential birth rates of the various groups involved. It is quite likely that, given current trends, the European American will find himself in a minority long before 2050.

The three highly visible groups -- the Whites, Yellows, and Blacks -- are, of course, the three major races. Biologists refer to these races as subspecies. The differences among them go far beyond skin color. There is no point in enumerating all of those differences, but one fact about these subspecies needs to be recognized. It has been summed up in a thought-provoking essay called "Biological Subspecies of Man," written some thirty years ago by Professor E. Raymond Hall, who was probably the foremost authority on American mammals. Dr. Hall's observation regarding subspecies of mammals is that two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same geographic area. Dr. Hall notes that there may be some intergradation (mixing) of subspecies, but much more often one subspecies thrives and the other goes into extinction. One subspecies proves to be more prolific than the other and wins the territory for itself. Dr. Hall concluded that the natural territory of a human subspecies is continental in scope. He warned that two different subspecies of humans will not co-exist indefinitely on the same continent. Ultimately one or the other will pass from the scene.

Territoriality is an imperative for man as it is for all other mammals. European Americans know well that much of urban America and wide areas of the South have become the territory of another subspecies. Is it too farfetched to say that what is publicized as a crime wave is really the strategy, combined with high birthrates, by which one subspecies is supplanting another, either by outbreeding European Americans or by forcing them to flee?

Territoriality is central to understanding the future America. Let current trends go for another 50 years, and it is obvious that then the Southeast will largely be African territory, and the Southwest mestizo-occupied territory, with various urban enclaves in the West under the control of Asians.

But why should we care about what will happen 50 years from now? The answer to that is the fact that the future is already with us in many areas. America Balkanized is now a reality in southern California, southern Florida, and in other places all across the continental United States. The politics of Balkanization -- a recurrent cycle of polarization, confrontation, and violence -- is already emerging in Los Angeles and Miami. But even where one would least expect to find it there is evidence of the coming Balkanization of America.

Let us consider one rather improbable example. The state of Arkansas is in the center of the United States. It has less than 1 percent of the U.S. population. It is almost the poorest of the 50 states. It has nothing to attract immigrants, yet the immigrant influx is apparent even in Arkansas.

Rogers is a small city of about 30,000 people, located in the middle of the Ozarks, in the extreme northwest corner of the state. Now the majority of the schoolchildren in Rogers are Spanish-speaking. Only a few years ago there were almost no Mexicans in the Ozarks. What happened? The answer is that a huge poultry processing firm, Tyson Foods, has imported thousands of Mexicans in order to use them as cheap, easily controlled labor.

In the extreme northeast corner of the state there is the small city of Jonesboro, which has approximately 45,000 people. Jonesboro also has a huge mosque with a 100-foot-tall minaret. This mosque was not built by local Black Muslims. It was built by Moslems from the Arab states, students at the local university who have come to the United States to study business administration and learn how to manage American corporations which are being bought up by their countrymen.

On the far western border of Arkansas there is Fort Smith. Almost 10,000 of the 90,000 people in Fort Smith are Asians. They have built a huge Buddhist temple. Recently one of the schools in Fort Smith had to be shut down for the day when gang warfare broke out between gangs of Cambodians and Blacks. The Asians in Fort Smith were originally refugees housed at nearby Fort Chaffee. Many of them stayed in Fort Smith when they were offered employment in local factories.

In the center of the state, in Little Rock, a group of Chinese American investors representing business interests in Hong Kong held a meeting in August of this year and announced their intention to establish a new community to be called Chinatown, Arkansas. Chinatown, Arkansas, is to be developed on 500 acres to be purchased south of Little Rock and will be the home of 2,000 Chinese immigrants. It will include a shopping center and two schools. The investors promised that at least one out of every four jobs created by Chinatown, Arkansas, will be given to local people. Moreover, they promised that if Chinatown, Arkansas, is successful in achieving its purpose of facilitating the transfer of Hong Kong businesses to the United States, then similar Chinatown developments will arise in Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

A delegation from the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce was present and expressed its enthusiasm for the projected Chinatown, Arkansas. The mayor of Little Rock also expressed his gratitude. In his words, "A culturally diverse community really has something to offer." The mayor said that he was happy that Chinatown would offer some jobs to local people, but he did not say whether or not any member of his own family might be ready to apply for one of those jobs.

Even where we would least expect it, there is today a foreshadowing of the coming America, an America in which European Americans will no longer be able to speak of "our country" but only of "this country."

What is behind the immigrant invasion? The answer is obvious. It was apparent in each of the examples cited. The culprits responsible are not the Illuminati, not the Insiders, not the Humanists, not even the Communists. No, the cause of America's surrender to the immigrant invasion is simply the shameless, hoggish greed of the ruling elite of this nation!

The ruling elite can dispatch hundreds of thousands of troops to Kuwait, Somalia, Rwanda, and Haiti, but for some reason a few thousand men cannot be spared to patrol the nation's southern border and stop the influx of illegal immigrants. The reason, of course, is that the elite is quite happy with the nation's highly permeable borders. The Wall Street Journal has even editorialized in favor of open borders.

The strategy of the elite is clear: In the new global economy the American elite will become part of an international elite, while the mass of Americans who work for a living must accept their future place in a global labor pool. In other words, the overwhelming majority of European Americans are supposed to accept a way of life that will be somewhere between the European standard and that prevailing in the Third World.

What can be done about this threat to the future of our people?

There are at least three possible courses of action.

First, we can continue to do what we have been doing. That is, communicating our views to our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. This is an essential, never-ending task. If we cease to undertake it, there will be no voice against those who urge our representatives to open our borders to an even larger influx of immigrants.

Second, we can work to change the legislative bodies by encouraging people who agree with us to run for election. We need candidates who will express our views. It is much more cost-effective to put in office people who already agree with us than it is to attempt to convert to our views those officeholders who may be hostile to us. Even unsuccessful campaigns are useful in mobilizing the people and broadcasting our views. It is also useful to put on the ballot referenda such as Proposition 187 in the recent California elections.

Third, we can begin to work for the implementation of a long-range strategy in which we turn away from the legislative talk shops and look to the rank and file of our own people. We need to work to build a sense of community among European Americans that is as strong as the sense of community that now exists among African Americans and Asian Americans. There is now a large population of European Americans, but there is not a community of European Americans led by European Americans who are conscious, avowed leaders of that community.

There is a nationwide African American community led by African Americans who are leaders not because they are accepted as part of the ruling elite, but because they are leaders of their community as such. They are race leaders.

European Americans have no race leaders. There is no end of European Americans who belong to the ruling elite, but -- claiming to represent all Americans -- they are not our leaders.

In America, unlike Eastern Europe, the politics of Balkanization is the politics of race. The politics of race terrifies the ruling elite because it is a politics which is carried on outside of the legislative talk shops. It is a politics which is rooted in life, which defines friend and enemy once and for all. It is a politics which is climactic. It is a politics which is final.

A great campaign in that politics has begun. We cannot look to the ruling elite for leadership in that campaign. If it is to be found anywhere, we must look to ourselves alone.

Multiculturalism is Balkanization


Balkanization, or Balkanisation, is a geopolitical term, originally used to describe the process of fragmentation or division of a region or state into smaller regions or states that are often hostile or non-cooperative with one another.


When you place distinct population groups in competition for resources, then one group will eventually win. Think about multiculturalism for a second, what is it changing from? It is changing from homogeneous states to mixed-ethnicity states, from mono-cultures to multi-cultures.

Humans have naturally migrated all around the world except when blocked by topographic features. We have lots of historical examples of distinct populations coming into contact. Homogeneous states rarely occur from lack of contact. How is it that these homogeneous states (all one ethnicity) come to exist in the first place? Think about that question for a second before you keep reading.

Homogeneous states exist because throughout time, one ethnic group always either subsumes, ejects or kills the other groups. This is humanity. Like it or not. To say that we should not behave that way is to be Utopian,  and is to ignore the reality of human interaction. To think that one could educate populations to coexist peacefully is Utopian. To believe that competitions amongst the human animal can be arrested, that the Hobbesian war of all-against-all can be negotiated, that the evolution of the species can be halted, is disastrously ignorant of the true nature of the human life.

Currently, Myanmar is trying to deal with its Muslim minority through deportation and second-class citizenship. This is actually the nice way to handle it.

If you want to see the not nice way to handle it, just search Genocide.

If you are a proponent of multiculturalism and a cheerleader for diversity, you might want to think about the future of America. Maybe here in America, there will be a nice resolution. We can always hope, can't we?


(Originally posted at Poseidon Awoke)

Friday, June 17, 2016

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Recent muslim attacks on America

June 1, 2009 Little Rock, Arkansas: A recent Muslim convert shoots a local soldier to death inside a recruiting center explicitly in the name of Allah.

November 5, 2009 Ft. Hood, Texas: A US Army psychiatrist, Major Nidal Hasan guns down thirteen unarmed soldiers while yelling praises to Allah.

September 11, 2011 Waltham, Massachusetts: Three Jewish men have their throats slashed by Muslim immigrants Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Ibragim Todashev. Tsarnaev would later become a suspect in the Boston Bombing attacks, and Todashev was later shot by an FBI agent, after attacking the agent during an interview.

February 7, 2013 Buena Vista, New Jersey: Yusuf Ibrahim targets and beheads two Christian Coptic immigrants from Egypt.

April 5, 2013 Boston, Massachusetts: Muslims immigrants Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev detonate two bombs packed with ball bearings at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and causing several more to lose limbs.

September 25, 2014 Moore, Oklahoma: Alton Nolen (aka Jah'Keem Yisrael), a Sharia advocate beheads two female coworkers at Vaughan Foods after calling for Islamic terror and posting an Islamist beheading photo.

July 16, 2015 Chattanooga, Tennessee: Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez stages a suicide attack on a recruiting center at a strip mall and a naval center which leaves five dead.

December 2, 2015 San Bernardino, California: Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, (a married couple) shoot up a Christmas party, leaving fourteen dead.

June 12, 2016 Orlando, Florida: Omar Mateen shoots and kills 50 men and injures 53 more at a gay bar.

Monday, June 13, 2016

She Actually BELIEVES This!


What happened in Orlando

Obama & Orlando
Sunday afternoon, President Obama took to the podium at the White House briefing room and turned the Orlando attack into a tirade against guns. Obama said that the FBI had "reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer." In fact, the FBI had a pretty good idea given that Omar Mateen called 911 and pledged his loyalty to ISIS.

Obama blamed hate and guns. And as he has done his entire administration, he left out the most important point: This was an act of ideology, formed and driven by an Islamic supremacist theology.

We do not have certainty about how many Muslims are infected with this supremacist ideology. We do know, however, that it is not an insignificant number.

For example, it is so widespread that the Islamic Republic of Iran is built on it, and many Iranians pray and work toward the day when a second Holocaust can be successfully carried out.

We know on battlefields reaching from Syria into Iraq that the Islamic State has been able to hold off the armies of multiple nations.

For the 3,000 people killed on 9/11, for the runners at the Boston Marathon, for the soldiers at Fort Hood who thought they could safely relax back in the U.S., for our fellow Americans enjoying a party, for young rockers at a Paris concert, for iconoclastic journalists in the same city, for Israelis quietly sipping coffee just a few days ago in Tel Aviv, the number of jihadists in our midst is a theoretical argument that can only be had by the living.

We know the jihadist army is growing, not shrinking. At the same time, western countries have repeatedly assured their Muslim citizens that we feel no anger toward them; that we want them to enjoy all the benefits of our free and open societies. Mosques are being built at a faster rate than before 9/11.

During this period, Muslim supremacism has been spreading. Terror attacks have increased. Curiously, political elites throughout the West have increased immigration and refugee resettlement from the very countries where the jihadist ideology burns the hottest.

Politicians in Europe and the United States who question this policy are compared to Adolf Hitler and Nazism. One can't help but notice the irony that the closest thing to Nazism in the world today is this very Islamic supremacist ideology, including its hatred of Jews.

But questions must be asked. For example, did the FBI know that Mateen's father supports the Taliban?

The attack in Orlando Sunday morning was the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Slouching towards us is a "beast," just over the horizon, bringing so much death that 9/11 will look small in comparison.



It's Your Fault
The left is already trying to make the case that if you believe in traditional marriage or don't want your daughter using the same bathroom as boys who think they are girls, then you are responsible for creating the atmosphere of hate that lead to the Orlando shooting.

One ACLU attorney tweeted yesterday morning, "You know what is gross -- your [Christian] thoughts and prayers and Islamophobia after you created this anti-queer climate."

Yet, Mateen had ties to a radical imam and traveled to Saudi Arabia twice in recent years as he reportedly grew more devout.

So let's just summarize: If you're a Muslim listening to Muslim leaders saying gays should be killed and you kill gays, it has nothing to do with your Muslim faith.

But if you are a conservative who believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and that little girls should not be forced to use bathrooms with little boys who think they are girls, then according to ACLU, you have created the atmosphere that led the Muslim jihadist to kill gays.



Tragedy?
Over and over again, our elites keep referring to the Orlando attack as a tragedy. A tragedy is when a newborn dies of a rare disease or when someone is killed in an accident.

What happened in Orlando was an atrocity. It was an attack -- an act of war. It should be treated as such, rather than dismissed as an unexplainable accident.

Commentators have repeatedly compared this attack to Sandy Hook and the Aurora, Colorado, theater shootings, as Barack Obama did in his White House statement. In those cases, two insane individuals committed horrendous crimes, raising serious questions about the need for reform in our mental health system.

What happened in Orlando, at Fort Hood, in Boston and San Bernardino were not mental health issues. They were not gun issues. (The Tsarnaev brothers used pressure cookers as bombs in Boston.) They were examples of the Islamic supremacist threat within our country.

Yet once again, the left is using this Islamist attack as a battering ram to knock down your door, take away your gun and limit your rights.



Lone Wolf?
Our left-wing elites, desperate to disassociate this atrocity from Islam, also keep telling us that Mateen was just a lone wolf, acting on his own. Just like Major Nidal Hasan. But how many lone wolves do you need before you have a pack of wolves?

Like Hasan, there were warnings about Omar Mateen. Co-workers repeatedly complained about his rhetoric, including his praise Hezbollah and ISIS. He was investigated by the FBI at least twice.

FBI Director James Comey told reporters today that Mateen "admitted to making statements about the terrorist organizations, but he said he did it in anger because he thought his coworkers were discriminating against him." The investigations were closed without any charges.

In other words, Mateen used political correctness to his advantage and manipulated the FBI!

One classmate said Mateen celebrated on the morning of 9/11. From then until now, he walked through America expressing his sympathy for radical Islam.

Once again, the government's mantra of "If you see something, say something," completely failed us. Russia said something about the Tsarnaev brothers. Co-workers of Major Nidal Hasan said something.

The left's politically correct worldview is killing us. On a range of issues, its goal is to stamp out normal human emotions.