What Kills Civilisations and Nation

http://rense.com/general95/canamer.html

It happened to the Romans. It happened to the American Indians. It happened to the Incas of South America. It happened to the aborigines of Australia. It happened to South Africans. It’s happening to Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, Holland, Belgium, Australia, France and Spain.

It is happening to the United States of America.

What is “it”?

All those ancient civilizations experienced migration of other civilizations so great in numbers that “it” changed their languages, religions, cultures and ways of life.

The Romans lost their empire. The American Indians lost everything and found themselves stuck on internment camps better known as “reservations.” Today, they cope with alcohol, domestic violence, poverty and purposelessness. The Spaniard Pizarro, using his guns, degraded the Inca nation into oblivion. The Australian aboriginals, like the American Indians, lost their continent to the British invasion. The same happened with South Africa.

Today, Great Britain, by its own hand, watches itself change from “British” to Middle Eastern Islamic right before its eyes. The same goes for Norway, Sweden, Holland, Belgium, France, Canada, Australia and Spain.

While academics and social elites call it “multiculturalism and diversity”, such numbers of humanity racing into first world countries—flood host countries with incompatible cultures, religions and sheer numbers.

But today, another aspect of mass migration percolates to the surface, but nobody wants to talk about it much less deal with it. Top leaders of every country avoid addressing it at all costs. Average citizens don’t know it exists much less understand its growing ramifications.

For example, Great Britain today, already crowded beyond sustainability, houses 61 million people on its tiny islands with a sum total landmass smaller than the State of Oregon. Nonetheless, they continue importing people that will add a projected 11 million additions within two decades. No one will whisper a word about it and no one knows when the additions will stop or if Britain will choose to or be able to stop them. Since the third world adds 80 million people annually, there is no end of the line for the numbers of desperate humanity.

Great Britain provides a 21st century rendition of Easter Island’s legendary population debacle back in the 1800s.

Holland provides another rendition in that it houses 18 million people in a tiny landmass about 90 miles wide by 180 miles long. They must import everything into their country in order to feed, warm, house and transport themselves. They cannot sustain 18 million people on such a tiny landmass without total dependence on the outside world.

Today, China, adding 8.1 million net gain annually, buys farmland in Africa and South America in order to feed its projected addition of 300 million by 2050—a scant 38 years.

Can America withstand the coming transformation of itself?

In the past 40 years, America endured immigration that added 100 million people by October of 2008 to the lower 48 states. This country, at present rates of mass migration, will add another 100 million people by 2035. We will add another 38 million on top of that by 2050. Total: 438 million from our current 315 million. (Sources: PEW Hispanic Center, “US Population Projections” Fogel/Martin, US Census Bureau)

On July 11, 2012, ABC’s anchor Diane Sawyer reported on New York adding two to five million more residents in the coming decades. She said that 300 square foot apartments would be the norm of the future. A 300 square foot apartment equals the size of two car parking spaces. Is this the kind of transformation we want as individuals and communities? Do we want to repeat Rome’s path? Great Britain’s? China’s? India’s? Mexico’s?

How will adding another 100 million people within 38 years help our water, energy, resources, standard of living and quality of life?

If allowed to proceed, this transformation will affect every aspect of our freedom, quality of life, environment and the planet itself. None of it positive!

"Unlimited population growth cannot be sustained; you cannot sustain growth in the rates of consumption of resources. No species can overrun the carrying capacity of a finite land mass. This Law cannot be repealed and is not negotiable.” Dr. Albert Bartlett, www.albartlett.org , University of Colorado, USA.

This is not the time to complain or whine. You must engage your congress-critters. Go into their offices. Tell them what you want. This is a Republic and it is up to you to take action by voting the bad ones out and/or running for office yourself. The two top organizations for taking action and making impact are www.NumbersUSA.org and www.CapsWeb.org . Become a phone caller and faxer of pre written letters. It’s up to you.

My Theory On Race As Speciation Is Proved

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/early-africans-mated-with-mystery-species-of-humans/2012/07/26/gJQAxFzZBX_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

The human family tree just got another — mysterious — branch, an African “sister species” to the heavy-browed Neanderthals that once roamed Europe.

While no fossilized bones have been found from these enigmatic people, they did leave a calling card in present-day Africans: snippets of foreign DNA.

There’s only way one that genetic material could have made it into modern human populations.

“Geneticists like euphemisms, but we’re talking about sex,” said Joshua Akey of the University of Washington in Seattle, whose lab identified the foreign DNA in three groups of modern Africans.

These genetic leftovers do not resemble DNA from any modern-day humans. The foreign DNA also does not resemble Neanderthal DNA, which shows up in the DNA of some modern-day Europeans, Akey said. That means the newly identified DNA came from an unknown group.

“We’re calling this a Neanderthal sibling species in Africa,” Akey said. He added that the interbreeding likely occurred 20,000 to 50,000 years ago, long after some modern humans had walked out of Africa to colonize Asia and Europe, and around the same time Neanderthals were waning in Europe.

Akey said that present-day Europeans show no evidence of the foreign DNA, meaning the mystery people were likely confined to Africa.

The find offers more evidence that for thousands of years, modern-looking humans shared the Earth with evolutionary cousins that later died out. And whenever the groups met, they did what came naturally — they bred.

The once controversial idea that humans mated with other species is now widely accepted among scientists. In fact, hominid hanky-panky seems to have occurred wherever humans met others who looked kind of like them.

In 2010, researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany announced finding Neanderthal DNA in the genomes of modern Europeans.

Heavy-set people whose thick double brows, broad noses, and flat faces set them apart from modern humans, Neanderthals disappeared around 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.

Another mysterious group of extinct people recently identified from a finger bone in Siberia — known as the Denisovans — also left some of their DNA in modern day Pacific Islanders.

And while modern humans and the newly found “archaic” Africans might be classified as distinct species, they managed to produce viable offspring. Likewise, donkeys and horses, lions and tigers, and whales and dolphins can mate and make babies.

“They had to be similar enough in appearance to anatomically modern humans that reproduction would happen,” said Akey. But with no fossils in hand, it’s impossible to say what these people looked like. It’s also impossible to say whether the matings were consensual or forced.

But one thing is clear: This enigmatic group left their DNA all across Africa. The researchers found it in the forest-dwelling pygmies of central Africa and in two groups of hunter-gatherers on the other side of the continent — the Hadza and Sandawe people of Tanzania.

Starting a decade ago, a team led by Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Pennsylvania drew blood from five individuals in each of the three groups. Using the latest genetic technology, Tishkoff spent $150,000 to read, or sequence, the DNA of these 15 people.

Besides finding evidence of the now-extinct species, the team discovered a huge range of genetic diversity between the three groups. The human genome contains about three billions letters, or base pairs, of DNA. Before this study, scientists had found that some 40 million of these letters vary across human populations.

But in the 15 Africans, Tishkoff found another three million genetic variants — a huge trove of human diversity. Among this stunning variety, Tishkoff says she has pinpointed some of the genes responsible for the short stature of the pygmies, who average less than five feet in height. She also found that immune system genes and genes for taste and smell varied wildly between the three groups — confirming Africa as the seat of the most human diversity.

The research was reported Wednesday in the journal Cell.

“This is very cutting-edge population genetics work,” said geneticist Spencer Wells, a National Geographic explorer. “This ‘whole genome’ analysis the team performed is really revolutionizing our understanding of human history. It’s an exciting time to be in the field, but it’s difficult to interpret all the new data.”

Wells said the oldest modern human skull, found in Ethi­o­pia, dates to 195,000 years ago. For more than 150,000 years, then, humans shared the planet with cousin species.

Despite all the amorous advances, though, only one group survived — us.

Akey said: “As we were conquering the world, we also conquered similar human populations that were dying out.”

Is This What British Soldiers Died For ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/9426488/The-Islamist-terror-that-links-Syria-and-Iraq.html

The modern-day states of Iraq and Syria once formed the ancient kingdom of Mesopotamia. They share the same tribal culture, heritage and a lengthy border. It is hardly surprising, then, that they still have much in common.

Having both been ruled by Hashemite kings following their creation as independent states in the aftermath of the First World War, they became the only Arab states to adopt the Ba’ath party’s revolutionary ideology and were renowned for their hostility to the West.

While on occasion this relationship has become somewhat frayed, not least when the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein declared his desire to unite both regimes under his barbaric rule in the Seventies, the ties that exist between Baghdad and Damascus have ensured that such unpleasant memories are soon overcome.

Now these two Arab states can boast yet another, less welcome, characteristic that binds them together: they have both become targets for al-Qaeda’s new generation of Islamist jihadists.

At first glance, it appears that the bombers responsible for the recent attacks in Damascus and Baghdad were motivated by very different objectives. Related Articles

In Syria, last week’s carefully executed bombing of the National Security headquarters, which killed President Bashar al-Assad’s brother-in-law, as well as the country’s defence minister, was in all probability the act of groups working for the Free Syrian Army, a mainly Sunni Muslim force that is seeking to overthrow Assad’s minority Allawite regime, which has ruled the country for more than four decades.

In Baghdad, on the other hand, the recent well-coordinated series of bombings and shootings against a number of government targets in 15 different cities and towns was carried out by Iraqi Sunni extremists. Many of them are disaffected members of Saddam’s Ba’athist tyranny who are trying to force the government of Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s Shi’ite Muslim prime minister, to establish a more inclusive regime, one that represents the interests of the Sunni and Kurdish minorities, rather than simply feathering the nests of the majority Shi’ite Muslim population.

But while the objectives of these anti-government activists may differ, there is a chilling similarity in the tactics they employ in their respective quarrels with the ruling cliques in Iraq and Syria.

In both countries, the recent wave of bombings bears all the hallmarks of al-Qaeda terror cells, both in terms of their planning and the execution. Indeed, the group responsible for the Iraqi bombings, al-Qaeda in Iraq, makes no secret of its allegiance to the organisation originally founded by Osama bin Laden.

In a statement issued shortly after the attacks, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who claims to be the leader of the Iraqi cell, deliberately sought to link the violence in Iraq to the Sunni revolt in neighbouring Syria. According to al-Baghdadi, al-Qaeda has launched a campaign it calls “Breaking Down the Walls”, whereby it aims to overthrow the established governments in Baghdad and Damascus and replace them with regimes more in tune with the group’s strict Islamist agenda.

This might seem far-fetched, particularly as al-Qaeda has already suffered one humiliating defeat in Iraq: moderate Sunni tribal leaders refused to support the terrorist group’s extremist agenda and helped US forces to defeat it by forming the “Anbar Awakening” in 2006. Iraqi Sunnis might want to see a more representative government running Baghdad, but most of them have no desire for a return of the appalling scenes of sectarian violence that devastated the country from 2006 to 2007.

And yet the fact that al-Qaeda, which was effectively destroyed as an organisation in Iraq by the end of 2007, is back with a vengeance is a direct result of the violence taking place in neighbouring Syria. Even before last week’s attack on the National Security building, senior Iraqi officials had expressed concern about the existence of a number of al-Qaeda cells in the eastern city of Fallujah, which were travelling freely across the Syrian border to support the rebel cause. Now it appears that these cells are travelling in the opposite direction from Syria to Iraq, with all the potentially disastrous implications that could have for regional stability.

Until now the priority of Western policy-makers has been to stop the fighting in Syria on humanitarian grounds. But a conflict that has so far claimed more than 17,000 Syrian lives could easily reach levels not seen since the worst days of Iraq’s sectarian violence – if, as now seems possible, the turbulence spreads beyond Syria’s borders. Rather than treating Syria as a humanitarian crisis, the West should see its troubles as a threat to the stability of the entire region, and act accordingly.

Northern Europeans The First Americans

In a discovery that could rewrite the history of the Americas, archaeologists have found a number of stone tools dating back between 19,000 and 26,000 years, and bearing remarkable similarities to those made in Europe.

All of the ancient implements were discovered along the north-east coast of the USA.

The tools could reassert the long dismissed and discredited claim that Europeans in the form of Christopher Columbus and his crew were the first to discover the New World.

Previous discoveries of tools have only been dated back to 15,000 years ago and prompted many archaeologists and historians to question claims that stone-age man managed to migrate to North America.

But the striking resemblance in the way the primitive American tools were made to European ones dating from the same period now suggests a remarkable migration took place.

Adding to the weight of evidence is fresh analysis of stone knife unearthed in the US in 1971 that revealed it was made of French flint.

Professor Dennis Stanford from Washington's Smithsonian Institution, and Professor Bruce Bradley from Exeter University believe that the ancient Europeans travelled to North America across an Atlantic frozen over by the Ice Age.

During the height of the Ice Age, ice covered some three million square miles of the North Atlantic, providing a solid bridge between the two continents. Plentiful numbers of seal, penguins, seabirds and the now extinct great auk on the edge of the ice shelf could have provided the stone-age nomads with enough food to sustain them on their 1,500-mile walk.

"Across Atlantic Ice", a book by professors Stanford and Bradley presenting the case for the trans-Atlantic trek, is published next month.

The Republic Is Born.

The moment the Queen shook McGuniness's hand was historic and symbolic.

It will be seen by history as the moment we became a Republic and the Monarchy fell.

It will take a few more decades to happen, but the line has been crossed.

The moment the Queen shook that murdering terrorists hand was the moment the Monarchy confirmed its utter irrelevance.

That betrayal by the Queen is the birth of the British Republic.

The New IQ Elite

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100163885/a-new-global-elite-is-on-the-march/

Have you come across “OES syndrome”? The letters stand for Overeducated Elitist Snob, and if you don’t know what that means let me draw your attention to the front benches of the House of Commons.

OES syndrome is an American term, coined by the US political scientist Charles Murray to describe the clustering of wealth, power and – crucially – intelligence at one end of the social spectrum. Murray’s new book Coming Apart: The State of White America is not as controversial as The Bell Curve, the 1994 volume in which he and Richard Herrnstein compared race and IQ. But its conclusions are every bit as alarming.

A hundred years ago, says Murray, most Americans in the top five per cent of cognitive ability had ordinary occupations. They were very clever shopkeepers, farmers, housewives and factory workers. But they didn’t somersault over their peers.

One reason is that they couldn’t marry very smart people. High intelligence was scattered evenly across America, so a gifted farm worker might have to travel 100 miles before he met a woman as bright as he was. Instead, he married an ordinary local girl, and their children, regressing to the mean, were only slightly cleverer than their schoolfriends.

The explosion of college education changed that. Universities plucked bright kids out of their home towns like a tornado and suddenly they found that they weren’t in Kansas any more. Young people hooked up with equally intelligent partners and passed on two sets of smart genes.

This mobility opened up Ivy League universities to competition from ultra-bright candidates. The old-money aristocracy at Harvard, Yale and Princeton shrank, but the average IQ at those universities soared – and with it the earning potential of alumni. The newly elite students married each other and the result, says Murray, is a hard core of Overeducated Elitist Snobs.

Members of this supercharged class don’t just separate themselves from the poor: they’re quarantined from “everybody who isn’t as rich and well educated as they are”. They also produce clever, rich children by marrying brains and money (which go together these days).

Remind you of anybody? We may tease David Cameron and George Osborne for being “toffs”, but they’re more than that. Although both inherited money, they’re also furiously ambitious academic snobs of the type Murray describes. In their meritocracy, the purpose of a superior brain is to amass money and power. Intellectual curiosity isn’t encouraged lest it jeopardise that project. Hence the anomaly of a prime minister with a brilliant First from Oxford who has never uttered a truly original thought in public.

Let’s not kid ourselves that the elitism of this Oxbridge-educated Coalition will disappear when it loses power. Labour has its own OES syndrome; so do politicians and business leaders from Palo Alto to Beijing. Free market capitalism forces the brightest people to the top. That may sound like good news, but it also creates an association between intelligence and living standards that, in the long run, will condemn stupid people to poverty.

The new marriage patterns do as much harm as good. Once bright people are taken out of the local gene pool, what does that leave? Our natural reaction is to say: “Let’s not go there.” But we really have no choice, because global capitalism is creating a cognitive hierarchy in front of our eyes – and, with it, inequalities just as cruel as the ones we thought we had abolished.

FROM ONE OF THE COMMENTS LEFT ON THE ARTICLE ;

This is much the same argument as I use to assert that the UK was the first nation to become genetically stratified. It happened first because we initiated the Industrial Revolution which brought the bulk of the population from the countryside to towns and cities and opened opportunities for untapped talent outside the landed aristocracy. People marry people similar to themselves; this is called assortative mating.

Genetic stratification is not a caste system. The reason being the regression toward the mean mentioned in the blog. This is a simple and inevitable consequence of characteristics being transmitted as discrete units: genes. Its effect is that on average offspring are less extremely removed from the overall population mean of a characteristic with a metric such as that of height or IQ than their parents. For example, the offspring of the bright tend to be less bright and those of the tall shorter and vice versa in both cases.

The "on average" mentioned above allows for potential variation among offspring such that they may become more extreme than the mean value of a characteristic of their parents. Thus, even the dimmest will produce some offspring closer to the population mean intelligence and a small proportion may greatly exceed this. Of course as nature and nurture influence the expression of a characteristic the offspring of the dimmest may lack much contribution from nurture and social intervention may be required to unlock talent.

The upshot is that a genetically stratified society must be understood as dynamic rather than static. The dynamic upwards and downwards is closer to glacial growth than a fast running stream but it has immense consequences.

This reasoning supports the notion that we should move toward a true meritocracy rather than the lip service currently made. Upward and downward movement should not be partially locked as at present. Keeping talent down is both wasteful and stores up trouble from intelligent people inn the lower social strata: it is those who will become criminal gang leaders or militant trade unionists. Not allowing those of less talent than expected in their class to drift downwards is equally bad. It means that resources, especially inherited wealth, are sequestered away from those who would use them better.

So in order to further meritocracy opportunity must be unlocked. This entails radical overhaul of the education system and the introduction of inheritance tax that is no longer effectively optional for the wealthy.

Meritocracy should not be construed as dog eat dog in a scramble for wealth. I am not advocating the crass "American Dream". Meritocracy is much more than opportunity to amass wealth according to ability. What it is to do with is encouraging each individual to work hard to develop such talent as he has so that he may find a niche that gives satisfaction whether in workaday life or in the pursuit of family interests and hobbies. Some of the most talented will be drawn to entrepreneurship, others to the learned professions and academe in expectation of a comfortable lifestyle rather than wealth but with the challenge and satisfaction of following their profession most important.

The bottom of the talent pile should be considered too. There is no reason why those performing relatively menial tasks should not be instilled with pride in doing what they do well. There is no reason why they should not be valued and seen to be. Part of that value is reflected through wages. Whilst income differentials are inevitable in a society that values freedom to make one's own way and act as an incentive for achievement the grossly disparate distribution at present is indicative of market-capitalism having been permitted to enter a pathological state whereby opportunity is monopolised by the few; it must be released.

What has gone very wrong is that the rat race to wealth, reflected now in the "bonus culture", is regarded as somehow noble, that gross disparities in wealth are as inevitable as winter and that it is every man for himself, may the devil take the hindmost. Those resisting change to the status quo are displaying a selfish short sightedness that is ultimately to their detriment. The words society and community have become ill-defined, misused and sometimes derided. A society is more than the sum of individuals battling for their own interests. There is interdependence that even the most wealthy have to rely on. Some of this is enshrined in our laws.

Feelings of fair play arise spontaneously in childhood. When it is perceived to be absent historical precedent shows that nasty consequences can afflict even the most entrenched elites if they don't give grouind. They should bear in mind that so-called property rights are no such thing. They appear on no tablet of stone (not even "thou shalt not steal" is a prescription for how economic wealth should be divided up in the first place) . They are societally defined. Property ownership is in general a good that most people recognise. Yet that should not lead to unquestioning acceptance of present assumptions on how generated wealth should be shared among those who labour and those who can't labour or about how much should be inherited by those who didn't earn it.

The days of the OESs are numbered.

The Globalist Agenda Revealed.

Finally the Globalist Corporate Fascist agenda is revealed - the British Army will be downsized and replaced by cheap foreign mercenaries, the same as the British economy has been globalised and replaced with cheap foreign workers.

This is the globalist corporate agenda exposed - and it is being imposed by traitor filth governments elected by moronic British people at the behest of the globalist media.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2155593/Slimmed-Army-rely-foreign-mercenaries-fight-Britain-future-wars.html

The Army will have to rely on help from private contractors and foreign soldiers in future wars, the Defence Secretary will announce today.

Several regiments will be axed or merged as the Army downsizes from 102,000 personnel to 82,000 by 2020.

Private military contractors, Nato allies and Territorial Army reservists will be employed to plug the gaps, Philip Hammond will say.

In a speech to the Royal United Services Institute in London, Mr Hammond will outline plans for paid civilian soldiers to provide ‘logistics support’ for regular front-line soldiers.

He will promise that the UK will maintain ‘teeth’ for any future military operations, but add that others will have to help with key tasks to keep soldiers armed and fed.

This could lead to recently retired soldiers being rehired as mercenary contractors to deliver kit to front-line soldiers.

Britain could also be forced to rely on other countries for vital transport and logistics tasks, which are currently undertaken by soldiers’ own countrymen.

Mr Hammond will tell the think-tank’s conference on land warfare that the Army will ‘rethink the way we deliver every aspect of military effect in order to maximise capability at the front-line’.

He will say Army chiefs are now ‘thinking innovatively about how combat service support is provided, using more systematically the skills available in the reserve and from our contractors.’

He will add that commanders are ‘working closely with partners to operate logistics more rationally through Alliance structures’, as the Army looks ‘to others to provide the tail, where Britain is concentrating on providing the teeth’.

The long-mooted cuts to personnel were detailed in the Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2010. However, the plans for greater involvement of private military contractors will fuel fears that the economic crisis will leave the UK saddled with a cut-price Armed Forces, placing our soldiers in danger.

Hammond is also braced for a bitter fight over Army reorganisation when he publishes a plan to slash the number of regiments before the summer.

The reorganisation of the British Army will reduce numbers from 102,000 to 82,000

The reorganisation of the British Army will reduce numbers from 102,000 to 82,000

He will pledge to maintain the vital links between regiments and the communities from which they recruit – but he will also acknowledge that some historic cap badges face the axe.

He will say: ‘There is no question, of abandoning the regimental system. But that does not mean that we can avoid difficult decisions as the Army gets smaller.

‘A regular Army of 82,000 will have a different structure to one of 102,000. And some units inevitably will be lost or will merge. In making those decisions, the military voice must prevail.’

Mr Hammond also wants to beef up the reserves, investing £1.8billion in the TA and doubling the number of members to 38,000. This would leave a total of 120,000 soldiers at commanders’ disposal.

Reserve units will be twinned with regular Army regiments, so that members of the TA will train with soldiers they would be deployed alongside.

Mr Hammond will say his Army 2020 proposals provide ‘the opportunity to transform the role of reserve forces’.

He will continue: ‘The future reserves must be structured to provide, as they do today, some niche specialists capabilities that aren’t cost-effective to maintain on a full-time basis – for example in areas of cyber, medical, or intelligence.

‘The integrated Army concept means that light infantry battalions will be reinforced on deployment through a permanent partnership with reserve battalions.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2155593/Slimmed-Army-rely-foreign-mercenaries-fight-Britain-future-wars.html#ixzz1x5w2lTBN