... the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company [Uranium One] with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West.
Which deal, the Times reports
... gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.
And "At the heart of the tale" reports the Times:
... are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family.
And, reports the Times:
Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
And the Times continues:
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
But the US establishment, i.e., the plutocracy who only like politicians they can buy, still prefer Hillary to one of their own, Donald Trump, with a reform agenda.
A recent example of the BBC's large-type Web journalism entitled Donald Trump and the politics of paranoia, written by a member of the Chosen, one Michael Goldfarb, asserts:
One startling feature of the latest race to become the next president of the US - which begins in earnest with next week's Iowa caucuses - is the runaway success in the opinion polls of the outspoken billionaire, Donald Trump.
What's "startling" to the BBC about Donald Trump's popularity is that he's not just another presidential puppet of the New World Order project for the destruction of the democratic nation state, including not only Britain, but also the United States of America.
Yeah, that is startling. The project for a global empire, ruled by a plutocratic elite, and served by a mongrel population brainwashed in the religion of Political Correctness that appeared to be going so well, seems now to be going edge ways. The Brits, and the Frogs have accepted their own demise as distinct racial and cultural entities. The Germans are being brought to the bidding of Angela, Treason, Merkel as they are compelled to commit national suicide by accepting an influx of millions of strong, young Asian and Middle-Eastern males described euphemistically as "refugees," but for some reason Americans are kicking up a real fuss about open borders, Third Worldization and the eclipse of the Euro-American majority. Why?
The reason, as Mr. Goldfarb of the BBC explains, is that egomaniac Trump, telling people that a real country has borders. Well damn that: America is not a real country and it's time for those "bitter" white people who "cling to guns or religion," as America's Euro-American majority have been described by their African-American President with an Islamic-Indonesian upbringing, to give up on the stupid idea of refusing to go "gentle into the good night."
Yep, it's time for Americans to bite the bullet, accept destruction of the Euro-American majority that built the greatest nation on Earth, and open the floodgates to the Third-World. That is what the globalized corporate giants demand: cheap immigrant labor, unrestricted import of goods from the sweatshops of the World, and the Hell with this silly idea of democracy, individual liberty, and free speech — in future the BBC and the other temples of political correctness will tell Americans what to think.
And if Americans don't like that then, as the BBC clearly believes, they are stinking nativists: or in Guardian-speak, they are far-right wing, extremist, Nazified, racist xenophobes with the contemptible desire to be succeeded in their own country by their own posterity, not by people from elsewhere. What's more the BBC screams in large type, they are PARANOID.
Which goes to show what good sense most Americans have, for as Andy Groves, former head of Intel Corporation remarked: "Only the paranoid survive." Let's hope the Germans and the Brits and the French and all the other European nations oppressed by a genocidal conspiracy to erase their identities from the face of the Earth get real paranoid real soon. The Brits could make a start by giving the bums rush to David Cameron, that war-criminal shill for the New World Order, to be replaced by someone who will shutter the BBC, an propaganda agency with an undue tolerance for rapists and paederasts.
This article, by Mike Whitney in the Unz Review, explains how US (and by extension European) monetary and fiscal policies* saved criminally reckless Western financial institutions from bankruptcy. The method was to provide the bankers with virtually limitless amounts of cash at negative real interest rates, which enabled them to blow a huge stock market bubble that financed their return to solvency. At the same time, Whitney argues, governments were careful to limit the magnitude of monetary stimulus so as to insure no substantial growth in aggregate demand or, therefore, in employment or wages.
On the latter point, Whitney offers the correct Keynesian analysis. But Keynes addressed the problems of a different age, when the US economy was largely self-contained, with external trade amounting to less than 5% of GDP.
Globalization with input factor mobility, i.e., free movement of labor from the Third World to the First World, free movement of capital and technology from the First World to the Third World, and free movement of the products of sweatshop labor from the Third World to the First World means lower wages and higher unemployment in the First World, which in turn shrink aggregate demand resulting in even lower wages and higher unemployment.
The Keynesian solution to shrinking demand and rising unemployment was deficit spending to raise aggregate demand and hence employment and wages. But today, in an era of globalization to the max, the effect of deficit spending is primarily to suck in more cheap Chinese shoes and shirts, computers and car parts, all of which Americans and others in the First World used to make for one another. Add in the effects of computerization, automation, robotization and insane student debt and the outlook for employment and wages for ordinary folks becomes, as is now apparent, bleak indeed.
There are two measures to improve the welfare of the proletariat. One is massive infrastructure spending, since this generates work that cannot be off-shored and is still largely beyond the scope of automation and robotization. The other is a return to free trade without input factor mobility, which as David Ricardo explained in his 1817 classic, “On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation” yields the benefit of “Comparative Cost”, or “Comparative Advantage” as it is now known, i.e., the benefit of increased total output and lower costs than if each nation tried to produce in isolation.
These, as I explained here, in a post that was rejected for publication in the Unz Review, are the economic policies espoused by Donald Trump, i.e., restoration of the border to limit influx of labor from the Third World, and the imposition of tariffs to restrict influx of products of foreign sweatshops financed with First World capital and technology, thereby achieving the benefits of comparative advantage through international trade, and last but not least a massive infrastructure renewal project.
———
* Said policies are administered by governments largely owned by said criminally reckless financial institutions, for example, the great American banking firm of J.P. Morgan, which took former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair on as an "adviser" for a fee of two million pounds per year. This is in accordance with the Western tradition of political bribery, which as explained by Thomas Macaulay (The History of England (1848)), involves payments made after the bribed individual leaves office, an arrangement that is entirely legal, and one that no politician would ever think of changing.
Question: What do you call a black woman who has had at least three abortions?
Answer: A crimefighter.
So what is the moral of the joke? That is revealed by another joke:
Question: What do you call a white woman who has had at least three abortions? Answer: An anti-racism activist.
If you found the second joke funny, you are either an immigrant to Europe with a settler mentality or a European driven by media lies, advertising manipulation, Hollywood brainwashing, and twelve years of mandatory state propaganda in the guise of education to believe that opposing the racial and cultural destruction of your own people is racism.
If, however, you found the first joke funny, then you are among the minority of the European people with at least some small chance of success in the Darwinian struggle to perpetuate your own genes* among future generations of those residing in the land of your birth.
In Europe, around 30 per cent of pregnancies end in abortion.
In Western Europe there were 12 abortions per 1,000 women in 2008, while in Eastern Europe at the same time there were 43.
However, Northern Europe (which includes the UK and Scandinavia) fared worse than the western region with 17 abortions per 1,000 women, which is on par with North America.
Thus it is abortion that makes the difference between a self-perpetuating society and a society engaged in self-genocide. The fertility of European women is currently 1.55 and falling, whereas the replacement rate is 2.1. If the 30% of pregnancies terminated by non-therapeutic abortion went to term, the European fertility rate would be 2.2, which would achieve near perfect population stability. As it is, the European population is growing rapidly due to mass immigration from Asia, the Middle East and Africa, most of the immigrants being either of reproductive age or children and hence soon to be of reproductive age. These immigrants will thus contribute disproportionately to the next generation in Europe even if their fertility was no greater than that of Europeans. However, all immigrant groups have a higher fertility that indigenous European women, and in some cases their fertility is several times higher. For example, in Britain, women from Libya, a country deliberately turned into a failed state and thus a source of immigrants to Europe by NATO bombing, have a fertility rate more than three times the European rate. These numbers make it clear, Europe is engaged in self-genocide driven by puppets of the globalist money power, such as Blair and Cameron, Sarkozy and Hollande, and above all, Frau Merkel. The objective is a mongrel Europe of easily manipulated deracinated serfs among whom will be found the subservient technicians to run the global machinery of commerce, and solve the servant problem, as George H. W. Bush said many years ago with reference to illegal Mexican immigrants to the US.
———
* The Darwinian struggle, as is now understood, is about the propagation of genes, and thus cannot be directly measured by they number of an individual's own descendants. That means the struggle for the survival of the European people's is a matter for everyone, including the childless.
As President, Jimmy Carter always seemed a terrific bore. But now, at a great age, he speaks with a force and authority that far exceeds that of any of the contestants currently seeking the Presidency. And, remember, Carter served only one term, so he is eligible to run now. Once Hillary's been taken into custody, he should be drafted on the understanding that he will speak not only for the Palestinians, but for the American people living under occupation and exploitation by stooges of the New World Order.
They intend to create one integrated planet under a top-down, locked-down political and economic management system, backed up by coercion. In order to achieve this goal ... the notion of separate nations must be eradicated. The primary goal of the provoked chaos in the Middle East and parts of Africa is: redraw that whole territory and push waves of immigrants into the West, primarily Europe. [thereby drowning] traditional cultures and ethnic identities [to create] a nationless Europe, broken from its past.
Donald Trump's campaign for the US Presidency threatens the more than one-hundred-year career of the Treason Party's drive for "global governance," which is to say, a Money Power regime, fronted by pseudodemocratic puppets such as David Cameron, Angela Merkel and Barack Obama, and backed by the corporate-owned media, purveyors of pornography, and Hollywood fake history and the global corporations that export Western jobs along with the capital and technology accumulated by the sweat of generations, to the lowest wage, lowest tax, Third-World jurisdictions with minimal workplace health and safety standards, and environmental protection.
Mr. Trump wants to restore America's borders and make America a real country again, with immigration only in accordance with the interest of the United States and subject to law. Moreover, he advocates a national economic policy designed to promote the welfare of Americans, not the profits of global corporations. In this Mr. Trump is almost certainly sincere, since his own business consists very largely in selling real estate and resort services to Americans and thus depends for its success on the prosperity of Americans, not the shareholders of global corporations.
Hence the outpouring of hate speech directed at Mr. Trump by members of the British Parliament during yesterday's debate to consider a petition demanding that Mr. Trump be banned from entry to the UK.
This question, for example, from Dr. Rupa Huq (New Labor, at right) to Paul Flynn (New Labor):
Does my hon. Friend not agree that the fact that it is Martin Luther King day today makes it even more bizarre that this hate figure is preaching these ridiculous things that we should reject?
Note, no evidence of hate speech by Mr. Trump is offered by the Hon. member, perhaps because she does not know of any. Or perhaps when she describes Mr. Trump as a hate figure she means that he is a figure who all politically correct members of the Treason Party must hate.
Paul Flynn (New Labor)
But Paul Flynn (left) was prompt to supply evidence of Mr. Trump's hate speech, albeit based on lies and a preposterous assertion:
He [Trump] described the people of Mexico as rapists and drug abusers.
I don’t see how there is any room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the statement I made on June 16th during my Presidential announcement speech. What can be simpler or more accurately stated?The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc. Many fabulous people come in from Mexico and our country is better for it. But these people are here legally, and are severely hurt by those coming in illegally. I am proud to say that I know many hard working Mexicans—many of them are working for and with me…and, just like our country, my organization is better for it.
Flynn also stated:
More recently he [Trump] suggested that Muslims not be allowed into his country, which is an extraordinary and extremely dangerous thing to say.
Which is untrue. Trump did not "suggest," he asserted that there should be a total "shut down" in Muslim immigration to the United States pending determination of the cause of the intense anti-Western hatred among some Muslims, i.e., radical Islamic extremists, such as those who perpetrated the recent Paris massacre of 130 innocent civilians, the Muslim couple, one newly immigrating, who last month murdered 14 American workmates in San Bernadino, California, and the hundreds or thousands of Muslim "refugees" responsible for a wave of sex crimes against European women in Germany and Sweden and elsewhere.
But is would be fascinating to know why Mr. Flynn says advocating a cessation, albeit temporary, to the flow of Muslim immigrants to the US would be "extremely dangerous." Is he suggesting it would lead to more radical Islamic terrorism against the West? Or is his concern that it would end the current wave of racial and cultural destruction being wrought by mass Islamic immigration to the West? It is regrettable, though not surprising, that the Hon. Mr. Flynn did say.
Tulip Siddiqi, MP for Kilburn and Hamstead (majority foreign born): A pretty face, and a contempt for Britain's tradition of free speech.
And here is Tulip Siddiqi (right):
I draw the line on freedom of speech when it leads to violent ideology being imported, which is what I feel is happening.
As clear an indication as one needs of the settler mentality of Britain's immigrant community, which is characterized by a contempt for Britain's tradition of free speech, and which justifies that contempt by what they "feel" is happening. No facts required folks. If we, the settler immigrants, "feel" hurt, then everyone whoever we say had better shut the fuck up and stay the fuck outta the country.
And so the debate went on, with much hate speech directed at Mr. Trump, particularly by New Labor party members and members of the immigrant and Muslim community, although there were some occasionally sensible comments also. What the debate confirms is that the Treason Party, the party that privileges immigrants and would-be immigrants over the interests of the native population of the European nations, is dominant in Britain, as in Germany, France and currently the United States, and that these people will resort to unending lies in there determination to destroy the European nation states, including the predominantly European United States of America.
Related:
Stefan Molyneux a Review of the Reaction to Donald Trump's Presidential Candidacy:
Excellent research.
(During a Presidential election year in America, this piece, first published: 4/14/2011, seems worth re-airing)
The United States, according to Chris Hedges, is destroying its system of education. A nation that destroys its systems of education, he writes, degrades its public information, guts its public libraries and turns its airwaves into vehicles for cheap, mindless amusement becomes deaf, dumb and blind. ..."
Hedges is surely right. But it seems equally certain that the process of destroying the American system of education is being undertaken without malice, intent or even awareness. System failure, whether in education, public transportation, healthcare or any other complex social arrangement is the inevitable result of evolutionary societal change.
In the beginning, education is rare and hard to come by. Those who get it are mostly people of exceptional talent and capacity for hard work. They are selected for their peculiar aptitude and schooled by a tiny group of committed scholars. They achieve brilliantly in a world of near universal ignorance.
Then every ambitious person wants their child to get an education. Taxes are raised, schools are built, thousands of teachers are hired. Some of the teachers are mediocre at best. Many of the students are not bright, some have no interest in learning. So this generation is mainly fit only for jobs in the public sector. Public demand (demand for public sector jobs, that is, not public sector services) results in a huge expansion of the bureaucracy, including the educational establishment.
Then comes the era of mass education. Everyone must have a university degree and a white collar job. Most school teachers are now incompetent. Most of them never teach: they become part of the management team. Someone invents the "bubble test", which can be marked by machine without the intervention of human intelligence at any point. Many university professors are ignorant and lazy. The students are mostly at uni only to socialize. The brightest are disgusted by their experience of "education" and shun an academic career.
Eventually everyone has a university degree and no one knows anything at all. Even the President of the United States.
In time, the economy collapses under the weight of an ever expanding burden of useless bureaucratic activity. Educational institutions decay for lack of funding. Furniture is removed for fuel wood, books for toilet paper. Buildings fall into decay and gradually disappear. Learning is despised and eventually forgotten. A new dark age ensues.
After a thousand years or so, some clever monk or hermit stumbles on a copy of Newton's "Principia," or a book of Napierian logs. They figure it out and tell other people. Some of the brightest students of this ancient wisdom form colleges where they train a few especially clever pupils. One of the newly educated elite unifies quantum theory and relativity. Practical men apply the new knowledge, making possible, among many wonders, faster than light travel, the generation of electricity from thunderstorms, and the renutrification of shit.
Then every ambitious person wants their child to get an education. Taxes are raised, schools are built, thousands of teachers are hired. Some of the teachers are mediocre ...
I suspect that the reason for the unfolding disaster is more wishy-washy leftish PC and innumerate thinking even amongst Conservatives than anything as rational and deliberate as you suppose.
Much as one would like to think that this is correct, since it would mean the possibility of a change of heart among the elite that would permit the survival of the English nation, the view is entirely mistaken. The British, as with the other European nations, are as surely and deliberately targeted for destruction as were the Jews under the rule of the Nazis.
The British elite disdain the common people not only because, as discussed in my earlier post, they see them as only remotely related to themselves, but also because they consider them to be more or less genetically botched. The attitude is of longstanding.* Dr. Marie Stopes, Britain's pioneer advocate of birth control, held that only those able to "add individuals of value to the race" should be permitted to reproduce. This view was shared by leaders of both the left and the right. In Parliament, during the 1930's, Conservatives attempted to pass compulsory sterilization legislation to eliminate future generations of the genetically inferior. The attempt failed because Labour Party opponents saw the measure as an effort to rob them of their constituents. Nevertheless, intellectuals on the left shared the Conservative view of the degeneracy of a large part of the population. the Fabian socialist, H.G. Wells, for example, who was a welcome guest at both the Kremlin in the time of Joe Stalin, and the White House in the time of F.D. Rooseveldt, advocated a program of eugenics that would, without mercy, exterminate the unfit. Another Fabian socialist, the hugely popular Anglo-Irish playright, George Bernard Shaw, spoke fervently in favor of "lethal chambers" for the disposal of society's unproductive members.
These were not isolated extremists but representatives of mainstream British thought in the early decades of the Twentieth Century. Hitler gave the use of "lethal chambers" a bad name, but the underlying contempt of the elite for the lower classes remained. Moreover, beside widespread belief in the necessity of eugenics, there was an entirely different idea within political circles that drove, and still drives, genocidal thinking; namely, the ambition for global empire, the chief obstacle to which is the ethnic nation state. This globalist project, now spearheaded by the United States, had is origins in the work of the Rothschild-Rhodes-Milner group in Britain, whose activities were directly responsible for the creation of the Council on Foreign Relations, America's leading foreign policy think tank. About this movement, much can be learned from the works of Bill Clinton's Georgetown University history professor, Carrol Quigley, including not only "Tragedy and Hope," but the "Anglo-American Establishment" an unofficial history of the Rothschild-Rhodes-Milner group and its pro-globalist activities during the first half of the 20th Century.
Bill Clinton, incidentally, was a beneficiary of the empire-promoting Rhodes Trust that funds Scholarships to the University of Oxford. But in an effort to bite the dead hand that fed him, Clinton recently repaid the Scholarship that he received from the Trust, a gesture apparently in support of those students at Oxford intent on the destruction of a statue of Cecil Rhodes. Oddly, many of the students so demanding, are it seems, Asian or African, the very people to be advantaged by the Rothschild-Rhodes-Milner plan for global empire and the genocide of the British people by mass immigration.
The Saker has an article over at the Unz Review in which he argues that the ongoing racial and cultural genocide of the European peoples by mass immigration and multiculturalism is unstoppable, first, because of the decadence of the European people, and second, because of the malign manipulation of the Anglo-Zionist money power.
This is a plausible but entirely mistaken analysis of what is happening to the European people both in Europe and in North America.
The elite are destroying their own people because the have no respect for them, or sense of kinship with them, and because it pays. This goes back to the beginning of the industrial revolution, when an urban proletariat, with no family connection to the landowning and capitalist class that dominated Parliament,* rapidly expanded and became a perpetual threat to the security of the state. Hence Disraeli’s recognition of the existence of “Two Nations” between whom, as a character in his novel "Sybil" (1945) remarked:
there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets. The rich and the poor.
The Great Chartist Meeting on Kennington Common, London in 1848 by William Edward Kilburn. Chartism was a movement for workers rights and political representation.
In Disraeli’s time, free trade with input factor mobility, i.e., the import of cheap labor, or the export of capital and technology to cheap-labor areas whence products could be imported to the home market, was rarely if ever an option for the owners of capital, which meant that the industrial proletariat, though considered by the elite to be both dangerous and disgusting, had to be tolerated.
But input factor mobility is not only possible today, but the underlying reason for globalization. Thus there is a massive flow of cheap Third-World labor to the high-wage West, a flow of products of sweat-shop labor in the same direction, and a flow of capital and technology in the opposite direction, all of which negatively impacts wages in the West. Multiculturalism is the inevitable, and from the elite point of view, desirable consequence of the Third-World migrant flow. Desirable, that is, because a culturally divided proletariat is much less of a threat to the elite than a united nation.
But the Saker is right about two things. First that mass migration means the complete cultural and racial extinction of the European peoples. Second, that mass immigration will continue inexorable for the foreseeable future, the reason being that, for every worker in, say, England (pop. 53 million), there will certainly be many better qualified people (higher IQ, more energy, more ambition, little if any commitment to workers’ rights, etc.) in the Third World (pop. 5 billion plus), who are paid a fraction of what an English worker is paid. And among these potential migrants, rickshaw drivers earning a dollar or two a day, for example, there will always be some ready, if they are permitted, to migrate to London to earn twenty or thirty dollars an hour driving a bus? And naturally, the elite welcomes such people. If the newcomers hassle the local girls, squeeze the natives out of decent housing, build mosques, etc., so what? What can the natives do about it? Nothing, as it now is clear. And if it means ever rising taxes to pay for new maternity hospitals, roads, schools, etc., that's very satisfactory: it keeps the construction industry prosperous and it allows a growing bureaucracy to soak up the educated middle class who might otherwise begin to think seriously about what is going on. And if the net result is that the native working class becomes an underclass — i.e., white trash despised by all and sundry, again, so what? There’s not a damn thing they can do about it: the supposedly left-wing workers parties being funded by the same plutocratic donors as the so-called conservative parties.
As for the Saker's assertion that the genocide of the Western nations is an Anglo-Zionist Money Power plot, that is just thoughtless conspiracy theory. One might as absurdly impute the Rothschild's or the Illuminati. Many members of the elite are Jews, for sure, but many are Anglos, and many more are Asians, Middle-Easterners or Africans. The issue is that genocide by immigration and multiculturalism pays. The ethnicity of the genocidal elite is irrelevant.
———
* An understanding of the change in relationship between the landowning classes in Britain, i.e., the elite, and the common folk that occurred with the industrial revolution was provided by Adam Smith in his treatise on economics. There he explained that, before the industrial revolution, there was close kinship between the upper and lower classes due to differential mortality between the rich and the poor. Overall, the population remained relatively constant, but because of high child mortality, the poor failed to fully reproduce themselves and the resulting population deficit was made up by the excess fertility of the rich. Thus, the rich were permanently downward mobile with two results. First, most of the rich had poor relatives for whom they had a personal sympathy, second the poor, many not so long descended from the rich, tended to adhere to the conservative values of their better off relatives. These factors made for a united nation. This unity fractured with the rise of the urban working class, which though living in seeming squalor and bestial ignorance, achieved well above replacement reproductive rates and which, as it swelled in number, adopted socialistic ideas. Thus, in purely hereditary terms, the industrial proletariat became much more distant from the elites than had been the rural poor of the pre-industrial era. In addition the political ambitions of the proletariat came to threaten the security of the elite, as they do to this day.
This is how independence-minded Poles view the EU. The management of an "independent" Scottish triviality would, presumably, not be handled by Der Fuhrer personally as in the case of Poland, but delegated to some minor, Eichmann-like functionary, to dispose of the nationalist rabble by the most modern means — fertility suppression through sex "education," ad-lib Murdoch-media and Internet porn, plus mass immigration.
Germans opposed to cultural genocide by mass immigration
Germany has less than five million female citizens between the ages of 20 and 30, so by opening the door to one million young, middle-eastern, Islamic males, with millions more to come, the Merkel government has cuckolded the male youth of Germany.
German demographics
Presumably the intention is to follow this with ever more energetic promotion of homosexuality as an outlet for the cucked, while welcoming Islam, a faith that sanctions the brutal execution of homosexuals, as a religion of peace and love eminently compatible with European civilization.
This is a policy of suicidal madness, driven by what appears to be the genocidal self-hatred of Frau Merkel, a leader whose family name might be Treason. At the height of the Cold War, her father, Horst Kasner, emigrated from West Germany to Communist East Germany, where he established a "sympathetic" relationship with the Communist regime, which rewarded him with various privileges including two cars. Meantime, the young Angela joined the Communist Youth. Later, at the East German Academy of Sciences, the future Chancellor of Germany became a member of the Free German Youth district board and secretary for "Agitprop" (Agitation and Propaganda). But then East Germany was re-united with West Germany wherupon Angela Merkel morphed easily into a democrat: the rest, as they say, being history.
And history brings us to yesterday's riots in Leipzig, the home of Angela Merkel's East German Communist youth, where hundreds rampaged through the town smashing ethnic restaurants. This, the Daily Mail, and no doubt the rest of the Presstitute media, attributes to "far right-wing elements." There's a problem with this part of the MSM narrative, however, as the New York Times revealed when quoting the "Influential Hamburg broadcaster NDR," which is that such crimes (the sexual assaults committed on News Year's Eve by Muslim "refugees" in Cologne and other German cities):
threaten to push xenophobia toward the "middle of the population" — which could lead to a backlash against refugees.
Meaning that the furious reaction of Germans to state engineered invasion is not a manifestation of far right wingism, but is driven by the the natural and inevitable anger of the vast majority of German people and thus defeats the heretofor successful boiling frogs method of genocide by importing a new people. When virtually the entire population is aroused to anger, calling them far-right-wing extremists exposes the media hacks not only as liars but as stupid fools.
What's more, the New York Times, normally a leader of the cucks, seems to be losing its nerve about the promotion of European genocide by mass migration, for on January 9 an Op-Ed columnist wrote:
In the German case the important number here isn’t the country’s total population, currently 82 million. It’s the twentysomething population, which was less than 10 million in 2013 (and of course already included many immigrants). In that cohort and every cohort afterward, the current influx could have a transformative effect.
"Could have a transformative effect." LOL
How transformative depends on whether these men eventually find a way to bring brides and families to Europe as well.
Which they won't. Much better, obviously, to marry a German girl or two, or three or four, who speaks the local lingo and can protect the cuckolds from the backlash of the native population.
But it could also double or treble this migration’s demographic impact, pushing Germany toward a possible future in which half the under-40 population would consist of Middle Eastern and North African immigrants and their children.
Which is clearly the objective. Which is to say, the objective is European genocide.
But even the writer realizes that the worst outcome is inevitable, for he continues:
If you believe that an aging, secularized, heretofore-mostly-homogeneous society is likely to peacefully absorb a migration of that size and scale of cultural difference, then you have a bright future as a spokesman for the current German government.
You’re also a fool.
And continues:
Such a transformation promises increasing polarization among natives and new arrivals alike. It threatens not just a spike in terrorism but a rebirth of 1930s-style political violence.
What to do? Our panicky NY Timeser urges:
closing Germany’s borders to new arrivals for the time being. It means beginning an orderly deportation process for able-bodied young men.
And he writes:
It means giving up the fond illusion that Germany’s past sins can be absolved with a reckless humanitarianism in the present.
The last sentence giving the game away: the object of the game is the destruction of the people and culture of the Germans and the rest of the Europeans all in the name of avenging the Holocaust.
"Revolutions," wrote Stephen Kotkin (author of Stalin, a biography) "are like earthquakes: they are always being predicted, and sometimes they come."
So, OK, we're not predicting a collapse of the US Empire, and if it comes, we will be as astonished as was V.I. Lenin, when, a month after complaining in a speech to Swiss socialists that "We the old people, won't survive to see the decisive battles of the forthcoming revolution," exclaimed at news of the February 1917 abdication of Russia's Tsar Nicholas II: "It's staggering. It's so incredibly unexpected."*
All we're saying is: revolution? Yes, "sometimes they come."
But, the complacent will say, how can the West have a revolution? It's democratic, for goodness sake!
Yeah, right: democracy shamocracy.
Democracy requires a free press and a literate and informed populace. The West has a press, including in that term the news, information and entertainment media, virtually all of which are controlled by a handful of corporations, which naturally put a corporate spin on whatever they publish. And within those corporate-owned media properties exists a cadre of intelligence service agents to keep the message on track, should the owners fail to understand their own interest. "The CIA," as former CIA Director Colby remarked, "owns everyone of any significance in the major media." And the objective is, as former CIA Director William Casey made clear, to disinform: "We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
And that's not all. Throughout the West there are now 12 years of state mandated indoctrination, known as "education," to be followed in most cased by many years of wasted time in a so-called institution of higher learning where the finer points of political correctness are instilled.
But if the system of mind control is so firmly in place, how could there be a revolt? Well, here's the thing: all this bullshit and indoctrination is not for the Hell of it. The purpose was, and remains, to reduce the populace to helpless slavery, in which condition it can be used, abused, or if deemed best, eliminated, at will. But if the abuse is severe, even if the plebs are unable to figure out why what is happening to them is happening, there will always be highly intelligent and highly motivated individuals, such as V.I. Lenin, who will take advantage of the circumstances to enlighten the people and rouse them to insurrection.
Add a few leaks on Bill and Hillary's corruption, mendacity and basic personal vileness, of Obama perhaps taking a pay-off for services rendered while still in office, of the murderous duplicity and destructiveness of Imperial policy in the Middle-East and Ukraine, and it's insane economic and proxy military aggression against Russia — the only power on earth capable of reducing the West to smoldering radioactive rubble, and you have a seriously aroused populace, including members of the armed forces who might just land a dozen black helicopters on the White House lawn, and announce game over.
Over at Carpe Diem, the blog of business school Prof., Mark J. Perry, globalization is GOOD.
Not surprisingly. A business school professor without faith in globalization would be like a priest without faith in God: useless to the powers that be, financial or ecclesiastical as the case may be.
American business has a legal obligation to maximize shareholder value, which for many means shuttering American factories, contracting production to Asian sweatshops, and selling the product back home with computerized efficiency via suburban big-box stores employing minimal staff at minimal wages.
The profitability of replacing American workers with cheap foreign labor in manufacturing, and cheap foreign brains in software, design, and R and D was explained by David Ricardo thus, "Wages plus profits, together, are always the same."
Which is to say, cheap offshore production and service = big profits.
Is not the concept of the middle class “rising into the upper class”
some kind of logical or categorical mistake?
What is the middle class if not the people in the middle? You know, those who come between the upper class and the lower class. I mean, we're talking money here, aren't we? That's how business school profs. define social class, isn't it? So, then, there'll always be some folks in the middle of the income distribution, won't there? Which means that if some people in the middle rise in relative income, some other people are going to take their place in the middle. Which is to say that the middle class ain't goin' no place, neither up nor down.
But what has actually happened to the incomes of those in the middle?
Well according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
during the 30 years to 2009, the mean income of the middle 60% of the
US population rose 26%, which was less than that of the bottom 20% at
35%, and of the 80th to the 99th percentile at 50%, and of the top one
percent at 133%. So the evidence is conclusive: the middle-class in American have been financially downward mobile for thirty years or more. That is true both in relative terms and in real, inflation-adjusted money.
And between January 2009 and June 20012, so the Wall Street Journal reports, median US household income adjusted for inflation fell by $4,019 — hardly evidence of the flight of the middle class into the socio-economic empyrean.
Yeah well, as the greatest purveyor of the products of sweatshop labor, painting Wal-Mart as the savior of America's working poor seems a stretch.
But if the argument is that Wal-Mart has enriched tens or hundreds of millions of Asian sweatshop employees, then, yeah, Mark Perry may have a case.
But nowhere, naturally, do globalists like to acknowledge globalization's dirty secret, which is that its profitability depends largely on global wage arbitrage, which is to say the export of the capital and technology accumulated in the West through the sweat of generations to the low-wage economies of the world, this being greatly to the detriment of the majority of working people in the West.
Let's see, a one-million -dollar prize means about one thirtieth of a cent per share. Not much, it's true. Still, when you're as tightfisted as the owners of Wal-Mart, every one thirtieth of a cent surely counts.
Ricardo was explicit ...that international free trade
is beneficial to all parties only if capital is immobile, since
exporting capital, one of the factors of production, will inevitably lower the productivity and hence reduce the prosperity of the population.
Consistent with these ideas, enlightened national governments endeavored
to restrict capital outflow, promote workforce education and training,
and in the Western World, limit mass immigration from the developing
World since that diluted the capital stock of the nation on a per capita
basis, reduced the per capita availability of land and infrastructure,
and lowered average workforce skills and education -- aside from its
potential for destroying the nation through population replacement and
reproductive competition.
So why have the benefits of foreign trade that David Ricardo predicted [under the very different conditions of 200 years ago] not materialize?
First, because an important assumption underlying Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage no longer applies.
Experience... shews, that the fancied or real insecurity
of capital, when not under the immediate control of its owner,
together with the natural disinclination which every man has to quit
the country of his birth and connexions, and intrust himself with all
his habits fixed, to a strange government and new laws, checks the
emigration of capital. These feelings, which I should be sorry to see
weakened, induce most men of property to be satisfied with a low rate
of profits in their own country, rather than seek a more advantageous
employment for their wealth in foreign nations.
Today,
there is no need for the investor or capitalist to "quit the country of
his birth and connexions" in order to exploit cheap foreign labor.
The executive jet, the Internet, the enormous size and hence political
clout of the multi-national corporate and financial entities and the
international acceptance of a single set of rules governing world trade
make it a safe and simple matter to invest almost anywhere in the
world.
For this reason, if no other, foreign trade need not, as Ricardo believed, necessarily benefit all parties to the transaction.
When capital is exported from a high-wage nation to a low-wage nation,
the investment per capita and hence the productivity of labor in the
former declines and the investment per capita and hence productivity of
labor in the latter increases, with a consequent decrease in wages in
the former and an increase in wages in the latter.
Actually, I don't hate dogs. I was raised on a farm where dogs had a function, feared their master and slept in a kennel, not on, or in, the owner's bed.
What I hate is the way that dogs have come, for so many people, to provide the emotional gratification that used to be provided by children now absent from the lives of a majority of urban dwellers.
As a consequence, many people idiotically endow dogs with human rights, and assume that they have human intelligence. Meet an unleashed dog who's owner is saying something like "Now Charlie, we're on our best behavior today, aren't we," and you know your in trouble. Charlie is quite likely about to leap at you and wipe his slobbering jaw on your newly cleaned pants, and when you smack him across the nose with the back of your hand in an instinctive act of self-defense, Charlie's besotted owner will go ballistic.
The fact is, children, although infinitely more trouble, are also infinitely more intelligent than dogs and do actually come to understand the English language and can learn to be thoughtful and civilized creatures, something entirely beyond the capacity of a dog. Related: NY Times:Germany on the Brink
Hungary belongs to the Hungarians
Germany belongs to the Germans
France belongs to the French
Syrians that flood into Germany may become citizens but they will never be Germans. For a nation is based on a common blood, language and culture. Years ago this was known as self-determination and common sense. Now it is known as “WHITE SUPREMACY” by the left and establishment Republicans.
However, curiously, the one exception is Israel. Both the Democrats and the Republicans affirm the Israel has the right to remain a Jewish ethno-state. As such, no Democrat or Republican politician is demanding that Israel accept Syrian refugees. But these same politicians insist that white countries have a moral obligation to accept endless refugees.
It has been something of a pastime for the globalists to excitedly predict when a country will no longer have a white majority. Germany will no longer have a white majority by 2020! The USA will no longer be White by 2030! The destruction of the white majority is always seen as inevitable and a good thing. And to oppose it means you are a “White Supremacist” or a “Nazi.”
But some people no longer want to be dispossessed from their homelands. And, yet, they also don’t want to exploit or harm other races. They just want self-determination for their people as the Jews have self-determination in Israel. These are the ideologically refugees that have migrated to the Alt Right.
In 2012 this German video on what the news would be like in 2018 was satire…
But reality appears to be overtaking satire:
Laws banning incest between brothers and sisters in Germany could be scrapped after a government ethics committee said the they were an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination.
“Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,” the German Ethics Council said in a statement. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.”*
This is a one up even on the Muslims who at least stop at first cousins. ...
Read more: And in the US of Abolition (of white people)
Who is this President? How did we get him? Does he have anything in common with me? Is there anything even American about him? He is an African of Islamo-Indonesian culture, deeply hostile to America and white people and ruling with a dictatorial style more like that of Shaka Zulu than Thomas Jefferson.
Yet I confess to a grudging admiration. He, belonging to one of the virile peoples—blacks, Hispanics, and Moslems–has keenly diagnosed the weakness of American society:
There is no one who will say ”No.”
The Supreme Court? Nine corpses in a wax museum. Congress? If they all poisoned themselves nobody would notice. Though it would still be worth doing.
A President with brass balls—and god knows Hussein Obama has them—can do anything with an executive order. Anything. And we obey. “Yass, Bwana. What you say, Bwana.” Gun control? No problem. The Constitution? Say what? Wars anywhere and everywhere? Congress can read about them in the papers. It is astonishing.
More correctly, the European population–pale, white, feeble things wriggling like fly grubs in the corruption of a putrefying body politic—obey. Blacks and Moslems do not allow themselves to be pushed around. They are, whatever else they are, virile. They look to be history’s winners. Though not civilization’s.
I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed; And on the pedestal these words appear: `My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!' Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, The lone and level sands stretch far away". Percy Bysshe Shelley
Multiple instances of planar space
Space is the absence of anything. It may be one-dimensional, as for example, the space between words in a sentence; two-dimensional, as with a bullet hole in a signboard; or three-dimensional, like a hole in a Swiss cheese. But so far as we know, space cannot be more than three-dimensional, which puts the skids under string theory that demands five, six ... ten, eleven, or is it 25 dimensions of space. Time, moreover, although sometimes referred to as the fourth dimension, is not a spatial dimension but an index of the successive stages in the evolution of events in three-dimensional space.
End of infinite space ahead
Space, in other words, is everywhere that nothing else is. Thus, before the Big Bang, an observer with a flashlight would have seen that space was not only cold and dark but that, like the lone and level sands of Shelley's poem, it stretched far away, and indeed, if our observer's flashlight had been powerful enough, he would have seen that it stretched, boundless and bare, to the furthest corners of infinity (except that, with nothing to illuminate, the flashlight would have revealed nothing at all, not even the boundaries of infinity unless these were helpfully sign-posted).
_YB15.png){kind=link}