Thursday, January 10, 2013

Extreme Weather? Don’t Worry. It’s Normal

CanSpeccy.wordpress.com, January 10, 2013: It was really, really wet in Britain last year, with 1244 mm of precipitation, more than four feet, compared with only 30 inches the year before.

Climate change is to blame, so the Guardian says:

A month’s rain fell in a day last week in parts of Britain. There were 140 flood warnings in the north of England, rain forcing the evacuation of Croston and Darwen in Lancashire; elsewhere, it washed out the Isle of Wight festival. Indeed, rainfall over the last three months has broken new records – following two years in which less rain had fallen than at any time since the 1920s.

This is part of a wider pattern. It is not just that world temperatures are on average steadily rising, the weather everywhere is becoming more extreme.

But Met Office data suggest otherwise:




Image source.

What the record shows is that extreme variability in British weather, or at least in rainfall, is not actually extreme, but normal, with little if any long-term trend. Thus although 2012 was very wet, it was not as wet as 1872. Likewise, although 2011 was very dry, it was not as dry as 1788.

Big, extremely violent storms are also quite normal, although they don’t happen all the time, obviously, or they would’nt be considered extreme. In 1287, an unusual combination of an extreme low pressure and a very high tide created a storm surge that killed thousands in England and on the other side of the North Sea. Overnight the storm fundamentally changed the geography of the English coast:

The harbour at Hastings was destroyed, the old town of Winchelsea, which was already under attack from the sea, was abandoned, and the coastline realigned.

Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the damage was that the thriving port of New Romney was turned into a landlocked town. Massive quantities of shingle from Dungeness, along with mud and soil, inundated the town, completely filled the harbour, and left New Romney nearly a mile from the sea.

The river Rother, which ran through the town, was stopped up by the storm and found a new outlet to the sea at Rye, 15 miles away, a course that the river still takes. In New Romney (a Saxon name, so not very new) there is still visible evidence of this extreme event. It is a draw for archaeologists, because the silt and gravel covered and preserved the town.


Visitors to the parish church of St Nicholas, the only surviving building from the period, have to step down into the church. There are still stains on the pillars marking the level of the flood.




Image source

Then there was the grote Mandrenke of 1362:

The Grote Mandrenke (Low Saxon for “Great Drowning of Men”) was the name of a massive southwesterly Atlantic gale which swept across England, the Netherlands, Northern Germany, and Schleswig around January 16, 1362, causing at minimum 25,000 deaths. …An immense storm tide of the North Sea swept far inland from the Netherlands to Denmark, breaking up islands, making parts of the main land into islands, and wiping out entire towns and districts, such as Rungholt on the island of Strand in North Frisia. This storm tide, along with others of like size in the 13th century and 14th century, played a part in the formation of the Zuider Zee.

The chief difference between now and then is that we now know much more than our ancestors would have known about extreme weather events occurring far from home. Thus many people may be under the mistaken impression that extreme weather events are more common now than in the past. Unfortunately, the media rarely put this information in a context that permits rational evaluation of trends and risks.

Thanks to Tallbloke for the info on Medieval storms.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Bing Cache Shows Local Paper Reported Sandy Hook Shooting Before it Happened

The Richard Dawkins Foundation reports the extraordinary case of Logan Dryer, 5, a student at Sandy Hook Elementary school who became so anxiety ridden that his mother pulled him out of school just two weeks before the deadly massacre. And these were not unspecific anxieties. As his mother related:
I remember the principal, Dawn Hochsprung, getting on her knees and saying to Logan, ‘We love you and this is a wonderful place.’ Logan screamed back saying, ‘No, no! It’s not a safe place. I am scared.’
The decision to take Logan out of school, a decision that may have saved his life, was taken at the suggestion of the family doctor.

But it seems that Logan Dryer is not the only psychic connected with the Sandy Hook massacre. Quite extraordinarily, the local newspaper, the Newtown Bee, published their first report on the massacre the day before it occurred.  (It would be interesting to know how the Richard Dawkins Foundation would explain that.)

Here is a screen shot of the story, which was dated December 14, 2012, but which, according to the Bing cache (which may or may not be available -- the text of the cached page is available here), was published on the web on December 13, 2012, the day before the massacre. (If the link to the Bing cache bring up a page, hit your browser's refresh button.)

The story relates that:
Sandy Hook School Principal Dawn Hochsprung told The Bee that a masked man entered the school with a rifle and started shooting multiple sho[t]s – more than she could count – that went "on and on."
 But it seems the Bee's unnamed psychic reporter didn't have 20:20 vision of the future, for according to MSN:
Dawn Hochsprung, the slain principal of Sandy Hook, died confronting the gunman on Friday. Newtown's Board of Education chairwoman explained that administrators were leaving a meeting when the gunman forced himself into the school and ran toward them, at which point it's reported that the principal lunged at the gunman, trying to overtake him.
So it seems that the bit about the Ms. Hochsprung being interviewed by the Newtown Bee after the event was mere fiction. Still, getting the main fact right, that there was a massacre coming down, was good.

But perhaps there is an explanation for the apparently premature reporting of the massacre. If some techie knows how the Bing cache could have misdated the story, it would be good to hear from them.

Yet we know that the interview with Dawn Hochsprung was a pure fabrication because she was killed before there was the slightest possibility of a newspaper interview. So it seems most reasonable to suppose that the whole thing was fabrication based on foreknowledge of the massacre to be carried out the following day. 

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Even as the terrible events at Sandy Hook were unfolding they were "engaged in a "mock scenario of an active-shooter in a school"

South Brewster Patch, December 18, 2012:

By grim coincidence, even as the terrible events were unfolding in Newtown on Friday morning, the Putnam County Emergency Response Team (“ERT”) happened to be assembled for regular training in Carmel, and team members were at that very moment engaged in a mock scenario of an active-shooter in a school. The ERT is comprised of specially trained and heavily armed officers from the Sheriff’s Office and the Carmel and Kent Police Departments.  When news broke of the Newtown shooting, the Putnam County ERT commander called Newtown Police and offered to have the ERT respond to the Sandy Hook school, but that response was not needed because Connecticut police had already secured the scene.

The July 7 London Tube Bombings:

Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, a private firm on contract to the London Metropolitan Police, described in a BBC interview how he had organized and conducted the anti-terror drill, on behalf of an unnamed business client
:
POWER: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.

HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

POWER: Precisely ...

9/11 NORAD had drills of jets as weapons:

WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.
One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say. 

How is it, that the ever loving and ever caring state is always just a step behind the bombers and shooters who always get to do their worst before the authorities, who had it all figured out in advance, totally screw up the investigation, coming up after much delay with an official account benefiting from neither a competent judicial inquiry nor a proper forensic investigation?

Motormouth Alex Jones versus Redcoat Piers Morgan

The videos below show the Britisher, Piers Morgan, supposedly debating Alex Jones on gun control and the US Second Amendment.

Morgan seems to think that a debate consists in his demanding an opponent answer a series of questions such as "who do you think did 9/11?" Jones effectively rubbished that by barely allowing Morgan a chance to speak.

Over at U-Tube, the commenters uniformly trash Jones, which does not seem to reflect the character or outcome of the debate. Although entirely capable of spouting rubbish, Jones on this occasion, had it seems to me, the winning points.

As Mohandas Gandhi wrote:
I WOULD risk violence a thousand times rather than risk the emasculation of a whole race.
Good advice to Americans, one would think, at a time when UPI reports that US Homeland Security is purchasing enough hollow-point bullets to blow away every American citizen.

Arguments for denying Americans the right to bear arms as protection from a tyrannical government are based on one statistic; namely, the US gun death rate of around ten per 100,000, which is high compared with happy, successful, places like Ireland, Sweden, New Zealand, France or Finland, where the gun death rate is only 1.03, 1.47 2.66, 3.00 and 3.64 per 100,000, respectively.

However, if you look into the statistics, the differences appear to be of questionable significance. Most US gun deaths are suicides, but the US suicide rate, at 19.2 per 100,000, is lower than that of New Zealand, Sweden, France and Finland, where rates are 20.3, 21.4, 23.5 and 25.7 per 100,000. And in Ireland, the suicide rate is virtually identical to that of the US at 19.2 per 100,000.

It is true that the homicide rate in the US is higher than in Europe and happy New Zealand, at 4.2 (3.7 with a gun) per hundred thousand versus 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 2.2 in New Zealand, Sweden, France, Ireland, and Finland. But if you look at US homicide rates by race, you see that the black rate is ten times the white rate.

So the homicide rate by US whites, who despite the genocidal plans of the globalist elite are still the majority in America, is closely comparable, at 2.8 per hundred thousand, to Finland's 2.2, which makes the case for abandoning the Second Amendment to the US Constitution appear entirely fraudulent. When that case is made by a government bent on intimidation of the people through sexual humiliation by blue-gloved goons at every airport and soon at a train station and shopping mall near you, its credibility is nil.

And here are some more stats from Reality Check:

The UK, with only 59 gun homicides per year, is nevertheless the most violent country in the EU with a violent crime rate of 2,034 per 100,1000 citizens versus 1609 per 100,000 in South Africa and only 466 per 100,000 in the US.





According to Jones:

Radio host Alex Jones says his CNN confrontation with host Piers Morgan last night was so volatile that one of the producers of the show burst into tears during the commercial break.

According to Jones, the fact that the showdown became so out of control and off-script overwhelmed CNN staffers and sent them into a tailspin, including Piers Morgan Tonight producer Rachel Burstein, who began to shed tears.

Jones was supposed to appear in a third segment on the show to debate lawyer Alan Dershowitz, but CNN managers and Morgan himself were so outraged at his refusal to play ball that they changed the format of the whole program on a whim.

After the second segment, Morgan told Jones, “You’re done,” to which Jones responded by accusing Morgan of chickening out of the confrontation.

Meantime the Romping Arse, I mean Piers Morgan (Romping Arse is the anagram) does a smear job on Jones here, then has a laugh with guests about shooting Alex Jones.

Apparently the gun control freaks have no problem with shooting people. All they care about is making sure that the right people get shot.

Friday, January 4, 2013

Creating the Slave Republic Through Public Education and Gun Control



UK Chilcot Inquiry Confirms What We Knew: Tony Blair and George W. Bush Are War Criminals

Cameron government is blocking publication of their “official” report


By Carl Herman

GlobalResearch.ca, January 4, 2013: The UK Cameron government is blocking publication of their “official” report on Iraq war until perhaps 2014 or later, according to the UK’s most popular newspaper website.

Perhaps this delay is in part because the Blair government was advised before the war by all 27 attorneys in their Foreign Affairs Office that war on Iraq was unlawful. That would mean armed attack on Iraq would be an unlawful War of Aggression, with identical criminal implication on US armed attack on Iraq.

Unlawful war requires US military to refuse all war orders and arrest those who issue them (more documentation here).

Public understanding that current wars “on terror” are not even close to lawful would end these wars. War law forbids all armed attack unless under attack by another nation’s government.

As I wrote in 2010:

All the lawyers in the UK’s Foreign Affairs Department concluded the US/UK invasion of Iraq was an unlawful War of Aggression. Their expert advice is the most qualified to make that legal determination; all 27 of them were in agreement. This powerful judgment of unlawful war follows the Dutch government’s recent unanimous report and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s clear statements.

This stunning information was disclosed at the UK Chilcot inquiry by the testimony of Foreign Affairs leading legal advisor, Sir Michael Wood, who added that the reply from Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office to his legal department’s professional work was chastisement for putting their unanimous legal opinion in writing.

Sir Michael testified that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw preferred to take the legal position that the laws governing war were vague and open to broad interpretation: “He took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague and that he wasn’t used to people taking such a firm position.”

Mr. Straw’s opinion is an Orwellian lie of the crystal-clear letter and spirit of the UN Charter that outlawed wars of choice in 1945. The UN Charter forbids all use of force except when explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council, or in a narrow definition of self-defense upon an armed attack by another nation’s government. This is arguably the single most important and clear law on the planet, the victory of the generation who sacrificed during World War 2, and damning criminal testimony for anyone in government to claim that this law is vague.

Violation of the laws to prevent war, a War of Aggression and a Crime Against Peace, are also arguably to worst crime a nation can commit.

UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith testified he ”changed his mind” against the unanimous legal opinion of all 27 of the Foreign Office attornies to agree with the US legal argument that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 authorized use of force at the discretion of any nation’s choice. This testimony is also criminally damning: arguing that an individual nation has the right to choose war violates the purpose, letter and spirit of the UN Charter, as well as violates 1441 that reaffirms jurisdiction of the Security Council in governance of the issue. This Orwellian argument contradicts the express purpose of the Charter to prevent individual nations from engaging in wars. A two-minute video of his mincing testimony is below as he pretends that war is still a lawful foreign policy option.
Moreover, the US and UK “legal argument” is in further Orwellian opposition to their UN Ambassadors’ statements when 1441 was passed that this did not authorize any use of force:

John Negroponte, US Ambassador to the UN:

[T]his resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UK Ambassador to the UN:

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” — the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response… There is no “automaticity” in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12.

The Chilcot inquiry was initiated from public outrage against UK participation in the Iraq War, with public opinion having to engage a second time to force hearings to become public rather than closed and secret. The hearings were not authorized to consider criminal charges, which is the next battle for UK public opinion.

Concentrated US corporate media will not report the Chilcot inquiry “emperor has no clothes” facts and conclusion that the current US wars are unlawful. The US Senate Church Committee revealed CIA infiltration of US corporate media to disinform the American public to support US political agendas.
The cost of these unlawful wars is over a million Iraqi lives above those expected to have died in pre-war conditions and $3-$5 TRILLION in long-term US taxpayer costs (that’s $30,000 to $50,000 per average US household of $50,000 annual income; do the math to figure your family’s share).

US Senate and House Committee investigation has shown through all disclosed evidence that all of the justifications for war with Iraq were known to be lies at the time they were presented to the public. You are an irresponsible citizen if you do not verify these easily-understood facts from the disclosed evidence. A colluding corporate media for unlawful wars is a lame excuse for inaction when the facts are in front of you now.

See Also:

Chilcott's anger as Blair's Iraq memos to Bush stay secret

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Sandy Hook Massacre: What the MSM Won't Discuss

According to the Associated Press, reporting on the day of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre:
A law enforcement official says that the 20-year-old suspect in the Connecticut school shootings killed his mother at their home Friday and then drove his mother's car to the school where he went on a deadly rampage.
The car the "20-year-old suspect," Adam Lanza, is supposed to have driven on his way to commit mass murder was this black Honda civic.
(Photo : Reuters ) Car driven by school shooter Adam Lanza is towed from
Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Image Source
The picture reveals the vehicle's registration to be 872 YEP. But that, it appears, is not the registration of a vehicle owned by Adam Lanza's mother, but of a vehicle owned by Christopher Rodia of Norwalk, CT.

But this fact raised no YE(L)P from the mainstream media, which brings to mind Conan Doyle's story, Silver Blaze, featuring the "curious incident of the dog in the night-time:"
Detective Inspector Gregory (of Scotland Yard): "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."

Holmes: "That was the curious incident."
In the Sherlock Holmes story, the dog made no noise because the crime was an inside job, with no intruder causing the dog to raise the alarm.

In the case of the Sandy Hook massacre, why did the mainstream media raise no alarm over the fact that the registration of what it had reported to be Adam Lanza's mother's car was, in fact, in the name of Christopher Rodia, a small-time thief with multiple convictions and family connections to the drug trade? Speculation may  have been criminalized,  but you remain free to consider the question for yourself?

Actually, one commercial news source did mention the Rodia connection, and that was the Norwalk Citizen, the paper of Chris Rodia's home town. The paper acknowledges that a "policeman’s call to dispatch on an audiotape" identifies Rodia as the owner of the car. But without citing any counter evidence, the paper rejects the idea that Rodia was connected with the Sandy Hook killings on two grounds:
  1. Rodia's denial: "That was such a heinous crime, I don’t want to be connected to it in any way," Rodia said.
  2. That connection between the car and Rodia has not been reported in the mainstream media.
Rodia's "I didn't do it gov." may be compelling to some, although if this type of plea were generally accepted, the police would achieve few convictions. And to argue as the paper seems to, that the evidence of a possible mainstream media conspiracy of silence is evidence of no mainstream media conspiracy of silence, seems lame, even by the standards of what has come to be known to some as the lame-stream media.

What the report in the Norwalk Citizen appears to confirm, since the assumption is not denied, is that the car said to be Adam Lanza's mother's is indeed Chris Rodia's. How unfortunate, therefore, that the Norwark Citizen did not think to ask Chris Rodia how it was that his car, with a rifle or shot-gun in the trunk, happened to be parked outside Sandy Hook Elementary at the time of the massacre.

There are many other curious and as yet unexplained facts in the case of the Sandy Hook massacre.

But, as Time Magazine demands speculation must end.

Which is to say, this story is to be handled as any inside job would be handled by a complicit media, with a statement of the final verdict on the case before a competent investigation has been undertaken.

Which is not to say that Sandy Hook was an inside job, an act of state terror designed perhaps to facilitate gun control legislation, but if not, why are the media not carefully analyzing the facts of the case before announcing what happened?

Postscript

CTPost, January 3, 2012: State Police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance said ... [t]he car confiscated at the scene, the black Honda with that license plate, belongs to a relative of Lanza's and not to Rodia, he said.

But still nobody to know who, exactly, the vehicle belongs to. Odd how cagey the authorities are about the facts of the case.

According to most press reports, the car belonged to Adam Lanza's mother. But if so, why won't the police confirm it? But according to some reports, Adam Lanza was carrying his brother, Ryan's ID on the day of the massacre, so was it Ryan's car, not his mother's that was impounded outside the school?

Post-Postscript, February 4, 2013

This item from Fellowship of the Minds blog, reproduces a record apparently confirming that Nancy Lanza owned a 2010 black Honda, as well as a silver BMW, which would be consistent with the story that Adam Lanza drove his mother's car on December 14, 2012.


See Also:

The Sandy Hook Nuns had a purple getaway van

Bing Cache Shows Local Paper Reported Sandy Hook Shooting Before It Is Claimed to Have Happened

Niall Bradley: Sandy Hook massacre: Evidence of official foreknowledge?

And

CT Police Captain Mark Kordick to Radioman911 

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

The Liberal Mind and the New World Order

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

On Who Rules and How

Aangirfan writes:

According to professor Peter Dale Scott:

Terror events serve the agenda of criminal members of the elite.

These criminals exercise power within government institutions such as the intelligence services.

Systemic Destabilization.


According to professor Peter Dale Scott:

"As examples of systemic deep events, we can point to two spectacular bombings in Italy, the Piazza Fontana bombing in Milan and simultaneous Rome bombing of 1969. 
"These were initially blamed on marginal left-wing anarchists, but were ultimately revealed to have been false-flag attacks organized, as part of a strategy of tension, by right-wing neo-fascists inside the Italian military intelligence agency SISMI, with a possible green light (according to the chief of SISMI) from elements in the CIA. 
"Since then an Italian premier has confirmed that the parallel intelligence structure responsible for the bombings was part of a stay-behind network, Gladio, which we now know was originally organized by NATO....



"In an era when the combined wealth of the 225 richest people nearly equals the annual income of the poorer half of the earth’s population, it can be assumed that the power and influence of the illicit wealthy is a major force to be reckoned with in world affairs. 
"And it is clear that some in these shadow elites stand to benefit from the crimes Breivik has been charged with: specifically 'destabilizing or destroying basic functions of society,' and 'creating serious fear in the population.'"

Systemic Destabilization.


On Guns and Freedom

Carroll Quigley (November 9, 1910 – January 3, 1977), Bill Clinton's history mentor at Georgetown University, noted historian, polymath, and theorist of the evolution of civilizations, believed that democracy depended on the public availability of cheap but effective weapons"

". . . [T]he nature, organization and control of weapons is the most significant of the numerous factors that determines what happens in political life." [p. 1,200]

". . . We have democracy because around 1880 the distribution of weapons in this society was such that no minority could make a majority obey. If you have a society in which weapons are cheap, so that almost anyone can obtain them, and are easy to use — what I call amateur weapons — then you have democracy. But if the opposite is true, weapons extremely expensive and very difficult to use — the medieval knight, for example, with his castle, the supreme weapons of the year 1100 — in such a system, with expensive and difficult-to-use weapons, you could not possibly have majority rule. But in 1880 for $100 you could get the two best weapons in the world, a Winchester rifle and a Colt revolver; so almost anyone could buy them. With weapons like these in the hands of ordinary people, no minority could make the majority obey a despotic government.

Friday, December 28, 2012

The Unassimilated Indian

HMS Grappler at Comox, BC. In 1862, the Grappler escorted
smallpox-infected natives who were expelled from Victoria.
The resultant spread of the disease among the Indian
population largely depopulated the BC coast, making way
for immigrant settlement.

Throughout the post-Columbian colonization of North America, settlers have pursued one of three policies toward the indigenous inhabitants: expulsion, extermination or assimilation. For the settler citizen who seeks an overview of this brutal process of Native dispossession without risk of unbearable laceration of conscience, Thomas King's The Inconvenient Indian: a Curious Account of Native People in North America is an excellent primer, lightly written, ironic, but without overt bitterness or anger.

Astonishingly, despite relentless harassment, chicanery, exploitation, ethnic cleansing and mass murder, the Indians of North America still remain, and still remain largely unassimilated, which leaves the question of their ultimate future still to be determined.

To the Indian, whether it be the largely assimilated and rationally dispassionate, Tom King, or the angry National Chief of Canada's Assembly of First Nations, Shawn Atleo, the goal is native self-determination and sovereignty. And the means to sovereignty, according to Atleo, is the working out of treaties that promise the native people shared control of Canada's vast resource wealth and extensive lands.

The problem for the Indians is that treaties mean little or nothing unless the contracting parties have the muscle to back up their rights. In such matters, might, though usually not right, is nevertheless decisive. And at present, the indigenous people of North America are no stronger relative to the settler states than in the past and thus are in no better position to regain their sovereignty than at any time since 1492.

Thus, treaties notwithstanding, the future of the indigenous people of North America will depend for the foreseeable future on the intentions of the settler states. Currently, Canada's Indian policy is focused on the provision of routes to assimilation. In place of the discredited policy of forced residential schooling are now generous grants, scholarships and systems of positive discrimination to draw bright natives off the reserves and into the academic and professional worlds of the settler society. It is difficult to find objection to this policy except that it deprives the native communities of some of their most able and creative individuals who might contribute disproportionately the the welfare of their community of origin. However, not all Indians seeking education will abandon their tribal communities. Many are idealists intent on returning to the reserve as teachers and mentors who will bring hope, enlightenment and practical improvement to the lives of those who remain permanently at home.

A darker side to Canada's native policy is manifest in the system of payments and subsidies to Native bands that make welfare a seemingly deeply destructive form of Indian assimilation, one that is resistant to change in part because it is rewarding to Native politicians who are able to line their pockets with taxpayer funds supposedly intended for social services on the reserve. For example, 50 Indian chiefs receive salaries greater than that of the Prime Minister of Canada, with one band councilor at a reserve in Atlantic Canada receiving a tax-free salary in 2008 of $978,468 (equivalent to about $1.8 million off reserve). This brings to mind the bantustans of apartheid South Africa, where native people were subject to the repressive discipline of native chiefs highly paid by, and thus presumably attentive to, the needs of the national government.

The future of Canada's native nations will thus depend on where the interests of Canada and of the native people intersect, and whether the native leadership is capable of, or truly intent upon, the interests of the mass of their own people. In the case of the Innu, great progress toward a mutually beneficial arrangement seems to have been achieved by the 1995 Nunavut land claims agreement, negotiated by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, under the terms of which the Innu of the North West Territory formed the self-governing territory of Nunavut, within the Canadian confederation.

One might hope that such an agreement will one day provide Canada's Indian first nations a similar degree of sovereignty. However, the challenge for the first nations is great, because they are, unlike the Innu, widely dispersed and highly differentiated among over 600 bands or nations. There is not the slightest possibility that Canada will agree to the creation of 600 independent, sovereign Indian nations, with populations ranging from a few dozen individuals to a few tens of thousands. To think otherwise is to make the ideal the enemy of the feasible. To achieve the greatest attainable measure of independence and self-government, Canada's Indians must devise a democratic Indian federation that will, as a single entity, seek something like provincial status within the greater Canadian confederation.

Thus empowered, Canada's first nations will be in a position, for the first time, to negotiate a full, fair and early settlement of all land claims, and to establish educational and other institutions to preserve Indian culture and adapt it to the modern world.

Thursday, December 27, 2012

The Financial Times: Ethnic Cleansing of the English From Their Own Capital City "Deserves Attention" LOL

The Financial Times of London Reports:
December 26, 2012 2:38 pm
London’s ‘white flight’ deserves attention

By David Goodhart

That the city is no longer majority ‘white British’ is a remarkable development.
A couple of weeks ago it was announced that London no longer contained a majority from the UK’s main ethnic group, known in the demographers’ jargon as the “White British”.
One face of Immigrant Britain.
 Wow. Fancy that. Who'd have thought it. Still it's only the descendants of some dead white European males, the jargonized "white British," who've been ousted. I mean, it's not like some actual, you know, well known European nation that's been ethnically cleansed from its own capital city, one of the greatest cities in the world. 

Except, well, actually, it is what was until very recently perhaps the most illustrious of all European nations, the English, that's being genocided, not only in their capital city but in many of their other large cities. Last year, the English became a minority in the City of Leicester, an ancient industrial town at the geographic heart of England. And in Birmingham, England's second city, English children in elementary school are not even the largest minority.

So yes, let's all remark the remarkable fact of the genocide of the English — the nation of Will Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, Sam Johnson, Charles Darwin, and Winston Churchill — but without mentioning the English by name, of course. No need to get anyone upset or make any of the not very English scum running the major British political parties — plus the security services clown running the alleged British National Party — look like, well, the bought traitors that they are.

But you have to realize that this is something totally, unexpectedly new.
London is arguably the first great western capital city to pass this landmark, though that depends on where you draw the boundaries around Washington and on excluding Brussels as a special case because it is an “embassy capital”.
So there you are, the ethnic cleansing of the English in their own capital "deserves attention" only because of its novelty. Because London is arguable the first great western capital city to be genocided, unless you count Washington which is not the homeland of any ethnicity other than of the native Americans who were genocided a long time ago. Oh and Brussels, but that's a "special case," apparently, so just tough cheese for the Belgians, and not something to worry about.
In any event, it is a remarkable development for London and one that was unexpected.
Apparently, the Financial Times, with editorial offices in London, employs writers so incredibly stupid that they do not notice the ethnic make-up of the city where they work, and only became aware of the ethnic cleansing of the native race in London when it was announced in the evening newspaper. And even then, they nearly missed it!
However, the London Evening Standard, the capital’s main evening paper, tucked it away on page 10 on the day of the announcement, and the BBC London television news had it as the seventh item that evening.
But this is all transparent obfuscation of what has been known for years: that the English are being genocided by a combination of policies that employ all means of state-controlled education and propaganda to promote mass murder of unborn children, 189,931 last year,  and every kind of non-reproductive sex, thereby driving the fertility of the native population far below the replacement rate, while mass immigration, both legal and illegal, is promoted.

But in any case, to claim the foreign takeover of London is a matter for surprise is a complete inversion of the truth. For years the UK national newspapers have carried stories reporting the takeover of one London borough after another by an immigrant majority. Moreover, it has been common knowledge for years that the majority of children in London are born to foreign-born mothers. So the contention that the extirpation of the English majority in their own capital city is somehow a surprise is a lie pure, simple and direct.
Two days later I met a senior official from Mr Johnson’s Greater London Authority who, asked about the data, said: “What’s the fuss?”
Ha! There you have it. The genocide of the English in their own homeland is a matter deserving "attention" but not "fuss."
This studied indifference of London’s political and media elite appears to be in sharp contrast to the feelings of many of the white British people who live in less salubrious parts of the city.
Or, who gives a damn about the English, or white British as the genocidalists and their propagandists call them the better to distract attention from the fact that the English are being displaced from England, the only homeland they have.
“Most of the leading academic geographers did not expect London to become a majority minority city for another 20 or 30 years – they underestimated the extent to which white British people have opted to leave an increasingly diverse London,” says Eric Kaufmann, an academic at Birkbeck College who is leading a project on “white flight” at Demos, the think-tank I lead.
So we are to understand that most of the "leading academic geographers" in Britain are incompetent fools who misled the folks in government just as much as they deceived the morons at the FT — a claim that is surely another lie and a libel too.

And did you get that "majority  minority city"? The immigrants are to have the benefit of being treated as a minority even when they're the majority, meaning that the English must be considered the majority even when they are a fast declining minority. This is really clever: mind-bending psychological manipulation in the aid of genocide.

Further, we are to understand that the progressive elimination of the English from London, Birmingham, Leicester, and many other great cities has nothing to do with mass immigration. No, that's the lie put about by racist white British. What's actually happened is that the English just buggered off. Went to live in the bucolic copuntryside 50 miles out of town and now commute to the city in their Porche's and Jags. It's only the racist losers like Emma West who are still left in the city where they'd better show some respect for their new neighbors, if they don't wish to be whipped off to jail — for their own protection from all the friendly New Britishers threatening to cut their throats.

But, really, the English are lucky to have all those foreigners come in and take their place, convert their empty Christian churches into mosques, bingo halls, whatever. They even have the good fortune of having the son of a German-Jewish social climber to head the English church — luckily too, they have a Muslim as head of the BBC's religious programming, an Israel-Firster as Prime Minister, and a Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal [sic] Opposition, the son of an illegal immigrant, who thinks the essence of Englishness is to invite in more immigrants.

White flight is an emotive term that suggests discomfort with the changing racial composition of a neighbourhood. Clearly there are many reasons why white British people might want to leave London – house prices, schools, fresh air and so on – but merely by considering where it is happening, there appears to be prima facie evidence that white flight has played a role.
Yep, there you have it. The English flight from Londonistan, as someone many years ago humorously named England's greatest city, is the product of racism, pure and simple.
In Barking and Dagenham, for example, notorious for the brief success of the far-right British National Party in the late 2000s, the white British population fell by 40,000, almost one-third, between 2001 and 2011. Other increasingly diverse outer London boroughs such as Redbridge and Hillingdon have also experienced large falls in their white British population.
Forty thousand in ten years from a borough with 180,000 inhabitants. That sure looks like prima facie evidence, in fact I'd say absolutely definite evidence of ethic cleansing.
Does white flight always have to be the other side of the coin of large-scale immigration? It is a remarkably understudied phenomenon. This is perhaps because it is based on a notion of group identities and affinities that most liberal academics do not feel or understand and tend to stigmatise as “racist,” at least when expressed by white people. But one of the interesting things about white flight is that it has continued, and in the case of London apparently increased, at a time when racist attitudes have been in sharp decline.
You tend to get less overt English opposition to mass immigration when the English have become the minority, often a very small minority in their own neighborhood.Or to put that another way, the English know when they're beat, and they know who's gonna get beaten up if they raise any objection to Asian street gangs or knife-wielding Jamaican thugs.
Some of the blame for this must lie with a modern political mind – of both left and rightwingers – that has failed to understand some quite normal human feelings about rapid change and the unfamiliar. It has failed, too, to think more carefully about how to make it easier for different kinds of people to live alongside each other sharing common spaces in mutual trust.
Wow, maybe the political establishment has something to be held responsible for. I mean it's not as though they just lost a great war, or destroyed the economy. No they just wiped out most of their own people in their own greatest city.
So noisily have London’s political leaders been celebrating the diversity of their multiracial city that they have forgotten to see what is happening under their noses.
"They forgot." Oh dear, they were so busy celebrating diversity and trashing English culture for Black History Month that, in a fit of absence of mind, they genocided their own people.
If you walk around the city centre you see racially mixed pavements, shops, buses, tubes and even workplaces. But there is also a great deal of what the Americans call “sundown segregation”: if you followed people home you would find yourself in some of the most ethnically segregated places in Britain.
So there you are. The English really genocided themselves, taking flight from multi-culti Britain out of pure racism. Fortunately, there are still white iberals in Britain anxious to continue the replacement of the politically incorrect English with nice foreign people with a different mindset: you know, not Christian, with none of that nonsense about the traditional rights and freedoms of the English. A lot of them don't even speak English, or if they do it's not English so as you could understand it.

Thus do the mainstream media discredit themselves: one article at a time.

Note: There are some intelligent comments at the FT web site in response to the remarkably stupid David Goodhart's remarkably stupid article. You can access the article via this Google link.

See Also:
Beware: The New Goths Are Coming

Monday, December 24, 2012

Globalization: The Next Step — Wiping Out the Savings of the Middle Class

The poor don't save, or if they do they don't save much for the obvious reason that they have little to save from. The rich don't save, they invest. Which means that saving cash for the future, for a rainy day, for illness or retirement is a middle-class virtue and in the age of the New World Order, an invitation to theft. Theft by the monied interest, that is, operating through the governments and central banks that they own.

How is such theft possible?

Bank of Canada Governor, Mark Carney, soon to take up his new post as Governor of the Bank of England, has given as clear an understanding of how the swindle will be perpetrated as can be expected from a public source, openly musing about central banks targeting, not inflation, but GDP.

What's it mean?

Central banks traditionally had one instrument with which to influence a national economy; namely, interest rates. When a credit-fueled real estate or consumer spending boom threatened to drive demand in excess of supply thus causing prices to rise, central banks would raise interest rates, thereby slowing bank lending and heading off a major inflation. Conversely, when a contraction in demand threatened a recession, central banks lowered interest rates to stimulate borrowing, and hence demand.

But there's trouble when demand flags or fails to rise when interests rates are already close to zero. If people won't borrow to spend when interest rates are zero, whaddya do? Whereas, the central bank can rein in borrowing by raising interest rates, they cannot force people to take loans however low interest rates fall.

Or, as the bankers like to say, you cannot push on a piece of string. But wait: what if you make interest rates negative? Yeah: borrow a buck and pay back 50 cents in seven years time. Only a fool would refuse the offer. Right?

QE V. 1.0. Image source
But folks won't deposit their cash with a bank that nicks 10% of their money every year. True, but what if the central bank prints a bunch of cash, and give it out to all and sundry — large corporations, hedge funds, Wall Street banksters, and all those folks who'd like to buy a car, a home, take a holiday, but who have no cash. That's the new instrument of central banking. QE, quantitative easing, conjuring money out of thin air and handing it out to all and sundry: the government for stimulus spending, to bankers with "troubled assets," to Government Motors, Chrysler, windmill makers and every other friend of government.

Soon you've got the economy going again: everybody's buying and investing in real things, houses, factories, big box superstores, whatever. And the big debtors know that when it comes time to pay the money back it will be worth much less than when they borrowed it, even after they've added in the ongoing interest expense.

But this is really not for the little people. Once the inflation's ignited, interest rates will be raised. Not enough to compensate for the loss in the value of your savings, of course. But enough to prevent reflating the housing bubbles, and to prevent the plebs from buying more than the bare necessities of life from the big box importers of cheap Chinese stuff. And enough to prevent the average middle-class devotee of thrift from realizing how badly they are being gouged — especially after the measly interest they earn on their devalued savings has been taxed at their marginal rate of 40 to 50%.

So if you've got GIC's or money sloshing around in a credit union account, or maybe a wad of those nice new plastic Canadian fifties or  hundreds stashed under the mattress, get ready to see it all shrink in value.

For the monied interests, the proprietors or the New World Ordure, the universe is unfolding as it should. The consumer society, the vision of which brought down the Soviet Union, the economic miracle of which we in the West proudly assumed to be the mark of Western superiority, will soon be a thing of the past.

And as the billionaires so reasonably assert: it's no good having the plebs louse up the place with their ugly suburban villas, while choking the roads and poisoning the atmosphere with their SUV's.  No, the thing is to export those overpaid Western jobs to the slave plantations of Asia, and bring millions of Third Worlders to the West, where they will be content to work at minimum wage or less, without any silly nonsense about the great Western tradition of respect for human rights and freedoms.

This phase of the unfolding of the New World Order is spelled out in a report for CEO's now in circulation. The economic problem of the day, the report states is excess debt. Much of this debt the report says will never be repaid. Hence the conclusion:
Holders of the debt, be they countries or companies, should be allowed to default, whatever the short-term pain of such a process.
Note, no suggestion of debt relief for the little people overloaded with mortgages and car loans. No, no, certainly not. On the contrary, the report asserts:
 ... retirement ages will have to increase. People will have to work harder, for longer and should be encouraged to do so by changes in benefit[s]
Ha! There goes yer sick pay, you malingering bum, there goes yer food stamps, yer workshy layabout, there goes yer pension you thought you'd paid in for. What's more:
The size of the state should be radically reduced and immigration encouraged. Competition in labour markets through supply-side reforms should be pursued. 
Ha ha! That'll show you, just how much we need you — not at all! We're gonna bring in millions and millions of foreigners who will swamp your working class neighbourhoods, and impose their religions and cultural habits on your community whether you like it or not. It's called genocide and that's the policy of the New World Order, aka the hypercapitalist entity that owns the political leadership of the Western States.

See also:

 What Millions Want For Christmas: A Job
The latest jobs reports shows there are over 12 million people unemployed [in the US], the average duration of unemployment is over 40 weeks, and over 40% of the unemployed have been unemployed for over 27 weeks.

Another 8 million people want full-time jobs but only have a part-time job. And finally, unemployment stats do not capture millions more who are so discouraged they stopped looking for jobs.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Brain Squeezed Elites: From the Maya to the Mymidons of the New World Order

By Colin Liddell



Alternative Right: One of the legacies of the world financial crisis is that it showed how absolutely clueless pundits, politicians, and financial planners can be about the direction we are heading in. This also explains our growing fascination with the mysterious Maya and their reputation for fathoming the distant future by reading the stars and the courses of the planets.

With the great vacuum of ignorance that enshrouds the future, it is not surprising that this long dead civilization with an astronomical bent has been sucked into the role of providing gnostic hints of what is to come. It was either that or Madame Zaza’s tea leaves.

According to a lot of breathless twats on the Discovery Channel, the Mayans saw something very important lined up for 2012, namely the end of their Grand Cycle, scheduled to end on the 21st of December this year. Depending on who you speak to this will precipitate either the end of the universe in a cataclysm of fire, a new age with everyone being very nice to each other, or the election of Ron Paul as President of the United States.

But before we get carried away with the impending sense of momentous cosmic change, shouldn’t we pause to ask the all-important question, “Who the heck were the Maya?” just in case they turn out to be a bunch of jungle bums stoked up on fermented coconut juice rather than credible prognosticators of the end of humanity.

Like any semi-barbaric, non-European people, the Maya are nowadays talked about in the hushed reverential tones dictated by political correctness as one of the great civilizations, even though they lacked metal tools and wheels, and enjoyed a spot of human sacrifice. 

Rather than evidence of their primitiveness, their lack of tools is often cited as proof of their civilizational superiority, as only a truly higher culture could have built pyramids with so little in the way of technology. In such encomiums little is said about the possibility that the threat of human sacrifice probably served as an extremely important motivator for the toolless masses.

The key to understanding the Maya is their astronomy. The basic problem all primitive agricultural societies face is timekeeping. In the case of Britain, this led to the founding of Neolithic sites such as Stonehenge, where the stones were aligned to measure changes in the position of the rising sun and thus the seasons.

Friday, December 21, 2012

Mohandas Gandhi Versus Barak Obama On the Right to Bear Arms

Image source.

As Barak Obama, in the wake of the Sandy Hook slaughter, professes his devotion to the protection of innocent lives by promising further restrictions on gun ownership in America, American drone strikes that have killed dozens of innocent children in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen continue on a daily basis.
Americans might be wise, therefore, to take heed not of Nobel Peace Prize winner, Obama, but the true practioner of non-violence, Mohandas Gandhi who wrote:
I WOULD risk violence a thousand times rather than risk the emasculation of a whole race.
and
I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence ..."

When my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence.
Good advice to Americans, one would think, at a time when UPI reports that US Homeland Security is purchasing enough hollow-point bullets to blow away every American citizen.

Arguments for denying Americans the right to bear arms as protection from a tyrannical government are based on one statistic; namely, the US gun death rate of around ten per 100,000, which is high compared with happy, successful, places like Ireland, Sweden, New Zealand, France or Finland, where the gun death rate is only 1.03, 1.47 2.66, 3.00 and 3.64 per 100,000, respectively.

However, if you look into the statistics, the differences appear to be of questionable significance. Most US gun deaths are suicides, but the US suicide rate, at 19.2 per 100,000, is lower than that of New Zealand, Sweden, France and Finland, where rates are 20.3, 21.4, 23.5 and 25.7 per 100,000. And in Ireland, the suicide rate is virtually identical to that of the US at 19.2 per 100,000.

It is true that the homicide rate in the US is higher than in Europe and happy New Zealand, at 4.2 (3.7 with a gun) per hundred thousand versus 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 2.2 in New Zealand, Sweden, France, Ireland, and Finland. But if you look at US homicide rates by race, you see that the black rate is ten times the white rate.

So the homicide rate by US whites, who despite the genocidal plans of the globalist elite are still the majority in America, is closely comparable, at 2.8 per hundred thousand, to Finland's 2.2, which makes the case for abandoning the Second Amendment to the US Constitution appear entirely fraudulent. When that case is made by a government bent on intimidation of the people through sexual humiliation by blue-gloved goons at every airport and soon at a train station and shopping mall near you, its credibility is nil.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

The Insolence of a Zionist Chickenhawk

By Stephen Walt

Pugnaceious chickenhawk, Bill Kristol
CounterPunch, December 20, 2012: I suppose I could be flattered that William Kristol is trying to use my endorsement to derail Senator Chuck Hagel’s candidacy to be the next secretary of defense. But in fact I’m disgusted, because Kristol’s predictable hatchet job depends on the false charge that my co-author John Mearsheimer and I are “Israel-haters.” It is, to be blunt, a shameful lie. It is also a revealing glimpse into how Kristol thinks and operates.

Here’s Kristol’s problem: Hagel is a decorated Vietnam veteran who was wounded twice in the service of his country. Instead of helping cause wars from the sidelines like Bill does, Hagel fought with bravery on the battlefield. He’s also a Republican with ample experience in national security and intelligence matters whose judgment President Obama respects. Hagel has been quite supportive of Israel throughout his public career, and his views on many Middle East topics are similar to those of prominent Israeli officials. But he hasn’t been as slavishly devoted to Israel as fanatics like Kristol would like, and he’s skeptical about the merits of a war with Iran (as are many Israeli experts). Hagel also said openly he “was a United States senator, not an Israeli senator,” and that his primary responsibility is to serve the American national interest, not Israel’s. This statement would disqualify him were he in the running to be Israel’s minister of defense, but it is precisely what you’d expect a loyal American to say.

Well, if you’re Bill Kristol and you can’t find any legitimate grounds to oppose Hagel, what do you do? You smear him. You try to convince people that Hagel’s perfectly sensible views are really a manifestation of some sort of hidden anti-Semitism. Since Hagel has never done or said anything to support such a vicious charge, you have to use the well-known McCarthyite tactic of guilt-by-association. How? Point out that yours truly blogged that his nomination would be a “smart move.”

Read more

See Also: Robert Merry in the National Interest: The Assault on Chuck Hagel.

Iranian Assistant Professor of Psychiatric Nursing Terrorizes the Government of Canada

It is reported that the Canadian Journal of Psychiatric Nursing Research has refused to publish an article by an Iranian assistant professor despite earlier acceptance of the article.

The journal has informed the author that, on the command of the Government of Canada, it cannot publish the article as previously agreed, for political and non-academic reasons.

Canada has closed its embassy in Tehran and ordered Iranian diplomats out of Canada for what it called the "civil rights abuse of the citizens of Iran" and "the threat [posed by Iran] to the security of Canadian personnel and Israel."

Canada's Minister of External Affairs, John Baird, has called Iran "the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world," and a country that "routinely threatens the existence of Israel," a somewhat biased point of view, one might think in view of Israel's repeated hysterical demands that the US nuke Iran now, and a view that has no logical connection with psychiatric nursing, obviously.

Which raises some questions. Is John Baird a total moron? Is the Harper government bribed by a certain shitty little warmongering country? Is Canada nothing more than a weak and helpless subordinate in US/Israel's drive for complete imperial dominance of the Middle East? And does refusing to publish a minor academic work in a minor academic journal really going to undermine the Government of Iran?

But whichever is the case, and perhaps there has to be a positive answer to all four questions, Canadian journal publishers might as well wind up their business if they are too gutless to stare down such petty-minded governmental stupidity. The Can. J. of Psych. Nursing Res. is published by the Registered Psychiatric Nurses Foundation, a pretty flaky looking outfit. Let's hope other Canadian journal publishers show greater commitment to the ethic of international cooperation and solidarity among scientists.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Those Dirty Racist French Opposed To Their Own Genocide

By Dimitrios Papageorgiou

Alternative Right: Europa Nostra! "We are all inheritors of Rome, Athens, Sparta and Christianity."

Génération Identitaire, recently gained worldwide attention, with their "Declaration of War" video, and their occupation of a mosque at the historically important location of Poitiers. They are an organization filled with youthful energy in a state that has accepted multiculturalism and embraced its doctrines. I conducted an interview with Arnaud Delrieux, one of the leadership cadre of Generation Identitaire, an interview that serves as an introduction to the very interesting views of young French people fighting for their right to live as a homogenous community in their country.

Identitarianism, nationalism, communitarianism, socialism? How would you describe identitarianism to a non-French person?

There is no “identitarianism.” Génération Identitaire is not a club for ideologues fantasizing about the “Grand Soir” (the general upheaval to come) or “glorious tomorrows.” We are young and pragmatic, both in our methods and worldview. This does not, however, keep us from having an ideal: we want to live in peace on our land according to our identity, like every people has the right to.

The 20th century was the century of ideologies – Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Nationalism, all of which failed. The 21st century is the century of identities. Indeed it is the very substance of the European people that is threatened by the steamroller of globalization, invasion-migration and multiculturalism. Sovereignists have missed the boat by a longshot: it’s no longer the power or sovereignty of nation-states that’s in jeopardy; it’s the very identity of our friends, our families and our kinfolk. On the ethnic scale, because of the effects of migrant submersion on demographics, and on the cultural scale, because of the uniformization of different ways of life. In addition to this, European nation-states, prime inheritors of the Jacobinist ideas of the French Revolution, were the first agents in the destruction of popular traditions, deep rooted cultures and spiritual mass movements which fortified and irrigated European societies. No ideological recipe forcibly applied by these nearly extinct fossils can protect us anymore. The people have to take their fate into their own hands: time to wake up!

A nation can rise from the ashes of war or economic crisis, but it cannot survive the disappearance of its own people. There are 10 to 12 million Muslims in France and around 15 million immigrants, African and Muslim for the most part. It is the foremost political problem. Our fight is one for survival. We do not want to disappear, we want to live, and we want to be actors of our history and not simple bystanders. We do not want to become the Native Americans of Europe.

All of our political vision must be rethought in the light of this reality. We must take this reality and draw adapted political solutions from it, not twist it to meet some preconceived dogmas. We do not have any fixed answer to all the problems faced by the French and European people. However, we have adopted basic principles that serve as a compass in the ongoing storm. First we consider that ethno cultural homogeneity of a people is the foremost condition for social peace. Multiculturalism spawns “multiracism”: just look at Lebanon, Brazil, South Africa, etc. Then, we believe that Europe is our chance: if the European people were united, we’d be invincible. I’m not the one saying this, the strategic analysts working for the White House are: they call our continent the “heartland,” that is to say the heart of the World. Finally, we are rabid defendants of direct democracy, federalism and localism. Of course I’m not talking about the so-called European “federalism,” which is in reality nothing more than technocratic centralism in disguise. By “federalism” I mean “unity in diversity.” Localism is the relocalization of economic activities, political power and people. Like the Americans say: “small is beautiful!” But small is also stronger: countries like Switzerland, who frequently engage in direct democracy, show us the way.

Read More