The future we know is coming but ignore

Millions of westerners today claim that we know 1. how hot it will be in a century, how much climates will change and how much of that change will be natural and how much will be caused by man. They claim that there is no debate about these questions (even though they are almost impossible to answer) and claim that all the exsperts agree (also untrue). However in another hugely important era of demographics unlike climatolgy we can actually predict what the future will look like. We know that Russia will be majority muslim in 2050 and that France and the Netherlands will also go majority muslims in this century also. Furthermore, we know that our own nation, America, will no longer have a white/European majority in around 2050.
All those who don't care abobut truth and merely want to be PC should stop reading now. The truth is that we have a grim future ahead of us to avoid that unlike the climate scare is completly real and obvious. Their are no nations on earth with muslim majjorities which are also free. So if France becoming muslim is not good. We will slowly lose our European allies as they become muslim.
And why shouldn't we avoid a latino majority coming about in America also since latinos commit more crime, do worse at school, are more racist than, etctera ectera compared to whites? (and a latino-black majority would impose socialism aswell.)

so instead of reducing immigration we kill our economny with useless carbon taxes. decline, oh sweet decline.

Muslims and I

I like muslims and I think that they like me more than the average Bill Ayers. A war between muslims & westeners is not inveitable.It didn't really exist until the 60's with the rise of hedonstic liberal culture, sexual anarchy, radical feminism that, reasonably, threatned many muslims who didn't want their daughters dressing like Paris Hilton & their wives cheating on them. They saw how liberals tried to purge the west of our identity, traditions & values & they feared the influx of 60's culture doing the same to their societies. Liberals don't realize that muslims hate them the most. & still liberals try to show what friends of Islam they are by saying things like that Dutch legislator (who said he would be ok with sharia law in Rotterdam who said, we need to be nice to Muslims now so that they treat us now so that muslims will be nice to us when their the majority in Europe.

Is it racist?

Is it racist to not embrace full on the demographic transformation of your society, a transformation, furthermore, that will make your group go from a majority to an minority in a few decades and be divested of substanial political say (e.g. to be divested)? According to a huge amount of liberals the answer is yes but only if your white and you don't love going from a majority to a minority in your beloved England, France or America. However, liberals conclude, if your a black South African who doesn't want to become a minority thats just fine. Isn't racism treating people different on racial grounds?

If

If a terrorist attack occurs under Obama and the culprit trained along side the Nigerian bomber in Yemen and if the Nigerian knew them and knew of their plan, i hope those who fought to give the Nigerian terrorist lawyers, and mirnada right and to not allow him to even be touched (let alone waterboarded) & allowed us to only ask him nicely for info, i hope they know they will be responcible for the death of those people b/c they felt that saving the lives of innocents was less important than not touching a Nigerian terrorist.

The Return of "The White Man's Burden"?

Are we a nation or a charity?

How many millions in free health care for Hitians (esp. those brought to south Florida hospitals has the American tax payer ponied up w/o even being asked? Half of America is on acid, they don't realize we are the world debtors nation & want us to give Afruca a 100 billion for "climate change" last month & now want us to become hopeless Haiti's baby sister, China doesn't act like this they aren't occupying 3 nations & spending billions on foreigners nor throwing away their economy w/ Cap & Trade nonsense, they arent paying a billion to give KSM a 5 year trial for a crime he already confessed to. I feel that a imposter has gotten ahold of our treasury (not to mention our justice department and all the rest).

China, detestable as the regime is in certain respects (it is just like a mob family), operates in all the good ways that American Presidents and diplomats sued to until the yuppies came along (hitting a zenith with Obama).

-When Africa tries to so obviously use "climate change" alarmism as a mere means of blackmailing money and aid out of the guilty white west, and Ethipoian delegates say that their willing to settle for a 100 billion up front in increasing payments for the next 50 years (from America primarily) for the purpose of helping Africa "cope with climate change" whatever that means, American diplomats just 20 years ago would've laughed the African global welfare hucksters out of the room. "'I will settle for a 100 billion up front' Who the fuck do these African primitivest ake us for Zulu's?'" George Kennan and Oliver North would joke had they been in power now. Ofcourse neither nor patriots like North and Kennan are anywhere close to the Obama adminstration and George Kennan and other statesmen unafraid of saying "America First" are long gone, replaced by namby pampy liberals with degrees in Multicultural Studies and Oppression Studies from Weslyan and Brown, literal, pussies who bow down to African dicators to quell their third world hard ons. They where only too happy to shovel the American tax payers money into the money bags of the Robert Mugabe's and General Gaddafi's of Africa. The whole continent is terminally corrupted and it's a waste of time to even try to help these goverments (outside preventing epdimics), the whole contient is cursed with misgoverment or so it has been since the end of colonial rule on the contient. I now see where the Al Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's we Americans nknow and hate so well got their roots for these Africans are even better hucksters and shakedown artists and ehortationists than they are. The African delegates at the sinister Coopnhegan Climate Summit just started to collectivly shourt, repeating some African tribal phrase or whatnot again and again like barabarians at the gates. Their refrain probably translates roughly to, "DON'T FORGOT ABOUT AFRICA! DON'T FORGET ABOUT AFRICA!". The African poliical huckster has usually been educated in Europe for a little and knows how to push all the liberals buttons to make them reach for their nations collective wallots. They guilt weak chinned European liberals (and now American weak chinned liberals too!!) by saying that "you, in the west, have forgotten us and neglected us". Aren't tehy embarrsed to talk to their colonial owners-France England, Belgium, etc,-like they are, literrally, the children of the white europeans that white europeans all once thought if them as-children (as far as civilization was concerned). The great benefactors and enthusaists of Gilded Age imperialism-Teddy Roosevelt, Cecil Rhodes, the BOer leader Peter Krueger, etc. all shared atleast one general belief in common which was that Africans (among other "Mongogreloid" races) simply weren't equipt to govern themselves without descending into their natural state of anarchy, chaos and barabarism. But now it almosy seems as if this sadly determivistic view of Africa (which would obviously apply to African extracts like Haiti and Jamaica too) is some-what true. Haiti would be better off had Canada been running the nation for 50 years,and most all of Africa would be dramaticly worse off had European colonalism never come to what was a savage jungle and brought with them civilization (trains planes, automoblies, mickey mouse, offefe, magazines, the printed word, shoes, and all the 800 thousand things that certainly weren't invinted in Africa.

I mean what do the Haitians look like right now? they look like the black New Orlenians, like children screaming for help from their parents, who can make all their troubles go away and give them aide and shelter and food again and again and again forever. Yet it does no good. Its not our fault that Africans, in general, around the world, elect hucksters and con-artists to reprsent themselves in goverment posts. Just imagine a contient so full of corruption that the slimy, racist, anti-white, black Power, would-be-warlord, South African President, Jacob Zuma (read Peter Hitchens profile of Zuma in the American Conservative). Barring the discovery of some phenominally fought over rescource on the African contient, it seems to me that Africa will, no matter how you may or may not like it, be the poorest contient on earth. We have to come to terms with the facts of the matter. Their is no "Blank Slate" Steven Pinker showed that years ago. Africa doesn't have to be such a hell hole. It can be better than it is but it will never in my estmiation. Same goes with the black-white education/achievment gap which just won't go away no matter how much money the left pours into the task, how maany tests they make easier to leseen the test score gap and all the other outragous liberal schemes to thrawt honest hard working whites because their white.

It seems we haven't escaped the era of the "White Man's Burden", have we now? Just look out the national window to Haiti where platoons of American white do-gooders race into the nation. We saw the same mobilization in New Orleans after Katrina, Iran after their earthquake and after the Tsumani in the mid-2000's that wracked so much hof poly-Asia. This is a product of being too wealthy for too long perhaps. Americans (and I mean white Americans by "Americans") have 1. grown to take their/our huge post-WW2 wealth for granted almost as a constant that will continue as it has automaticly forever and 2. They have devolped a masochist, anti-white, self-hating, third world fetishizing pathology that makes them disdain even the suggestion of acting on grounds of national intrests.

Witness the terribly inept American anti-war movement that was led by the left (to the movement eventual downfalll). These self hating old hippy leftists that took the reigns of the anti-war movement (enter George Galloway) where so fucked up with their own "White Man's Burdens" issues that they couldn't even manage to argue against the war(s) in Iraq and Afganistan on grounds of national intrest (seemingly ever). In shunning self intrest & national intrest (as the idiot internationalists these liberal types are) they discarded the best arguments(s) against the Iraq (and Afgan) war(s) a crucial error which posssibly lead to the failure of what could've been a succeful movement had patriots from the Buchanan wing of the GOP lead the anti-war movement instead. But rather than argue that "I troops are heroes and thats just the point, its not worth shedding our best and brightestst, our blood and treasure in conflicts that have little to do with our national security at all. If we want to stop the next 9/11 we must secure our borders and ports and airports and fix our broken Immigration Units. Doing that would not only be a 1000 times cheaper and more effective in protecting us than a war in Iraq it would save us billions in other areas. And then again, why are we having our boys fighting and die and loose limbs and why are we spending billions we don't have on wars for people who , atelast in Iraq, hate us. !9 year old American young men should not be arriving home with out their legs just to help build a nation of people who spit upon his effort and our nation and all that we've done for the Iraqi's. We deposed of their dictator, spent trillions rebuilding their society setting gup the first arab democracy in the region. I think we've give more than enough of our blood and treasure on Iraq, this was a war of charity, we owe them nothing, if anything, the Iraqi's owe us!"

But instead of making fiery, logical, populist, patriotic arguments of national intrest in favor of withdrawl from Iraq the potheads at MoveOn.org, the Cindy Sheehans and Code Pink's and the rest of their ilk made anti-American arguments against the war that accused our President of deceit, conspiracy to make his friends rich, war crimes, they painted and someimes even called our soldiers murderers making them out to be sadistic cowboys running around Bagdad killing little brown people for fun. They threw red/pink paint on veterans and generals on the hill to symbolize "the blood on thir hands". They accused Donalds Rumsfield and the whole goverment of war crimes and rambled about half baked leftist conspiracy theories about Haliburton, the Caryllyle Group, Exxon Mobile, putting Bush and Cheney in office to bring the nation to war and increase their profits. Micheal Moore's shameful documentary film, "Farhenheit 9/11" asserted that the CIA had trained and created Osama Bin Laden, training Bin Laden at exactly the tactics he would use against America on September 11th, 2001. In truth, the CIA had a tenous indirect relationship with Osama and Osama got most of his funding from his brother Salem and his uber-wealthly Saudi cla though he did fight alongside the Mujohaiden who the US did fund to fight the Soviet invaders inAfganistan. Also, the CIA never trained Bin Laden least of all would they have treained him or any other Afgan freedom fighter how to ram airliners into sky scrapers considering their were not such sky scrapers to ram 747's into in Kabul at the time (or today probably too). This isn't the only such blatantly fallacious claim made by Moore and inturn made by his army of folowers in the course of the entire decade of the aughts. The most outragous perhaps is the claim that we went to war in Afganistan to build a pipeline which funnily enough has never been built still as of 2010.
Again, rather than saying "Bush went o war in Afganistan to build a pipeline" point out that we ran off to war in Afganistan with no long term gameplan or any conception of what the endgame was there. We were pissed off after 9/11 and ran off too war in a mindless rage not thinking off the long term at all. It would have been approbarite to go in and atleast shock and awe the Taliban into learning a lesson about who not to host (e.g. Al Quada). Thats what we should have done and then left within a year or two. rather than getting bogged down in a pointless occupation. We should've realized that we couldn't stay there forever and make sure Al-Quada didn't come back. We didn't have the money nor the will to do so. And the war was futile in that all that we did really was focre a nomadic inclined people to move into either Pakistan or someother Islamic country like Yemen where Al-Quada set up shop. We have to realize that Al-Quada is not a nation but a franchise that is scattered and has bases in Yemen, Jakarta, East Timor, Nigeria, Syria, and many more places (including probably the US) where we can war at all at once. We can't occupy Yemen and Nigeria and Syria and Afganistan and Pakistan all at once. But we can secure our borders and ports, and tighten the screenin process for deciding which muslims are allowe dto entire the United States and we can do all that for much cheaper".

This is basically, as I said before, the Buchananite Old Right paleocon arguments against the war and the American people would've had no trouble embarcing them. Because just like Pat Buchanan himself, we who opposed the wars on the right we're known to be patriots. With Buchanan you didn't have to wonder if he was using the anti-war movement as a front for his anti-americanism or anti-capttilist crusade. Americans didnt want to embrace anti-american demogauges and other forms of hucksters that made up so much of the anti-war movement like Jesse Jackson, George Galloway or Tim Robins.

How can you help the dear leader today?

Theres something creepy and servile and principally un-American about the fact that their is a book sold at every Barnes & Nobles & Borders entitled, "50 ways you can help Obama". They also have a gizzalion Obama personality cult merchandice (the little blue book of "the Ones" masterful qoutes like: "There is no red state America or blue state America, there is only the United States of America!"). This is something you find in North Korea, little kids being tested on what they can do for the dear leader.

Working for the worthless

The hardest working/most creative & intelligent people in America, people who have given us millions of jobs & great products like the Ipod & Starbucks-their income gets taxed upwards of 40-70%. You mightn't care if someones taxes are raised from 20 to 45% (so that Obama can send checks to ppl who pay no taxes) but that means that those people will work half the week for the Goverment & do they get the 200,000 they give in taxes back in gov. services? No, not even close.

"A History of Green Lights Gone Bad"...

...perhaps that would work as the title of the documentrary that Roger Ebert suggested in 1996 which would consist of segments devoted to chronicling indivual cases of mind bogglingly bad desicions on the part of film studios. This would means that you would take maybe 5-7 terrible movies with the worst/dumbest plots and try to answer for each movie in the course of maybe 15-30 mineutes segments, the question: how did this move get the green light?
So you would contact all the people known to have participated in the green lighting/finacing process for these films-executive producers, etc.-and interview them and then interview actors maybe too, etc.

Heres a good example of the kind of movie I'm speaking of: "Joe's Apartment" inwhich a guy finds he can talk to coackroaches, he becomes friends with his coackroaches and when he gets an eviction notice from the apartment landlord the coachroaches band together to bring down the landlord. By the way, "Joe's Apartment" was not an animated movie. It was from 1996 so they did the coachroaches with claymation (a important fact in the movie's badness. Another movie that would be a good fit for this would be "Even cowgirls get the blues" by Gus Zan vand starring Uma Thurman who plays a hitch hiker hippy with huge thumbs (seemingly a foot long).

The point is, i should say, that i think someone should make such a documentaries.

Are liberals more close-minded than conservative?

NOTES ON LIBERALS FROM A FORMER LIBERAL MAROONED IN LIBERALDOME: I think liberals tend to be more close minded & intellectually curious. I think it b/ liberals hate to even hear others views they might not know anything about a immigration but if ur not a obama fan they don't want to hear wat u have to say. They hate debating issues. Yet conservatives love to argue & never refuse to even hear the left out, this all makes sense since most begin as liberals by default in life b/c the media is liberal & only those with the intellectual curiousity ever even exsplore the other side's views which most libetals dont even know.

There is no liberal version of William F. BUckley's TV show, Firing Line whererin Buckley would debate liberals paying fastidous attention to the details of liberal's arguments, usually disagreeing but still always taking the liberals arguments serious. People complain about FOX all the time as biased but there is no Hannity & Colmes on another network. On CNN and MSNBC all we got is liberals, they make no pretense of balance, Hannity was the conservative and Holmes was the liberal where is Rachel Maddow's counter-weight conservative on the other side of her anchor desk?

Just look at the classic libetal facial geture: the smug, condescending your-views-are-such-a-joke-its-comical face.

I hesitate to discuss this liberal smugness/clos mindedness because I fear being viewed as part of the Palin crowd. There is nothing wrong with being dismissive of Sara Palin cause she is not ready for show time, not even close. I've said this from the moment she came into our lives.

Anyways I really believe that atleast with regard to those Americans now below 30 years of age (my mileu) the following is the general case: that the more intellectually rigorous and curious exsplore the views of the right and are becoming conservatives as they see that the view point of a National Review which never gets any play on ABC or CNN is, on most things, the correct view. Those with the most complacent, smug, unintrested, uncurious minds stay default liberals which is to say they don't know what the liberal position may be on immigration but they know they support it, they are democrats by cultural affinties and accept the whole assortment of liberal views without scruntizing them.

Look are society since about 15 years ago has been one inwhich the partus of the media (celebrity tabloid blogs and magazine, political sites, movies,etc.) has become a bigger part of a lives as a result of our growing investment in the internet. With younger Americans, my crowd, who have grown up in this enviorment their whole lives, because of the Daily Show & Colbert those who became "liberals" became such at a younger age than previous generations but did so not because this generation of people is more political. Because of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report (shows for young people) and how politics has become more central to the arts and life in gen eral (as a watercool subject of conversation) kids develope political idenities passivley at a incrasing young age (before they know anything usually).

Kids are shaped by those around them, who they look up to, etc. Increasingly the immediate geographical and cultural surroundings of an indivual are supplanted by online or TV and media in generals influence in deciding someones views. Meaning that the daughter of a evangelical in Alabama 40 years ago would have been more likely to end up a Republican but because of the influx of the internet and cable TV, parents have become less of an influence on children and TV stars like Jon Stewart have become larger factors when it comes to determining a (young) persons political idenity.

So for instance, during the last decade, school kids came home (like me and my friends) and watched the Daily Show (while 30 years ago kids of the same age would've watched Happy Days or whatever). Being subjected to the Daily Show and CNN from a very young age on a regular basis has a great effect. And so i think most perhaps just many kids decide nowadays that there "a Jon Stewart person" rather than a Sara Palin type person. In other words, its become a way of cultural identifying yourself as being either hip, urban, edgy (e.g. Jon Stewart) or being square, provincial and traditional (Sara Palin). The influence of a celberity world of all liberals is also important.

Meg Whitmen: who the fuck greenlighted this pro-amensty nun's run?

"THE NEXT GOVERNOR MUST HAVE A SPINE OF STEEL KNOW WHAT SHE BELIEVES AND STICK WITH IT"
-MEG WHITMAN

I really hate Meg Whitmen cause she looks like McCain, the women to me. Shes like Gwen Ifill, she never says anything intresting and I'm sure that her whole political career was dreamed up in some mediocre neo-con's office (e.g. "Hey, what about that bitch, the CEO of Ebay? She'd sell real good with Orange County Housewives."

Meg Whitmen is so mind bogglingly bad a candiate for this race or any race. She is worst than Martha Coakely. Whitmen looks like a Catholic nun.


BUT MY GOD, THE GOP RUNS A PRO-AMENSTY, DULLER THAN A WHITE WALL OLD NUN FOR CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR.

Ok, its come to the point where i think that leftists today are dumber than conservatives

Eric Alterman sounds so dumb here talking to Mickey Kaus. It's funny, you can tell Mickey Kaus is suprised by how unsophisticated Eric Alterman is (who is for the left, relatively smart).

Mirananda Rights or waterboards for terrorists?

The Nigerian Christmas bomber would've killed hundreds over the skies of Detriot hsd it not been for a Dutchmen bum rushing him. We now know that Obama would have preffered that the Dutchmen had first read the nigerian "his miranada rights" ("to remain silent...right to the power of attorney..") first & that whole tackling thing probably would've cost him a de-merit had he been a CIA agent. what did the FBI do when he gets off the plane at Obama request? They read a Nigerian non-citizen his miranada rights (though he doesn't have any such miranada rights)!"YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT"! and then you give him a lawyer to tell him to not answer the CIA interrogators questions. This guy told them "their are more like me"! So that shows he has info about other plots & where going to just let him say "no" when we ask where the next attack is gonna be? NIGERIAN TERRORISTS WHO TRY TO MURDERER HUNDREDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE IN A PLANE OVER DETROIT with potentially life saving info about future attacks ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO ARE TO BE TREATED LIKE SHOP LIFTERS.

davidfrum tweets,

Yoo and Bybee: "Poor judgment" says DOJ review. http://bit.ly/9GLRtUAnd what do we say of the people who Mirandized the underwear bomber? 2 days ago reply

3 Issues We All Forgot

I've come across a debate over media bias at UC Santa Barbara between bow-tied Tucked Carlson and Eric Alterman.And it made me realize:

ABORTION
GUN-CONTROL
RELIGON.......are so 90's.

I'm serious people getting heated about gun-control sounds to my 19 year old ass like William Jennings Bryan raving about Free Silver.

If you need exsplanations of the decline in intrest in these 3 issues: 1. We have bigger issues than guns and abortion to reckon with, like stopping amensty:the sequel. and 2. fewer Americans are religous or own guns/go hunting.

Hitler's Revenge

The most destructive ideology of the first half of the 20th Century was obviously Nazism. Ironically, the most destructive and insidious ideology of second half of the 20th Century (and beyond) was & is poltically correct multiculturalism. This was "Hitler's Revenge". Nazism caused the left to turn off their brains and move to the opposite extreme and scorning nationalism and patriotism and rejecting the idea that nation's had any racial or etnic identity (aka China is Chinese). This brought about unlimited mass immigration to the west & inturn brought about the death of the West.

Multiculturalism does not work within a society. Racial diversity at to fast at rate of growth creates what we have in California today: Governor Schwarznegger goes on TV his state deep and debt and lyingly asserts that there is nothing more to cut. The truth is that the California debt could be greatly mitigated by merely listening to the Californian majority (as of now atleast) and ending the transfer of billions of tax payer dollars to the millions of illegals living without fear, outside the shadows in California mooching off the tax payers receieving free schooling, welfare, therapy, scholarships, healthcare on Uncle Sam's tab. But why can't Schwarznegger tell the truth? Why does he lie so blatantly? Because California has a huge population of people-Mexicans-who have intrests completly different from that of "white Americans" which screws democracy up entirely. For the fragile instuition of pure one man one vote democracy to work everyone has to share a basic set of intrests. It fucks democracy up completly when , say, 30% of the population's allegiance is with another foreign nation.

Jim Pinkerton makes the above point well here.

Should Young Single Mothers Automaticly Be Seen As Victims?

Should 18-21 year old single mothers be treated like victims or should they ever be looked at as having any responcibility for their getting involved with irresoncible bums? Its like the women that gets beaten by her menfolk, I have no pity for these types because they usually stay with & are attracted to guys that batter them & then they act like they deserve pity when they get the abuse that they like in a way cause they wouldn't respect their boyfriends if they didn't do stuff like act like brute guerillas (which occasionally inolves infidelidty and getting hit for some shit). They wanted brutes so why are they victims when they get manhandled (and come back to him or another brute)?