My Predictions & Thoughts on Obama's Presidency

Greetings everyone once again. Firstly I'd like to apologize for not having posted sooner, I've been experiencing some technical difficulties with my computer over the past few days and I won't quite return to normal posting behaviour for a few more days if not a few weeks unfortunately. As I always say, technology is great...when it works! Also I'd like to generally say that in order to maintain the professionalism of this blog, I'd appreciate it if anyone that does read my posts report any errors - be they grammatical or factual - to me so that I can correct and/or revise my findings.

Alright, onto the issue at hand. Unless you're in a coma, you will easily be able to recognize the biggest headline in the news now that the Gazan conflict has subsided; CNN has even initiated a countdown to the event, which in itself will cost $160 million [in a time of economic crisis!] and it is being hailed as an historic event the world over.....enough hints, does anyone know what I'm talking about? There is only one possibility, the upcoming Obama Presidency which is set to officially start tomorrow, the 20th of January 2009. It is simply not possible to get by a single day without hearing endless streams of media adulation, praise and in many cases worship of this messianic figure. The impressionable catchwords of Obama's campaign, "Hope" along with a faith and belief in "Change" have grown far beyond their original meaning, they have crossed that fine line between a genuine faith and belief in something and an absurd superstition. What is most disparaging of all however is just how willing my cohort, this generation of young adults are willing to embrace Obama. Given our lack of political experience and an understanding of political history it makes us an extremely vulnerable and impressionable demographic target to manipulation via clever emotion-centric [as opposed to rational] ad campaigns, empty rhetoric along with a throng of vague and idealistic promises many of which Obama has already admitted he will not be able to fulfill. To his credit, at least he has the temerity to be honest. As a form of comedic relief, I thought that I would provide a small clip that covered the aftermath of Obama's election back in November. It is available here. I thought it was very well done with intelligent humour and a meaningful critique of the naive obsession youth seem to have regarding Obama's presidency. In the following few paragraphs, I suppose that I will simply say what I think the future holds for this "historic presidency."

The Campaign

Before I even get into analyzing the potential of Obama's presidency, I just want to have a quick word on the campaign that was run and the manner in which it was represented by the media. It's actually quite ironic in a sad way that Canadians seemed to care more about the results of the American election than they did of their own election which had occurred only a month or so before the Americans went to vote. This is an excellent example of just how pervasive the media coverage was of the US elections; however it is important to say that despite the incessant media attention upon the candidates I highly doubt that anyone in their right mind could say that the coverage was objective, fair and unbiased. Personally, I did not agree with either of the candidates and believe that the American people were simply put into yet another submissive situation whereby they had to choose the perceived lesser of two evils, hence, I do not have a personal axe to grind against Obama OR McCain, simply a valid critique of media representation. The lack of viable presidential candidates is an aspect of the American electoral "democratic" system that I am harshly critical of in general; often times I will make the joke that the only difference between a single-party dictatorship like Saddam Hussein's and America "Democracy" is that one state has a single party, the other has two. It's funny if you're in politics....Continuing with what I was saying before getting sidetracked, the media coverage was VERY biased and disproportionately critical of the McCain campaign ranging from criticizing and erroneously characterizing McCain's supporters as being the typical Southern redneck KKK card-carrying member afraid of having a black president all the way to shamelessly focusing on Palin's wardrobe expenses. Whenever the slightest controversy was aroused over Obama's questionable policies or historical contacts by the opposing side, instead of critiquing Obama further, the media decided to hound down McCain's campaign to the point where it almost seemed as if the media itself had a mission against that candidate. I think this is one point that cannot be denied; the US media was completely devoid and bereft of any form of viable criticism of Obama's campaign and seemed to have an agenda against McCain.

There is one other point that I'd like to make and this one is quite arguable from both sides. From my perspective, the way I saw the US elections gradually unfold, it seemed that implicit in Obama's claim for "change" was his racial identity as a qualifier for his ability to "change" the country [i.e. just because he's half black], insinuating that electing a European American would make "change" impossible or not quite as substantial in comparison to if one were to elect a mulatto. I think that most people that could read through the lines understood this message, what I'm trying to get at is how the media [yet again...those pesky buggers] tried to downplay his racial background in terms of how it affected his argument for "change" and then seemingly reverse their position once he was elected by focusing heavily on his presidency being a "historic" moment representing "change" in the American political system BECAUSE of his racial background! Have I lost anyone? Let me try to break it down.

From what I could remember of the pre-election campaigns, the media seemed highly reluctant to incorporate Obama's race into his message of providing "change" for the country ostensibly because they feared that by focusing on this issue that they would alienate potential voters from Obama - interesting to see how they placed such a high value and degree of importance on ensuring that nothing critical or potentially negative was said that would be inimical to Obama's campaign, McCain certainly didn't receive such preferential and positive treatment. Even though the media tried to downplay his racial background, it was very visible and highly evident that it definitely was on the back of their minds and that it played a significant role in encouraging, and possibly even in discouraging certain voters from voting for or against him. However, what is surprising and truly perplexing is that once Obama emerged victorious the media seemed to suddenly have no problem or even the slightest reservation at hailing his racial background as being central and fundamental to his claim for providing "change" for the US. I'm highlighting this 180 degree turn and complete reversal in order to emphasize just how deceptive and untrustworthy the large media networks are when it comes to seeking honest and genuine coverage of political developments. I try to rely as much as possible on independent and alternative sources for my news and encourage all of you to do the same. Of course try to cross reference to ensure accuracy.

Significance for America & The Economic Crisis

I suppose I'll start with the significance Obama's election has for the political and demographic future of the European American population which is already slated to become a minority in the USA by 2042 in addition to a majority of their youth being composed of minorities somewhere in the 2020's according to an article I have previously read. Personally, based on the precipitous decline of European Americans as a proportion of the population in the past few years, I believe that the minority status of European Americans will be achieved far sooner than 2042, perhaps as early as 2032-2035 in my opinion. America may in-fact become the first and if not, without a doubt they will be among the first European states to succeed in forcefully dispossessing their own native population and destroying their native culture, perhaps only Australia and Canada may beat the US to the punchline.

Despite the fact that statistically the majority of European Americans actually did not vote for Obama [if I'm not mistaken], it is disappointing nonetheless to consider just how many European Americans are enthusiastically supporting Obama to the point of obsession, particularly among European American youths. These unfortunate people don't quite realize how they are selling the future of their own people, their own culture, dispossessing themselves from their own land and quite likely promoting the disintegration of the United States itself by supporting a candidate who has made it his mission to "change" the United States; one can only assume the various connotations that "change" would have, however I do not think it would be too fanciful or far fetched to assume that this "change" that we are to experience over the next four years will include a change in the relationship between races, the relationship between the government and races [increasing the preponderance of minority representation, decreasing the present dominance of EA polticians] and consequently a colossal change in American culture and identity. All this I predict will probably be for the worse when it comes to European Americans because it will only exacerbate the vulnerable demographic and cultural position that European Americans are increasingly finding themselves in. Essentially, America will indeed gradually change into something totally alien to and potentially even antagonistic to the communal and ethnic interests of European Americans. It is quite possible that Obama's presidency [which I predict will extend for two terms!] will facilitate and speed up the decline of the European American population's influence in government and especially culture within America and what will be perceived as the American "identity" in the future; like I've said before, all of this will be re-socialized and reconstructed to the point where America and what it means to be "American" will hold little value or connection with what America originally was intended to be.

In order to be more comprehensive in my amateur analysis, I am going to consider the two likeliest possibilities:
1) Obama's presidency will herald the end of EA dominance in American culture and politics and gradually the EA community, being either incapable or unwilling to resist [it may already be too late] EA's will simply fade away in a united, muliracial, multicultural and anti-European America. This is what I discussed above. Pessimistic view, however I'd say that it is also more realistic and probable than the second possibility.
OR
2) Obama's presidency will initiate a revival in the racial consciousness of European Americans and a surge in their assertion of interests in both politics and culture given the perception that their way of life and existence will be under threat. This effect will set a precedent whereby the other major racial communities of the US begin forging their own racial consciousness and asserting their own culture and identity etc. Ultimately, all of these conflicting and non-compatible interests will set the stage for the disintegration of the United States as a coherent, single sovereign political unit much in the way that the USSR collapsed along ethnic lines into separate nation-states. Talk about poetic justice! This may or may not be violent, however this is by far the more optimistic and idealistic possibility in contrast to the sober assessment of the first.

Given the fact that I've already more or less covered the first possibility, I'll delve a little further into the second even though I should think that it is self explanatory. I hardly believe that Obama's presidency alone will initiate this revival of the EA racial identity, other factors will certainly be needed, particularly leaders and citizen movements that will seek to bring back European culture into the light and emphasize it as something equally as vibrant and unique as the numerous other cultures of America, something worth preserving. Ethnic nationalism has a habit of perpetuating itself once initiated, it is very difficult to stop and once one group begins asserting their identity, the only logical conclusion, or at least the most probable and expected one will be for other groups who now feel threatened to begin asserting themselves as described above. Whether through a series of political decisions or outcomes determined through violence [which will be very VERY dangerous given America's arsenal of weaponry, including nuclear], America will likely - if the above conditions are met - partition along racial lines. However let me make the important caveat that I'm not saying this will necessarily happen during Obama's actual presidency, the process may start within the next few years however it could possibly take a decade or two to finally germinate. It's interesting that back in 1999 or so a Russian professor had actually predicted that the USA would break up into sections mostly along cultural lines. You can read his article here. He believes that the USA will break up into five sections: the West will go to China or be influenced by China [I find this highly doubtful, I think that it is more likely given present demographic trends that this region will be highly influenced by Mexico or even choose to join Mexico except for the uppermost Western states which would join a European Midwest], Alaska will go to Russia [I think that he is suffering from nostalgia here and wishes Alaska would join Russia, I'm highly skeptical once again, if not independent, they might choose Canada], the Southern states will join Mexico or be influenced by Mexico [I find this highly probable except for the easternmost states which with their considerable black populations may choose to create their own Black Republic], Hawaii will go either to Japan or China [not quite sure, I'd say that they will either choose to be independent or be a part of Japan, but certainly not China], Atlantic America may join the EU [doubtful, I think the southeast would join with the other Black states to create a Black Republic while the northeast would join with the predominantly European states of the Midwest] and the last region that would separate would be the Midwest which the professor says would be under the influence or may even join Canada [doubtful, Canada never had much cultural influence on these regions anyways]. Consult the map at the bottom of the article to see what I am talking about.

I'll devote a relatively short spiel to how I think the economic crisis will relate to Obama's presidential term. The economy for all intents and purposes is pretty much circling the drain at the present moment and 2009 is widely slated to be the worst year that we can expect from this present recession/potential depression. Personally, I believe that with or without Obama, the global economy will gradually right itself without requiring excessive effort from Obama and his policies. Once again, we can analyze the future based on two likely trends:
1) Obama's economic policies will have a marked influence and impact upon reshaping and strengthening the world economy at which point he will be praised and without a doubt elected to a second term. *That is unless in four years the Democrats or the Republicans employ...wait for it..........a black woman as a presidential candidate at which point due to her gender and her racial background advantage she will likely usurp Obama* [major sarcasm there]
OR
2) Obama's economic policies will not ultimately have an effect upon improving the world economy, however in the four year grace period that Obama has and given the fact that 2009 is slated to be the worst that we shall experience, the economy will likely naturally improve by itself when the time comes for re-election and hence, despite not significantly improving the economy Obama will be once again re-elected because he will face re-election under better circumstances than he was initially elected-->the perception that America has improved under his tenure.

I think the above is relatively self-explanatory, if I were to sum it up, essentially I would be saying that naturally if Obama will be responsible for an economic revival then he will be re-elected, but even if he doesn't do anything that benefits the economy, the economy will gradually improve within four years and people will yet again believe that it was all due to their holy messiah at which point he will be promptly re-elected once again. In any case I predict that Obama will be around for eight years. What I'm curious to see is if the national media will have the temerity to actually criticize Obama considering his racial heritage. I won't be surprised if the media is reluctant to do so based on the lack of any real criticism during his campaign and the general fear the media has towards judging affluent people of African American ancestry. I mean, how can one say something negative or critical of Obama without being labeled a "racist" or "xenophobe"? Certainly I expect to be accused with such bland and meaningless political slurs simply for writing this post let alone a news media anchor. We shall see, perhaps the media will grow a pair and actually begin questioning Obama's qualifications and the effectiveness of his policies. I would be pleasantly surprised.

International Reception

This will be my last point that I will make as I feel that I have spent enough time on Obama for one night. Based on this article available here, the international community seems to be overwhelmingly positive and optimistic about Obama's upcoming presidency primarily focusing on his dealing with the financial crisis. I think that the optimism regarding his presidency has quite a lot to do with the relief in knowing that the era of Dubya Bush has come to an end. It seems that the state in which the world is in cannot possibly get any worse and that much of it is directly attributed to the policies invoked by Bush and/or his colleagues. As the title of the article indicates, the world has high hopes for Obama especially in the European states. Furthermore, the optimism felt by the international community is not entirely limited to contrasting Obama 's future with Bush's past but it also has to deal with the international perception that Obama is a figure humbled by America's current predicament and by his racial background [once again we see how significant and symbolic this is for everyone domestically and internationally] . This means that he will pursue a foreign policy that is significantly less unilateral focusing upon multilateral actions, negotiations and other more moderate and "softer" measures at pursuing American interests. This has its benefits and its disadvantages; benefit-wise America's international image will likely improve given their more humble stance HOWEVER and this is a HUGE "however" I think that this humility itself will precipitate the downfall of the US as the global hegemon faster than it would otherwise have occurred.

Countries will quickly realize how impotent America has become especially under the "soft" leadership of Obama who favours negotiations and rhetoric over actual coercive action. States such as China, Russia and even perhaps terrorist organizations themselves will likely strengthen their position relative to the US while the USA declines in proportional power because of their unwillingness to take an active and perhaps even "forceful" role in global politics. Taking an active and "forceful" role in global politics has its risks as well, look at Iraq, Afghanistan, US over-involvement around the world ala Bush, however with an emerging Chinese competitor for global hegemony along with the rise of other nations, the balance of power is changing and America cannot be relegated to the sidelines. I won't really be surprised if China actually takes advantage of this excellent opportunity to invade Taiwan under the belief that Obama will be reluctant in maintaining his defensive alliance with Taiwan. I can also see Pakistan destabilizing more, the potential for Afghanistan to degenerate further [although these two are weak predictions], an increased exertion of Russian influence in and around its borders [think Georgia; a resurgent Russia is very likely] and I'm sure many other similar events that will happen due to a perceived US weakness and unwillingness to aggressively pursue their national interest. Obama is often praised for bringing domestic change to the United States however, if things go as I have predicted, Obama may also be the initiator of a massive change in the balance of power as the world transforms from a largely unipolar into a multipolar world. Who knew he'd be such a "changer"?

I just thought I'd make all these predictions beforehand to test my cognitive analytical skills and so that no one can accuse me of cheating by writing this during his presidency as the events unfold.

News Summary of the Day January 10, 2009

Greetings everyone again. I'm still recovering from last night's article but I'd like to quickly get on with my news summaries. Part of my goal when making this blog was to maintain and improve the quality of my academic writing and provide myself with an opportunity at cementing my diverse political beliefs into something more fine-tuned and developed. In addition, I also wanted to help other fellow ethnic nationalists that share the same goals by providing online sources for news articles, analytical articles written by other authors and research papers that support the positions of ethnic nationalism. This was the reasoning behind creating a news summary day.

France's New New Year Tradition: Burning Cars

I'm sure most of us have heard of the endless spate of car burnings in France by "unidentified" youths in the year 2005; however, given the recent news media blackout on the issue for the past few years, it would seem that this social unrest has receded and been solved by the government, however this couldn't be further from the truth. The only reason why the French and other media have largely begun trivializing and ignoring this seemingly new cultural tradition and fad of "unidentified" youths is because they themselves have gotten so acculturated and used to hearing of hundreds of cars being burned everyday; it has almost become an accepted part of life. Torching cars has become a "regular form of expression for disenfranchised suburban youths wanting to make sure the rest of the country doesn't forget they exist." I think the motives are more serious and cynical than the existentialist excuse that the above quote provides; these youths are unwilling to assimilate into French culture, this is the central contributing component to their entire condition of life. Because they are unwilling to accept French cultural values and assimilate, they will obviously find it more difficult to get a job and have a successful career in France. This leads them to the bogus assumption that France and the French people themselves are holding them down, "discriminating" against them when in-fact the onus should be placed upon the youth/foreigner themselves and their unwillingness to assimilate. The French have no obligation to change their culture just because they're too ignorant to accept its values, if they don't like it, get out. I'm sure the French would appreciate if that could happen given the 1,147 torched cars on New Years [30% higher than 2007 New Years] and throughout 2007, an average of 118 cars a day were torched, a total of 43,000!

How to Have More Babies - A Critique on Radical Feminism

I've read about half of this article and I'm impressed by its quality and comprehensiveness so I highly recommend it to all readers. I decided not to finish it because it is a very very lengthy article that's mostly concentrated on critiquing Radical Feminism within America. Given America's precarious economic and demographic condition [where at most 67% of the population is of European descent], I do not have high hopes for ethnic nationalists within the country and hence I do not place much emphasis upon American news or articles - sorry for being a cynic. Canada would be second on my list of hopeless countries given that 23% of all Canadians are of foreign origin, we have one of the highest if not the highest immigration rate per capita and the sheer lack of anything resembling a national identity makes "deconstructing" and "reconstructing" what it means to be Canadian such a breeze that the title itself is practically worthless. We also have an obscenely low fertility rate, hovering around 1.5, far lower than in the States at 2.1. These two neighbouring states seem to be racing each other to find out which nation can destroy itself the quickest.

EU Opens African Office Encouraging 50 Million Migrants

This has been in the news before, but I think this is an issue that DEFINITELY needs to be addressed and discussed simply because of the sheer insanity of this plan. It's pretty simple, the EU wants to use taxpayer funding to open up offices that will facilitate the legal migration of 50 million Africans into the European Union which is just another way of legally sanctioning the dispossession of 500 million ethnic Europeans from their historical homelands. Oh and what great timing too eh!? Right in the middle of one of the worst recessions Europe has faced in decades, perhaps even the worst since the end of the war; isn't this just the perfect time to encourage millions of migrants in settling European lands, while native Europeans are losing jobs by the bucket loads which will probably be even further accentuated in the future due to the importation of cheap slave labour. I am a harsh critic of the EU, I think that it extended far beyond it's original purposes and intent as an union facilitating economic trade ties and links between European nations; its political power needs to be far more limited, individual nation-states should have primary jurisdiction over their own laws and citizens. And it's clearly not doing what is in the best interests of Europeans, which European people are asking for 50 million more low-skilled migrants to invade their country? None that I know of.

Moroccan Becomes Mayor of Rotterdam

There we have it, the "Obama of the Maas." On the whole I'd prefer it if native Europeans themselves retained political control over their states because only in that way can they protect their precious and unique cultures. This appointment [yes, it was an appointment to being the mayor as far as I know] of a Moroccan as mayor of such a major city as Rotterdam does not bode well for ethnic nationalists across Europe and particularly those in the threatened nation of the Netherlands. The main point that gets on my nerves is that this mayor is not willing to give up his dual Moroccan-Dutch citizenship and I think any person in a position of political power and accountability to the Dutch people should rescind any other citizenship that they might have. Unfortunately, Netherlands in their uncritical tolerance for everything and anything actually allow foreigners born in the Netherlands to retain their foreign citizenship if I'm not mistaken. But, then again, although this may set a dangerous precedent for the future of Dutch cultural and ethnic survival, from what I've heard of the guy, he's an ardent promoter of integration and not multiculturalism. Personally I'd prefer neither of these, but at least he's not as hardcore a multicultist as most of us may fear.


New Labour Now Focusing on White Working Class?

Yeaa...right, that's a sad joke. After 10 years of misguided politics now the New Labour has suddenly opened their eyes? I'm sorry, but somethings do sound too good to be true and I sincerely hope that no one lends any ounce of believe to such sheer deceit. This "re-orientation" of priorities is nothing but a superficial charade done by the government in order to create the perception that they suddenly care about the white working class. New Labour, as with all catch all parties are solely interested in maintaining power, yes I just said the blatantly obvious, so sue me. But this realistic point needs to be reiterated because I just know that there are enough gullible people out there that will honestly believe in this treachery enough to potentially support them and continue their incredibly anti-British regime and time is something that the British people don't have in spades. People need to realize that given the sole, single and ONLY imperative of catch all parties is the pursuit of power at any reasonable cost and this involves reorienting priorities for politically expedient purposes. This facade of support only lasts for as long as it is beneficial for the party and rest assured for all those present New Labour supporters that continue to believe in them that once the tables turn in the next few decades, as Britain gradually becomes less and less British and more and more ambiguous and artificial, New Labour will once again shift their priorities to adapt to the new voting environment and they won't give a damn about Britain beyond considering it for its geographical location and no longer relevant name. They don't have the slightest concern for British culture or values or even the existence of their own people, they'd forsake it all for an extra four years in parliament to pass their bogus policies and pretend to be responsible, accountable representatives of the people.
I highly encourage patriotic British citizens concerned about their country to vote for parties that will sincerely pursue the reasonable interests of the native European majority; from what I know, the BNP and UKIP seem to be more or less respectable parties?

That seems like enough for today, all the best.

Research Paper on Genetic Altruism and Kinship

Greetings again to everyone. Hope you've all had a wonderful day. Before I start, I guess I'll just put the question out there, does anyone know how I'd be able to install an online counter to check the number of visitors for my website? I've searched for free online counters and copied the html code into my source code, but I don't know exactly where to put the code and even when I manage to squeeze it somewhere, when I look back at my blog I can't actually see where the counter is?

Alright, now that the question is out of the way, I'll introduce my new research paper written by the famous Professor Philippe J. Rushton. Perhaps "infamous" professor would be a more accurate term given his controversial and ground-breaking research in the inheritability of intelligence and IQ. Clearly, given his research background you can see that he places quite the emphasis on examining how genetic origins determine other human traits and conditions, one of which I'm immensely interested is kinship studies. I relate this to ethnic nationalism [in a way of supporting the contentions of ethnic nationalism] and the previous paper because in my last post, I quoted Kahn when he was saying that people naturally self-segregate themselves into identifiable groups for various reasons, one reason of which he said was a "socialization to the same cultural norms." Whenever you hear that word, "socialization," you can't help but imagine it spewing from the frothing mouth of a deranged Marxist in their obnoxious attempt at "re-socializing" or, in Putnam's words "reconstructing" ourselves which in itself is but a euphemism for promoting the disappearance of an entire distinct genetic group of people. I'm not saying that Putnam and Kahn are Marxists by any degree [not that I know of!], simply that they do adhere largely to the liberal consensus in race relations which places a great emphasis on "reconstructing" and "resocializing" ourselves to change into something totally alien from what we once were. They [liberal, socialists, multicultists etc.] incessantly attempt to convince us that we can be magically "re-socialized" to fit new norms that transform our identity from being European one day to African or East Asian the next, this is nothing short of sheer lunacy.

Before we can even get into an intense conversation about socialization - which I do believe does have quite a degree of influence in establishing cultural norms yes [think peer pressure], but that doesn't change identities to any great degree - we need to establish what circumstances that society emerged from in the first place! This is where kinship studies and ethnic nationalism fits in; it's in our common genetic history that our ethnoculture is created and hence our subsequent society and social values are established within the realm of kinship and our relation to one another. Man after all is a social animal, we are always striving to create a society with an identity, and that identity comes from our ethnoculture which in turn comes from a common genetic history. There you go, I just covered the whole process from both angles in case anyone was confused, essentially, it's: common genetic history-->creation of ethnocultural identity-->creation of societies and social values-->last step is socialization of these values. This is my perspective, we shall see what Rushton says in his research paper. You can find the paper here, it is titled "Ethnic Nationalism, Evolutionary Psychology and Genetic Similarity Theory." I strongly urge all readers to read the entire paper as well.

The thesis made by Rushton is that "At the core of human nature, people are genetically motivated to prefer others genetically similar to themselves." [P. 2] Central to this view are the notions of self-sacrifice and altruism as a means of preserving those who are genetically similar to themselves even if it comes at the cost of their own lives, an action which is individually irrational but collectively rational. Therefore, if this is individually irrational, what motive or incentive - using modern terminology given that these days radical individualism is heavily promoted to the point of juvenile delinquency - is there to encourage one to sacrifice themselves? Rushton and several scientists before him established that we make this conscious decision on account of recognizing the shared genetic characteristics of those we are saving, and that in a way, given the two of you -both the one sacrificing themselves and the one being saved - share common genes derived from a common genetic history, that by saving that individual, you are in an indirect way ensuring that your own genes are passed down. Ultimately, altruism and kinship are behaviours that are used so that our vehicles [our bodies] can ensure the optimal perpetuation of our genes onto future generations, that is why this behaviour is not so much socialized in us as much as it is a very intrinsic and deep part of our human nature that will doubtfully change.

Rushton provides several experiments done on animals showing an uncanny awareness of genetic kinship. Probably the most surprising example are the tadpoles, which were separated before hatching and reared in isolation. When put in the tank, the tadpoles surprisingly congregated with their siblings away from those that were not related to them despite never having even met their siblings before. [P. 6] There must be some form of genetic awareness that allows us to sense genetic commonality and relationship beyond what the overt physical senses such as sight or smell can tell us. Instinct goes a long way in shaping society it seems.

Furthermore, Rushton found that "By matching across the entire genome, people can maximise their inclusive fitness by marrying others similar to themselves, and like, make friends with and help the most similar of their neighbours, as well as engage in ethnic nepotism." [P. 7] I only thought that I'd highlight this statement to show the genetic advantage in choosing someone that is genetically fit and genetically compatible with oneself - along with avoiding the dangers of genetic incompatibility [breeding outside of the group] and inbreeding. This I believe correlates well with a discovery in another study on Icelandic breeding available here. Essentially, what the researchers found was that 3rd and 4th cousins who were couples had on average 0.5 greater children and had an additional 1.5 more grandchildren than those that were first or second cousins or those that were 8th cousins [essentially unrelated] and beyond if I'm not mistaken. I think that the underlying theme here is that when mating, there is an optimal result that does indeed balance out the potential defects innate in inbreeding along with the high degree of genetic incompatibility [the mother's body attacking the fetus for example in some cases] when two very diverse and non-similar individuals inbreed. Furthermore, given the socio-economic conditions of Iceland, socio-economic reasons are not a reliable or valid predictor of why such results would have occurred and hence these results must be almost entirely based on genetics and biology.

The political implications of the Icelandic study involve completely refuting the outlandish and completely absurd argument by multicultists that if we were to force say Germans for example, all 82 million of them [well, let's stick with this figure even though by descent probably only 65 million are genuine Germans] to breed only within their own group that inbreeding would result. This is a blatantly idiotic argument that has absolutely no bearing in reality given the results of the Icelandic study [an intelligent modern population numbering 300,000 seemed to have suffered few effects from the "inbreeding" boogeyman that the multicultists continue to threaten us with!] and simple logic, 82 million people provide endless numbers of couple combinations. Furthermore, I think it goes a small way in denting the much hyped argument for hybrid vigour; the notion that when populations arbitrarily mix that somehow, for some reason, the ultimate result is better than the original?!...Yea...Given that this is almost solely applied in European nations, it can be seen as being an implicit attack on the genetics of Europeans, claiming that we're weak as we are and are required to mix with the "much stronger" non-European populations in order to survive. I don't know about you, but that sounds extremely racist and highly supremacist! What the study actually found was that inbreeding and I suppose you can say "outbreeding"/hybrid vigour provided equally diminished results in contrast to the reproductive successes of 3rd and 4th cousins - haha, I can imagine in the future that people who will critique this post will likely say I'm in support of breeding with cousins, you know how they're famous for taking quotes out of context...In any case, I'd say that we need to use a deal of common sense in our breeding, clearly don't consider you're first or second cousins AND consider the implications of breeding two relatively more incompatible people together [i.e. of different racial backgrounds, miscegenation], both produce a less than optimal result with the balance being achieved somewhere in between. So there you have it, yes I condone Germans breeding with other Germans and Europeans breeding with Europeans without fear of inbreeding :P! We can throw that multicultist argument out the window now. Like Rushton says, "the ideal mate is one who is genetically similar but not a close relative." [P. 7] Alright, back to the article.

A few more quotes of importance:
"Several studies have shown that people prefer genetic similarity in social partners, and assort on the more heritable components of traits, rather than on the most intuitively obvious ones." [P. 8]<--Essentially, spouses choose one another based on hereditary inheritability as opposed to those that are less hereditary. The example he uses is that spouses were more similar on wrist circumference which is 71% heritable than neck circumference which is 48% heritable, one minor example, he provides several more on page 7 and 8.

This refutes the Culturalist theory in an ingenious way according to Rushton because "culturalists" would say that spouses choose one another based on socialized preferences that they've been taught to appreciate or value higher than others [bicep size for men, waist width for women etc.] during their immersion in society. However, Rushton finds a higher correlation between spouses choosing other spouses based on genetically inheritable traits as opposed to merely imposed social values. This he indicates makes Genetic Similarity Theory a far more accurate predictor of preferences.

Rushton later uses another proof, that of adoption studies. He finds that children who are twins, both fraternal and identical that grow up in the same environment have friends with similar interests. Adoptive siblings on the other hand, those who share only their environment [their "socialization" according to culturalist theories] and not their genes end up choosing friends that have different interests from the friends of the other sibling, likely due to their different genetic predisposition. [P. 9] Once again, this refutes the culturalist myth that environment alone and "socialization" is what determines our interests.


Once again on Page 9, Rushton discusses how couples who have children are on average 52% similar while those that are childless are 43% similar which goes back to two things I mentioned earlier. One, regarding the tadpoles, was that there must be a form of genetic awareness or sensory perception that allows us to subconsciously distinguish people who are genetically related to us and those who are not - it seems that couples who have children choose to, OR are able to do so [my next point] with people who are genetically similar to themselves. As I just alluded to, my second point is about their ability to conceive, something that relates back to the Icelandic article that showed couples with a moderate/balanced degree of genetic relation produced more healthier offspring than those who were less related or too related. Once again, mere "socialization" does not quite explain this phenomenon.

The last proof I'd like to touch upon is how women "prefer the bodily scents of men with genes similar to their own more than they do those of men with nearly identical genes or genes totally dissimilar to their own." [P. 10] Once again this emphasizes the balance in choosing a mate by avoiding inbreeding and outbreeding. The next one is what I found really interesting because of the implications it has in refuting the "socialization" theory as the only determinant in choice. Men and women rated versions of their own face, that was morphed into the opposite sex as being the most attractive for them. They did not recognize the faces as their own [P. 10]; this is very VERY interesting because in a day when you can't go a day without hearing a jealous youth blabbering on and on about societal expectations that teenagers need to be as pretty as the models in the magazines and in the movies by barfing, taking steroids, using four pounds of gel a day juicing up their hair etc. what we really find is that the epitome of beauty for people is not something entirely "socially constructed" in the tabloids and what not, but in-fact, it's a genetically predisposed preference that we're innately born with. Furthermore, when the subjects were exposed to the faces of strangers, turns out that they trusted the faces that looked most like their own more than those that were too dissimilar! [P. 10]<--This provides a very strong relation with the conversation we had last time about Social Capital and how trust plays a role in determining how strong a community is.

I'm sort of running short on time here so I must try to wrap this up as quickly as I can; Rushton goes on to list an interesting example regarding the Inuit and how their relationship with other tribes, regarding tendencies towards pro-social wife swapping practices and anti-social warfare were highly regulated by the genetic similarity they had with the alternate tribe. That is, the closer the genetic relation, the greater the likelihood for pro-social behaviour and vice versa. [P. 12]

He also goes on to talk about the ubiquity of what I guess I would call "Racialization" [in contrast to socialization]. Even children at a very young age organize people into "kinds" and groupings that they can easily identify with and understand, this is a very natural human tendency. [P. 12] This should seem obvious to even the most basic of minds, I'm just reiterating this point so that a committed "anti-racist" multicultist won't be able to muster enough gumption in accusing someone else of being racist just for identifying people with groups without risking calling children racist for simply doing what comes natural to them.

And finally, one part that I was hoping Rushton would touch would be how genetic origins and our pursuit for our own genetic perpetuation shapes the cultures and hence the societies we live in. And Rushton certainly delivers with an extraordinary example regarding Amerindian tribes that cooked maize with alkali to enhance the nutritional value of the maize making the population more reproductive and healthier. Tribes that did this tended to be more socially complex and had higher population densities [a sign of success]. [P. 13] The Amerindians did not know the biochemical reasons for why alkali helped maize, however, they realized the benefits in undertaking this practice and it developed into a cultural value, practically a tradition. This is an excellent argument that shows how culture, society and socialization themselves are dependent upon a more underlying basic principle, that is genetic perpetuation and genetic similarity [the two are supportive of one another]. It can also be used by conservatives to support the notion that traditions need to be preserved - things such as heterosexual monogamous marriage - because they carry within them implicit benefits that our society recognized in the past and made into a universal value by default for all to follow because of its advantages. I highly doubt such traditions are simply arbitrary, but I do acknowledge that with time, some need to be "reformed," however marriage is certainly NOT one of them. Anyways, before I get off-topic, back to the paper.

Other examples of shaping cultural and social values to promote genetic reproduction are certain religious beliefs that encourage good health and fertility. [ P. 13]

Lastly, Rushton ends off by saying that genetics plays a role in all facets of life, economics, politics etc. and cannot simply be discounted and replaced by offering up the "socialization" argument as a substitute. Ethnic identity will continue to play a role in the relationship between societies and states in the future because it is a part of our genetic heritage and human nature, something that as I've said before is doubtfully going to change.

Research Paper on Heterogeneity and Social Capital

Greetings again everyone. Usually, I won't have the time to create new posts in consecutive days, but I feel that these two research papers which I've obtained must be addressed and made available for use by any who are interested. I'm continuing along the theme that I covered late last night, the negative effects of increased diversity - what I would call being "diversely challenged," as it certainly is not a benefit for a state - and the propensity for people to identify with others similar to themselves, their own kin and ethnic grouping [nepotism, ethnic affiliation].

Before I delve into the first research paper, let me make this clear for anyone out there that has a further interest in this topic, the research papers that I will be discussing are but two of many, many research papers that have been conducted in the past and achieved the same results, i.e. the negative implications of increased diversity upon social cohesion and economic development. I have citations to many of these articles if anyone is interested, just leave a comment below this post requesting the names of the papers and I'll be happy to oblige. Concordantly, if anyone has discovered other research papers regarding these topics that I may not have, please feel free to contact me and let me know by leaving a comment. I'm always trying to expand my research base.

Alright, onto the paper. Here is the source for the paper. The paper is titled "Civic Engagement and Community Heterogeneity: An Economist's Perspective" written by Matthew E. Kahn of Tufts University.

Kahn starts out in his introduction by making the simple point that critical to the performance of any economy are the institutions that base that economy. The institutions themselves are subsequently dependent upon social capital, which is how he creates the link between social capital and economic capital [i.e. economic development]. He makes the case that high levels of trust - something not available in diverse societies - increase economic growth, financial development, spur consumption on public goods etc. but equally as important is that he proves something I had mentioned last night, that increased diversity leads to less responsible and non-representative governments. In fact, in the first paragraph of his introduction, he states that "low levels of trust predict less efficient judiciaries, more corruption [yay, let's celebrate the benefits of diversity!], and lower-quality government bureaucracies." Boy do I feel vindicated now! All this in the very first paragraph of this 26 page research paper, quite the scathing expose and denunciation of multicultist dogma I would say! Therefore, before we even get into examining the hard data of the report, we find that increased diversity is detrimental and antithetical towards social capital, which in turn lowers community cohesion, lessens economic productivity and damages governmental accountability.

Kahn even goes so far as to summarize that 15 studies done prior to his own examining the effects of heterogeneity upon social capital all share a single common theme: more homogeneous communities foster greater levels of social capital production. [P. 3]

Towards the bottom of the same page, Kahn makes the point that people tend to self-segregate themselves amongst their own kin because of "shared interests, socialization to the same cultural norms, and greater empathy toward individuals that remind them of themselves." I would pretty much agree with all of the points made here except for one, the socialization aspect. Indeed, I agree that people are socialized into groups that forge a common identity, yes, but that in itself is the product of something far more central to human nature and the human condition. Ethnic background, shared genetic history influence that sense of socialization, these are the factors that enable that society, that group of individuals to first come together because they have a similar background, culture, tribe, physical features [this is related to his third point, greater empathy for someone that looks like ourselves, phenotype] etc. something that they can all commonly unite around and forge an identity. Only once that is accomplished [the formation of a society] does the process of socialization actually begin. This phenomenon of creating societies out of genetic affiliation will be discussed in my second article which is why I brought up the point now.

As I'm reading this article right now, I highly urge others to do the same because Kahn sprinkles aspects of the other 15 research papers into his own paper, you'll find names and citations to other studies that may be of use. In summarizing his own summaries of other research papers, we arrive at conclusions such as:
1. organizational membership is lower in metropolitan areas of high diversity
2. the rate of response to the 2000 Census is lower in areas with high ethnic fragmentation [lower willingness to co-operate with government procedures]
3. propensity to redistribute income is higher when the community is homogeneous [people trust one another more with their money]
4. When the ethnic identity of taxpayers and students is heterogeneous [i.e. the taxpayer is white, the student is hispanic], willingness to contribute public funds to education is lower
5. "share of spending on productive public goods such as education, roads, sewers, and trash pickup is inversely related to the area's ethnic fragmentation, even after controlling for other socioeconomic and demographic characteristics." [P. 5]<--I love this quote! 6. "when individuals interact with people who look like them, levels of trust in the community are higher." [P. 5] Once again emphasizing the point I made earlier regarding the importance of phenotype and genotype in determining a society's level of trust. 7. regarding micro-finance loans, Kahn quotes another paper by saying that "If there is strong social capital within the group providing and receiving loans[i.e. high homogeneity], then default is lower as well because altruism, peer pressure and social sanctions enforce repayment." [P. 5]<--I am no economic expert by any standard of measurement, but I hope others find it ironically sad that in our time of recession, government agencies and the mass media are still enforcing the ideology of diversity on us despite the fact that it has probably contributed to the economic circumstances we have and may even exacerbate the economic recession we face. It is a wonder why no one has the temerity to discuss this factually proven statement on any news network, especially in the precarious times that we live in. In Kahn's analysis, he uses figures from five different surveys that have collected data from the 1970's until the 1990's regarding volunteering and organization membership etc. He asserts that "birthplace fragmentation [the diversity of birthplaces] is a significant predictor of volunteering in the CPS and of membership in the GSS [these two are studies]." [P. 6-7] Furthermore, "Racial fragmentation is a a significant predictor of volunteering in the DDB and of membership in ANES." [P. 7] Therefore, Kahn comes to the undeniable conclusion that the "relatively small decline in social capital from the 1970's to 1990 - and rising heterogeneity explains these declines very well." [P. 7]* The only minor comment that I'd include here is that Kahn includes the Gini coefficient [income inequality] as a factor of heterogeneity, however that does not reduce the significance of ethnic heterogeneity as a factor in the loss of social capital. What may be of great use to other European ethnic nationalists is his table on page 24 of his paper that pits ethnic heterogeneity vs. participation rates in organizations. I do not have access to the specific figures for each nation, but from extrapolating on the points of the nations in the plot, I can get a general idea of the significance of income inequality vs. ethnic heterogeneity in influencing the participation rates within these states. However, it should be said that these are only approximate figures and I am no genius mathematician! Okay, from those two graphs, I managed to calculate among the 14 countries averages for participation [0.27], Gini co-efficient scores [29.6] and ethnic heterogeneity [10.3]. As I'd imagine, I'm going to take all the nations with above average scores in both their Gini co-efficient and their ethnic heterogeneity, average out their participation rates and see which one differs the most from the average participation rate. That should yield which one has greater influence over the other if my brain is thinking properly today! Alright, so when I took all the nations who have a Gini co-efficient above 29.6, added their participation rates and divided by the number of nations to get the average, the average participation rate was 0.25, slightly lower than the total average of all nations [0.27]. In reality, all of the nations that had a co-efficient above 29.6 had participation rates that were around 0.2 and lower, the reason why the 0.25 score was attained was because 2 of the 8 nations - Sweden and Norway - have very high participation rates [0.4+], so in reality, the differential is likely to be greater. Be that as it may, let's move onto our average for nations that had ethnic heterogeneity above the average of 10.3. Their average participation rate was 0.24; it's slightly lower than the average participation rate for the high Gini countries which means that nations with higher ethnic heterogeneity have their participation rate scores lowered more than by Gini co-efficients. However, this too is skewed because Sweden has an extremely high, the highest participation rate. If we were to take out to the two "anomalies" from the study, Norway and Sweden in the Gini one and Sweden in the ethnic one to get a more accurate score, the average for the Gini would drastically reduce to 0.187, while for ethnic heterogeneity it would reduce to 0.173. Yet again, ethnic heterogeneity holds greater influence than the Gini co-efficient, but not by that much. All in all, I'd say it's relatively 50-50 distribution in how each influences participation rates, they're more or less equal with a slightly greater importance of ethnic heterogeneity in determining participation rates; what we should take away from this is that ethnic heterogeneity is a significant factor in influencing participation rates in Europe and hence carries consequences for social capital. The last portion of the article I believe is a tad antiquated and anachronistic considering we're trying to examine the modern implications of ethnic heterogeneity on social capital. I say this because he comes around to examining the American Civil War and rates of desertion, arrests etc. based on the company's homogeneity. Unsurprisingly, the greater the company homogeneity [both ethnic and other factors] reduced the above rates dramatically; heterogeneous units were 525% more likely to desert, 300% more likely to be arrested and 120% more likely to go AWOL. Ultimately, Kahn, just as disappointingly as Putnam concludes by getting on his knees and begging for mercy from the multicultists by making the inane argument that despite all of the blatant evidence above, that increased heterogeneity, especially ethnic heterogeneity has detrimental effects on social capital that is necessary for a successful community, economy and government to function, somehow....ethnic diversity might be good for businesses interacting with global trade because of their diverse outlook. I just can't see how hiring one Englishman, one Nigerian, one Japanese and one Brazilian makes your business more robust as opposed to having four Englishmen or four Brazilians... I'm sorry, but that minor argument could never ever come close to offsetting the hugely negative effects of diversity on the greater population; the possibility of a more "insightful" and diverse workforce goes nowhere close to alleviating the major problems created in communal trust, economic productivity and governmental accountability, not to mention the gradual replacement and displacement of European cultures and European people in their own lands.

I hope you've all enjoyed this post, it's taken me quite an amount of time to prepare so unfortunately, I'll have to move my post on the other article to tomorrow.

The Benefits of Homogeneous Ethnocultural States

Greetings everyone once again. I'd like to take a little bit of time today to digress further into the my ideal of a homogeneous ethnocultural nation-state and how I've come to the conclusion that this is the best form of internal order within a state. Luckily, while checking a few of my news sources today, I managed to find an excellent article on Western Voices World News which is an excellent news source for those interested in the cause of European ethnic nationalism. News is updated daily from various other sources, one of which in this case was the renowned Professor of Psychology, Dr. Kevin McDonald. In this article writing for the Occidental Observer, another excellent source for articles regarding Western civilization, McDonald provides an excellent argument for the pervasiveness of nepotism, the innate preference of people in choosing to live alongside people of similar backgrounds, heritages, cultures etc.

Anyways, onto the article. Essentially McDonald goes onto say that people naturally self-segregate into areas according to background, the most prominent example of which in America is race. He uses a variety of articles to prove his point, many of which I will cover as well. One major article that refutes many of the commonly accepted myths and fallacies employed and superstitiously believed by multicultists is the article regarding Chicago being the most segregated city in America.

In the article, they examine the lives and choices of two people, one black and the other white in choosing to live alongside members of their own race. They found that based on their responses and observable trends in residency that European Americans generally stick with other European Americans and African Americans generally stick with African Americans. This is all rather dull and obvious to anyone educated in these matters, but what I find as being the most important part of this article is towards the end where they make the critical point that this segregation exists despite income level, that is to say that high earning blacks will not associate with whites based on class, for them, it is more important to live among their own kin, a testament to how nepotism and ethnocultural affiliation largely trumps the class conflict argumentation. This might be some useful ammunition against socialists ;)! Even more importantly, higher earning blacks will choose to live amongst other blacks despite the fact that it lowers their quality of life and prospective earnings according to the article. What people should take from this article is that in terms of affiliation - which is an essential component to any state seeking to create a sense of unity and order - people generally place a far greater emphasis on ethnic affiliation [people!] than one based solely upon class affiliation [money!].

If you look further into the article, you'll find that McDonald talks about another renowned Professor, this time of Political Science named Robert Putnam who became quite the famous figure in I believe 2000 for publishing the book "Bowling Alone." However, we'll be examining another paper that Putnam has only recently published involving a statistical examination of the benefits and costs of diversity. Unfortunately, I do not have a link to the actual study, however the title is "E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century" if anyone is interested. Much attention was heaved upon this research and it took a great deal of time [I believe 5 years] to put together directly because of the overwhelmingly negative conclusions that Putnam reached regarding the effects of diversity upon social cohesion. In the report, Putnam openly says that increased diversity results in:
1. lower confidence in local government, local leaders and local news media
2. lower political efficacy - a lower belief that they can influence politics
3. lower frequency of registering to vote
4. less expectation that others will co-operate to solve dilemmas of collective action [i.e. working together as a community]
5. less likelihood of working on a community project
6. lower likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering
7. fewer close friends and confidants
8. less happiness and lower perceived quality of life
9. more time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment"
Source

There could very well be more that I do not know of because I have not been able to access the entire article, only fragments of it from other sites such as vdare.com. Furthermore, that pesky argument that multicultists use: "well, it's all because of socio-economic factors, they're poorer etc. etc. etc." doesn't quite cut it in these circumstances given the results are adjusted for class, income and other factors [source]. What do you get at the social level when you add this all up? I'll tell you: greater distrust, less co-operation, ineffective and non-representative government, lower community cohesion, reduced cultural vitality and creativity [needs community spirit], unhealthier lifestyles [watching excessive TV], lower social capital and lastly, as explicitly stated, less happiness and a lower quality of life. All this just by increasing the diversity of your state, sounds like a bad deal to me! And yet now that we can statistically prove that diversity has negative effects, for the past two years [actually, similar studies have proven the same thing going as far back as the 70's], how can the news media continue the blatant lie that "diversity is our strength"??? It truly boggles the mind how deceptive and malicious these liars can be; now you know why I rarely spend even a second to consider what syndicated news media blabs on about.

Not only do we trust people of other backgrounds less in more diverse environments, but the report reveals that we even begin to lose trust in people that are alike us! [source]

But wait, there's more! In light of all this negativity [in-fact, increased diversity increases only two things: the propensity to watch TV as stated earlier and the number of protest marches...yes...because we definitely need more of those, far more important than community cohesion or quality of life!!!] Putnam had to delay "publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying 'it would have been irresponsible to publish without that.' " [Source]

Essentially what Putnam is admitting to here is that the results of his study were so surprisingly negative, beyond what he could have imagined, that it took him five-six years [the study was started in 2000 if I'm not mistaken] to create a sufficient spin upon the results in order to make it palatable for the mass public and mass media to digest. It's disappointing to see such a renowned and trusted academic scholar prostrating and prostituting themselves to appease the erroneous beliefs of deluded multicultists in power at the sacrifice of academic honesty and accuracy. Putnam even goes so far as to use the constructivist argument within his own report in a meager and desperate attempt at legitimizing diversity once again by proudly, if not dishonestly declaring that societies have been "socially constructed, and can be socially reconstructed." Yes...yes...yes...we all know how the state attempts to enforce their system of artificial social reconstruction upon European people and their own organic culture within their own nation, we've already been through that in my last post. So let me get this straight Dr. Putnam, first natives of European nations must be dispossessed from their own lands and culture, then they must tolerate the socially destructive influences of diversity [look above] and finally, their entire culture and society itself must be changed and/or eliminated... "reconstructed" [in Putnam's words] by the state, against their will in order to appease this almighty God of diversity that you worship?! Have I got that down right? So let me ask you a simple question, why? Why should Europeans ever seek to foster diversity within their own lands when it comes at such immense immediate [loss of trust, community etc.] and long -term [reconstructing the identity of the people, effectively, liquidating any and all things natively European] costs????? What's so wrong with allowing Germany to be German, or Britain to be British, or Italy to be Italian. Are these somehow intrinsically less valuable than more diverse societies, do they need to be "enriched" as you say? Doesn't that strike anyone as a tad arrogant to essentially make the declaration that being Italian and celebrating Italian culture and heritage is insufficient???

Here are a few more of Dr. Putnam's outrageous quotes for viewing pleasure:
"What we shouldn't do is to say that they [immigrants] should be more like us. We should construct a new us." [Source]
Why is the onus of "reconstruction" upon us, the natives of the land. Why must we change ourselves and eliminate our own culture, or at the very very least, marginalize its significance in our lives at the behest of foreigners? Hold on, let me quote one more and then I'll provide a historical example of what Putnam would like us to do and just how outrageous it would practically sound.
"Advanced countries such as the U. S. will inevitably see increases in immigration and diversity..." [Source]
There you have it folks, the bijillionth time diversocrats [that's a new one!] and multicultists have used the word "inevitable" in conjunction with the theory of multiculturalism. So let's combine these two quotes together, it would look something like this: Because "diversity" is inevitable, we must change who we are to accommodate it. Alright, there we have it, now let's apply that historical example that I was thinking of, one of my favourites to use in a debate. Let us put ourselves in the shoes of Native Americans in the early times of the colonization of North America. At that point, witnessing increasing European immigration into their lands, it might've seemed inevitable that the continent they lived on was becoming increasingly diverse. In so doing, read over the last part of my summary of Putnam's quotes: "we must change who we are to accommodate it," basically, what Putnam would've expected from the Native Americans would be to simply lay down and accept their being invaded, having their lands taken away and their culture diminished in importance. They might as well have committed cultural suicide and just given up had they taken the advice of Dr. Putnam! Is this what we should expect of ourselves too? In 400 years, will we want to live in reserves in what were our formerly native lands [like Native Americans of today] because some academic on his knees before multicultist dogma encouraged us to promote our self-de[con]struction? I don't think so.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm tired of being told to "reconstruct" myself, why can't we simply be who we are and celebrate what we are in our own nations? Is there anything so wrong in that? Do we really need to change our sense of "we"?

Anyways, I feel that I've pretty much beaten this dead horse hard enough, as I said before, I'm very disappointed in Dr. Putnam's proposals from his "analysis" if that's what you'd like to call it, to me it just sounds like another academic trying to trivialize and rationalize the decline and disappearance of Europeans within their own homelands. I could never imagine any of these multicultist academics employing the same reasoning against nations with strong ethnic identities such as Japan or Korea, telling them that they must change and substitute Korean customs for African, European and Indian ones. Personally, I would see the disappearance of Korean and Japanese cultures as being a travesty equivalent to the disappearance of say Polish and Spanish cultures. They are all valuable in their own way.

My very last paragraph, as I am very tired tonight, is with regards to Putnam's last statements in this source. Putnam goes on to compare changing our ethnic identity as being comparable to how America gradually placed less and less importance upon a person's religious identity from the 1950's into the modern era. According to Putnam, back then, religious identity was an important factor in American society whereas now-a-days, people have changed and largely disregarded this component of their identity, they have in Putnam's words "reconstructed" themselves. In the 1950's, it was thought to be just as impossible as we think "reconstructing" ethnic identities is now. In comparing these, Putnam seeks to make a case that with time, even "reconstructing" ethnic identities will be possible and acceptable in society. However I see one major flaw in this comparison, simply put, the two do not compare. One is a purely spiritual and non-tangible factor of one's identity [religion] which can be relatively easily switched at the whims of an individual, an ethnic identity however, is not quite so easily disposable or "reconstructible" because of its basis on the tangible, biological world. It is a part of your DNA, the very essence of who you are and this cannot change no matter how badly you may wish it. I hope to extrapolate further upon this phenomenon in my next post, the importance of a common genetic history that indelibly roots an ethnic group together. Thank you all once again.

Gradual Colonization of Britain

So, onto my first article response. One of my favourite sites to peruse when looking for useful articles is the website for American Renaissance, amren.com. Today, I found this excellent article and I wish to comment on it: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/huge-areas-of-britain-have-become-foreign-colonies-that-could-be-tomorrows-ireland-too-1589227.html

Quite interestingly, this article deals with an Irish writer lamenting the gradual cultural implosion of Britain due to the cowardice and incompetence of modern journalism in assessing and critiquing the present condition of multiculturalism in the United Kingdom. He comes to this realization after witnessing the immense demographic transition of London. There, synopsis done, read the article if you feel that you need more of a context, but I have read articles like this far too many times unfortunately and know how they go.

One issue the author poses is of identity. Given the various present identities of these people, most of whom he identifies as being non-European, it begs the question of what sort of nation will Britain be in the future, that is to say, what identity will it have? Ostensibly, British politicians are energetically working to deconstruct their own British identity and cultural value system as rapidly as possible in order to facilitate the importation of countless millions of migrants in the next few decades and demoralize any form of native resistance-->we've all heard the infamous phrase that "multiculutralism is inevitable/the future" or a variation of that.

You need only ask a native Briton to tell just how bad the situation for British cultural expression has become in recent years. Just a few months ago I had read an article about a Briton that was issued a ticket for simply displaying the British flag on their rear bumper for fear of "offending" someone! We all know who this "someone" is referring to. It would be funny if only it weren't so sad how hypocritical this position was because of the propensity for people to label the actions of this man as being "ignorant," yes, that meaningless moronic term that's thrown around like dirty toilet paper very much in the way that the word "racist" is used. Multicultists love to preach about how ignorant this man was for displaying the Union Jack despite the fact that I hardly believe he did so to intentionally offend other people; no, in most cases, he simply took it for granted, as we all should that if we live in Britain, it should be normal, hell, encouraged to proudly display the flag of your nation. This is not ignorance, what is ignorant, is the fact that these multicultists believe that the immigrants themselves are so ignorant as to be unable to withstand the mere sight of a Union Jack without feeling indignation, disrespect or a sense of being insulted! Ultimately, you get a situation where a young Briton was chastised for being ignorant despite the fact that all he did was try to quite innocently display the pride he has in his nation, yet the immigrants are let off scotch free regardless of the fact that it is actually they who are the ones who are too ignorant to allow a young Briton driver to express his pride in being British well within his own borders. Those immigrants who cannot seem to stomach this without feeling wronged or insulted should not be in Britain in the first place and should certainly not have the power to impose these draconian restrictions on legitimate freedom of expression. I hope those reading can see the innate hypocrisy within these double standards and how the natives of Britain are discriminated against to appease the ignorance of disrespectful foreigners.

Furthermore, British schoolchildren are taught that patriotism, pride in their nation, its past and its impressive accomplishments, is an evil that should be dead and buried in history. With all this in mind, and believe me, any committed nationalist in Britain will provide several far more provocative examples, these are only ones that I can remember off the top of my head, but with this in mind, how can anyone ever expect that the future people who inhabit the British isles will ever pridefully retain or unite around a common British culture, heritage and history?!

No, what will happen instead, and what is starting to happen now, will be the emergence of an artificial culture promoted by governmental diversity and multicultist policies and the politically correct schooling of generations of academics who will be so far in their flight of multicultist delusion and fancy that they might never see the light of reason ever again. Historically, culture was an expression of the identity of a certain people, embodying their traditions and sociopolitical history. That is to say that culture had an organic relationship with the people; any state that emerged could only operate within the confines of the norms and values of the culture practiced by the people, only then would it be viewed as legitimate. This is all essentially to say that the state was itself constrained by socio-cultural norms, traditions and values, it was largely subordinate to it. In the modern scenario, what we have is the creation of an artificial culture with the state as the primary facilitator, i.e. the state is now what determines the culture of its people and what is acceptable for them to be [i.e. clearly, based on the above, being British is quickly losing acceptance]. No longer is British culture an emanation from the British people over the expression of their identity, now-a-days, any "culture" that we do see is a carefully fabricated and manufactured composite of state directives and other supported dogmatic multicultist academics. This composite that we have is cheerfully paraded around as "diversity" and/or "multiculturalism."

If this is the future culture that the state is trying to create, and therefore, enforce upon its native inhabitants against their better judgment and will, what will happen to British culture and history? Will future generations of "British" - only in name, perhaps this will be replaced too with another equally artificial and meaningless term of citizenship - youths have any sense of genuine British history, culture or traditions that this once great land had? Will they even care? As a thought experiment, ask yourself this:

Say we have nation A with a decreasing native population. In addition, every year, they are importing staggering numbers of foreigners with various cultures from all over the world whose proportion of the population is steadily increasing. Lastly, combine that with the fact that the government is actively seeking to undermine the cultural traditions of its declining native population whilst creating an artificial "inclusive" multiculture based almost entirely around the traditions, practices and norms of the foreign inhabitants, essentially a composite of all the cultures minus the native one. Does anyone honestly think that the future inhabitants of the nation who will be majority foreign within a few decades will consider or seek to preserve British traditions and learn about British historical figures and lifestyles when the government itself discriminates and disrespects the native culture while incessantly promoting the culture of the foreigners? The answer is obvious, they won't care. If you were to completely replace Germany's population with Japanese, few Japanese people would give a damn about Otto von Bismarck or J. G. Herder, Fichte, Kafka etc. because those characters simply share no cultural relevance to themselves, the state has made sure of that by giving them [Japanese] their own culture to celebrate in place of the former native one.

This brings up my last point here. Another issue of hypocrisy within the multicultist argument. Multicultists incessantly parade around claiming they are the holy guardians of human diversity and multiculturalism against the ravages of ethnic nationalists such as myself, however this couldn't be further from the truth. As I said earlier, ethnic nationalists such as myself support one another in our goals to promote our own culture within our own nations in as peaceful a manner as possible without nosing ourselves in the domestic issues of others. If anything, ethnic nationalists are the ones who want to preserve human cultural and physical diversity. Given the above paragraphs regarding the state's active demolition of British culture in accordance with multicultist doctrine, is not displacing the entire British people from their own land and replacing their own organic, native culture with an artificial state imposed culture a sign of decreasing human cultural and physical diversity? How can they rationalize claiming to promote human diversity and yet paradoxically support the decline and gradual disappearance of the British people and their own culture within their own nation?! Will the world really be more diverse as the multicultists say if the British, Swedes, French, Germans and Spanish conveniently don't exist in the future? That simply does not add up.

My First Post

Greetings to everyone who will in the future read this, my very first posting on this, my very first blog. I suppose the timing of my posting behooves me to wish you all a belated Happy New Years.

Onto the matter at hand, the blog...or what I hope to make out of it considering this is my very first attempt so we shall see how this experiment turns out. I suppose I'll just quickly start and elaborate further on describing myself and my goals, given the insufficiency of my profile description.

Well, I'm a 19 year old male university student of European descent operating under the name of Zeek; I'm currently continuing my studies in Political Science and History . I have a great interest in pretty much anything European ranging from various fields, political, historical, social, ethnocultural and in the rare instances when I have leisure time, philosophical. As elucidated earlier, I suppose I can generally be categorized politically as an ethnic nationalist and as far as I've been able to ascertain from my political readings up to this point, politically, I sympathize with writers such as Jean Jacques Rousseau, Friedrich von Treitschke, Johann Gottfried von Herder [however his work extended far beyond politics] etc. Politically, I'm particularly interested in political philosophy and international relations, hopefully I'll be able to pursue such a position in the future. As I've discussed my ideological sympathies, when it comes to international relations, I suppose I'm an adherent to the realist school, espousing pragmatism and practicality above all when it comes to foreign policy, bringing me in line with characters such as Otto von Bismarck, Cammilo Benso di Cavour and in contemporary times, Vladimir Putin. I think they're all very capable leaders, I don't quite regard them as politicians given my cynicism towards traditional politics and the integrity [well, lack thereof] of politicians. They all made difficult decisions that too many flower power characters were simply incapable of doing, and risked their reputation to do so. That's something I can respect, when you put something else, the bigger picture above yourself and do what is necessary. I'm sure more names will be added to the list as my ideas and concepts develop further on which is precisely why I'm here.

I'm hoping to maintain the quality of my writing style for further university studies and to engage in meaningful discussion and debate over very controversial and contentious issues that can't quite be openly done in the so-called "free" Western societies we live in. I will not shy away from a discussion when I have the time to contribute as I do not have a dogmatic agenda that I'm trying to ignorantly impose on others, I hope to use the power of reason and argumentation to forge some sort of consensus and develop ideas that adhere to the truth and reality of the world.

I got interested in blogging as I've been following the blogs of others and other online news sources for the better part of two years. I'm inspired that people have the courage and temerity to speak out especially in a time when multicultism has become a state enforced dogma, practically a religion for all intents and purposes that is untouchable and holy in its conception, immune from any blemish or form of critique due to its merciless imposition upon the minds of generations of Europeans around the world. In particular, I've found the famous conservative blogger Fjordman to be especially inspiring as his works are wonderfully insightful.

Well, I guess that last statement kind of knocked the door down, so yes, I am fiercely opposed to the state imposed system of multicultism that the vast majority of other Europeans are forced to endure and tolerate against their will. The typical response to this statement is the usual assortment of political slurs and slander following along the lines of: hater, xenophobe, neo-Nazi, fascist, racist etc. etc. etc. I'm sure I do not need to go on, many of those interested in this blog will have already experienced this. The problem is that all of those insults miss the point entirely, which is that states that are overwhelmingly homogeneous in their ethnoculture, i.e. consisting of a single nation, are substantially more peaceful, content and economically prosperous than those states suffering from internal ethnic, religious or racial strife which many of us have seen lead to war or genocide. The problems of aggressive ethnic nationalism as was experienced in the early parts of the 20th century I believe can be almost entirely mitigated by the institution of democracy which is critical to establishing stability in any state. My ideal state and international system would consist of democratic ethnonationalist states with a non-interventionist policy unless their existence is directly threatened. Domestically, I wouldn't define myself with terms such as socialist or neo-conservative, I believe the government should be as big or as small as necessary to benefit the nation, in essence, it's responsibility should be to secure and improve the prosperity of its citizens. I am a promoter of freedoms and rights; as for economic policy, I have not yet made up my mind.

Given the above statement, I have no qualms or issues whatsoever with people of other backgrounds only in so much that they do not threaten the existence of my own ethnoculture; I am equally supportive of Turkish nationalists who seek to peacefully promote their own culture within their own nation as I would be for German nationalists, Nigerian nationalists, Brazilian nationalists, Indian nationalists etc. you get the idea... I think that each nation should seek to preserve the existence of their own ethnoculture as peacefully as possible with as limited intervention in the domestic issues of other states as possible. This I believe, is the most peaceful international and internal order. This is also the only true form of legitimate human diversity and multiculturalism, not the fake state imposed ideology we suffer from which ultimately supports the extirpation of not just one, but all ethnocultures and races culminating in the creation of a single bland and artificial identity.

Well, there you have it. I don't quite know what else I can say. I have for sure missed out on some aspects of my beliefs both unconsciously and also consciously because of my desire for well....brevity in my first post...clearly that's not the way it has gone! I have a tendency to ramble on. I will try to update the blog every 2-3 days where possible. Thank you all for reading.