My Tirade Against Unbridled Capitalism

Ah, the time has finally come to lay low one of the few unquestioned Gods in political science and academia in general, the almost universal consensus that capitalism is the best economic system, maybe I should put "best" in quotes given "best" can be measured in many ways all depending upon what you value whether that is economic equality, unrestricited competition etc.

Now I personally do not fall to the folly of capitalist or the equally foolish communist idealism, I have a very realistic [realpolitik] and pragmatic approach to all things concerning the corporeal world and especially with regards to the affects such forces have upon the preservation of distinct European ethnocultures, something I am intimately involved and interested in. I am not constrained by the theoretical or the abstract, these are things which I believe should be reserved only for leisure time when you are satisfied with your achievements in the reality of your existence; escaping this world for the world of theory and philosophy I think is a cowardly approach to living, applying idealistic principles to an imaginary world that simply cannot and does not exist. Leave it to the dreamers, I'm a worker and a creator.

I've gotten into debates with capitalist and communist ilk alike over the impractical application of their theoretical conclusions in the real world and have come to several eye-opening conclusions but today, I will only cover my criticism of unbridled capitalism and free market liberal economics as it seems that it is the order of the day and perhaps the decade. You can't weather a single day without hearing about the impending storm of a depression, the anxiety and tension is tangible enough to cut like a rope. Where is all their wonderful theory now? It seems like the economists of several nations haven't the slightest clue as to what to do next! You see Economics ministers resigning right and left over failing to both predict the recession and assist in their nation's recovery from it. Just from the one's that I know of, the German and Japanesen economic ministers have both resigned albeit one was due to public embarrassment - I can't really blame him for getting drunk, after all, he hasn't the slightest clue in the world of what he is doing! See, this is the insanity behind reducing all life and all interactions, both social and commercial between human beings to a deceptively simplistic delusion whereby we can reduce all things to a convenient equation of supply and demand and magically everything else will solve itself it. It is precisely this fallacy that pompous and pretentious ideologues who dogmatically declare supply and demand to be an entity and a law of an almost God-like status that has led us to our present predicament.

Essential to the operating logic behind a market is the broad assumption that consumers themselves are entirely rational and will follow the consumer behaviour that is yields the greatest value and utility for them at the best cost [market equilibrium, where supply meets demand]. Therefore, it is taken as a given that consumers will appropriately and accordingly respond to fluctuations in supply and demand using their rationality. For example, if you put things on sale, naturally people will rationally realize that it is beneficial for them to go out and buy that product on sale.

However, one can only make the argument that we are consciously rational, but it is something altogether different to prove such a position. In light of our increasing scientific understanding behind human nature and the evolutionary processes that have largely shaped us as we are, surely they have proven that we have access to mental and rational faculties unmatched by any other creature and that this sets us apart from most animals, however these studies have also shown that we are nonetheless quintessentially biological beings [animals] and still subject to the evolutionary pressures of human instinct and our "animal side," the portion of our nature that often inexplicably influences us to certain unexplainable and irrational behaviour, a process performed entirely at the sub-conscious and irrational level of our mind and natures. Therefore, to say that we are unequivocally rational and always aware of the decisions that we make is an idealistic and unfounded overgeneralization of the human condition that is especially inconsiderate of our recent insights into human nature and our genes. Now you understand why I place such importance upon articles exposing our human nature via our genetic code.

Furthermore, I'd say problems with our rationality are even further exacerbated when we examine people as a social and communal group [what I believe to be our natural condition, not the abstract and atomized individual] in that our rationality is often hindered by the phenomenon of "group think" which is simply an expression of our inherent tribal nature. The desire to sacrifice personal and individual convictions for the sake of a sense of belonging and security within a group, otherwise known as sacrificing for the common good. It is not always a negative our individual aspirations for communal goals, but it is also not always positive; in any case, this tribal sense of belonging being a basic component of our human nature [our irrational subsconscious] hinders our rationality more often than not because we're swept up in emotion, the joys of elation or the pain of suffering a traumatic event, in either way it is a means of propelling yourself towards action that will save the group and hence perpetuate the continuation of your genes or the genes of your group [i.e. related members]. That is after all what human nature is about.

Now only does the collective constrain what is deemed as being "rational," but the two in-fact might even have entirely different conceptions of what is rational, creating this dichotomy between individual rationality and collective rationality. Imagine you and your family or community live in a cave and they're about to be attacked by a rival faction that is far more powerful than your own. You must devise a way to protect your community and ideally yourself at the same time. Now, at first, individual rationality would simply compel you to pack your things and run away with your immediate family, damn the rest all to their fates which is collectively irrational. However, this is often easier said than done because we have a natural compulsion towards being sympathetic to members of our community that we connect with; we have a subconscious connection and duty to protect the community which often encourages us to stop thinking solely of ourselves [individual rationality] and places the community on the pedestal [collective rationality]. In such a scenario, we may collectively rationalize that one person should stay behind and collapse the tunnel on themselves so that the rival faction cannot hurt the rest of the community, a choice which as I said is collectively rational but individually irrational because you are sacrificing your life for the lives of others. This constant pull between these two often mutually exclusive forces also creates problems in considering people as being entirely rational beings because in what sense are you applying the word, individually or as a collective?

Therefore we find that at both the individual and societal levels that there are certain subconscious and irrational processes that propel us towards making irrational decisions or perceptions of the wider world based on our human instinct.

Hence, the way I would liken the human condition would be with the self-made phrase: "We are only half rational half of the time." The remainder of us is composed of instinct, human nature, feelings, emotions and inexplicable desires. Therefore, by extension, any system such as capitalism [and most of liberal thought] or communism that is based entirely on the proposition and assumption that humanity is inherently rational and logical as a whole can only be half right, half of the time because it doesn't take into consideration the unexplainable and unquantifiable aspects of our humanity. Due to this imperfection and error between theory/the fundamental basis of market economics and applying it practically to the real world, I believe that there is a certain sense of justification in moderate regulation of the market economy only in so much as it accounts for the influence that our human nature plays in determining the consumer decisions that we make. Regulations do not "distort" the market because it is already distorted by not adhering to the realities of the human condition. I believe it to be beneficial for these regulations to rebalance the market so that it recognizes the role our humanity plays in the decisions that we make and that certain regulations can be beneficial for the nation if aimed at achieving a certain degree of dissemination and acceptance of specific morals and values conducive to the preservation of our unique ethnocultures and societies. Sadly, market economics as we know it today places little value on the importance of nations and identifying with a group because in their endless list of cost-benefit analyses, the only conclusion that they can come up with is that money is law, God, life and everything else. Nothing is beyond a cost-benefit analysis for them, nothing is beyond the quantifiable and yet this is precisely the fallacy behind free market economics and countless other "rationalistic" theories, they do not take into consideration the unquantifiablility of our human nature. There is no cost you can place on that, it is priceless, it is who we are!

Or as the famous saying goes, capitalists are like cynics because they both know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Also, I think that capitalism especially with regards to its absolute devotion to free trade suffers from a paradox. I would the argument that free trade is actually inimical to what most people would consider as the basis of capitalism, small businesses. This paradox will be quite a challenge to explain because everyone seems to have been brainwashed with free trade orthodoxy that individual thought seems to be at a premium due to its rarity these days.

As we've discussed before, the foundations of capitalism are based upon the rationality of the consumer and a fanatical support for unregulated competition. However, this runs into a problem when we begin examining the effects that free trade has upon competition and the requirements that are enforced onto companies if they hope to be internationally and economically successful. Frankly put, capitalism theoretically idealizes maximum competition and hence desires to have as many small businesses as possible whereas free trade has a realistic inclination towards large, internationally competitive companies that create an international oligarchy. It's quite impossible to reconcile the two because more often than not, small businesses are not able to withstand the competitive pressures from international companies simply because of the concept of economies of scale which makes large companies inherently more competitive as a whole than small companies. It's very similar to the old saying, the rich [big in this case] get richer [bigger] while the poor [small businesses] get poorer [smaller, eventually bankruptcy].

If you want to know why, you have to contrast the competitive environments between a domestic economy and an international economy. When a small company and a large company compete domestically, the competitive differential between the two is rather small because they are both compelled to operate in a labour market with where they pay their employees generally the same, they're both subject to the same governmental regulations, they both have to attract the same market/population etc. Even though the larger company is more competitive due to their size [they can manufacture or sell services and goods at less of a cost on their overall operation], the differences are not as extreme as in the free market scenario and can be largely offset if the smaller company exhibits a more entrepreneurial and innovative attitude that might attract consumers.

When we move to the international economy, we have to recognize that not all companies can equally take advantage of expanded opportunities in labour force, consumer market and productive resources. This is what inevitably leads to the immense disparity in competititiveness between small companies and larger companies within the free trade system that dominates today. Naturally, larger companies will be more capable at exploiting the new opportunities by utilizing new productive resources at a cheaper cost than in their home country, by outsourcing their labour force to reduce operating costs and by expanding their market base, all of which works towards increasing the companies' profit which can be reinvested to make them even more competitive and so on. Where does the small business stand in this flurry of expansion? Stuck at home and condemned to the same strangling regulations and market forces as they were before with little to no room left for growth because of the influx of large foreign companies and also because traditional competitors have been able to exploit the advantages of an international economy. The small business is left with few choices and more often than not ultimately ends up going bankrupt, sure they might withstand a few years or maybe even a decade but their fate is already sealed. All the evidence you need is right before you especially for anyone who's been around for a few decades and lived in a small town, they are likely to have seen their fair share of local shops and domestic stores gone out of business due to giants like Walmart and others. A family owned business simply cannot compete against the likes of Walmart and their insanely low prices and slave labour commodities.

Therefore, we come to the inevitable conclusion that even though capitalism theoretically desires perfect competition via as many small businesses as possible, what actually happens through free trade is that it limits the number of viable businesses out there and it also sets up competitive barriers [created by the market and companies via competition!] that restricts the number and growth of small businesses. All of this essentially means that the economic market essentially becomes stratified with a few enormous competitive companies at the top leaving little room or chance for smaller companies to sprout up and actually challenge them. All of this goes against capitalist orthodoxy and thus the paradox is born where capitalism wants small businesses and lots of competition yet can't have them because competition itself and unhindered free trade inherently narrows down the field of competitors resulting in less than perfect competition. Hopefully this made sense to someone.

Also, I have a slight problem with the notion of comparative advantages; the concept that each nation has a natural advantage over all other nations in producing a specific product. For example, say we have Portugal and the UK both manufacturing wine and fleece and trading a little bit of it to make up for deficits in supply etc. However, according to comparative advantage, both nations should concentrate all of their ability in supplying the world with the service or good that they are able to produce more competitively and efficiently than anyone else and then trade for the rest. Therefore, the UK would create only fleece and Portugal would make only wine because that is what they're best at doing and then trade with one another if they need the other good.

In theory, like the rest of capitalism, it all sounds great and fun, however in reality, things are never that simple. Firstly, this notion assumes that all nations have a certain product that they can offer more competitively than anyone else but that simply is not the case. Not every nation has a certain expertise in supplying a single or a few products for the international market; what can sub-Saharan Africa offer to the rest of the world other than sand? I suppose they have some oil, but who would spend money in creating infrastructure to exploit the oil there when they can get it all much cheaper from the Middle East countries. Also, should we simply be content to begin labeling certain nations as coal producer, fleece makers, bankers, gold miners, electricity producers etc. and what about more complex services such as marketing or advertising, I'd scarcely think that a certain nation has a natural advantage over another. In economies who lack diversity like these - and also like Britain which is set to suffer the most of all developed nations because they've allowed their manufacturing base to be hollowed out leaving them heavily dependent upon their financial sector - they will be increasingly susceptible to price fluctuations [especially for raw materials] that determine whether their economy is growing or receding and I think citizens deserve better than the uncertainty that this creates over their economic futures and the future of their family and children. That's pretty much all I have to say about comparative advantage; I think in certain instances using subsidies to prop specific industries that are critical in ensuring that the national economy is diverse and overall more competitive in many fields than it would otherwise be without government support is crucial especially in times when we face recession such as the one that we are in because having a diversity of industries often helps make our economies more resilient to other economic shocks from around the world.

That's all for today.

News Recap

Ah, turns out that there are a few more news articles I would like to cover.

St. George Parade Cancelled Because it "Attracts Racists"
I warned about this in my last post, both about the insanity and irrevelance behind the word "racist," but also the manner in which it would be consequently used to justify the suppression and destruction of the native cultures of Europe. It's official now, you are not allowed to celebrate being British in Britain anymore. I'm curious just how happy are the multicultist supporting British with themselves? Was this their goal, is this what they have wanted all along? Are they really so self-hating or disrespecting of their own culture and identity?

Can anyone now honestly say that multiculturalism is still a benefit for Britain even though it bans Britain and her people from expressing their Britishness?! That is a complete paradox, how can multicultism be beneficial for Britain when it itself is one of the fiercest weapons used against deconstructing the British identity, country and culture?! It makes absolutely no sense like much of multicultist ideology. Let's speak frankly about this, the British are not benefiting from multicultism, the only one's who are happy and content with the St. George Parade and other forms of British cultural expression being banned are foreigners and others [including some British themselves] who have a vested interest in eradicating the British people, their culture and their nation off the face of the earth.

I am absolutely incredulous to hear this; here's a quote from one of the Labour MP's of city council which was responsible for withdrawing funding from the St. George Parade:

"In a letter to the organisers, one councillor, Yvonne Davies, said the parade created an 'unhealthy atmosphere' and inspired young boys to be racist.

She wrote: 'It is not only the parade which is the problem, but the tribal excitement it creates.'"

Many questions must be asked as to how in the world could an alleged "representative of the people" come up with such an outrageously non-sensical and anti-British interpretation of the parade! Yvonne Davies, eat your heart out the day Britain is no longer British and be content that you will have played a role in destroying your own people in your self-hating anti-British crusade. Feel free to pat yourself on the back. Because I believe in the principle that people should reap what they sow, for scum such as this, she should be banned from ever living in another ethnically European nation and be forced to endure what Britain will be like 40 years from now, a national ghetto.

These parades do not inculcate a sense of racism, they are an expression of national pride and if you cannot understand that while living in Britain, then move out to somewhere that will be representative of what you are trying to make Britain in to, South Africa or Zimbabwe would be an excellent start. You can also try the "no-go zones" that you have helped establish in Britain. In this comment, Mrs. Davies is explicitly trying to associate a healthy sense of patriotism with "racism" and an "unhealthy atmosphere"; if anyone is curious why she would equate the two, it is because she has absolutely no pride in being British and shows utterly no respect for those who are content to take joy and pleasure in their identity. For Mrs. Davies, being British is tantamount to being inherently "racist" and consequently, both need to be eradicated like a disease. This is why it is "unhealthy" in Mrs. Davies' opinion to express your patriotism because she frankly doesn't want you to be patriotic or prideful about Britain, that is a sin, they want you to be embarrassed for being who and what you are in your own country.

I think a fitting conclusion would be the words of Trevor Collins of the Stone Cross Saint George Association:

"To suggest the parade is racist is ridiculous and offensive. When you see the kids, the dogs, everyone out having fun, it's really a beautiful sight."

Yes, these comments are truly insulting to every British man, woman and child, to say that it is "unhealthy" and a sin for them to express pride in who they are. Mrs. Davies should be ashamed of her mindlessly politically correct self and should be barred from ever entering another European nation ever again so that she can "enjoy" the benefits of living in an alien, non-European community.

How Our Looks Reflect our Personality

It seems that based on this article, it only takes a few tenths of a second for a brain to make a character and personality judgment of a strange person solely based upon the shape and of the stranger's face! Now I can't really comment on the entire article as it is quite length but it is definitely worth a read.

We act upon these judgments because it is our evolutionary instinct to do so; these generalizations we subconsciously make are intended to keep us safe and to provide us with a general expectation on the personality of another person. I take this article as further evidence of sub-conscious genetic and evolutionary derived processes significantly influence our behaviour and our perceptions of others in the community. Combining this article with others that I've read in the past, it lends support to the notion that a population which is homogeneous in their phenotype [and hence also homogeneous in their genotype usually] is also more trustworthy of others in the community which facilitates the creation of all-important social capital. This is because we generally seem to trust faces that are similar to our own, think family, relatives etc. An entire society, especially the large modern ones that we live in cannot possibly hope to know each and every single member of the nation, hence such judgments that we instinctually make often turn out being a significant force in social and communal relations. Promoting multicultism should not come at the sacrifice of these relations by introducing foreign elements which we are instinctually less trusting of and less willing to help simply because it's part of our human nature. Any artificially and man-made ideology that pits itself against the tendencies of human nature is bound to failure and multicultism is certainly an enemy of human nature by desperately trying to reshape and change it to fit its own political and anti-European agenda.

Moderate Muslim Who Starts Muslim Show Beheads Wife!

I'm actually in shock because of this article! I could never have expected this in my worst nightmares! This story is a sadly ironic story of a Muslim man in Detroit who sought to create a TV channel where he would "teach" the non-Muslim community about what it means to be Muslim and improve the public image of Islam. Astonishingly, this businessman has been charged and convicted for beheading his wife! There is really nothing more I can say about this, I wouldn't know where to start, it's just a genuinely shocked story.

Race and Class Fuel Social Conflict on French Caribbean Islands

My main intention in highlighting this article is because of a simple phrase by Christiane Taubira. In response to saying that Guadeloupe is "not far from social apartheid," she had to emphasize that neither her nor the LKP [?] are being "racists," but rather, they are "exposing a reality." Everyone needs to bold, italicize, underline, highlight, do whatever you need to remember that quote for the next time someone accuses you and what you believe in of being "racist." Much like the first lady that we covered, Yvonne Davies who thinks every expression of "Britishness" [except a controlled and political correct one] as being unhealthy and fundamentally racist, we can use this phrase as a repudiation of her own idiocy. It would be interesting to see if this island attempts to secede from the "evil white French colonialists."

Well, that is all for now. Thank you for your time.

A Few Interesting Developments

Hello everyone yet again. Hope you've all been doing well since my last post, putting the information to good use hopefully. I'm still trying to catch up on my backlog of news articles that I have to cover so that'll be my main focus today. If I'm lucky and succinct enough however, I might be able to start my little spiel on the present Financial Crisis that seems to dominate the minds of many these days. It will be focused around my critique on the pervasiveness and false faith we place in free market liberal ideology ever since its "victory" following the collapse of the Soviet Union; certainly I am no proponent of socialism either, in-fact, my denunciation of socialism would probably be even more scathing than my disagreement with unbridled capitalism, however I am in favour of a middle-of-the-road approach reminiscent to the Social Market Economies of many European states - an approach that essentially originates from Germany and "Christian"-minded economists [I am not Christian myself] who sought to incorporate a sense of human value and dignity [and in my opinion, some rationality and realism!] into the market economy. Anyways, if I do not cover that tonight then I will try my hardest to do so tomorrow. Onto the news...

Half of Dutch Do Not Agree With Wilders Conviction
This article yields a diverse array of opinion surveys and statistics that show a surprising degree of public support [half of all respondents] for Nationalist politician Geert Wilders in his struggle with the conviction sentence by Dutch courts. Fully 50% are in opposition to the Courts' decision to convict Wilders while 43% support it, quite the hefty figure since multicultist leftists and liberals will have you believe that Wilders is just some obscure, militant right-wing genocidal maniac who has no political relevance despite leading a party that has garnered over half a million votes in the last election - quite the feat in the Netherlands! I suppose it just comes to show how politically bankrupt the term "far-right" has become, similar to the word "racist, xenophobe, neo-Nazi" etc. all of which are simply meaningless and shallow politically charged slander aimed at denigrating and defaming respectable people and parties with genuine concerns that run contrary to the brainwashing campaign of multicultists.

This article is also an encouraging sign that the desire for freedom of speech within Western nations has not been entirely suppressed by megalomaniacal and authoritative multicultists. Further statistics have shown that 49% of the population believe that Wilders' comments critical of Islam in the movie Fitna did not "incite to violence or ethnic discrimination" etc. while 48% of the population dogmatically believes he has. Pretty much a 50-50 split, however, 54% of the population would like Wilders to be acquitted with only 6% wanting a prison sentence of more than two months! This displays how generally half of the population [and slightly more] is sympathetic towards the cause of free speech and Wilders' defence to such a right, but it also shows that even those who agree with charging Wilders are only marginally in opposition to his comments and do not want a harsh sentence. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this 6% of the population which demands a harsher punishment are themselves members of the Muslim community and that a scant few native Dutch would actually support Wilder's imprisonment for a period longer than two months. Especially considering that Wilders did not even do anything that would incite others to hate Muslims, in-fact, at the end of the video, he even encourages Muslims themselves to oppose the tenets and allure of radical Islam, to think for themselves and not blindly adhere to a religious book written by an illiterate nomad 1300 years ago which he symbolized by ripping out pages of the Qur'an which advocated violence. For those who have not watched the movie, at the end of this response on the article, I will post a link to it; Wilders barely talked at all and the vast majority of the movie was simply composed of clips from events and speeches by radical Islamists themselves and I think he's attempting to "incite" disgust and action against the conduct and beliefs of those extremists more so than he is trying to attack Muslims in general - especially peaceful and assimilated ones.

In addition, according to the article, some 51% believe that the Court has "unacceptably violated the position of a representative of the people" while 46% disagreed and 49% recognized that this was a politically motivated decision whereas 43% opted for legal motivation. What's most astonishing are the fact that this has severely injured the reputation of an allegedly "objective" Court system as 40% of the population have an increasingly negative opinion of the institution, 13% have an improved opinion while 45% have not changed their view. Also, it's promising to hear that 69% believe that this conviction will result in greater support for Wilders' party and that it has made 26% of the population more inclined towards voting for Wilders! As I said in an earlier post [Switzerland and Sharia law, Prof. Giordano], once we begin deconstructing Western law intended to preserve the rights of Western civilization and culture itself by conceding to the demands of assertive foreign interests and groups [i.e. demands for sharia law], the objectivity and justice of our traditional court systems will have been sacrificed for spur-of-the-moment decisions and convictions motivated entirely by mass sentiment and action[i.e. all Muslims calling and protesting for a law against religious criticism, see Denmark article in my previous post!].

As promised, here is the link for the movie Fitna which Wilders was prosecuted for.

Flemings Negative Towards Islam
Wow, some pretty stirring figures in these polls! In an earlier post I indicated that Flanders would be one of my highest hopes in terms of having a nationalist party lead their government, that is, as long as they manage to attain independence from the artificial country we know as Belgium, an obscure political construct created in 1830 with absolutely no regard for culture, language and nationality. Thus, we have seen the Dutch culture, language and traditions largely wither away at the onslaught of French-speaking Walloons who want to preserve the union because of the immense payments economically depressed Wallonia get from the economically vibrant and successful Flanders. Brussels to my knowledge used to be a majority Flemish/Dutch speaking city however it is now overwhelmingly French speaking and West Flemish is quickly disappearing as well. Personally, I see a certain national tendency in French-speakers to culturally impose their language on whatever region they occupy; call it an "imperialistic" tendency or whatever you wish, it's always been something I've found somewhat strange and disturbing; it's happened in Belgium, however not too sure about Switzerland, but it is endemic in France that is for sure as they've actively been suppressing native languages such as Breton, Occitan, Catalonian, West Flemish and Alsation for decades now trying to create the visage of a coherent French nationality. In-fact, France is the only Western Democracy that I know of which hasn't ratified the European Charter on protecting minority languages! It's something that I tend to hold against France and many of the more chauvinistic French speakers who seem to be quite surprisingly and unbearably arrogant with regards to their culture and history. It's an interesting aspect of what people might say is historically part of the French national character.

It's quite sad to see one culture forced out by another through political motivation, but in any case this has made the Flemish demand for autonomy greater with many striving even further for independence! The nationalist party, the Vlaams Belang is in-fact the second largest Flemish party! Hopefully, if in the future Flanders attains independence that it will resist the temptations of multicultism and will be a bulwark for nationalist sentiment across Europe, especially after seeing and experiencing first-hand the detrimental effects of allowing other cultures to gain precedence over their own, resulting in gradual cultural extinction.

We find that amongst the Flemish, 46% believe that Islam has nothing to contribute to European culture, 48% believe that Islamic values are a threat for Europe and that 37% of Muslims have no respect for European culture or way of life. Personally, I don't know if I could unequivocally agree with any of these statements; as I said earlier, religion is not a pre-requisite for becoming a citizen in my ideal state, as long as you are of an assimilable European heritage, willing to learn and support the native language and culture of where you are, religion becomes just a personal choice. However, I don't entirely disagree with this statement either given that many Muslims are not assimilable, do not support the native lifestyle or language and do not share a European heritage or appreciation for such an identity and hence, my position with regards to these statements would be somewhat of a middle-ground. I personally know many European Muslims [mostly Bosnians] who have adapted quite well to the Western culture and lifestyle and pose no such threat to the continuation of Western civilization. I doubt I can say the same for many Saudi's, Sudanese or Afghani's.

Furthermore, some 42% of respondents agreed that Islamic history and culture are more violent than other cultures. This is difficult to measure historically, but certainly in the beginning of Islam, Islamic expansion was overwhelmingly conjoined to the hip with military expansion. The second Caliph, Umar created a diwan which was a registry of all Muslims which allowed them to measure how much of the booty from conquest should be distributed amongst families, hence war booty was a central component to Islamic society in its initial phases; it would be exceedingly difficult to deny that Islamic history has had quite the amicable relationship with military expansion and violence. Are they more violent than other religions...hmmm...not sure, we've all had our moments of violence.

In addition, 40% of the respondents believe that ethnic minorities don't contribute anything to Belgium and that 47% are against new immigration [while 38% are for it]. You see why I am optimistic for Flanders?! Some of these statements I wouldn't entirely agree with - as I indicated earlier - nonetheless it represents that the Flemish are resolutely interested and devoted towards protecting their identity and independent culture and I wish them all the best in their endeavour.

Nine out of Ten Failed Asylum Seekers Stay in Britain
The British immigration department and whatever department is responsible for tracking asylum seekers are an absolute joke and a complete waste of British taxpayer dollars [almost a billion pounds a year!]. Turns out that 90% of failed asylum seekers who should be deported end up staying permanently in Britain due to the incredible incompetence and ineptitude of British agencies. The Border Agency is inundated with a backlog that stretches forever [9,000 cases] and their previous commitment to re-examining an asylum seeker's case five years after settlement in Britain has become a complete absurdity as the Agency has lost any and all ability at locating the asylum seekers once they're in the country!

The way I see it, fake asylum seekers should be immediately deported with all due haste; all of the property that they've acquired during their illegal stay over here would have to be confiscated and cheaply sold to needy native families to earn small revenues for the government and provide many of our desperate families with basic necessities [furniture, personal items, cars etc.]. If the recipient government refuses to take in the deportees/fake asylum seekers then all immigration from that nation should be immediately stopped as a consequence of not respecting the domestic laws of our native country. Quite simple and yet effective.

The Republican Party Will Never Win Another US Election!
Caught your attention huh?! It's not usual that I will talk about the United States, however I think that this topic in particular [and the title which is my own personal prediction] needs to be highlighted as it portends to the future of European identity politics. Now, the above title as I said is my own personal prediction based on two articles that I've read - the hyperlinked one being Buchanen's, but I'm also consulting an MIT article. In my second post, I made the prediction that Obama would win two presidencies in a row [unless the Republicans came up with a female African-American, Obama's kryptonite<--my play on the apparent obsession Americans have with electing minorities to display the facade of their post-racial mentality], but let's assume that he won't run in the next Presidential Elections, I still predict that a Democrat will be in power for that term, and many, many more to come. This is why.

Frankly speaking, European Americans are the traditional voters for the Republican Party as a majority of Europeans tend to vote Republican [55% voted in this election for McCain]. The powerful support that former Republicans such as Nixon and Reagan were able to gather was almost entirely due to 88% of the electorate being European with a general inclination towards Republicans [about 55% as well] in the 1970's and 1980's, however the demographic composition of the US electorate is rapidly changing due to America's lax immigration laws and the low birth rate among Europeans, America is becoming an increasingly "un-European" and hence, "un-American" country! Europeans now constitute about 74% of the US electorate. Recently, the Republicans have not only been losing votes from minorities such as Hispanics and especially Blacks, however they've even lost support among their bread-and-butter electorate, white voters in the sum of 1.4 million having abandoned the Republicans in the last elections alone and some 3 million Europeans decided to change over to the Democrats. European Americans are projected to decrease from the present 67% of the population to a minority within America by 2042. However even this prediction I believe is optimistic as they had initially believed that this would happen in 2050. I think that given present conditions that they will in the future revise this estimate to be even lower, somewhere around 2032-2035 is my personal prediction. At that point, the Republican party will effectively have become entirely politically irrelevant! However, the Republicans will become an ineffectual party long before Europeans become a minority in their own country because Europeans are split about 55-45 between Republicans and Democrats while minorities with a surging population are compelled to vote Democrat 60-70% and in the case of blacks, 95%!

We're talking about minorities who have went from only 12% of the electorate in 1980 to 26% in 2008 [more than double while Europeans have been reduced from 88% to 74%] and who've become overwhelmingly pro-Democrat. In 1980 comprising 12% of the electorate, 82% of Blacks and 54% of Hispanics voted for Democrats [75% if you include the '76 campaign!], however in 2008 some 95% [rose from 88% in 2004] of Blacks and 67% [rose from 56% in 2004] of Hispanics voted for Obama when minorities represented 22% of the electorate! Even Asian minorities themselves - one of the fastest growing groups in America [2% of electorate] - voted 62% in favour of Obama!

Given the above statistics, with the Republican Party losing its base of supporters due to old-age and demographic decline, I think that it is only inevitable that the Republican Party will fade into the history books as a non-viable competitor to the Democrats who might - ironically speaking - transform America into a de facto one-party state! Haha. That would be quite the sight. I also find it highly unlikely that any of the other ethnic groups which engage in identity politics will ever come to support in large numbers what is perceived as an overwhelmingly "white" party [Republicans]; Hispanics, Blacks and Asians, all burgeoning minorities within America have consistently voted for Democrat and such a trend will likely continue unless a "catastrophically failed Democrat President" [Buchanan quote] comes by. I think Buchanan's article has an interesting interpretation of this divide that I'll quote for you all:

"Put succinctly, the red pool of voters is aging, shrinking and dying, while the blue pool, fed by high immigration and a high birth rate among immigrants, is steadily expanding.

Nearly 90 percent of immigrants, legal and illegal, are Third World poor or working-class and believe in and rely on government for help with health and housing, education and welfare. Second, tax cuts have dropped nearly 40 percent of wage earners from the tax rolls.

If one pays no federal income tax but reaps a cornucopia of benefits, it makes no sense to vote for the party of less government.

The GOP is overrepresented among the taxpaying class, while the Democratic Party is overrepresented among tax consumers. And the latter are growing at a faster rate than the former.

Lastly, Democrats are capturing a rising share of the young and college-educated, who are emerging from schools and colleges where the values of the counterculture on issues from abortion to same-sex marriage to affirmative action have become the new orthodoxy."

An interesting view.

British IQ Among Young Generation Lower Than Before
This article is interesting for a few reasons. As you've probably come to know, the genetic aspects of our human nature and biology fascinates me and I'll take advantage of every opportunity I have to learning more about this topic. There's a general consensus within academia that the IQ's of Western populations has steadily risen in the past decades due to a concept known as the Flynn Effect which correlated improved nutrition with improved IQ. This study however has shown that since 1979, gains have declined between the ages of 12-13 while in the 14-15 cohort, there has actually been a small loss in IQ!

Now I'm generally supportive of the notion of at least partially [at least 50%] hereditary/genetic IQ however personal experiences/nurture definitely play a role in determining the intellectual aptitude of individuals. In this case we see how the modern generation of youths [my generation] have suffered from the intellectually and morally bankrupt state of pop-culture that reduces the cognitive demands and expectations on youths. I see this as further proof that we need to fight and oppose the liberal/multicultist dominated mass culture of today which is hurting not only our identity but the future of our nation, our youths!

In other studies that I've seen, IQ's peaked towards the end of the 1990's and began dropping off gradually afterwards. This might be correlated with the stagnant number of Europeans in Europeans nations and the increasing number of foreigners which may in-fact be slightly lowering the IQ's registered in these studies. This is only a possibility, I would have to see a few more studies to see if there is in-fact a connection or pattern. I do not think that this applies to the articles given that the 12-13 cohort which likely has more youths of foreign background than the 14-15 age cohort has increased their IQ. An interesting proposition nonetheless.

Here is a news article of the scientific report highlighted above. It mentions a few more useful specifics such as registering a drop of two IQ points among 14 years olds between 1980 and 2008 while the upper half of the intelligence scale has dropped by an incredible six points in the same time! I can imagine that similar finds will be replicated in other Western nations, particularly the USA which is the natural habitat of mindless mass pop culture. In contrast, the IQ's of pre-teen children has steadily increased by a half point for the past 30 years which the researchers attribute to the home having a positive net influence on the development of intellect among children reinforcing the importance of promoting family as an essential component to a healthy nation and society. During the teenage years, teens typically become rebellious in their pursuit for greater autonomy, becoming drones to pop culture and it's not until they hit university age at which point their IQ rises once again. Interestingly enough, text messaging and using emails reduces concentration among youths temporarily lowering the IQ by 10 points and smoking marijuana is correlated with a four point drop. Very interesting!

Half of All Danish Immigrants Want to Criminalize Religious Criticism
Astonishingly, a full 50% of all Danish immigrants in Denmark want to see religious criticism criminalized for its "insensitivity" and "intolerance." Among the younger population of immigrants, slightly less supported this proposition - albeit ever so slightly, only 5% fewer which indicates a general consensus among the immigrant community that supports censoring religious criticism and freedom of speech. How do multicultists suggest we balance out Western values and rights like freedom of speech with multiculturalism and "religious sensitivity".....you don't, inevitably you will have to make a value judgment on which of the two mean more to you than the other. Do you prize your freedom to think and speak as individuals or would you rather live in a world where our comments about religion or other cultures are carefully crafted and regulated for fear of "insulting" someone? To anyone who values Western civilization, this choice should be an easy one and it exposes multicultists for who they really are, a group of intolerant and dogmatically anti-European racists. At least the native Danes know where they stand, 80% are supportive of freedom of speech.

Austria Starts Cracking Down on Extremist Teachers
Hah, how convenient; right after talking about the battle between choosing to live in a Western democracy or oppressive and censored authoritative multicultist dystopia, we run into this article as Austria has begun to tackle the issue of extremist teachers indoctrinating Muslim youths against democratic values within Austria itself! A previous study from January found that 22% of all Islamic teachers opposed democracy on religious grounds! Once again...the choice is up to you, religious and multicultist dogmatism OR open western democracy?

Christian convert in Jail in Saudi Arabia!
Haha! I am NOT making this up nor have I constructed this so that I would have a few articles in a row that criticize Islam, it just turns out that there are a lot of articles on Islam's combative relationship with the West. Here in particular we see the dissonance between Islamic Middle Eastern values and Western values, any European Muslims that seek to live in a European nation would have to make the conscious decision to abide by the native values of that society and not enforce their foreign belief systems upon the native inhabitants. Those belief systems include punishing apostasy - the conversion to other religions. According to this article, after the individual's conversion from Islam to Christianity - and after advertising it on his blog - the blogger was sentenced to jail by Saudi authorities! Even more, last year a Saudi official's daughter was murdered because of her conversion to Christianity!

I have an idea when it comes to dealing with such states as Saudi Arabia in terms of foreign policy. Certainly, a sovereign state is entitled towards doing whatever they see fit within their own territory and I believe that it would be detrimental for us to be regarded as "nosy" or as a despotic power policing the world by involving ourselves in every petty domestic dispute. Let them all do what they want within their own nation and let them benefit or be punished for choosing to do such things, that's not something we should interfere with, at least not officially! In any case, as I said, these states will reap the rewards of their actions and by punishing people for converting to Christianity, by banning the construction of churches and by tolerating the existence and operation of extremist Wahhabi groups internally and internationally, I think that Saudi Arabia should be punished for such conduct by initiating a policy which refuses to accept any immigrants from Saudi Arabia and which refuses to acknowledge any funding from extremist Wahhabi groups within Saudi Arabia that would be used to facilitate the construction of even more Mosques within Europe. This policy would be implemented as long as Saudi Arabia maintains this treatment of religious minorities domestically and as long as they remain complicit in the operations of extremist Wahhabi groups. If European states as a whole took a concerted effort to implement these policies, I think we could see noticeable changes in the way Saudi Arabia treats and finally respects its Christian and other citizens. It would also be an effective way at regulating where money comes from which will be used in the construction of Mosques, especially considering Saudi Arabia is one of the top donators of funds for Muslim projects across the world.

Church of England Votes to Ban Membership with BNP
Last week we covered an article regarding how the Police Force and Immigration Office are banned from hiring members of the BNP and discussed the ramifications and utter hypocrisy of such policies. Well, turns out that the Church of England has also decided to go along with this witch hunt [pun intended] and ban members from being affiliated with the BNP, once again and I need to emphasize this, a LEGITIMATE POLITICAL PARTY! Imagine the public outrage if the Church or any other organ of the government were to ban members of the Labour or Conservative party, but I suppose it's alright to violate the enshrined human and political rights of these BNP members if it means scoring brownie points with the authoritative multicultist crowd [as we've exposed before]. This honeymoon between the two might not last for long as increasing numbers of Britons become disenchanted with the unrepresentative and irrational conduct and policies of government, soon, these mainstream parties might find themselves in a situation where they have to face up with their hypocritical past and policies. Haha, they call the BNP fascist, yet they are the ones banning membership to legitimate and peaceful political parties! Oh the irony would be so funny if it weren't so sad.

Heroes Are Born Not Made
Turns out that based on this study, scientists can generally predict from childbirth the stress tolerance of an individual based on their hormonal balance which directly affects how an individual handles stressful situations. They identify these people jokingly as "heroes," those who act coolly under duress largely because of their inner genetic composition. I keep saying how important genes are in determining our character or at least parts of our character and everyday I find more exciting articles like these. The article even makes the intriguing boast that one day we will be able to make others more resistant to stress via "mental exercises" and other medications which presumably alter the hormonal balance of a person. Very very interesting stuff!

Good Samaritans Are Born Not Raised
This is similar to the article above in that scientists have found a so-called "empathy gene." The ability to understand the feelings of others and feel sympathy is an aspect of our human nature that scientists believe is "built" into us by nature once again yielding the importance of genes in our individual character. This will help scientists better understand human emotional disorders like autism etc. quite intriguing I must say.

Also, it should only take a basic intellect to realize that humans differ in the above distribution of genes and hormones which largely regulate our behaviour. All the proof we need would be to look at the discrepancy in behaviour between male and female, there's a reason why humanity did not develop asexually, the two sexes are meant to compliment, not supplement one another. For all the radical Feminists our there, eat your hearts out, we are different, but we are also certainly equal! We have fulfilled different evolutionary purposes for humanity, with women being the traditional and I mean "naturalized"[represented in genes and hormones, not just socialized because it's a "man's world"] caretaker of children and families. Naturally, this would mean that females have a more advanced - and just to put a smile on the face of radical Feminists - a "superior" ability at understanding and recognizing our emotional states. Females are naturally more empathic than males because of the evolutionary process which is why you'll find that many women seem to think that men in contrast are quite cold, dull or emotionless. There you have your classic divide in human nature. Surely personal experiences may make a man or women more or less empathic, however genes serve very well as a general predictor in identifying that women on the whole are likely to be more empathic than men. Get used to it guys, that's life for ya, enjoy it!

Some Nice Articles From American Renaissance
American Renaissance is one of my most favourite news websites to visit given their excellently written articles and the useful news stories they post up every now and then. In this article written in 2003 - somewhat dated - many topics are explored, the most interesting for me being the article regarding "Race in Scandinavia" which is essentially a commentary on the state of nationalist political parties within the Scandinavian nations along with an assessment on their present [well, back in 2003] state of multicultism and the chances they have for a nationalist resurgence.

The article identifies the considerable successes of the Danish People's Party in Denmark and sees Denmark as largely being a resounding success in nationalist politics experimentation; Norway provides a mixed example in the moderate results of nationalist parties while Sweden is an outright failure. The article attributes this discrepancy due to the prolific state of censorship within Swedish media regarding immigration and especially immigrant crime - often refusing to report the background of the offender. Furthermore, Swedish nationalist parties such as the Sweden Democrats have only recently purged themselves of their former connections with neo-Nazi ilk whereas the Progress Party of Norway and the Danish People's Party of Denmark have long purged themselves of any neo-Nazi influences that they might have once had [if any at all]; also, the media in Norway and Denmark tend to be less censored than that of Sweden, particularly Denmark which is vehemently pro-Western and pro-free speech.

Given that the article is somewhat dated, it would be important to update ourselves on the failures and successes of these nationalist parties since 2003. Since 2001, the Progress Party [which in itself is probably not that nationalist, more conservative than anything else as far as I know] has nearly doubled their vote total from 14.6% and 26 seats to 22.1% and 38 seats! I'm even more elated to say that the Danish People's Party have had consecutive gains in votes since their creation in 1995 having increased from 12%/22 seats in 2001 to 13.8%/25 seats in 2007! The Danish People's Party is certainly a pro-Denmark and highly nationalist party which is encouraging to see that they can obtain such fabulous results. In Sweden, the Sweden Democrats have really surged since the article was written when they were receiving a scant 1.4% of the vote in 2002, but in the last general elections of 2006 they more than doubled their national vote to 2.9% and attained some 286 local seats throughout Sweden! They are also definitely a nationalist and pro-Swedish Sweden party. In a span of 8 years, 1998 until 2006, the SD have managed to increase their vote total from only 19,624 to an astonishing 162,463 [almost ten-fold!] and who knows what they will achieve in the next elections which are probably next year. My only fear for Sweden and to a lesser extent Norway is that it may already be too late for these nations. Approximately one in three births in Sweden are by foreigners and I'm not sure about the figure for Norway; also, the fertility rates of foreigners in Sweden is uncharacteristically [in contrast with other European nations] very high as Somalians and Iraqi women end up having on average nearly 4 children per woman! If you want to know why the "Swedish fertility rate" is so inflated, that's because it is not exactly "Swedish." Sweden is one of the most politically correct, dogmatic, self-hating, self-righteous and fervently multicultist of nations in Europe. I simply do not see them slowing down on their descent into multicultist madness and chaos anytime soon. Nonetheless, I hope for a miracle because I care - unlike multicultists - whether Swedish people survive or not; it would be an absolute travesty and human tragedy if we were to allow this unique and wonderfully distinguished people along with their customs and culture to become engulfed by the flames of self-destruction and apathy towards one's own survival.

Nonetheless, these electoral results are strikingly visible on these two graphs available on wikipedia: Graph 1 [contrast between 2002 and 2006] & Graph 2.

Unsurprisingly, their greatest amount of support are in the regions with the most multicultism, the south of Sweden. It is overall a very interesting article despite the age and well worth the read given its historical context and the valuable information it provides.

Well that's all for tonight. Hope you have all enjoyed the articles and see you next time.

News Recap Continued!

Just a few more sources that I've managed to collect over the past few weeks which I hope fellow ethnic nationalists may find useful.

French Muslims Refuse to Fight "Brothers"
Statistically speaking, five or so Muslim soldiers refusing to abide by military orders to be sent to Afghanistan might not seem to be much noteworthy news for ethnic nationalists such as ourselves. Dereliction of duty after all does unfortunately happen within the military. However, what we need to draw our attention to is the motive and excuse provided by these Muslim soldiers in their refusal to be sent to Afghansitan; quite simply, they refused on the grounds that they couldn't be bothered to potentially fight against their "Muslim brethren."

This statement should, for all ethnic nationalists intent upon preserving their distinct ethnoculture in Europe, evoke a great deal of consternation regarding the loyalties and efficacy of their increasingly multicultural militaries. Particularly concerned should be France considering the magnitude and frequency of the recent "immigrant youth" protests that have exploded all across the country for the better part of the last two years.

As an ethnic nationalist, one of the purposes of the state - and by far the most critical - is to preserve and cultivate the native ethnoculture of its people/the nation via various means that can be more or less broadly generalized into three categories: encouraging a conventional/traditionally high regard for maintaining one's own identity[creating a social appreciation of an identity], through the use of law that protects the language, cultural practices etc. and finally, as a means of last resort in the event that the ethnoculture of the nation is openly and directly threatened, the military. We have all seen how the cultures, traditions, values and conventions of native European societies have been almost completely abolished in the past few decades with the exception of a few superficial festivals and celebrations meant to placate the masses' desire for a semblance of an identity, no matter how fallacious or disingenuous it is. In-fact, in most European states, there has been an all-out attack upon the identities and culture of its native inhabitants consequently destroying the first tool [society itself] the state and the people have towards preserving their ethnoculture. In my last post - and also quite the prevalent theme throughout the European media - we discussed the attempts of a certain Italian Professor Giordano in attempting to incorporate certain clauses of sharia law into Swiss law to make it more "pluralistic." Already, components of sharia law have been officially implemented in Britain and in many places elsewhere, such as in France in particular where sharia law is unofficially practiced in immigrant neighbourhoods that are inaccessible to even the police! Everywhere we look, in co-ordination with the cultural assault on European native ethnocultures is an academic assault upon European law; decades ago it had already lost its purpose and basis in preserving the ethnoculture of a nation, now the politicians and left-wing academia are only finishing the job by making the law wholly alien and hostile to European people themselves by conceding to the legal demands of foreign groups with interests that are seemingly antithetical and inimical to the survival of distinct European identities. The second tool has now been eliminated.

Once these two have been overridden, there only remains one tool, the last barrier standing in the way of alienating European people and their unique ethnocultures from their homelands. At the present rate that European nation-states are dissolving themselves and committing national suicide, we are approaching this frightening prospect with increasing speed. What will happen to us when we cannot even count on our own militaries being loyal to the interests of their ethnic community? What will happen in France or in other countries once immigrant youths are no longer content with the enormous concessions we've made, won't they just start rioting as they've proven willing to do so numerous times before? Burning cars, destroying property, terrifying and killing people, that's all part of the fun of a multicultist utopia with disenchanted and increasingly aggressive and assertive immigrant communities right? What will happen when our states and we the people begin losing control of our homelands and decide to call upon the army to re-establish order? If anyone thinks that five soldiers refusing to obey orders to go into Afghanistan just because of the prospect of possibly fighting against their Muslim brothers is frightening, then what do you honestly think they will do when you tell them to get their gear, go onto the streets and fight against their own Muslim brethren, their neighbours, their childhood friends, possibly even their own family? Will we even be able to count on this fragmented, disloyal and multicorruptible [my play on "multicultural"!] army for our own security? Would they choose following the orders of a French state that they deride and perceive as being institutionally racist and discriminatory over their own families and community that they sympathize with? I think we all know the answer to this and no amount of explicit legal oaths of loyalty taken could ever pose a challenge to the unspoken oath of loyalty that people have to their community, their people, their family, their identity and their culture. The answer is "NO," they would surely follow the interests of their own ethnic community [genetic nepotism] over the directives of the French state and against the continued existence of the French people as a distinct ethnoculture.

Given the unreliability of this last tool, it would seem to spell the end of our states' capabilities at preserving our identity. This is all assuming our states will even have the temerity to actually call upon the military when their existence and the existence of our ethnocultures comes to the final question.

Above all else, this article displays precisely just how volatile and hazardous a situation our militaries presently sit in and how they will be increasingly subjected to such multichallenging pressures in the future. None of this bodes well for the existence of European nations when our customs have been destroyed, when our law is being dissolved and when our military is being fragmented.

Spanish Government Detains Six Pakistani Terrorists
This article is highly related to the above that I just commented on. Just imagine if we replaced these Spanish security investigators with Pakistani's, many of whom would likely have sympathies for the actions of these terrorists. Terrorists that threaten your life, the lives of your children, friends and other family. Is multicultism really worth that risk? Is the future of your nation so meaningless, and its past so inconsequential that you would want to put it all at risk for the petty ignorance and carelessness in the present?

BNP Immigration Workers Fired
Somehow, when I think of Mosley's desire for a Fascist British state, I can hardly imagine that he could've supported the present anti-British mulitcultist monstrosity that the United Kingdom has become. Apparently in this "great democracy" we know as the United Kingdom, two immigration workers have been fired for being members of the BNP [along with one police officer]. It seems that employees cannot be members of Combat-18, the National Front or the BNP because of the alleged "racist" tendencies of these groups. The first two I quite understand given they're mindless and frustrated neo-Nazi agitation groups, not likely that you'll find a skinhead with enough qualifications to work in immigration! However, what the British government is doing here is nothing short of fascism by discriminating against members of a legitimately recognized and politically represented party because it does not concede to the dogmatic and anti-British demands of political correctness, the national religion of the United Kingdom. I'm curious if they hold the same standards for people who join Communist parties, are they fired if they become employment officers? Probably not [although I would appreciate it if someone knew and could tell me] given they are the most extreme proponents and practitioners of political correctness. To put this all into perspective, imagine if the BNP were to ever come to power in the UK and were to fire employees who were members of the Labour Party because of the Labour Party's avowed "anti-British sentiments"! I can already hear the uproar and endless accusations of Fascism bellowing from the hordes of multicultists across the nation and even across the world. Even without parliamentary representation in the present, accusations of fascism are hurled at BNP members and the party daily; quite ironic. Yet in stark contrast, given the BNP's minority status and attacked political position, it's entirely acceptable to impose such a double standard upon them without fearing much public reprisal. Hopefully the British people will awaken and see how their liberties have been covertly eroded and their nation gradually demolished all under the watchful gaze of our Big Brother, Multicultism.

Coronation Street Episode Censors the Cross
Just a further example on the endless list of politically correct idiocy. Seems that in an episode of the British show, Coronation Street, the filmers decided to take out the cross in a church during the marriage scene for fear of "offending the audience." I run across such mindnumbingly and outrageously inane articles all the time and I've nearly run out of words to describe just how unbelievable it is that these show producers could have even conceived of a cross being "insulting" towards members of the audience. When you go to a church, you expect to see at the very least a portrait of Christ and a Cross, if it offends you, then DO NOT GO; ditto if you're going to a Mosque, if it disturbs you to see men and women separated when praying, or if it bothers you to take off your shoes when you enter a Mosque, then do not enter, have some inkling of respect for both religions. It's really quite as simple as that; political correctness is essentially a polite euphimism for politically anti-British ignorance in that the supporters of political correctness cannot stand the sight of anything that reminds them of their British heritage and identity making them quintessentially ignorant towards these fundamental aspects of the British ethnoculture and the British people. By perpetually seeking to impose their self-righteous, deluded selves upon the values and historical traditions of the British people, they prove their own ignorance and anti-British sentimentality; yet, they also display their own inherent hypocrisy by being largely ambivalent to displays of ethnic and religious pride among foreign groups, one of the greatest observable double standards within society.

The freedom to speech and expression is one of those fundamental rights that contribute to a free and European society! You cannot have a prosperous and dynamically developing nation devoid of the freedom and ability to critically challenge issues and speak out freely voicing the legitimate concerns of the citizenry. Censorship only breeds contempt and extremism among the censored and the last thing the British people need to withstand at this point is political extremism, they need political activism on behalf of their own ethnic interests.

U.S. School Segregation on the Rise
I only have a short comment on this story. The segregation of schools across America is a direct outcome of the decreasing composition of the European American population [67% of the total population, however, only 56% of the student population] and the phenomenon of "White Flight" driven by the natural tendency of ethnic nepotism. Basically, Europeans are fleeing increasingly alien, foreign and multicultural regions of the nation because of their consequently deleterious effects on the quality of the education [last paragraph in the article] that their children receive in favour of regions with a strong sense of community and culture homogeneously composed of European Americans. I predict that as the USA continues to regress into a Third World country [as Patrick Buchanan has predicted] under the onslaught of uncontrolled mass immigration, that this phenomenon of "White Flight" among Europeans Americans [and potentially even among other groups, however they also have a tendency to follow where Europeans go] will exponentially increase as Europeans seek communities and places that they can relate to without the fear of censorship for expressing who they are. We shall see what consequences this has in regard to the secession movements in certain states and how they possibly might inherit an ethnic character [i.e. predominantly European states creating their own union].

Thais Leave Boat People to Die
This is an interesting contrast to the way that Mediterranean European nations deal with their own hordes of "boat people." I'm just trying to highlight here how much criticism Spain and especially Italy under Berlusconi receives over thier overwhelmingly benevolent policy on the treatment of "Boat People. " Such a phenomenon is extremely contentious in that these nations have very limited options in dealing with these immigrants; essentially, you either let them in or shoot them and the latter is certainly not politically acceptable in the modern civilized world. The fact that Italy and Spain accomodate these foreigners at taxpayer expense alone would make any further criticisms completely unjust and unfair given the far more inconsiderate treatment rendered by Thai authorities under similar circumstances. However, we all know that the media is far from being just, fair or even rational.

FPO Politician Susanne Winter Convicted of Anti-Muslim Statement
Jihad Watch is an excellent website for those interested in critical assessments of Islam and its increasingly precarious relationship with Western European nations. I myself place little importance when it comes to religious affiliation [as long as they are not extremists of course], I would be as likely to accept Europeans of Muslim, Jewish, Christian or Buddhist etc. convictions, as long as they agree to live peacefully under the laws of the nation, in support of the native ethnoculture of the people then it's all good.

Therefore, in analyzing this excellently written article, my point of emphasis is not to attack Islam itself, instead, I am far more concerned by the precedent this conviction establishes for freedom of speech and expression in Austria. Susanne Winters was convicted of insulting Islam by claiming that Muhammad was a pedophile. This aspect itself is undeniable, he quite obviously was when he consummated his marriage with a six year old girl [age when she was married] at the age of nine [age of first intercourse], this is all historically and factually validated.Whether that reflects on his legitimacy and authority as a religious leader is not something I care so much for. Therefore, for saying something that is entirely truthful, regardless of how offensive it is to anyone, this politician was convicted for "insulting" and get this, "humiliating" a religion!!! The author makes the fabulous point that "how can you humiliate a religion? A religion has feelings?" This sort of standard is extremely frightening given that it establishes a precedent whereby the "truth is no defence" in court. If that is the case, then under what justification do we base our court proceedings, decisions and hell, the entire system on? What "feels" right at the moment? What is "politically correct/acceptable"? In this we can see the negative effects that multicultism has in eroding our once accountable and fair judicial system, one of the historical cornerstones of Western democracy.

Russia Awards "Order of Parental Glory" to Prolific Parents
I think this is an excellent way in rewarding and publicizing hard-working, child-rearing families that do more for Russia than any bachelor millionaire ever could! Extreme circumstances call for extreme measures and rewarding families medals of honour in respect for the sacrifices and benefits they are yielding for their nation should be a welcome development throughout Europe. Not only should there be a single, large, publicized national competition that rewards a single family, but more moderate prizes should be provided for competitions at a more regional level so that local families can feel that they have relatively good odds at winning a reasonable reward, something along the lines of a van for the children, or a furnishings to accomodate their household etc. In my last post, I provided a few other examples of what I would consider doing to raise the birth rates of European nations and I forgot to mention that a national holiday should be set up known as "Family Day" with organized festivals and street parades that encourage a strong sense of family throughout the nation. Also, I think this would be a terrific way at remediating the hedonistic and unabashed exhibitionism of the pointless Gay Pride Parades which only work to discourage the rearing of families.

The Rise of Mixed Race Britain
The above title is an oxymoron, there is and cannot be such a thing as a "mixed-race Britain" except in a purely geographical term because Britain itself, to be "British" is an organic and ethnically [read, GENETICALLY] founded identity. As Britain becomes gradually less and less British, then it will not be Britain at all but some strange and ambiguous amalgamation of different ethnic identities that coalesces - or at least may attempt to - into forming a heterogeneous identity totally alien to what it means to be authentically and originally British.

According to this article [I'll highlight the statistics first], 9% of people in Britain are mixed-raced and some 20% of births belong to minorities. Minorities also tend to be far younger than native Britons as the average age of ethnic Britons is well over 40 while for example, the average age of Bangladeshi's is only 21! Half of all Caribbean men are in mixed-race relationships, the same is true for 20% of African men, 10% of Indian people [men & women] and 40% of Asian women. the article predicts that African Caribbeans will disappear as a distinct people due to intermixing and that in the future, this intermixture of races may "raise future hopes of a non-racist Britin" because people in the future "will not see race in the way we see it."

This is all to say that they won't see British people and Britain the way we see it because frankly, British people themselves will perhaps already have lost their dominance in the geographically ascribed territory we know as "Britain." This article is doing nothing short of praising the disappearance of the ethnic British community as a distinct people as a wonderful and inevitable trend that should be openly desired by any and all who seek a "non-racist" future. Does anyone else sense an ever so slight hint of "hypocrisy" here, deriding both "racism" and yet attacking in quite an explicitly racist manner the existence of the ethnic British community as being fundamentally conducive and instinctually directed towards "racism"?! Essentially saying that as long as you remain British and as long as Britain retains its British character, it will be fundamentally "racist," we need something "non-British" to make Britain "non-racist"; I'm curious if they apply the same standard to homogeneous East Asian countries and are willing to exalt the benefits of a gradually disappearing Korean, Chinese and Japanese ethnic community! Imagine the look on their faces if you were to tell them that Japan would be better off if only they could all marry Indians, Nigerians, Swedes and Egyptians; I can scarcely imagine a comment as insulting as that, they would probably send you to an insane asylum.

Let's make this clear, the wider ethnic Caribbean community will not disappear via intermixture, however, the Caribbean community within Britain may disappear. The reason for this is because Caribbean people will still on the whole exist and have a homeland where they can freely celebrate their culture and history, yet, will we be able to say the same for the British once the advent of this post-racial Britain comes to a finality? No. The British people will scarcely exist in the future as a distinct community with a homeland where they are free to celebrate their own heritage and history. Furthermore, unlike the Caribbeans, the British will have nowhere else to go given the similar trends in practically all European countries elsewhere. We may find an entire race of people, all Europeans dispossessed from their own lands! How wonderful a post-racial world sounds right? Far more accurate a term for the future being idealistically characterized as a "non-racist Britain" would be to consider that it will in actuality be a "non-British Britain"! But after all, that's all part of the Multicultist plan and agenda because as one of their admired leftist heroes once said [Stalin], "no people, no problem." This is what the article is really calling and celebrating for. These developments should not be treated with warm hearts, but a great deal of consternation for we face the disappearance of the British people.

Globalism vs. Ethnonationalism
A relatively good article written by one of of the few people involved in politics that I can relate with and more or less support, Patrick Buchanan. It cites numerous instances over the past year of ethnonationalist inspired events throughout the world that displays its continued relevance to political, economic and social discussions everywhere. Just an interesting read, but I particularly like the last paragraph as it relates to the above Post-Racial Britain that I discussed:

"Are we really in a post-racial America, or is our multicultural multiethnic America, too, destined for Balkanization and break-up?"

We should all ask ourselves the same question in each of our respective nations. Has ethnic nationalism simply disappeared as a viable force in international and domestic politics...or is it so dominant and ubiquitous that we have become oblivious to its existence as an instrinsic component of our everyday lives?

Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature
An entertaining and very truthful article expressing precisely my sentiments when it comes to the influence that our evolution and ethnic heritage has in influencing our actions and interpretation of the world:

"In contrast, evolutionary psychologists see human nature as a collection of psychological adaptations that often operate beneath conscious thinking to solve problems of survival and reproduction by predisposing us to think or feel in certain ways. Our preference for sweets and fats is an evolved psychological mechanism. We do not consciously choose to like sweets and fats; they just taste good to us."

However I should make the caveat that our decisions are not entirely irrational or based in human nature either, the social scientist argument that our personal experiences influence our actions does have its own degree of validity as well. The point is that both are components of human behaviour and neither one accounts entirely for the other.

Ah, what a breath of fresh air this article provides:

"The implications of some of the ideas in this article may seem immoral, contrary to our ideals, or offensive. We state them because they are true, supported by documented scientific evidence. Like it or not, human nature is simply not politically correct."

Go on, this article is too long to summarize, but I highly recommend that all read it both for its educational purposes but also its quality of humour.

Genome-Wide Genetic Signature of Jewish Ancestry
Further proof that the ancestry of people can assuredly be confined into groupings even among a complex case such as Jewish people. What's interesting is that they form a unique group that is intermediate between Middle Easterners and Europeans. Furthermore, the report makes quite the impressive claim that the researchers can:

"it is possible to predict full Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry with 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity" [P. 11]

However they also make the point that the "exact" divide between Jew and non-Jew somewhat fluctuates pending upon the sample sets provided. Nonetheless, this article displays the striking accuracy with which genomic studies can predict the ancestry of an individual. Even now, I've read studies that have analyzed the ethnic differences between populations as close as those of the Germans and the French! Quite remarkable stuff.

Y Haplogroup I Is Less Resistant to HIV
More genetic articles regarding how our genetic coding has tangible effects upon our daily lives. Often times, our genes are a very good indicator towards estimating the likelihood of a certain individual in being prone to a specific disease, or suffer from a stroke and other inheritable genetic traits. Our genetic coding also has a significant effect on the way we interact with other human beings, how we survive [as illustrated in this paper, not too well if you're Hg I and have AIDS unfortunately]; an interesting way to think about it is that we are simply organic machines and our genes are our genetic "computer" coding/programming. We can only think, do and experience in so much as our programming and our genes allow us; clearly for example, we cannot experience the genuine feeling of true flight no matter how socialized we are to flying in an airplane because our genes simply don't give us the provisions necessary for flight. Certainly I'd say that our life experiences influence our actions and thoughts as well, but one could make the argument that those themselves were only made possible within the realms of our genetic coding. In essence, our previous experience was in itself also made as an explicit decision whose roots were in our genetic coding. For example, say you live in a society that finds blonde women as being the ultimate expression of beauty. Being exposed to this socializing influence will undoubtedly affect the future decisions you make in choosing who you shall date, a blonde or a non-blonde. However, under the argument that I just made, you would have to ask how that explicit decision to identify blondes as the ultimate form of beauty came to be and I suppose that under such a genetic determinist position, you would say that we are naturally/genetically predisposed to favouring blondes anyways and hence being naturalized towards prefering blondes via our genes is translated into creating a society that consequently socializes people into prefering blondes, hence only reinforcing our genetic orientation.

The only problem to the above argument is a chicken or the egg question whereby we have to ask ourselves...well, how did these certain genes [the ones that prefer blondes] become the dominant ones that created society in the first place? Perhaps the society that they lived in itself favoured them and hence made them more prolific and populous later on making such genes dominant therefore showing how socialization might have an influence or naturalization; essentially this is the opposite effect of what I illustrated earlier. However, as the final counter-counterargument to that, I would say that before you can even consider what came first, naturalization [genes] or socialization [society], I think you'd have to simplify it to the two base elements I put in brackets. Without society, our genes [we as people] can still biologically exist, however, without any genes, there can be no society and hence I would probably concur based on a "genetic determinist" position that genes are the ultimate and original force in human behaviour and that socialization itself is but an expression of our genetic naturalization! Quite the complex stuff! A very interesting debate though!

This is only a position that I am theorizing with; I do not yet support it because I'd like to find greater evidence and research more into the topic. However, it does provide an interesting alternative insight.

French Immigrants to be Tested for DNA
An excellent plan by the French to verify whether immigrants truly do have family connections with those that they claim they do. I wouldn't mind this becoming a standard policy all throughuot Europe as the article says that from West African nations like Senegal, some 80% of the documents are forged. Certainly, the Mediterranean nations suffer the greatest from these forgeries and would definitely need to use such a policy the most, however I think that DNA testing on the whole may be able to be extended to immigration policy in its entirety. If the goal of a certain nation is for example to let in only European immigrants, then DNA testing would seem to be the only objective and unbiased form of decoding who is and who is not European. We shall see how this French policy shall do and what repercussions it will have in Europe; unfortunately, I do not believe that it will be replicated elsewhere in Europe as the governments have long lost any semblance of virtues such as rationality or common sense that the electorate once took for granted in their representatives.

Sarkozy Set to Enforce Miscegenation
A shocking translation of a speech that French President Sarkozy gave in 2008 in which he is threatening to forcefully impose miscegenation upon the French public as a political policy!!! He says that:

"it will be necessary for the Republic to resort to even more forcible methods"

when speaking of encouraging miscegenation; he further goes on in his rhetoric to state that diversity and the miscegenation of the French people:

"is not a choice. It is an obligation. It is an imperative. We cannot do otherwise at the risk of finding ourselves faced with considerable problems. We must change, so we will change."

All of this sounds darkly reminiscent to the comments made by Professor Giordano which I highlighted just a few days ago where they provide no choice and by all means believe that we must change ourselves and only ourselves, that we should not continue to be the individual and unique French, Italian or German people that we are; instead, we need to concede to the demands of an increasingly assertive and hostile foreign element which seeks to enforce upon us their own identity and heritage. That is "diversity" people, destroying German, Italian, French etc. cultures and replacing them with the same old mishmash of Turk, Moroccan, Algerian and other foreign influences. Sounds like us Europeans are being ripped off!

Now onto breaking down his quote. Firstly, of course we have a choice, we can choose to either live as the Frenchman that we are or we can cower underneath our beds and in our rooms as immigrant youths protest outside, shoot our policemen who are serving their nation and then burn our car all without as much as a meagre whimper. Looks like Sarkozy has embarked upon the path of the latter and France is well on its way to disappearing under the deluge of diversity. Furthermore, France and the French people are under no form of moral imperative or obligation to physically and culturally change themselves!!! Exactly who is giving you these instructions and obligations Mr. Sarkozy, the tiny voice in your head, why are you not following the desires of your electorate, yes, the one's who have no problem in not changing themselves and in staying the way they are, as Frenchmen and women? I honestly don't know anymore out of what hole this garbage came out of, it sounds so absurd! If you want to know why you'll be faced with considerable problems in the future, perhaps it's because you YOURSELF are the one who is doing nothing to stop the problems right now: mass immigration, political correctness and multicultism! The solution to this problem is not by mixing 60 million French with millions upon millions of imported immigrants unless that is your Final Solution to the problem that you have with the existence of the French as a distinct ethnocultural grouping! However, if you are talking about a problem that threatens the existence of the French Republic as we know it then clearly the best solution for that problem would be to simply remake the French Republic FRENCH once again! Imagine a day when you don't have to deal with obnoxious and arrogant immigrant youths destroying property, harming your citizenry and displaying your true political incompetence in the face of the voting public day in and day out! Can you just imagine a....wait for it...a French France, not the declining political unit that we call "France," you know, that large piece of dirt in Western Europe with a name [France] but without an identity [certainly not French!]. Yea, that one. There you go, problem solved Mr. Sarkozy; I can't believe I didn't make his cabinet...

Sarkozy also goes onto to say throughout the speech that France has always been a leader in the mixture of cultures and people into a single "universal French identity." This empty rhetoric is quite similar to the irrational claim of multicultists that we're "all immigrants." Certainly, such claims do have an ever so slight measure of truth, Europeans did technically "immigrate" into Europe....albeit 40,000 years ago, however this does not translate that well into the realm of practicality and has its limits. Sure, you can say that my ancestors were "immigrants" themselves for having migrated into Europe 40,000 years ago, however such a claim does not share the same meaning or relevance as if it were applied to an immigrant who has migrated in just the past year; practically speaking, only the latter is a "true" immigrant, the former has produced hundreds of generations of native descendents. It's about as mindnumbingly stupid as saying that "we're all Black" at some point or another, it's just too much of a stretch to be a respectable statement. This also applies to Sarkozy's comment; sure, France has seen the admixture of Gauls, Romans, Germanics, Normans etc. both physically and culturally yet none of this can compare to what he is proposing now, the complete admixture of the entire French population with people who are so much more culturally and physically foreign to the French than previous foreign elements, that it could only spell the end for the French identity. What the Romans, the Gauls, the Normans and the Germanics had in common was a relatively similar physical identity, you could ascribe the title of "European" to all of these groups, along with an intricately related political history which established cultural relations with one another making it more or less impossible to dinstinguish a third-generation Germanic Frenchman from a native Gaul! Or, as my History professor says: you can't tell the difference between an Englishman and an English suit on a Ukrainian! Like I said, saying that France was a locus for cultural mixing and then applying it to the modern context of Sarkozy's speech is an impractical stretch.

Perhaps what I find most insulting about his speech though - apart from the sheer arrogance, anti-French hate & disrespect and naivite - is his claim that:

"consanguinity has always provoked the end of civilizations and societies"

I don't exactly have a counter for everytime a civilization has ever fallen so that I can tabulate the statistics and find out what the right answer is. However, it only takes an elementary intellect to realize how such a conclusion is illogical. I can scarcely find any reason to believe that an entire nation and civilization could implode from the inside solely due to its homogeneity! How does a nation being consisted of a single people with a single identity and culture harm themselves internally? How can they bring about their own downfall? Is it not more likely that by incorporating potentially hostile and unassimilable people, culture, traditions, values etc. into a society that that will lead to the destabilization of the civilization and society. Anyone care to look at Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the USSR, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the British Empire [hell, all multiethnic Empires] etc. Contrast that with the relative stability of nation-states-->Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Canada up until the mid-2oth century, Japan and several others; most of the examples of peaceful, homogeneous nations are a relatively recent phenomenon given the 20th century re-organization into ethnic states because of the collapse of imperialism and the spread of democracy. It is precisely the destabilizing effects of introducing something foreign and alien into a culture that leads to internal conflict, unrest and ultimately destruction as we see before us in Europe, allowing Europe to be European will not lead to its demise. Therefore, consanguinity more often than not is a force that that enables the creation of successful and prosperous societies and civilizations, it is not their destroyer.

I suppose that the largest concern people have towards ethnic nationalism is that they believe it inevitably fosters Fascism, chauvinism, supremacism and then imperialistic wars. However, I believe that such concerns have been largely mitigated given how ethnic nationalism has been tempered and moderated by past historical experiences [the World War's] along with having the institution of democracy enforcing public accountability on its politicians that dissuades them from engaging in war [Democratic Peace Theory].

British Students Increasingly Don't Speak English as First Language
A pretty useful article when it comes to statistics and impressing upon us the gravity of the situation for English schools. There are 10 schools in England where there is not a single native English speaker and a further 591 schools are in a situation where 70% of the students do not speak English as their first language! One in seven students [14%] of students do not speak English as a first language and this has put tremendous strains upon the public education system in providing sufficient funding for the special needs of these children. Furthermore, concern should also be directed towards the very likely possibility that having such a high proportion of non-British schoolchildren within these schools retards and degrades the education that the native British pupils will receive. This article contains nothing quite so contentious as the ones above, however the statistics themselves are worth highlighting.

Australia Rapidly Becoming a Colony of Asia
Once again, another article I chose to report on because of the significance of its statistic. Asians are now the largest minority within Australia having eclipsed the native aboriginees and Asian countries constitute six of the ten most popular origins of immigrants. Out of 21 million inhabitants, Australia is home to 4.4 million people who have been born abroad [21%] making it one of the most multicultural European nations in the world, slightly behind only Canada [22/23%] and the USA [33%] as far as I know [not sure of New Zealand]. Notice why I said in one of my very first posts that I expect the Anglo-Saxon countries to be the first ones to submerge beneath the drowning tide of multicultism. Furthermore, the figure of 4.4 million doesn't take into consideration the hundreds of thousands of offspring these foreigners have had so the percentage is likely to be quite higher. In the USA, given present estimates, Europeans are expected to become an absolute minority by 2042 [my prediction is far sooner, perhaps 2032-2035] however in the under-18 category, Europeans are slated to become a minority sometime in the mid 2020's and unfortunately, I don't believe that Australia will be much farther off.

German Study Shows Lack of Integration Among Immigrants
In stark contrast to the Anglo-Saxon countries above, I believe that Germany has one of the best chances of all the Continental European nations to embrace once again their identity. Just last year in neighbouring Austria, right-wing nationalist parties received nearly 30% of the total vote to become the third and fourth largest parties in the parliament. Unfortunately, Germany lacks such a moderate, respectable nationalist party like the FPO or BZO in Austria; they're far too hampered by the extremist antics of the NPD and DVU which has only served to deligitimize the entire nationalist movement within Germany. This is not to mention the Republicans who have drastically fallen into obscurity in the West, struggling to score even 2% in some of the Western strongholds that it formerly represented in Parliament. Good news is coming in the guise of citizens movements such as the Pro Koln and subsequent Pro NRW group; there is even talk of creating "Pro" regional parties in all of Germany's Lander which would amalgamate into a wider Pro Deutschland party of moderate minded ethnic nationalists! If I'm not mistaken, elections for the NordRhein-Westfalen Land are set for this year's summer so we shall see how the party will perform given it was only created a year or two ago.

Further reason why I believe Germany has some of the best prospects in overcoming the asphyxiating clench of multicultism is because of the strong emphasis that Germanic countries in Europe have traditionally placed upon the concept of jus sanguinus [citizenship by blood, aka ethnic origin] as opposed to the jus soli [citizenship by place of birth] widely used in the Anglo-Saxon Countries. This makes attaining citizenship in Germany notoriously difficult to do for non-Germans and those who are non-German only become eligible for citizenship after residing in Germany for a number of years. Despite decades of forced guilt and of being told about the injustices and crimes of their forefathers, I still have high hopes that Germans and Austrians alike will embrace who they are as they have time and time and time again overcome extreme adversity and up until the latter half of the 20th century, managed to maintain a very strong tradition of ethnic pride.

My only concern with Germany and Austria remains with their precariously low fertility rate of approximately 1.40 for both nations, this is even below the European average of 1.5! I have high hopes for very few other Western nations [Eastern nations at the moment are not under threat of losing their identity due to Communism sparing them from multicultism for numerous decades]among them includes Denmark [Danish People's Party], as previously mentioned, Germany and Austria along with Flanders [if it ever retains independence with the Vlaams Blok], Switzerland [Swiss People's Party, another nation with stringest citizenship measures, however over 20% of the population is of foreign origin] and Italy. I see that the Sweden Democrats are making some progress in Sweden, but it may already be too late; Norway I'm not so sure about; Britain is in one of the worst situations as is Belgium, France and Spain.

In any case, following my tirade, the article I've chosen is illustrating the lack of integration among immigrants in Germany, highlighting particularly the lack of assimilation on the part of Turks who scored the lowest; unsurprisingly, immigrants from fellow EU nations and ethnic Germans from the East had the highest rate of integration. This lack of integration is costing Germany $20 billion a year according to the article; imagine if Germany did not have to deal with the problems of integrating millions of unassimilable immigrants, they could afford to use that $20 billion in a Pro Natality program that would offer monetary incentives for German couples to procreate hence solving the largest problem I believe that they face, a birth deficit! Why can they simply not go along the simpler, German path of keeping Germany German [simple isn't it...]...why do these politicians feel the irrational compulsion to import millions upon millions of non-Germans that will forever alter their nation into something totally un-German!?

It's estimated that some 30% of Turkish immigrants and their children leave school without a school certificate and only 14% pass the Abitur Exam which is necessary to go onto tertiary studies. This is slightly less than half the average of the German population! In-fact, the quality of their education is so atrocious that 2/3's of all immigrant children [not just Turks] cannot properly read at the end of their fourth year in school. It's encouraging to note that more than 50% of Germans think that there are too many immigrants in the country, hopefully they will take action by voting in the coming years for nationalist parties as they witness the decline and betrayal of their homeland.

The Rise of the Right in Europe
Although this article is seemingly written by a self-deluded multicultist deriding legitimate and moderate nationalist parties such as the FPO and BZO in Austria as being characteristic of a new "far-right" trend in Europe [he should really take a look at their platforms instead of making such ignorant remarks], it does however contain much in the way of useful statistics that we can use as further evidence to prove our arguments.

This article focuses mostly on the tense relationship Europeans generally have with Muslim immigrants and provides statistics showing that 52% of Spaniards have a negative opinion of Muslims, a sentiment shared by 50% of Germans, 46% of Poles and 38% of French which is quite surprising given the recent protests mostly by Islamic youths in France. I would've thought that this would be higher. In the Netherlands and Denmark, 67% and 80% of the people believe that the growing interaction between the Muslim world and the West is a menace to freedom.

Unfortunately, the article also reveals that 30% of German women choose to be childless and that figure increases to 40% when we count educated women! All the more reason to reduce pensions to 50% and 75% for women who have no children or a single child, all we would need to do is for these women to have at least a single child.

Further useful statistics include the rate of reliance upon benefits by immigrants. For example, in Denmark, 5% of the population is from the Middle East yet they constitute 40% of all welfare outleys. Imagine being able to cut the expenditures on these welfare outlays by 40%!!! Furthermore, 15% of Moroccan emigrants in Norway are on a disability plan when a quarter of them have not even returned to their own country! Up to 50% of all immigrants in Norway are on some form of welfare assistance. In the Netherlands, some 33% of foreigners are unemployed and reliant upon benefits. Imagine just how much could be saved had Europeans nations not embarked upon their self-righteous crusade of diversity and national extermination. We would no longer need to import any immigrants as we could use the money saved to fund a native pro-natality program that would yield far greater benefits for the entire nation without the worry of integrating these people.

Muslim Population Grows 10 Times Faster Than Average
Quite the thought provoking and eye-catching title ain't it! Well it's also astonishingly true! Since 2004, the Muslim population has grown by half a million to 2.4 million in total. In the same time, the number of Christians in the country fell by 2 million and the largest cohort of Christians in the UK are among the over-70's while for the Muslims, it's the under 4's. Some 301,000 Muslims are under the age of 4. Not only does this pose a challenge for the preservation of traditional British culture, but it also places immense pressures on material things such as providing funding for education and housing for families, an issue which is already huge within Britain.

New Regulation of Islamic Education in Austria
Yet another reason why I have high hopes for Austrians reclaiming their nearly lost lands. It seems that after a recent survey showed that some quarter to a third of all Islamic teachers believe that Islam is not compatible with democracy, there has been an uproar amongst all the parties of the Austrian parliament, even the Greens are enraged! The reforms initiated have banned a schoolbok that exalted and praised suicide bombers, all further teaching materials will be regulated and the teachers themselves will need a mandatory public education before they can teach pupils. Go FPO! Finally, some genuine progress in Europe that Europeans can be proud of. It's been long overdue. A nice way of ending off on some positive news.

I suppose that's enough for today.