Our most Precious Commodity – Social Unity.

By August Pointneuf

Poor, vulnerable Emma West, in her display of agonized stress.

We might not know what the precipitators were but we do know that she was behaving abnormally. A frightened person, frightened for herself and by  maternal fear for her child, implanted in an assertively aggressive crowd.  She was intimidated by the surrounding alien appearances, by their distinct looks, different dress, foreign voices and, to her, unpredictable behaviour.

She was frightened by being far outnumbered; she was the fearful lone victim in a cascading barrage of screaming paranoiac defensiveness,

Now visualise her instead in a homogenous group: people she was accustomed to and whom she could rely upon to behave predictably. What she needed in her distress was the constancy and the calm equilibrium of a mature society. She could have been with people who did not appear frighteningly different from her culture. Yes, in this context the passengers in that notional tram-of-similar-people would have seen her as behaving waywardly. But Instead of attacking they would have seen her for what she needed, empathy, assistance and compassion. They would have addressed her curious behaviour with calmness. One could have expected these people to accommodate and reconcile what they hoped would be Emma’s temporary aberration. They would have helped her.

Emma West has been accused of “antisocial behaviour”. It is exactly the reverse. She showed, in caricature, the intrinsic mechanism of individuals who attempt to protect and promote their society from forces which they see as alien. That is social behaviour in their terms 

Less widely promoted was a counter-attack by MarmiteMan4, young, white and aggressively critical of Emma West.

MarmiteMan4, proudly asserts his fervent, unbridled emotions of youthful enthusiasm. He spouts the beliefs of youth, with proclamation of idealism, and implied defense of the subjugated. It is the spring harbinger of a boy’s social awareness.
 It is the social heart of a youthfulness which is yet to reach the patrimonial brain of age.

His divisiveness is not unexpected; it is a natural sub-agendum, which temporally separates youth from age. Youth searches for absolutes: the perspectives of context are the findings of age

The youth-age divide is not harmless. MarmiteMan4 fires the same enthusiasms which propelled the rebellions of recent history.
But it would be expected to resolve. That is the business of the close family and the business of the dinner table shared by the same peoples and a homogenous culture.

How should we interpret the other, more deeply entrenched, social divisions which are apparently irreconcilable? 

This cannot be done by looking at them as they are at present. These views and stances have been long incubating, not for years, but generations. What each illustrates, irrespective of the emotive and precipitating causes, is the progressive polarisation of societies. These societies have been confused by the forced juxtapositions of peoples with a variety of origins and beliefs.

There is little point in attempting to rationalize or justify one or the other. Both demonstrate stress, both demonstrate a fragmentation of society. Both demonstrate divergent values, and when viewed alongside one another show how the outcome of political social manipulation will inevitably lead to conflict.

It is possible, of course, for inherently distinct groups of people to reach levels of acceptance of one another and a relative (if impermanent) harmony. But there will always be thresholds at varied levels and to different provocations.

A few overt symbols of one group or the other can rapidly prompt an impulsive and aggressive eruption.

Once one group, or both, is subject to sufficient social pressures – economic or otherwise – and a specific threshold is reached then a feed-back polarisation will intensify unstoppably.

Ultimately all rationale is lost. Crisis is reached. After that there can be no “natural healing”, no spontaneous reversal.

All of this was predictable. Authoritative voices have long been raised against the smug political doctrine of forced “diversity” (or its failed predecessor, forced “integration”).

But these politicians have chosen not to learn. Indeed much of their tactic is founded on divide-and-rule. They seem still intent in their tack despite the onshore winds of increasing social stress which make calamitous internal insurrection now ominous.

The views of Sandy Walkington

Sandy Walkington (right) pictured with Business Minister Vince Cable

By August Pointneuf

Sandy Walkington, liberal democrat candidate for St Albans has said, “We are all mongrels.  I mean this country is the most mongrelled (sic) country in the world.  In 200 years we will all be coffee-coloured – and I have got no problem with that”.

This grandiloquence and cultured bravado is naïve.  Underlying this man’s thesis is a peculiar (in the sense that it is not consistent with the views of humans for millennia past) implied undercurrent of contentment.  This contentment seems to arise from the illusion that if there is genetic homogeneity, there will be less strife and consequently the population will be safer, more content, and “happier”.

He is mistaken in believing that stirring genes in a pot of miscegenation will produce a uniform product. At a genetic science level she is wrong, because there will still not be a homogeneity. This is because the different expressions of various gene pools in mulattos will repeatedly force out differences. 

Be that as it may, where Walkington’s true innocence lies is that he does not, perhaps cannot, understand that humans slowly acquire the equilibrium necessary for their contentment, dependent upon the context in which they live. 

Given similar genetics the prime facilitator to this is the culture that humans evolve around themselves. These are patterns of behaviour of exquisite finesse, which evolve, not over decades and not even over two centuries, but over millennia.  It is this common culture, which allows the harmony of understanding within homogenous groups, which permits common perceptions and establishes equilibriums of values. Some groups are highly successful in this cultural evolution. Others fail 

What heterogeneous immigration brings is not additional culture, but a vacuum, a tear and hiatus in the existing highly sophisticated and tightly woven culture of the host country.

The world is awash with conflicts; almost all are conflicts of culture, immiscible and unsolvable because each of those cultures has its own strengths, profundity and deeply ingrained evolution.  Juxtapose different cultures and conflict is inevitable.

Therefore if this man seeks a peaceful Britain he should be seek to preserve the unitary culture with which the British have been blessed. He should not be preaching a perfidy, and betraying the cultural about which he claims to proudly boast.

As the creators of the greatest empire the world has ever known, the sub-group of Europeans genetically and culturally isolated in their British island, had perfected a homogeneity which allowed them this extraordinary creativity. 

What earlier immigrants there were, for by far the greater part, were Europeans with a very similar gene stock.  Their ingress into Britain brought with them only a marginally different gene stock and culture, which was proximal enough to the British to harmonise.

The earlier European immigrants were very different from the current Negro and Asiatic immigrants into Britain. The new aliens’ gene pools and cultures are widely divergent from the consistent genotype and coherent culture which is (or was) the British.  That these immigrants come with an inherent inability to merge into a stable and successful society is there for all who wish to see.  Even the immigrants will be aware of this, which is why they are fleeing from failed nations and patently unsuccessful cultures

The very word homogeneity is derived from genetic consistency.  In advocating “multi-culturism” (whatever that might mean, perhaps apartheid?) these political quasi scientists/philosophers run an impoverished, simplified intellect.  Sandy Walkington’s intellectual subtlety sits at the level of the pre-school child, who has learned only that mixing all colours together consistently makes a dirty brown.

What bitter irony that the homogenous genetic and cultural equilibrium which was Britain’s is being destroyed by people of his limited insight, and inappropriate power. What an extraordinary, irreversible, experiment he is predicting. What a calamitous failure he is promoting.

The Moment of Tip Over

By August Pointneuf

The web pages below reflect a point of tip-over.  Contesting the threat to European national cultural values has begun to move from the secret to outward objections.

These tiny cracks presage an irreversible shift. It is now commonplace to hear expressed previous anathema – such as criticism of Nelson Mandela or quoting (and admiring) Enoch Powell.

Academics have refined the term “racism”. In the past this was a “catchall” term, convenient for those who wished to use it as a tool to lever emotions. But escaping this suffocating potion is beginning to be possible. The term “racism” is being liberated. It is becoming recognised that the word “racism” has many interpretations as well as positive values. A new terminology of racism is developing (although confusingly manifold): now some of the components of the term "racism", such as its application to national pride, are no longer pejorative. It is being accepted that racism is not necessarily a denigrator terminology. The word racism is being adopted and returned to polite vocabulary. The meaning is being introverted, and can now denote pride-in-self and an acclamation of communal, national and racial pride. Racism is beginning to be acceptable.

http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2011/09/holland-fights-back.html
(Holland)

http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2011/09/germany-commits-national-suicide_19.html
(Germany)
http://waeshael.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/muslim-halal-food-sales-supporting-terrorism/       (France)

(Swiss) MP Oskar Fresysinger.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/490

It is a historical truism that attempts by authoritarian regimes to “suppress” populations, and by that is meant the prohibition of intuitive responses, have always failed, ultimately. The longer it takes the population to escape suppression, the greater the stress and tension build- up within that society. The longer the escape from suppression is delayed so progressively more violent reactions occur as it ends. The “British Spring” is bound to arrive, sooner or later.

It is still a quiet revolution. Therefore the opportunity must be grasped now to steer these revolutionary changes towards a soft landing. In the past, governments in Europe worked hard to intimidate their populations into subservient acceptance of aliens. Once released from these constraints the reactions will not be muted.

The present trajectory of European government policy towards cultural aliens will unswervingly terminate in catastrophe.

When the beaker finally cracks large swathes of the population will begin venting anger. This anger will build, at first, unobserved and subliminal. It will pivot on many types of collateral stresses, some real some imagined. Many of these precipitating stresses – such as joblessness, alien-associated crime, reduced social benefits and increased taxation – can be predicted to surface collaterally,. Intuitive reactions will slowly emerge from these forced suppressions: they will often be outward reactions to seemingly trivial triggers, such as cross-racial flirting and cohabitation, as well as the flaunting of distinctive alien cultural patterns.

Once some display anti-alien behaviour then others will follow promptly. A positive feedback cascade of triumphalism will accelerate matters further. Once that stage is reached there will be a vicious alien counter reaction, multiplying the cascade of aggression and then rapid counter aggression. Ultimately this will likely be so widespread that any attempt to curb it will be un-enforceable.

So widespread will the reaction be that there will be an effective anarchy, characterized by excessive violence using firearms and explosives. Northern Ireland’s past anarchy will pale by comparison.

Governments, of whatever denomination, need to act immediately to mitigate the calamity which they have forced on their populations. Let them not replace their past catastrophic errors with the even worse error of dithering.

Anti-alien parties, now existing, should recognise that they, also, have inherited an obligation to soften the counter-revolution.

Softening the counter-revolution will need humility of governments, to backtrack, and invert previously strongly held views. There will have to be much “tough love”, both from government and population, to reduce bloodshed and shredding of society further. It will take a war-room mentality and steeliness of purpose.

The British and European native populations will need to be actively appeased before the apocalyptic apogee. How can this be done?

It is now mandatory that the British government offer its native populations affirmative acts of substance. These should be directed solely to the benefit of native, Cultural Britons.

Freedom of speech must be reinstated in Britain. If this does not occur then much tension which could have been diluted on the surface will become an aggressive anger underground. The population must be once again permitted to make known their intuitive feelings about the aliens verbally. It will result in anger, fighting and deaths. But it will, at least, allow the native European to perceive that control of expected behaviour has reverted to the level of Everyman. It will act as damage control. It will be a tolerable trade-off against a more brutal war.

A dramatically different immigration policy will be necessary to assuage the British natives’ fear of being outnumbered, and to repair the cultural fragmentation. This will be the only way in which the Britons’ fears of being progressively outnumbered and outvoted can be appeased.

Affirmative actions should be designed to attract Cultural Britons back into Britain. School teachers, health-carers, entrepreneurs and skilled artisans of British cultural decent are now actively excluded from returning to Britain. Britons abroad, of similar background and culture, must be attracted into Britain from the Diaspora. At present there is specific, and legislated, exclusion of Cultural Britons, living in all corners of the earth. Unimaginable to some, but this is the case at present: highly trained whites from the Commonwealth are refused entry because of their area of domicile.

The Irish, with the support of the Irish Department of the Interior, have developed a Certificate of Irish Origin. This is not a passport, but a way of reclaiming an allegiance to and from the Irish Diaspora. An English Certificate of Origin will be an essential tool of this racial re-harmonizing.

Boycotting should cause alien business enterprises to forsake some of their control. This will allow the native British to feel that their world of commerce is no longer being slowly confiscated from them. It will allow that which was so important in past parochial societies to be regained, concepts like the British village postmistress. And of course it will allow the native British to feel that an employment hierarchy is being reopened to them.

Refusal by native British to deal with alien businesses will put a brake on further immigration into Britain. If there are fewer prospects of fortunes, fewer aliens will arrive. This will also gently persuade some aliens to emigrate, and put a brake on what has been an almost entirely one-way flood from failed countries into those European countries which protect their populations by social support mechanisms. It will allow redistribution of social benefits back to the children of the children of the children who made Britain great and prosperous for the very reason of protecting their progeny.

Harsh? Yes, very harsh, but a cruelty to be kind. It is harsh for those aliens who intruded, as immigrants, into a foreign land hoping to escape the failures of their own societies. But they ran the risks of all those who adventure. This has been the risk of all those who have intruded into foreign lands. It is the risk incurred by transgressing into firmly established and different societies, with sophisticated economic-cultural patterns. It is most particularly a hazard wrought by those who attempt to meddle with the long-standing social equilibrium of their destination.

Consider how small were the racial, cultural, behavioural and heritage differences between the German and the Britain. Yet even these minuscule differences, when forced into polarization, precipitated the gore and exsanguinations of horrific proportion and unparalleled self-destruction.
Unless this growing social climate-change is arrested now the portends are a world-wide cataclysm of similar proportion.

For the sake of Universal God, your nation and your people, governments of Britain, do not potter and shuffle and tiptoe now. Have the courage to reverse your arrogant and misguided attempts to engineer your native people, forthwith.

Diversity

By August Pointneuf

The inherently benign noun "diversity" has been politically manipulated. It is now a term of aggression. For many it is emotionally impregnated.

This is because the term has become a powerful political instrument in Europe. It is a key contributor to an entire philosophy upon which the survival of the race and civilization teeters. 

In the 20th C, the early stages of the political engineering, the populations of Europe were characterized by a bizarre and perverted form of gerrymandering: European political groups persuaded their populations that immigration was essential for the benefit of those populations. It was marketed as a necessity for their future welfare. The rhetoric, strongly implied but often overt, was that the "integration" of foreigners would occur spontaneously. The population was told that the incoming aliens would assimilate rapidly, creating an essential workforce. This was promised as a necessity to produce a powerful economy, one which would compete successfully against the rest of the world. This immigration, so it was said, would allow Europe and Britain in particular, to become more successful and dominant global economies. But the unparalleled perfidy and surreptitiousness of these politicians kept the population from knowing and understanding that these machinations were designed, by the politicians, primarily to be self serving, and to keep themselves in employment.

At that time many recognised the conceptual fallacy and its failure was seen as certain.

The extraordinary empires of the Europeans, particularly the British, had bred administrators who were experts in dealing with mixed populations. These Europeans had been exposed to manifold communities which varied by race, culture, geography, history and much more. These one-time expatriates were the supreme authorities on the difficulties of harmonizing the relationships between variegated peoples. Once back in Britain these experts were appalled and astonished that the politicians intended allowing immigrants from failed countries to flood into a nation which was aiming to become a socialized state. Amongst the opponents of the doomed policies, were some who were outstanding as intellectually supreme. And yet these people – some elected into government – with their unique intellects and insights - were over-ridden, denigrated and vilified.

Eventually it became clear that “integration” and “assimilation” would not, could not, occur. By the time this was obvious to all, the alien presence was (at least politically) irreversible. There was therefore a shift in political policy. The word “diversity” was now used in a pitiful exercise of political face-saving. The future of Europe was now projected by political spin to become one of “diversity”.
This word, “diversity”, became the banner of a new political crusade.

It is therefore worth inspecting the meaning of the word. It is derived from and bears a relationship to “diverse" which means varied and sometimes discreet and separate: a distinct separation of the elements

When “diverse” is applied to humans it connotes also the complex penumbra of human contextual variance.

It is inescapable, when considering humans, that “diversity” implies separation of humans into distinct groups, together with separating their array of contextual paraphernalia such as culture, language, behavioural rituals, attitudes, foibles, fidelities, inclinations and expectations.

However the forceful, nay obligatory, political assertion today is that the populations of Europe must “homogenise”.  This is despite the diversity caused by alien ingress, and their inescapable differences.

Varieties of humans are therefore ordered, compelled to live together harmoniously by edict.

It is now written into law in Europe that any distinctiveness (i.e. “diversity”) must be ignored. Any expression of, or references to, evident differences in behaviour, appearance, culture, or economic and integrative potential are expressly and specifically prohibited. Severe penalties are imposed for any who disincline.

The result is the most extraordinary attempt to universally ablate inherent human spontaneity that any "government" has ever imposed upon its electorate.

What muddles of the mind have allowed this oxymoronic thinking!

One never needs his wit so much as when he argues with a fool. Chinese proverb.

Oblivious Europeans hurtle to their extinction

By August Pointneuf

Oblivious Europeans hurtle to their extinction. In evolutionary terms this could be the fastest sub-species extinction, from height of success to elimination, ever.

One of the accelerators is the production cost of its children. Children will always come at a cost. This might be the loss of maternal productivity, the effects of illness on the family unit, and naturally the costs of daily maintenance. The Europeans, however, produce the most expensive children in history. Maternal-paternal loss-of-production is encouraged, legislated into the economic equation. Healthcare and prophylaxis against illness, often of doubtful benefit, is costlier than ever in history. Schooling is mandatory until well past pubescence. University training of the proletariat is now universally sought and demanded. Much of this training is in arenas which have no possible benefit to the economies of this century. Classical and philosophical triposes leisurely bred admirable and proven administrators: but without the empires, which fuelled the economies, to whom will they administer?

Let us look also at the material sumptuousness heaped on almost every child – the finest clothes, McLaren prams, and an extraordinary surfeit of “toys” with an enormous per capita cost by the standards of the world. The pubescent is showered even more: travel abroad, lavish entertainment, indulgence in sport and a myriad of “activities” from ballet to dramatics. Much of this necessitates adult presence and so these become economically committed to this “advancement” of children. These are the trainers, teachers, coaches, supervisors, legislators, social workers, librarians and more. These are lost to the productive economy and their cost factors into the final production cost of these children.

Government is significantly culpable. It has legislated many “protective insurances”. Examples range from complex playground design to extraordinary measures to assess and label millions as to their suitability to be “near” children. Financially untenable requirements are placed on schools in demanding misguided protectiveness. Child benefits which short-out practical paternal contributions to their children’s maintenance, and the productive loss caused by absentee parents, also make each of these children a more expensive national product
.
Parental competitiveness adds to the burden, where parents try to help their child beat other children, perhaps by expensive schools, additional coaching in academics and sports (skating and gymnastics, and far more). It seems parents feel an obligation to take their children on distant travel holidays, to give them “experience” (for that read skills to outperform others) and to allow them to triumphantly upstage their peers.

These financial loads, both self-imposed and imposed by law (and therefore paid for by all parents) necessitate small broods – often kept smaller by abortion. The direct and indirect costs of aborting must also be written into the final cost of the child when it reaches productivity.

The pound and euro costs have often been calculated. They are irrelevant, because the European costs outstrip third world costs by factors of thousands.

The end result: Europe has a small reproductive product, perhaps exquisitely produced. Its production takes years longer than that of the competition. The final product is often, on delivery, unsuited to contribute adequately to overall productivity of the nation. The price that is being paid for the development of these children is out of proportion to their economic worth.

Meanwhile the rapidly and cheaply produced products of the third world, in their masses, flood the market.

August Pointneuf

Floods, Tides and Pools

By August Pointneuf

Floods, Tides and Pools.

Prologue: Human communities have spread and retreated since pre-history, often into the domiciles of other humans, for shorter or longer periods. That is their nature. These migrations have often been resisted by warfare. The outcomes have depended upon battleground success, together with factors such as distance from the migrant’s base as logistic access became progressively more difficult.

The results of such migration have, at times, caused one group, (and therefore that culture) to overlap the pre-existing culture with varying degrees of smothering. At other times, the invading forces have withdrawn leaving very little residue, as demonstrated by the Roman invasion of Britain and to a lesser extent the Norman invasion of Britain. On other occasions the invasions have been no more than short forays, as in the Franco-Prussian War, with prompt retreat and very little residual cultural or genetic trace.

These extensive conquests of lands, which could be considered as "tides" and comparable to floods. Like water, these eventually subsided either by absorption into the land, drainage back from whence the tide originated or spilling over into other drainage areas.

Of the many tides that have occurred within the historic area, four stand out in relation to European history:

First Tide: the Roman Empire. This ultimately failed because of loss of central control and political failure, ending in a combination of retreat and absorption.
The Roman Empire was destroyed by Barbarian invasions. "Barbarian" was a general term, and included a variety of people from different origins such as the Angles, Burgundians, Franks, Goths, Huns, Lombards, and Vandals, to quote a few.

The Roman Empire was in economic decline, primarily because it had lost its empire. The corn it consumed had previously been supplied as a tribute (for that read tax) from Africa and Sicily. As the empire was eroded, payment for corn was demanded from the Barbarian-controlled North Africa. Rome did not produce manufactured goods and the population lapsed into enjoying the bread, wine and circuses. Its chief trade was money-lending. The emperors struggled to pay the army. The easiest, but disastrous, solution taken was to debase the coinage. The value of the denarius fell in 150 years to one 40th of its original value. The prudent invested in land, which produces an agricultural return, and so countered the inflation.

In Rome the state continued with its social handouts, distributing bread, wine, oil and pork, either free or at nominal prices.

The Roman armies became infiltrated with Barbarians and became relatively impotent in their role of protecting the Empire. Sidonius Apollinaris recorded the "heavy burden of hospitality" which he had to provide for the infiltrating Barbarians. He disliked their language, their songs and their smell and his house was invaded.

The Roman citizens shut their eyes to the immensity of the changes about them. They could not fail to realise that they were living in a time of crisis, but they could, if they chose, ignore the extent and permanence of the barbarisation that had already taken place. Various factors kept the Barbarians apart from the Romans; at once they were both outsiders and intruders. Amongst these two factors were religion and law. The Barbarian Law differed significantly from the Roman law and eventually the law ceased to be territorial, and instead was divided amongst the Barbarians. The Franks lived by Frankish law; Visigoths lived by Visigothic law and so on, while the Romans continued to live by Roman law. The situation of law became intensely complicated as happened when one group went to law against another and this doctrine of "personal law" was disastrous for the Empire. Ultimately Roman law ceased to have any real meaning when rival systems of law jostled with each other within the frontiers of the Empire.

Because the Barbarian invasions were gradual it was possible for many Roman citizens to ignore their significance. Although they bewailed the fact that times were not as good as they once had been, they tried to go on living as if nothing had changed. But every now and again a sudden shock would wake them up to reality and force them to acknowledge the extent of what had already decayed or been destroyed. It was only the more insightful, like Salvian, who insisted on reminding everyone that the Barbarians were not no longer at the gates but were within them. Most people tried to imagine that things were not as bad as they seemed. Nevertheless it was necessary for everyone to adjust to a new circumstance. Many people reacted without any coordinative response. St Augustus wrestled with the central problem of his time, which was why God had allowed the Roman Empire to fall. The pagans were convinced that the Empire had been destroyed because it had deserted the pagan gods and become Christian.

The Romans were forced to admit that military power had passed to the Barbarians, and Rome "the unconquerable" was sacked by the Goths and then the Vandals. If the Romans were to save anything of their civilisation, the Barbarians would have to be absorbed into Roman society and educated. This could only be a practical policy if the Barbarians wanted to educate themselves and discipline themselves according to the rule of law.

The most dramatic penetration into the Roman Empire was by the Visigoths (376 A.D.) who had implored Rome to offer them asylum from the Huns. The Roman Emperor Valens granted this asylum. Unfortunately the imperial authorities found the task of regulating and feeding these refugees beyond their resources. Because of the failure of the Romans to deliver, the Visigoths took to arms. The emperor’s army was defeated and Valens was killed (378 A.D.).

The Barbarians moved to the cities while the wealthy Romans sought refuge in their country villas. As a result there was unemployment in the towns which began to shrink. An aggravating factor was that the total population of the Empire was declining.i Instability began. There was a series of revolutions in the Roman State.

Odovacar (434-493) probably entered Italy about 465, became the first barbarian ruler in Italy and eventually gained possession of Italy in 476 A.D., this ending the Western Roman Empire. Although he appears not to have wished to destroy the civilisation of Italy, he had done nothing to save it.
Theodoric, an Ostrogoth, marched into Italy in 488 A.D. and within two years another barbarian had won control over most of the country.

It was useless for the Italians to try and repel the Barbarians. Ultimately the vast barbarian population caused the barbarisation of the Romans.

By the end of the 5th century the infrastructure of Italy could not be maintained. Bushes and trees grew in the aqueducts and the water supply to Rome began to fail. The Coliseum and the theatres were in ruins. Great blocks of stone fell from decrepit buildings, obstructing the streets. Bands of thieves stole bronze statues that adorned the city to melt them for the metal. Whilst the Romans had the skill and education required by the civilisation, the Goths lacked all these.

By this time Roman laws were being replaced by barbaric laws which were regarded by the Barbarians as their birthright, resting on notions of kinship and a whole complex of values which were totally foreign to the Romans. The varied religions, apparently a policy of toleration, was in effect a policy of racial segregation, founded on the assumption that all Romans would be Catholics and, for example, all Goths would be Arins.1ii

So began the “Dark Ages” when established cultures, as they then existed, disappeared.iii

Second Tide: The Muslim Conquest. The Muslims advanced through the Mediterranean, conquering vast swathes of land, and usurping the civilisations of parts of Southern Europe and the Maghreb. Long and costly struggles to remove the Muslims followed, marked by epic sieges and battles, land and sea. Christians hoped that the sea-battle at Lepanto would mark the end of Muslim intrusion and domination. However the Crusaders, a multinational armed force - the European Union of its time - began to squabble amongst themselves and failed to follow that resounding victory with pursuit and elimination of the enemy. The Muslims regrouped and began invading Europe once more. The Europeans lost vast lands, abandoned to Muslim control, which Muslims retain to this day.

Third Tide: The European Colonial Empires. This was the greatest tide, if measured by land area and people incorporated. This began in the 1500s and spread slowly in many directions. This tide was unique because of its slow, and entrenching, colonisation. Steady advances were systematically consolidated. The Empires increased incrementally over the colonised lands by chain and array. At each stage the colonists established themselves on what they expected to be a permanent basis. Because of this they grouted in their civilisation, establishing churches, schools, health care and communications, patterns of behaviour and supportive law as well as much more. Their belief was that this would be permanent, and for the betterment of the colonised lands, and the world as a whole. Most of this spread was over sparse and uninhabited, never cultivated, fallow lands. Because of its slow pace forward, it sculpted a stable society and a stable expression of European culture. There was repeated reinforcement from Europe with movements of Europeans back and forth to Europe. However the colonists considered themselves as residents in the new lands.

Some have chosen to debate the benefits to the lands so colonised with the amnesia of senile hindsight. Much of this denialism has been designed by the politician to placate their international political peers. However, when viewed objectively there seems little ground for dispute that by most parameters the European – and notably the British -colonisation  was beneficial to the lands which were colonised. Peoples previously living a Stone Age existence were brought forward into educational and other systems. The Europeans hoped that the natives would now aspire towards the standards which the Europeans had set themselves in Europe. The Europeans sought to donate their capacities to the indigenous peoples of the colonised lands. Law was applied where previously custom only, not law, had existed. Communication produced dramatic changes in lands where the wheel and the horse were unknown. This tide slowly moved forward for at least 400 years. In doing so huge tracks, which had previously been uninhabitable were made inhabitable and productive. This tide produced a remarkable, widespread social equilibrium characterised by greater safety of the populations. Orderliness by finely tuned legal mechanisms and sophisticated systems of justice and policing was introduced.

It was the greatest empire ever for another reason. It brought with it the technical and administrative mechanics by which humans were able to forcefully combat the circumstances and chance which entropic nature inflicts upon humans. Humans became better sheltered, warmer, better fed, better protected, safer and healthier than ever in history, as these European empire builders evolved and disseminated their capabilities. So desirable was this that the colonists were often invited into other lands once the existing inhabitants recognised the benefits of being colonised, in order that those lands could also could also benefit from European civilisation.

However, this civilisation began to fail. There was too great a central control of the colonies. Political ineptitude and insufficiency was associated with extraordinary attitude changes. Societal integrity began to fragment. Politicians, with pretentious delusions of capability, began to engineer society. The needs of individuals began to be considered superior to those of an integrated society. European apathy descended. Productivity declined, and money-lending replaced industry as Britain’s chief trade. The populations interested themselves in food, alcohol, material possessions and sport. A cabal of politicians (called the “United Politicians of the World”, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn), motivated by the fantasy philosophy of “Globalisation”, allowed the Empire to be suffocated by the next great tide:

Fourth Tide: The African spread out of Africa. This began in the middle of the 19th century.

The mechanics of this were complex. There were many contributing factors to the sycophantic surrender of the Europeans in the Northern Hemisphere to the invasion. An initial exuberant triumphalism after the Second War led eventually to intoxication with materialism. The focus of concern now rested on the possession of ostentatious dwellings and motor vehicles and “leisure and travel”. Socialist politicians unjustifiably claimed that they would nurture and protect their populations. This tainted their populations with the contentment and trust and belief in political promises. The former prudence, caution and guarded concern were abandoned.  Nothing was perceived to be able to go wrong, nothing could perturb the population. The British had seen themselves as the “conquers of the world”. Fear of intruders into their nations ceased to exist. Indeed such was the arrogance that, with the grandiose gestures of hedonistic millionaires, their heritage was blissfully cast aside, and the European nations appeared to thrive on a misplaced, fallaciously magnanimous and spendthrift scattering away of their control of their land.

The early movement of the Fourth Tide, in comparatively small numbers, was by tribal capture of adversaries and the sale of these slaves in a variety of directions, but primarily to the East.


The main regulating force of large-scale human movements, from time immemorial, was the restriction by poverty. The windfall of hydrocarbon energy, and mechanisms to translate this into travel (which originated in the European Industrial Revolution) allowed expansive migration on a grand scale. Very rapidly, and often without the opportunity to consolidate, this Tide out of Africa became an unregulated flood which spread over the top of the European civilisations.  It spread over the erstwhile European colonies of the Caribbean and into and over North America as well as large tracts of South America. Apart from direct invasion, there were complex turbulent eddies and retrograde flows which also spilled back into Europe. Stagnant pools now remain in the slums of all the large cities of the erstwhile European world, such as Detroit and Bradford, and in every large European city, as derelict ghettos.

Unskilled aliens from failed lands were not only invited into Britain, but paid to do so with employment assured even before arrival. Much of any wealth created by these immigrants did not remain in Europe, but was fed back to disappear into the impoverished regions from which the immigrants came. The political mantra, that “immigration was needed to make Europe economically powerful” has not been supported by objective assessment. Instead the reverse seems to be the case.

The loosening of the ties of poverty allowed not only more invited Africans into lands which promised a cosseted existence, but equally gave lease to marauding bands, some referred to euphemistically as “illegal immigrants”, but which should include the pirates and desperados who now rampage throughout the continents and oceans of the world, lead by “war-lords” and “freedom fighters” with a variety of denominations. The previously colonised, “liberated”, nations failed.iv

The effect of this flood out of Africa was to drown most of the constructs of the European Empire, degrading the economics, and social structures in both hemispheres.2 The European colonists retreated, leaving once magnificent cities to become the bones of the rotting corpses of passed civilisations. Nations once highly prosperous, such as Haiti or Madagascar, became derelict.

Intermingling with the flood out of African was the Muslim flood into the West, not initially confrontational, not so easily visible, and reversing the long-past partial victory over the Second Tide. There is no need for obvious confrontation as this invasion has been invited and encouraged by European politicians. Instead there is a slow, irreversible insinuation of the Muslim into every aspect of European society to include the political, judicial, administrative and military frames.

Epilogue: Floods of water by typhoons, tsunamis and hurricanes draw rapid and immediate attention, and their disastrous effects recorded instantly and graphically. However, these physical calamities, even when they affect hundreds of thousands of people, have had nothing like the destructive effect on so many millions of people as has the emigrant flood out of Africa as it has degraded the great civilisation of Europe and their culture and colonisation. It is improbable now that humans will ever again be as well protected from nature’s vicissitudes as they were at the height on the European Colonising Empire. It is unlikely that there has ever been such a dramatic and comprehensive loss of the benefits of human endeavour and the destruction of human creativity in the history of mankind. The rapidity of this collapse, within a century and a half, is evidence of the power of this destructive force. Progressive erosive excoriation of the relatively small remaining European population, now reduced to 7% of the world population, seems likely to continue. It should be expected that European civilisation will be expunged within the next half century.

The French Burqa Ban

August Pointneuf gives his view

The French ban on the burqa will be enforced from 11 April 2011. The result will be catastrophic.

If attempts are made to enforce this law these Muslims will become martyrs on behalf of their religion. Those who believe God is behind them are unstoppable in their intent. Therefore these women will be fined, and will predictably refuse to pay their fines. They will then be imprisoned en masse and the stage will be set for a blood soaked reprisal.

On the other hand, if it is not enforced, the Muslim defiance of French law will be demonstrated and emblazoned on every street. Indeed burqa wearing will likely increase as a gesture of Muslim defiance and assertion. The universal message will then become that Muslims are exempt from French law, and by extension the French law will be progressively regarded as unenforceable. Muslims will have good cause to believe that they are beyond French law. The nation will become ungovernable and uncontrollable.

Many, including the author, will say that people are entitled to dress as they like. Whether it is decorative, protective or symbolic is irrelevant. Social and cultural pressures are the mechanisms which have so effectively governed given groups since time immemorial, with an inherent regulation and conformal orderliness.

If the burqa wearers in France were aliens, perhaps the French community could complain on the grounds of provocative symbolism. But most of these women are not aliens. They are legitimate French citizens. They have fulfilled all the requirements requested of them to become nationals. They were not admitted to France with any conditionality, and it is now immensely unfair to produce conditions retrospectively.

So why enforce the burqa ban? It is because a large proportion of the French feel that their culture is being annulled. They are right. And it makes political capital to agree with the proletariat.

Hollow and fatuous reasons will be used to push this political capital: One is that the burqa prevents identification. This is correct in a Western society, but is traditional, usual and frequent in Muslim societies. So this enforcement is an imposition of a culture – Western culture. Even hollower and more irrational is that legislating against the burqa “frees women from oppression”. This is demented rubbish of course, a childish attempt at professing morality. But it is also an attempt to force a cultural change. Who do politicians think they are and where did they get a mandate to change traditions evolved over millennia?

This problem arose, and should have been stopped, decades ago, when self-serving European politicians in their ignorance, stupidity, and selfish political gamesmanship, began to inveigling a political tenure for themselves, insensitive to the fragility of their own nation’s culture. This is a result of the clumsy self opinionating of those arrogant enough to believe their own delusions that they had a superior intellect. They believed that they could engineer gullible societies. They believed that cultures were disposable and people malleable. They believed that cultural immigration was theirs to manipulate and was within their control.

There is now only one possible exit from calamity, and that is the geographical division of France with autonomous Muslim areas, likely governed by Muslim law. Separate development, if one likes. Cultures, laws and traditions would be allowed natural and inherent expression, and cultural conflict resolved.

There is also a strong message here, to other political cabals in Europe. Face your primarily obligation to protect the evolved cultures in your individual lands and firmly restrict ingress of alien culture immediately, if these blood baths are to be avoided. Most nations will inevitably be forced – sooner (with less blood) or later (with more blood) - to devise strategies of geographical separate development.

Europe now reverts to Eugenics

By August Pointneuf

It is reported that Nicholas Sarkozy has said “the only way to stop the violence and hatred of a multicultural society is through the interbreeding between the races”. If he said that, (and many others have said that) a case can be made that he is (and they are) eugenicists, perhaps (as might be later demonstrated) more despicable than that other sociology amateur and pseudo-scientist, Adolf Hitler.

Since the topic is so emotive and, since definitions vary, to develop the rationale in relation to Sarkozy’s alleged philosophy, it might be wise to start with a relatively neutral consideration of eugenics. Therefore a summary from Wikipedia, unabridged (in small case below), has been used as the foundation text upon which to base this argument:

As a social movement, eugenics reached its height of popularity in the early decades of the 20th century. By the end of World War II eugenics had been largely abandoned.[4] Although current trends in genetics have raised questions amongst critical academics concerning parallels between pre-war attitudes about eugenics and current "utilitarian" and social theories allegedly related to Darwinism,[5] they are, in fact, only superficially related and somewhat contradictory to one another.[6] At its pre-war height, the movement often pursued pseudoscientific notions of racial supremacy and purity.[7]

Sarkozy’s philosophy is that a new, multiply inbred race, the mulatto, will be an improvement upon the variety of races which have existed since pre-history. He claims that it will be a “better” because he speculates - with a naivety only paralleled by Hitler and his cronies - that such a uniform race will be less violent and less hating. Has he any basis whatever for this fantastic belief? Are there any precedents, or any genetic science to support this? There is not. It is entirely a concocted, thumb-suck pseudo-science. Sarkozy claims to have a formula by which he will trump the enormous complexities of human diversity, and believes that he is able to upstage a construct of biology ordained by thousands and thousands of years of successful evolution. Before the barracking starts, it has been successful because humankind has survived, the sine qua non of all debate.

Eugenics was practiced around the world and was promoted by governments, and influential individuals and institutions.

Was practiced? – Is practiced now by self opinionated politicians, with unjustified delusions of a grandiose capability, which they inflict upon hundreds of millions of people, afflicting numbers which historically has never been even remotely approached by the most extreme of megalomaniacal tyrants.

Its advocates regarded it as a social philosophy for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of certain people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of other people and traits.[8]

Does this make my point that Sarkozy is an eugenicist?

Today it is widely regarded as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people.[9]

Agreed. The destruction of race, and the language and cultural uniqueness which these possess, will deprive millions of their, not inconsequential, senses of identity, of belonging, of community and uniqueness.

The "interventions" advocated and practiced by eugenicists involved prominently the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, promiscuous women, homosexuals and entire racial groups -- such as the Roma and Jews -- as "degenerate" or "unfit"; the segregation or institutionalisation of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and in the extreme case of Nazi Germany, their mass extermination.[10]

The “entire racial group” now in question is the white, western European, already an extreme minority (about 8% of the world’s population), and already threatened with extinction. Hitler aimed to exterminate individuals, Sarkozy aims to exterminate an entire race.

The practices engaged in by eugenicists involving violations of privacy, attacks on reputation, violations of the right to life, to found a family, to freedom from discrimination are all today classified as violations of human rights.

The right to found a family is also the right to construct a family with the genetic, social and cultural identity of the parents. To prevent this is to prevent the entrenched imperative of many humans – a crass violation of rights. This philosophy imposes a discrimination upon Europeans.

The practice of negative racial aspects of eugenics, after World War II, fell within the definition of the new international crime of genocide, set out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.[11]

Are we expected to believe that the untrained amateur, Sarkozy, has this super-human insight, this capacity beyond the realm of God to predict an outcome and to manipulate an entire human race into oblivion on the basis that he believe he can engineer “improvements” to human behaviour? Who is he to ordain genocide?

The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[12] drawing on the recent work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin.[13][14] At its peak of popularity eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Margaret Sanger,[15][16] Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Linus Pauling [17] and Sidney Webb.[18][19][20] Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was, however, Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States.[21]

G. K. Chesterton was an early critic of the philosophy of eugenics, expressing this opinion in his book, Eugenics and Other Evils. Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities, and received funding from many sources.[22] Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenicists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York. Eugenic policies were first implemented in the early 1900s in the United States.[23] Later, in the 1920s and 30s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in a variety of other countries, including Belgium,[24] Brazil,[25] Canada,[26] and Sweden,[27] among others. The scientific reputation of eugenics started to decline in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin used eugenics as a justification for the racial policies of Nazi Germany, and when proponents of eugenics among scientists and thinkers prompted a backlash in the public. Nevertheless, In Sweden the eugenics program continued until 1975.[27]

Since the postwar period, both the public and the scientific communities have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced racial hygiene, human experimentation, and the extermination of "undesired" population groups. However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised many new questions and concerns about what exactly constitutes the meaning of eugenics and what its ethical and moral status is in the modern era.

Many European governments, this last century, have jeopardized their populations’ social and cultural integrity, primarily to keep themselves, as individual politicians, in power. To do this they mis-used propaganda, abused legislation and suppressed free-speech on vast numbers of people, far exceeded those numbers controlled by the Nazi government.

Now realizing the magnitude and irreversibility of their catastrophic errors these politicians are trying to find a salvation in ways that have all the stains of blind ineptitude driven by panic, fear and, mainly, cowardice.

See also:
The Exquisite Cultivar
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/04/exquisite-cultivar.html

Experimenting on Humans.
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/02/experimentation-on-humans.html

The Spirit Level.
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/01/book-review-spirit-level-richard.html

August Pointneuf

Book Review: The Spirit Level. Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. 300pp plus addenda. Penguin 2009

By August Pointneuf

The title is a word play on “spirit” with the implication that this means “an elevation of emotion”, perhaps “happiness” (which some understand to mean a certain quality of life.) The book then seeks to prove that similar (“level”) incomes in a society cause greater “happiness”, listing parameters of “anti-happiness” such as shorter life expectancy, more teenage pregnancies, greater social violence, mental illness, less trust and increased prison populations.

The reviewer will not contested that people seem to feel more at ease with their equals, and it seems that similar people intuitively group themselves. The authors, however, with deistic magnanimity, proffer a formula for making people “more equal”. This is a collection of naive (and oft failed) politico-economic interventionalist strategies.

It is far more likely that those populations which possess genetic and cultural similarities will be as near equal as it is possible to be. This will be mediated by similar thinking processes, expectations, entrenched symbolism, familiarity, closer communicative capacity and much more. The aspiration of this book, which is to demonstrate that a single factor can be engineered to benefit humans’ passage through life, is gravely doubted.

This is a bad book because it punts a narrow idea with misleading “statistical facts”, to garner a following. It is arrogant in that it ignores the complexities of human behaviour and counter-behaviour, and purports to be able to reduce this to a simplicity which is, instead, an absurdity.

However, like many books which eventually achieve notoriety, it is important because it illustrates the ease by which irrational cults are established – and how the mainstream media catalyse and accelerate such public opinion, whatever be their motives. This book had reviewers from the Sunday Times, Guardian, Observer, Economist, Independent, New Statesman, Glasgow Herald, Globe and Mail (Toronto), Nature, Irish Times, Financial Times, The Australian and (no surprise here) Socialist Review lathering it with praise, and so bringing their own competence and credibility into account.

“The Spirit Level” is long winded, repetitive and difficult to read. It warrants a chapter and verse refutation, but that is not the purpose of this review.

Written by two epidemiologists, this book reflects the narrow statistical approach which one would expect of them, without the biology to which the reader should be entitled, given that emotions are biological functions. Astoundingly, the book chooses to ignore (except by brushing references) the greatest experiment ever in attempting to increase human contentment by equalising incomes, the communist credo, and its ultimate failure.

Judging by the book’s wide reception (and the 350-odd lectures which it spawned) “happiness” is of profound concern to a great many people.

Currently the interest in the role of governments in providing “happiness” to their populations has been perked up by David Cameron who asked the Office of National Statistics to (attempt to) measure Britain’s “general well being”. This is not novel, and has often been addressed before, inter alia by Richard Layard (an economist) in 2006, which is quoted in this book.

More significant is that the importance of the “Pursuit of Happiness” is written into the American Constitution. Given the brevity of that document, and that it reflected primarily the will of a society (rather than a draft from the distance by which government is now separated from populace) this aspiration was, and should remain, important to societies.

Any attempt to analyse the mechanics of “happiness”, of course, lies in the deep realms of behavioural dynamics, and in the even deeper complexities of psycho-emotionalism.

The reviewer questions the authors’ assumption that happiness is quantifiable. Happiness is, almost entirely, a retrospective emotion. Therefore it lies embedded in vulnerable memories and emotions which, having been selectively filtered, are admixed with residua of nostalgia, grief, regret and fulfilment. Sexual “happiness” is likely to be a separate and highly specific mechanism of reproductive biology. The same applies to the “happiness” related to the satiation of hunger and thirst or the attainment of warmth, each of which needs to be independent and specific if it is to fulfil its biological importance. To attempt any type of broad scoring of “happiness” would be to measure a multiple of agglomerated variables, a useless exercise if the end-point of the endeavour is to extract, condense and formulate political actions for the future.

Our next step is, therefore, to consider what this book seems to be targeting, but has failed to do in a muddle of definitions.

The reviewer suggest that the inaptness of “happiness” as a parameter could be improved via the concept of “contentment”. Since contentment is probably only the negative measure of “absence of stress” the more tangible index could be stress. Stress has long been objectively measured (albeit crudely) both psychologically and physiologically. Therefore, despite its limitations of accuracy, using absence of stress would be an improvement on attempting to grasp the nebulous entity “happiness”. As it happens, examples given in the book that are claimed to “diminish happiness” (such as extended commuting) are all recognised stressors.

Thus the reviewer believes that any attempt to debate the quality of well-being of a population, should be an attempt to define and measure stressors.

None of this should be surprising, since it would seem self-evident that a profound purpose of any society, ideally mediated by its government, is to provide protection against threat. Some would say that amelioration of threat (the trigger of all stress) should be the only purpose of impartial government.

The authors attempt to explain what makes some societies more equal in their “happiness”, repeatedly exemplifying Sweden (and wider Scandinavia plus Finland) and Japan and it is here that the authors finally destroy all their credibility – when they venture into speculative fantasy, proffering the explanation that the Second World War stresses on Japan and Scandinavia produced this effect. (Page 242). Even in the simplest epidemiological terms this is invalid, since they have no comparative measure of their chosen variable as it was before the war.

The statistics in this book can be used, with validly, to demonstrate that the progressive loss of homogeneity in societies, produced by infiltration of alien cultures, is a significant cause of stress and its sequelae. The “wealthiest” countries will be those which attract the greatest number of alien immigrants, as do countries which have the pomposity to believe that lax immigration cannot damage their entrenched cultures. It would be expected that when poor immigrants enter a richer country the disparity in incomes would increase. Likewise, within any given country or state, when the poor are lured into richer areas (by increased benefits, lower taxes or employment opportunities) income disparity will also increase. Migration therefore causes disparities in income and, purely in parallel with that, a cascade of undesirable social consequences.

If it is accepted that the Japanese and Scandinavians have the most homogenous gene pools and (probably not coincidentally) the most stable cultures of the examples cited, then the soundest conclusion that can be extracted from the data presented in this book is that the more culturally and genetically homogenous a society is, so the least is the “inequality” and the least stressed the population.

There are even statements in the book which support this but which are ignored in argument, such as:

Emile Durkheim showed that suicide rates in different countries and populations were related to how well people were integrated into society and whether or not societies were undergoing rapid change and turmoil. (Page 78)

If Wilkinson and Pickett wish to recoup their scientific integrity, they could do worse than to establish some parameters for measuring genetic homogeneity and cultural stability in their sample societies, and then match those parameters against stress levels in those societies. It would come as no surprise if their conclusion was that the most genetically and culturally stable societies had the lowest “inequality”, the lowest stress levels and are the “happiest”.

The book ends with a begging letter, www.equalitytrust.org.uk

Austerity of Intellect.

By August Pointneuf

Peter Hain, from the senior rank of Secretary for Wales, concedes that the Labour government got its assumptions on the number of immigrants from the EU to Britain. “Very wrong".

Very wrong they were indeed, since a (conservative) 250, 000 European migrants are believed to have invaded Britain since the borders were opened. This resulted in an extraordinarily damaging assault on the British tax-payers’ investment in their social service program. Blair predicted "a maximum of 100,000 immigrants from the EU to Britain". Other government "authorities” apparently predicted an intake of 40,000 European immigrants after the borders were opened.

These guesses of the government, with their powerfully damaging impact on the society, were simply thumb-sucks. What astonishing arrogance of a government to impose a policy of this importance, with so little verification, on an entire population. Worse, however, is than that it demonstrates a total absence of common savvy.

Britain and Ireland were bound to be the prime target of economic migrants because English is the most common second language in Europe. What Bulgarian is going to move to Spain, and have to learn Spanish when they already have a smattering of English? English is the most desirable second language for almost any occupation, and those who seek to better themselves economically will, by acquiring English fluency, have an additional highly saleable qualification.

Further the ultimate aim of many economic migrants is to move to what they see as the most desirable destinations in the world, the English speaking nations. By acquiring English their supposition would be that they would later be more able to later move to Australasia, Canada, or the United States, using Britain or Ireland as a temporary staging post. Of course many will not get to the extra-European English speaking world. The second-rate, rejected by the choice nations, will probably stick in Britain and encumber it permanently.

The message is that the present government has been allowed to exercise their inordinate powers without having the necessary knowledge, insight, or intellect and so has caused considerable, and permanent social damage to Britain.

August Pointneuf

The Exquisite Cultivar

By August Pointneuf

The British, the “Island Race”, was pivotal in the development of the modern civilised world, in an evolution of abilities ranging from literature and art to industry and science, which was unique in the history of mankind.

It is true, also, that much of this evolution had its foundation in the broader Western European culture as Europeans became progressively compressed by aliens into the north-western corner of Europe’s continent.

But there are those who are averse to this view, primarily because it is in their interests to pretend that this superiority does not exist. They argue that past invasions make the British no more than a cluttered melange of mixed origins. Therefore, they opine, since the British are not a discrete entity they have no right to claim intrinsic superiority. Those who chose not to accept the unequivocal say much about themselves, notably their blindness to objectivity. Ultimately the necessary defending substantiation lies firmly with the historian.

Others counter, and perhaps demonstrate, that the British are genetically highly homogeneous, and that most of the so-called “invaders”, whether Angles, Saxons, Normans, or Romans have close genetic origins. The Celts are considered to have been positive contributors and Jews powerful catalytic benefactors.

But all these debates are frivolous and pointless. The end-point of these arguments must always be that a relatively small group, which historically defended the ingress of strangers and protected by geographic isolation, became the creators of the greatest civilisation ever.
It matters nil what their origins are. The reality is in what they succeeded in creating. Whatever their blend, this group did it. This people displayed unique superiority, so much so that it enabled them to create the largest Empire ever known, and stamp their brand across the entire world.

Biological success is measured by its instance. Who contests the beauty or scent of a plant because its origins are obscure? Does one debate the benefits of a superior cultivar of wheat, or the flavour of the trout because each has evolved from distant cross-breeding or unknown primordial origins?
It is demonstrable reality which counts. This isolated group, the British, had the blend which succeeded, and we should care about their origins not one jot.

However, like all cultivars, the British as a race are not infinitely robust. The British will not continue to function as a superior breed if they are bred out. Just as superior breeds of cattle, or dogs, or rare alpines, or dolphins will lose their places in the fine balance of biology if cross-bred, so also is the British cultivar highly vulnerable. What insanity would encourage into a herd of Highland cattle, carefully protected and cosseted for centuries to preserve their unparalleled qualities, a contaminating Black Angus bull?

Ironically, it is often those who do recognise fine biological distinctions and who seek to protect species diversity, that have tried to destroy the unequalled capabilities of the British. It has been those who protect and defend the rare plant or animal, that have been promoting the cross-breeding which will breed out the unique qualities of the European.

This group of busybodies preens itself indulgently as “liberals” with the connotation that this makes them advanced intellectually and morally, superior purveyors of distillate compassion, foresight and wisdom.

Instead they have become malevolent jesters, whose delusions are destroying that exquisite cultivar which has been the People of Britain.

August Pointneuf


Copyright 2010. Reproduction with permission.

Marauding bands

By August Pointneuf

As the White-African administrators were forced from office, so began the fracturing of civic control in Africa. One of the earliest to fail, perhaps the most important, was border control. In parallel with this was a loss of integrity and capacity in the police, with extremes of corruption, rampant bribery and brutality. Even where integrity survived there was seldom a capacity to act. Most police forces had insufficient motor vehicles or communications, and the arms with which they were supplied were stolen or sold.

The legal system, from constable to judge subsided into disarray, corrupt and purchasable. Not surprisingly lawlessness increased. Initially petty crime was tested but soon this changed to brutality when it was seen that it was as easy to murder as to leave alive a potential witness. So began the era of confrontational crime; there was often no attempt to be surreptitious or to cover tracks.

The White-Africans had anticipated this catastrophe during their administrative period.

Despite their pleas for reason and caution, their civilising role was destroyed more by the self-proclaimed sanctimonious European sects, than by the black “anti-colonial movements”.

The fatuous political beliefs held by the western nations and the manipulative playing of “communism” against “capitalism” brought the buccaneers a harvest of arms, mines and rocket launchers.

With the progressive decay of Africa, these bands of brigands became larger and foraged over increasingly wide areas. So lawlessness gained momentum, and groups grew in number and size, escalating into the numerous wars in the bush of Africa, using arms liberally supplied, by both the West and East.

A spectrum of terms, ranging from euphemistic to deprecatory depending on viewpoint, has been applied to these groups. Names included “militias”, “freedom fighters”, “warlords”, “independence movements”, “terrorists”, “insurrectionists”, “bandits”, but all groups were essentially the same, with predatory intent.

Some groups, hoping to manipulate western cults into support, adopted terms such as “Liberation”, “Democratic”, “Christian”, “The People’s” which bore no relationship to their goal or affinity.

They destroyed malaria and tsetse fly control and their migrations also spread cholera, plague, tuberculosis, meningitis, venereal diseases and HIV, amplifying the epidemic levels of AIDS now in Africa. The ecology was ravaged and the animal life decimated.

Children were abducted and recruited into armies, young boys to become the child machine-gun wielding soldiers, the young girls to become “comforters” and field support groups. In Zimbabwe entire schools were conscripted and forced-marched north into the “training camps”. Although well documented, the numbers will never be known, but they are measured in thousands. These children knew no life other than that of the bandit, and knew no other way to survive other than as looters.

The numbers and sizes of these groups continue to increase, inevitable in the absence of any other form of income and the decay of any defence of social order. Driving this further is Africa’s economic destruction, with the massive decline in agriculture, commerce and the creative use of resources.

Progressively they are foraging further afield and have begun to intrude into and infest those areas of Africa which are still struggling to hold some remnant of civic capacity.

Any suggestion that this decay of civilisation could possibly spread to the “civilised nations of the West” will be laughingly dismissed by the self-contented in their banker’s suits in Bonn.

However it is worth recognising the large numbers of these forces and their desperate intent. Recognise also the early signs in the thousands of “illegal aliens” invading Europe now. It will not take much sponsorship, using the massive amounts of criminally controlled drug, oil revenues and organised crime revenues, all currently available, to facilitate the infiltration of these brigands into Europe. Indeed, simultaneous decay of civic control is already occurring in the heartland of Europe, and alien sympathisers are already well infiltrated into almost every part of Europe.

Exactly the same material, as the bandits in Africa, without conventional income or civic restraints, now exists in the alien population of Europe. It will grow exponentially with the more than willing volunteers, as national economies further decline.

On the streets of Europe today’s roving gangs of brutalising immigrant youths, already uncontrollable, are the ominous warning of what is to come.

Conveniently for them, border control in Europe is being dismantled, and a common EU currency allowing cash to be accepted over large areas, helps their cause.

Since this malignant spread will be by surreptitious infiltration, sabotage, random and sporadic plunder, and by people who hold value on their own lives little, conventional policing or military control will be impotent. Western destruction will be by social and financial attrition.

The comparatively small numbers of Europeans will not survive the type of attrition made possible by the infinitely replaceable numbers from the Third World.


Addendum.

Extensive literature supporting this essay is available on the Internet, and therefore no specific references are included. Search terms such as "child+soldiers" could be used.

The nefarious black propaganda, which held that "entire nations were rising up against colonial suppression", was one of the world’s great illusions, swallowed with impassioned glee by European “Liberals”.

The vast majority of the black population under colonial rule understood and accepted the benefits of white administration. Their great fear was not the whites, but the bands of black insurrectionists, as has been gruesomely borne out.

It was the same misleading propaganda which claimed "South Africa would end in a bloodbath" that formed the basis for Nelson Mandela's claim to the Nobel Prize when it was held that he (and often he alone) engineered the "peaceful transition to South African independence". Reality was very different as this site demonstrates repeatedly.

Readers searching for true heroes of the era of white administration in Africa, and their protection of the black majority from these marauding bands, are encouraged to view following.

http://www.freewebs.com/dudleywall/index.htm
http://www.rhodesianforces.org/InternalAffiars.htm

August Pointneuf

Experimentation on humans

By August Pointneuf

In the hope of attaining therapeutic advantages, experimentation on humans occurs. But the outcome of all experiments is unknown. Consequently, in the 21st century, it is expected that experimentation on humans be approached with extreme caution under carefully defined, and strict, conditions. Such experiments are invariably preceded by theoretical modelling and animal studies. Tentative experiments on the smallest possible groups precede any thought of extension to larger groups. Independent and objective appraisers rule on the morality and ethics. The cost-benefits of the outcome are predetermined and potential benefits are carefully weighed against risk. Potential risks are assessed in terms of both long and short term hazard, with scrupulous consideration of unexpected and unintended outcomes. Experiments are controlled to ensure the validity of hypothesised conclusions and are reviewed frequently to ensure that adverse complications are discovered early. If so the experiment is stopped.

However, in the early 21st century so unfettered was the power of British politicians (or the power allowed to those politicians) that they were able to undertake unprecedented experimentation on a huge human society. The equilibrium of an entire nation was put at risk, by the cavalier experiments based on the whim of a few.

There will be some who argue that "society" is not "human". They are wrong. Societies are the ultimate evolutionary expression of all human endeavours. Societies are the complex capacitor within which all human activity exists, in an intricate behavioural construct. Without a context-structured society individual humans cannot survive. Therefore damaging a society inflicts direct damage upon the individual people who comprise that society.

By encouraging the immigration of alien races the Labour government began a massive, irreversible, uncontrolled, experiment on a homogenous people. There was no modelling; there was no tentative trial on small groups and no monitoring for adversity. These are not scientists and these were not people who had any experience of experimentation. These people had no training in psychology, sociology or any of the other biological sciences. They were rank amateurs who had been given too much power. Their experiment was forcefully imposed, without specific mandate, on an entire nation.

Nazi experimentation on humans was confined to a small proportion of a large population. The Labour government, in crass abuse of their authority, experimented upon a complete population.

The execution of alien ingress forced differing races and varied behaviours into Britain. Inevitably those races would interbreed. The unsupported assumption was made that race and behaviour have no relationship to one another, and that people were uncomplainingly malleable. This was a blind guess by the arrogant and assumptive, whose judgements were intoxicated by power. It therefore became an experiment in the genetics of miscegenation, and experimental manipulation of human behavioural patterns.

If Tony Blair and his cronies are held to task for contriving the invasion of Iraq, so much more so should they be held to task for allowing the experimental invasion of Britain.

August Pointneuf