White Share of U.S. Population Drops to Historic Low

[M Winther]

"White Share of U.S. Population Drops to Historic Low"

"...Minorities younger than 18 are expected to overtake the number of
white children by 2019, the Census Bureau said last year. The U.S. is
projected to become a majority-minority nation by 2043."
http://tinyurl.com/ljqz5gn
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/white-share-of-u-s-population-drops-to-historic-low.html

My comment: Within thirty years, white Americans will no longer be a
majority in the U.S. It is time to open our eyes to the consequences for
Western civilization by the changes in demography in the biggest Western
state. Can Western ideas of freedom and democracy survive under these
circumstances? Whatever happened to the instinctual drive to promote
one's own genetic line, which is so strong in other ethnic groups, such
as the Chinese and the Arabs?

M. Winther

[Vidcapper]

Culture is not dependant on race - it is the former that keeps a country
strong & united.

--
Regards,

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[Abhidevananda]

Furthermore, "freedom and democracy" is not an inalienable
concomitance. Rather, the two are frequently at variance.

[saracene]

http://tinyurl.com/lclne6v

A report on fatherhood from the Office for National Statistics, published ahead of Fathers’ Day, shows that 171,700 babies born in England and Wales in 2011 – or 24 per cent – had a foreign born father.

When mothers born overseas are also taken into account, it shows that overall a third of babies born in 2011 had at least one parent from outside the UK.

Pakistan continues to be the main place of birth for foreign fathers,

[Ophelia]

"Vidcapper" <vidca...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fdzut.61747$y63....@fx25.am4...

Multiculturalism wrecked that:( Just one more thing to thank Bliar for.
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[M Winther]

"Vidcapper" <vidca...@yahoo.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:fdzut.61747$y63....@fx25.am4...

No, it's the other way around. Culture, including democratic values,
depend on race and ethnicity. It derives from within. The Arab Spring
hasn't produced democracy, contrary to the naive expectation of Western
politicians. Black people in the U.S haven't been able to become
succesful in white civilization. Thus, American civilization will change
to better suit the Blacks and other minorities. A third of the Blacks in
U.S. are today subject to legal action. We always think that culture,
since we were children, has programmed us with our way of thinking. It's
not that simple. Culture is to a large measure an expression of our own
inner nature, namely how we, as an ethic group, function morally and
intellectually. White civilization, freedom of speech, etc., suits the
white man. But the Arabs, for instance, can't put up with it; especially
as it applies to womankind.

M. Winther

[abelard]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:00:39 +0200, "M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se>
wrote:

is that the one child policy?

[Blue]

On 14/06/2013 07:00, M Winther wrote:

----

44.9 per cent White British.

36.7% of London's population are foreign-born.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_London

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Birmingham

[Andy Wainwright]

But it's not new.

There's always been upper, middle and working classes. England is and
has always been principly divided on class. There's considerably more
integration between those of the same class and different ethnicity than
vice versa, which is not impossible but rarer.

As for ethnicity, well before major immigration from outside Europe,
different religious factions coexisted, and often not harmoniously-
there's been pogroms against catholics, protestants, quakers and jews
for example.

The nearest we've come to a united nation was the few decades after WW2,
simply being to exhausted from fighting the axis to have time to worry
about fighting ourselves.

[Andy Wainwright]

There's only one point in demographics. To divide, rule and sell us crap
we don't want or need.

I see a nation as a collection of individuals, families and enterprises.
That disputes between these are legally and justly arbitrated is all
that matters.

The demographic lobby are pied pipers, simple as that.

[M Winther]

"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> skrev i meddelandet
news:miplr85esi1pq828t...@4ax.com...

Indeed, that has secured the survival of the Chinese civilization, which
would collapse, otherwise. The policy of the Western world, namely to
promote an expansion of humanity in terms of numbers (especially black
humans), risks leading to a collapse and a following extinction of
humanity. Some researchers now believe that the human species runs a 50%
risk of going extinct in the present era. In China, Western ideas have
had a a pronounced detrimental effect (Marxism, capitalism, etc.). They
have caused enormous damage to the Chinese country and culture.

M. Winther

[M Winther]

"Andy Wainwright" <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> skrev i
meddelandet news:kpeqeg$77q$1...@dont-email.me...

I'd wish I were a simpleton, like you. Then everything becomes so
simple, and one needn't really worry about anything. I wouldn't have to
worry about future generations and the survival of our great
achievements, etc. All worries can be brushed away with some simple
catchphrases.

M. Winther

[abelard]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:26:58 +0200, "M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se>

wrote:

>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> skrev i meddelandet
>news:miplr85esi1pq828t...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:00:39 +0200, "M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"White Share of U.S. Population Drops to Historic Low"
>>>
>>>"...Minorities younger than 18 are expected to overtake the number of
>>>white children by 2019, the Census Bureau said last year. The U.S. is
>>>projected to become a majority-minority nation by 2043."
>>>http://tinyurl.com/ljqz5gn
>>>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/white-share-of-u-s-population-drops-to-historic-low.html
>>>
>>>My comment: Within thirty years, white Americans will no longer be a
>>>majority in the U.S. It is time to open our eyes to the consequences
>>>for
>>>Western civilization by the changes in demography in the biggest
>>>Western
>>>state. Can Western ideas of freedom and democracy survive under these
>>>circumstances? Whatever happened to the instinctual drive to promote
>>>one's own genetic line, which is so strong in other ethnic groups,
>>>such
>>>as the Chinese and the Arabs?
>>
>> is that the one child policy?
>
>Indeed, that has secured the survival of the Chinese civilization,

you are a practitioner of pseudoscience....

pseudoscience is recognised when a person has daft theories
that are incapable of refutation...every time a fact doesn't fit..

the pseudoscientist makes up another justification for the theory...

> which
>would collapse, otherwise. The policy of the Western world, namely to
>promote an expansion of humanity in terms of numbers (especially black
>humans), risks leading to a collapse and a following extinction of
>humanity. Some researchers now believe that the human species runs a 50%
>risk of going extinct in the present era.

some 'researchers' will believe in anything...

> In China, Western ideas have
>had a a pronounced detrimental effect (Marxism, capitalism, etc.). They
>have caused enormous damage to the Chinese country and culture.

all species are subject to expansion and collapse...

humans do have the option of insight leading to changing behaviour...

more people are more wealthy than ever before...

a species can grow in concert with its ability to capture energy...

[abelard]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:32:23 +0200, "M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se>
wrote:

don't worry, you are

>, like you. Then everything becomes so
>simple, and one needn't really worry about anything. I wouldn't have to
>worry about future generations and the survival of our great
>achievements, etc. All worries can be brushed away with some simple
>catchphrases.

i noticed

[Blue]

On 14/06/2013 11:19, Andy Wainwright wrote:

>> 44.9% of London's population are White British.

>> 36.7% of London's population are foreign-born.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_London
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Birmingham
>
>
> There's only one point in demographics. To divide, rule and sell us crap
> we don't want or need.
>
> I see a nation as a collection of individuals, families and enterprises.
> That disputes between these are legally and justly arbitrated is all
> that matters.
>
> The demographic lobby are pied pipers, simple as that.

This is the kind of crap answer that might be suitable
for a few thousand new immigrants to a homogenised land.

It is glib and out dated when the native population
is staring extinction in the face.

White flight almost gives comfort to some that there
is actually some where white left to flight to.

However the reality is that there is now no where left
to go. Every City and Every Town is being taken over
at a pace. White British folk are out numbered now.
Let alone in children and in the breeding stakes.
Homes are where people breed and the white British
don't have them.

There is nothing to divide and conquer.
The white British are already conquered and wiped out.

[geopelia]

"M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:51bab1a6$0$3754$c83e...@weathergirl-read.tele2.net...

(Crossposting removed)

DNA tests may have some surprising results.
I wonder how many white Americans carry some unsuspected African genes.
We "whites" all carry a few Neanderthal genes!

But what does it matter, anyway?

[Blue]

On 14/06/2013 14:00, geopelia wrote:

> DNA tests may have some surprising results.
> I wonder how many white Americans carry some unsuspected African genes.
> We "whites" all carry a few Neanderthal genes!
>
> But what does it matter, anyway?

And fruit flies are 60% human.

You going to vote for a fruit fly to be your MP?


Go and tell your good gene news to Israel,
Iran, Syria, Japan, Saudi Arabia and tell
them about your neat little plan in which
they hand over half of their Main Cities,
and Towns to new immigrants, and your good self,
and then come back and tell us what reply you got.

[Andy Wainwright]

You come over like a three legged attack dog... Hobbling along, but
still growls, bites and tries to play top dog again. Sad.

[Blue]

On 14/06/2013 14:32, Andy Wainwright wrote:
> On 14/06/2013 12:36, Blue wrote:
>> On 14/06/2013 11:19, Andy Wainwright wrote:
>>
>>>> 44.9% of London's population are White British.
>>>> 36.7% of London's population are foreign-born.
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_London
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Birmingham
>>

>> However the reality is that there is now no where left
>> to go. Every City and Every Town is being taken over
>> at a pace. White British folk are out numbered now.
>> Let alone in children and in the breeding stakes.
>> Homes are where people breed and the white British
>> don't have them.
>>
>> There is nothing to divide and conquer.
>> The white British are already conquered and wiped out.

> You come over like a three legged attack dog... Hobbling along, but
> still growls, bites and tries to play top dog again. Sad.

How charming, how noble, except I've told you
about a thousand times not to tag my posts with
your crap but like some drugged up blind dog bumping
into Keep Off the Grass signs you just can't stop
banging yourself into my posts.

However the facts remain the same and in spite of
your spaced out drug addled brain response you have
unsurprisingly only managed an ad hominem attack and
have completely dodged the topic at hand, shock.

To seek the preservation of the our native race
against it's clear and obvious destruction is
not racist, it's survival. It's what the army
is supposed to be for.

[Cassandra]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 01:00:11 +1200, "geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

Its strange the Left never use this argument when they insisted White
people got out of Africa

[saracene]

On Friday, June 14, 2013 3:27:09 PM UTC+1, Blue wrote:


>
> To seek the preservation of the our native race
>
> against it's clear and obvious destruction is
>
> not racist, it's survival. It's what the army
>
> is supposed to be for.

"Racist" is just a word. People define it as they please. Did you look at my first world war thread?

http://tinyurl.com/krwf77k

[Andy Wainwright]

There is no evidence whatsoever that the population of England in the
next few centuries will have any majority other than those of English
descent.

If someone has a Jamaican mum or a Pakistani dad, they might look a
little different, but they're still English- their British/English
ancestors go back as far as anyone else.

As for genetics, more diversity in the genetic make up of the English
has biological benefits, including imporved disease resistance.

Farm animals are pure bred, and usually in-bred by the breeder too. Are
you a man or a piece of livestock?

So why support the racists? It means you'll get less benefits, less
personal freedom, less job opportunities and more tax. It doesn't
benefit you at all. It does benefit power freaks who want to make money
by fighting ordinary people, often the poor, disadvantaged and
uneducated against each other.

Your choice.

I have black and Asian friends who are descended from local soldiers who
died to give us freedom. If this country belongs to anyone, whatever
they look like, it belongs to them.

[Andy Wainwright]

Go back a bit before WW1, to the days of the Empire.

Did the colonials we sent out there join at the bottom of the tribal
society already in existance, gaining status through hard work in spite
of the natural prejudice outsides will always face. Did they learn the
language?

On the other hand, whilst the Romans were indeed conquerers, they were
primarily concerned with establishing military garrisons and collecting
taxes. Whilst they took over some land to feed their local settlements,
they didn't herd the population into reservations, and allowed local
kings to continue to excercise their own dominion as long as they
remained on reasonable terms with Roman generals and governers.
Sometimes this was cemented by a marriage between a local royal and a
roman official. For ordinary people, in most cases there was a path
available to Roman citizenship.

Romans would frequently adapt their religion to suit local tastes,
faiths and folklore- holy sites remained, but a similar Roman god would
be matched to and substituted with the existing deity.

The fact the British Empire didn't last anywhere as long is many (but
not all) of the colonials were total shits and abused the natives, who
would have very likely been happy with a benevolent foreign guiding hand.

It comes down to the difference between a genuine aristocrat, who has
the greatest respect for his subjects, and a robber barron, who regards
them as subhuman and for the sole purpose of feathering their own nests.

A good colonial ruler, however humble their background might be, is in
the mould of the former.

What I still find so bizzare is that generally native folk aren't
treated too well, immigrants aren't treated to well, but those who broke
into the place by force see themselves as the true legitimate owners of
the country.

We should be extremely thankful that the immigrants who have come to
this country in the last few hundred years have not enslaved the natives
or stolen their land, but have been prepared to start at the bottom,
learn the language, and largely respect the existing culture. They've
boosted the entrepreneurial zeal, provided the backbone to many
averagely paid, high responsibility public service jobs, and added to
sport and culture immensely.

Yes, there are criminals (and the poor and uneducated like migrants from
poorer climes tend to get nicked) , including terrrorists. But it's
worth noting that you are several hundred times more likely to have your
life saved by a Muslim than ended by one.

Has there been too much immigration too quickly - quite possibly less.
But I'd blame the populist, authoritarian show off governments for the
lack of sensible and workable controls. For example, keeping out
unreformed criminals, and in most cases insisting that a migrant should
pay into the public purse for a while before making a claim on it.

Because the government egged on by the crap tabloids insists on
pandering to the narrow minded, we get more criminals entering, we get
more illegal migration in general, and restrictions on working means it
either costs money to support these people (or even more to detain them)
or they'll work on the black for less than what a native can legally do
so for.

[Blue]

But what is your definition of 'English descent'?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2260067/White-Britons-minority-Leicester-Luton-Slough-Birmingham-set-follow-end-decade.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246288/Census-2011-UK-immigrant-population-jumps-THREE-MILLION-10-years.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1335556/Special-report-Will-white-British-population-minority-2066.html

> If someone has a Jamaican mum or a Pakistani dad, they might look a
> little different, but they're still English- their British/English
> ancestors go back as far as anyone else.
>
> As for genetics, more diversity in the genetic make up of the English
> has biological benefits, including imporved disease resistance.

Vitamin D deficiency
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110920100100.htm

Sickle Cell Anemia
http://www.hematology.org/patients/blood-disorders/anemia/5228.aspx

Lactose Intolerance
http://milk.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000661

> Farm animals are pure bred, and usually in-bred by the breeder too. Are
> you a man or a piece of livestock?
>
> So why support the racists? It means you'll get less benefits, less
> personal freedom, less job opportunities and more tax. It doesn't
> benefit you at all. It does benefit power freaks who want to make money
> by fighting ordinary people, often the poor, disadvantaged and
> uneducated against each other.
>
> Your choice.
>
> I have black and Asian friends who are descended from local soldiers who
> died to give us freedom. If this country belongs to anyone, whatever
> they look like, it belongs to them.

However white British people have been fighting and dying
for this land for a couple of thousand years in a couple
of thousand wars. And if fighting for a land meant your
whole race could move in and expect the native population
to roll over and die then British folk have fought in almost
every country around the world but I don't see them being
so eager to roll over and die.

Anyway you go jump on a plane and tell the South Africans
and Zimbabweans and Egyptians and Americans that because
we had British some folk fight over that land they must all
roll over and die now.

[Andy Wainwright]

On 14/06/2013 15:27, Blue wrote:

So why do you find my ideas so objectionable?

I'd help you get a job, if you felt you were able to do something. If
you didn't feel up to working, you could have the security of the dole
and a flat. In that case, my government would give you free college
where you could learn something to imporve your job prospects or life in
general.

If it's a women you're after, there's places around the world where they
bump off teenage girls for just having too much attitude or just being
women itself, who could possibly make you a good wife. Failing that,
they'd be brothels. More traditionalist? I'd organise many more local
social events to meet the right one.

I've been lucky, unlike some such as mum-in-law and best mate, not to be
so ethnic looking that I've suffered much from racism. But I've
certainly been the victim of snobbery- when you come across a crowd of
people you've never met and they stare at you with contempt for simply
being there and maybe asking directions, you learn what it's like to be
on the wrong side of nasty attitudes.

In fact, I'd recommend you choose a better set of allies than you choose
on this NG. They'd see you as a useless cripple and would probably
starve or gas you. The four legged pitbulls might turn nastily on their
bestumped litter mate who tries to muscle in on their jealously guarded
meals.

[saracene]

On Friday, June 14, 2013 5:17:45 PM UTC+1, Andy Wainwright wrote:

> On 14/06/2013 15:27, Blue wrote:

>
>
> So why do you find my ideas so objectionable?

One man's meat is another man's poison.

>
>

> But I've
>
> certainly been the victim of snobbery- when you come across a crowd of
>
> people you've never met and they stare at you with contempt for simply
>
> being there and maybe asking directions, you learn what it's like to be
>
> on the wrong side of nasty attitudes.
>

We all have our snobbery. Snobbery adds much to the enjoyment of life.

[Vidcapper]

On 14/06/2013 10:26, Ophelia wrote:
>
>

For problems in the *US*??

[Andy Wainwright]

On 14/06/2013 17:25, saracene wrote:
> On Friday, June 14, 2013 5:17:45 PM UTC+1, Andy Wainwright wrote:
>> On 14/06/2013 15:27, Blue wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> So why do you find my ideas so objectionable?
>
> One man's meat is another man's poison.

Interested in the way you think here. For example, I'd consider the
class, religion or ethnicity of neighbours unimportant, but would get
upset if they robbed, assualted or harrased me.

I'd consider that I have every right to choose who I marry. I don't
believe I have any right to make that decision for my offspring, that's
unless they asked for an arranged marriage- some kids actually do.

>>
>>
>
>> But I've
>>
>> certainly been the victim of snobbery- when you come across a crowd of
>>
>> people you've never met and they stare at you with contempt for simply
>>
>> being there and maybe asking directions, you learn what it's like to be
>>
>> on the wrong side of nasty attitudes.
>>
> We all have our snobbery. Snobbery adds much to the enjoyment of life.
>

Very true. In my case it tends to be social-politics related.

For instance, I've actually got a lot of time for the Alf Garnet types-
that's the way they've grown up, old dogs new tricks don't always mix
etc. GB calling that poor old dear a bigot was very unfair. But younger
people, with decent educations and reasonably dedicated parents, who are
shallow and small-minded (not just about race, class etc) - well I feel
not so much hate or jealousy but at the same time a little superior to
them. Personally it comes down to the level of pretence someone
maintains, self publicity and delusions of grandeur don't worry me so
much, but projecting an image divorced from their true self is a trait I
regard as "inferior"- subhuman not by birth but by choice. Those putting
on an act to get ahead say to me "we've chosen not to be human anymore".

Often these people are harder working and more responsible than me in
many ways, so really I've no right to complain.

[Blue]

Must be my old age I know but where you see packs of
dogs I see people. People who have come to this group
after me and no doubt I shall see go as well. As to
who side these 'dogs' are on if any, it's hard to tell,
They are of various hues but one lot of abuse looks
pretty much like another lot to me. So you see, in
this text world, you all look pretty much alike to me.
And your so called promised land is just so much more BS
because of course you can't offer what you don't have.
And I think I would be acting rather low towards my
country to sell it out for so few beads, don't you think?

[Ophelia]

"Vidcapper" <vidca...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:wVHut.89224$2I2....@fx17.am4...

Ooops!
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[saracene]

On Friday, June 14, 2013 8:01:24 AM UTC+1, vidcapper wrote:
> On 14/06/2013 07:00, M Winther wrote:
>
> > "White Share of U.S. Population Drops to Historic Low"
>
> >
>
> > "...Minorities younger than 18 are expected to overtake the number of
>
> > white children by 2019, the Census Bureau said last year. The U.S. is
>
> > projected to become a majority-minority nation by 2043."
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/ljqz5gn
>
> > http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/white-share-of-u-s-population-drops-to-historic-low.html
>
> >
>
> > My comment: Within thirty years, white Americans will no longer be a
>
> > majority in the U.S. It is time to open our eyes to the consequences for
>
> > Western civilization by the changes in demography in the biggest Western
>
> > state. Can Western ideas of freedom and democracy survive under these
>
> > circumstances? Whatever happened to the instinctual drive to promote
>
> > one's own genetic line, which is so strong in other ethnic groups, such
>
> > as the Chinese and the Arabs?
>
> >
>
>
>
> Culture is not dependant on race - it is the former that keeps a country
>
> strong & united.
>
>
>

“Wenn ich ‘Kultur’ höre, nehme ich meine Pistole.”

[Andy Wainwright]

I see someone with "Stockholm Syndrome" - enthusiastically supporting
the sort of policies that make your life shit.

It's this fucked up sense of manhood we seem to get these days- the
bullied being so drummed in to a pecking order that they start being
loyal to those in that pecking order even if it's actually
disadvantageous to them.

So if you think that it's worth losing your dole, your home and seeing
the mega-rich getting richer, just so you see a few less brown faces,
your choice- but's a sad one.

[Blue]

On 14/06/2013 21:19, Andy Wainwright wrote:

> So if you think that it's worth losing your dole, your home and seeing
> the mega-rich getting richer, just so you see a few less brown faces,
> your choice- but's a sad one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDRAhiBtOrQ

[saracene]

On Friday, June 14, 2013 5:55:46 PM UTC+1, Andy Wainwright wrote:

>

> > One man's meat is another man's poison.
>
>
>
> Interested in the way you think here. For example, I'd consider the
>
> class, religion or ethnicity of neighbours unimportant,

Same here I suppose. Those are not things I care about

> but would get
>
> upset if they robbed, assualted or harrased me.

They have as a matter of fact, but such minor matters don’t determine my political beliefs and desires. I care about a larger picture which you don’t.

>
>
>
> I'd consider that I have every right to choose who I marry.

So you have,

> I don't
>
> believe I have any right to make that decision for my offspring, that's
>
> unless they asked for an arranged marriage- some kids actually do.
>

As I have said I wouldn’t be happy if my daughter came home with a big buck nigger and said she wanted to marry him. It’s her choice what she chooses to do and it’s my choice whether I like it or not.

[Andy Wainwright]

On 14/06/2013 21:46, saracene wrote:
> On Friday, June 14, 2013 5:55:46 PM UTC+1, Andy Wainwright wrote:
>
>>
>
>>> One man's meat is another man's poison.
>>
>>
>>
>> Interested in the way you think here. For example, I'd consider the
>>
>> class, religion or ethnicity of neighbours unimportant,
>
> Same here I suppose. Those are not things I care about
>
>> but would get
>>
>> upset if they robbed, assualted or harrased me.
>

> They have as a matter of fact, but such minor matters don�t determine my political beliefs and desires. I care about a larger picture which you don�t.

I'm interested. Don't like the homogenious myself, prefer variety, and
with people, individuals and characters with personal roots rather than
crude demographics. But it's other stuff as well, clone town centres,
DJs who always play the same 10 records (not even always the top 10)
that every other cunt does and so forth. We seem to have a bit of a
blight in that big money has ended up in the hands of rather boring and
unimaginative types. Those fairly intelligent but without a lot of cash
aren't well catered for- there's the internet and IT but that's about it.

I live in a rural area at the moment, used to live in the city, but like
rambling and nature- not much fun for the under-30s, but suits those
wanting something less in-ya-face, young families and the like.
Certainly not escaping any ethnic group though, neighbours are black.

The strange things is, whilst hardly multi-ethnic compared to the big
smoke, the population is perhaps more tribal than before. It's very much
a them and us, and it seems there is an invisible divide that doesn't
even relate to class, party politics, or religion. On that note, I feel
much more welcome in the churches, even as a total caner, than the pubs-
that largely seem to be inhabilited by the rival faction. So we've got
increased division without large scale migration from home or abroad.
This divide seems to have opened up to some extent nationwide, and the
interesting thing is even siblings can find themselves on opposing sides.

The best pubs for me were always those where the clientel were as mixed
as possible, a few builders, maybe a teacher, solicitor, estate agent or
two, a motor mechanic, a musician, some bikers, hippies and the village
drunk. Sadly, the late 90s saw a blight of crap landlords who tried to
target their custom to a certain group, and it killed the life and
sterilised the places.

We've got all these digital TV and radio channels, yet less local
programming and content than in the 1980s. Another great shame.

So what would be my grand plan. Well China and the like have got the
manufacturing side of things pretty sown up. Some believe we should copy
them- again why copy? Even if we could, why have two Chinas?

Instead I'd like to create an environment conducive to creativity, from
science, invention, architecture, light engineering, medicine and so
forth to the artistic, the designers, musicians, poets, painters and so
forth. At the moment our society and it's rules make heros out of
millionare X-Factor judges again producing copies and villains out of
the underground, inventive musician who barely makes a living from his
work, because it's art for art's sake as opposed to entertainment to
sell. One problem with the current economic system is it rewards those
who copy above those who innovate.

>>
>>
>>
>> I'd consider that I have every right to choose who I marry.
>
> So you have,
>
>> I don't
>>
>> believe I have any right to make that decision for my offspring, that's
>>
>> unless they asked for an arranged marriage- some kids actually do.
>>

> As I have said I wouldn�t be happy if my daughter came home with a big buck nigger and said she wanted to marry him. It�s her choice what she chooses to do and it�s my choice whether I like it or not.
>

Fair enough. It's interesting in the West and many other parts of the
world that the male is often keen to have children that resemble them.
Jewish guys from my experience seem to be affected by this less, not
sure about Muslims.

[geopelia]

"Cassandra" <cassandr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:51bb2b0a...@news.virginmedia.com...

Boer consider themselves white, but most are mixed enough to have a claim to
live in Africa.

When early humans left Africa, they would have been black.
Light skin is better for producing Vitamin D in northern latitudes, and
would have gradually
taken over.
Africa has always been considered "the white man's grave".
But now anybody can live anywhere with modern medicine and clothing, and who
cares any more about colour?

In another million years, if humans still survive, they will probably look
like south east Asians today.
Small, dark hair and eyes, and light brown skin.
Adapted to surviving on less food, a much warmer climate and more ultra
violet light.
Racial differences will long since have disappeared, with intermarriage over
many millennia.
(Modern civilization will be long gone. Raw materials would have been used
up.)

"Adam" if he existed would probably have looked the same!

[abelard]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:48:02 +1200, "geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>(Modern civilization will be long gone. Raw materials would have been used
>up.)

that's not likely...material science is well under way to replacing
basic materials with all manner of innovatory man made materials

[geopelia]

"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:qtbnr8lrscaj9g1i2...@4ax.com...

Perhaps that will work for a while. But it would involve something rather
like the old alchemists' dream of changing base metals into gold.
Rare elements would have to be made by changing a common element's atomic
structure, perhaps by adding an electron here or there.
But I'm no chemist, so don't ask me how that could be done. Could we change
hydrogen into some rare gas? Or make something inert into a radioactive
element?

And in the next million years, there could be some supervolcano which erupts
like the Toba eruption, which almost wiped out our early ancestors.
Yellowstone will probably blow long before that, and devastate much of North
America. Or a wandering comet or asteroid could collide with us.

I don't think humans will still be around in another million years, anyway.
We are just not fit enough to last that long, even with genetic engineering.
Civilization itself is only about ten thousand years old, from the very
earliest agriculture and settlements.

Don't the Creationists say that we were created 6,000 years ago? As far as
culture is concerned, perhaps there is some truth in that!

[abelard]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:41:16 +1200, "geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>
>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:qtbnr8lrscaj9g1i2...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:48:02 +1200, "geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>(Modern civilization will be long gone. Raw materials would have been used
>>>up.)
>>
>> that's not likely...material science is well under way to replacing
>> basic materials with all manner of innovatory man made materials
>
>Perhaps that will work for a while. But it would involve something rather
>like the old alchemists' dream of changing base metals into gold.
>Rare elements would have to be made by changing a common element's atomic
>structure, perhaps by adding an electron here or there.
> But I'm no chemist, so don't ask me how that could be done. Could we change
>hydrogen into some rare gas? Or make something inert into a radioactive
>element?

methods of extraction are powering ahead...the oceans are rich in
resources...new materials are being synthesised from the most
common elements...

i would expect 'rubbish' dumps to become resources run by robot
machinery and the asteroid belt to come into reach

meanwhile populations seem to be headed towards peaking

>And in the next million years, there could be some supervolcano which erupts
>like the Toba eruption, which almost wiped out our early ancestors.
>Yellowstone will probably blow long before that, and devastate much of North
>America. Or a wandering comet or asteroid could collide with us.

those are of course real threats,,,

i don't think resource depletion is a real threat...although there are
problems like overfishing and pressure on water resources...
but much is being done in those directions also

while both complacency and panic is foolhardy, planning is sanity

>I don't think humans will still be around in another million years, anyway.
>We are just not fit enough to last that long, even with genetic engineering.
>Civilization itself is only about ten thousand years old, from the very
>earliest agriculture and settlements.

humans of some form have been around a lot longer than
culture/civilisation

the potential of genetic engineering is awesome...some writers
have speculated that the major threat to life will eventually
become accidents!

on being told humans will die out, a specialist friend says...
who knows, but there'll still be an ecology

>Don't the Creationists say that we were created 6,000 years ago? As far as
>culture is concerned, perhaps there is some truth in that!

stories/myths mostly have truth and purpose...

each generation tries better to understand the world...the knowledge
of good and evil :-)

[saracene]

On Saturday, June 15, 2013 3:58:13 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:


>
>
> the potential of genetic engineering is awesome...
>

Do you find it frightening, or are you full of fatuous optimism?

[abelard]

not in the slightest...

Do you find it interesting, or are you full of fatuous pessimism?

[saracene]

On Saturday, June 15, 2013 4:26:04 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:15:16 -0700 (PDT), saracene
>

> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Saturday, June 15, 2013 3:58:13 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:
>
>
>
> >> the potential of genetic engineering is awesome...
>
> >>
>
> >Do you find it frightening, or are you full of fatuous optimism?
>
>
>
> not in the slightest...
>
>
>
> Do you find it interesting, or are you full of fatuous pessimism?

I find it threatening. I don't think much of the word "awesome".

[charlie61Ltd]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:58:13 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
wrote:

Will we still be able to get Strawberry Mivvies

[abelard]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:29:21 -0700 (PDT), saracene
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, June 15, 2013 4:26:04 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:15:16 -0700 (PDT), saracene

>> >On Saturday, June 15, 2013 3:58:13 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:

>> >> the potential of genetic engineering is awesome...

>> >Do you find it frightening, or are you full of fatuous optimism?

>> not in the slightest...

>> Do you find it interesting, or are you full of fatuous pessimism?
>
>I find it threatening.

how will it threaten you?

> I don't think much of the word "awesome".

that because you're an ancient snob!

[abelard]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 17:09:11 +0100, charlie61Ltd <char...@mail.com>
wrote:

i didn't even know that strawberries had mivvies

[saracene]

On Saturday, June 15, 2013 6:34:03 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:29:21 -0700 (PDT), saracene
>
>
>
>
>

> >On Saturday, June 15, 2013 4:26:04 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:15:16 -0700 (PDT), saracene
>
>
>
> >> >On Saturday, June 15, 2013 3:58:13 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:
>
>
>
> >> >> the potential of genetic engineering is awesome...
>
>
>
> >> >Do you find it frightening, or are you full of fatuous optimism?
>
>
>
> >> not in the slightest...
>
>
>
> >> Do you find it interesting, or are you full of fatuous pessimism?
>
> >
>
> >I find it threatening.
>
>
>
> how will it threaten you?

It threatens to put vast power into the hands of people I see no convincing reason to expect to behave responsibly. Much like socialism, though even worse.

>
>
>
> > I don't think much of the word "awesome".
>
>
>
> that because you're an ancient snob!

Aka a tad anti-American. Not do I much enjoy science fiction.

[abelard]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:29:50 -0700 (PDT), saracene
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, June 15, 2013 6:34:03 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:

>> how will it threaten you?
>
>It threatens to put vast power into the hands of people I see no convincing reason to expect to behave responsibly. Much like socialism, though even worse.

use it like what how?

all manner of discovery puts power in the hands of people...
you are shop steward for the flint knappers union?

[charlie61Ltd]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 19:34:52 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>

There you are you pretend to be cultured and you know nout. I have
just been singing Men of Harlech watching the trooping of the colour
and eating a strawberry mivvie and what do you care - eh.

[saracene]

On Saturday, June 15, 2013 7:38:49 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:29:50 -0700 (PDT), saracene
>

> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Saturday, June 15, 2013 6:34:03 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:
>
>
>
> >> how will it threaten you?
>
> >
>
> >It threatens to put vast power into the hands of people I see no convincing reason to expect to behave responsibly. Much like socialism, though even worse.
>
>
>
> use it like what how?
>
>
>
> all manner of discovery puts power in the hands of people...
>
> you are shop steward for the flint knappers union?

The power to change the human genome is hardly comparable with anything that has happened before. You may have hit the limitations of your capitalist faith. Alternatively you may surrender to futuristic enthusiasm like a masochistic idiot.

[saracene]

On Saturday, June 15, 2013 7:38:49 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:29:50 -0700 (PDT), saracene
>

>

> >On Saturday, June 15, 2013 6:34:03 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:
>
>
>

>
>
>
> use it like what how?

No doubt you think Monsanto is a beneficent organisation.

[abelard]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 13:16:45 -0700 (PDT), saracene
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, June 15, 2013 7:38:49 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:29:50 -0700 (PDT), saracene

>> >On Saturday, June 15, 2013 6:34:03 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:

>> use it like what how?
>
>No doubt you think Monsanto is a beneficent organisation.

next you'll tell me they'll only allow you to have baybees that can't
breed!

[geopelia]

"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message

news:emvor81hsdmgk56t4...@4ax.com...

Yes, humans have been around for a long time. Even longer, if you count the
Australopithecines as human.
Homo sapiens is a comparatively recent species.
But look how long crocodiles and sharks have been around.

Some stories and myths are an early form of history.
Was the Trojan War exactly as Homer describes it, Gods and all? I rather
doubt it.

But good and evil depend on one's culture. Ideas change all the time.
Views on hanging, abortion, gay marriage etc have changed even in my own
lifetime.
And the modern world would have horrified my Victorian grandparents.

[geopelia]

"charlie61Ltd" <char...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:6hepr85ks3cih839o...@4ax.com...

Men of Harlech is a Welsh song about fighting the Saxons. Rather odd for the
English to sing.
But I still sing it, in English and my own odd version in Saes Cymraeg.
(And the famous song about Woad, too!)

[charlie61Ltd]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 15:59:30 +1200, "geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

Trooping of the Colour - the Welsh Guards.
Zulu

A lot of our best songs originate in the colonies

[saracene]

On Saturday, June 15, 2013 11:56:05 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 13:16:45 -0700 (PDT), saracene
>

> >On Saturday, June 15, 2013 7:38:49 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:29:50 -0700 (PDT), saracene
>
>
>
> >> >On Saturday, June 15, 2013 6:34:03 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:
>
>
>
> >> use it like what how?
>
> >
>
> >No doubt you think Monsanto is a beneficent organisation.
>
>
>
> next you'll tell me they'll only allow you to have baybees that can't
>
> breed!
>
>

There are some mad scientists in the US who want that. One was quoted the other day on RT. But the horrible destiny of humanity once nature can be circumvented has long been foreseen.

Here's Irish novelist George Moore, writing in the thirties:-

And at mention of “sex equality” one must mention him laughing quietly and the journalist’s pencil poised in the act of stabbing a notebook. “Sex equality” he repeated “but it is not a question of sex equality. Why, the emancipation of women…” and the journalist with few deft touches gave me part of his exclusive vision. A well regulated, soulless world system, and woman triumphant. “But nature?” I said “Go to the bee thou poet,” he replied, quoting Mr Shaw. “God, yes,” I said;” You mean the world will be a beehive – and then the Queen Bee”.

[geopelia]

"Blue" <bl...@there.com> wrote in message
news:b20t12...@mid.individual.net...

>> There is no evidence whatsoever that the population of England in the
>> next few centuries will have any majority other than those of English
>> descent.
>
> But what is your definition of 'English descent'?
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2260067/White-Britons-minority-Leicester-Luton-Slough-Birmingham-set-follow-end-decade.html
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246288/Census-2011-UK-immigrant-population-jumps-THREE-MILLION-10-years.html
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1335556/Special-report-Will-white-British-population-minority-2066.html
>
>
>> If someone has a Jamaican mum or a Pakistani dad, they might look a
>> little different, but they're still English- their British/English
>> ancestors go back as far as anyone else.
>>
>> As for genetics, more diversity in the genetic make up of the English
>> has biological benefits, including imporved disease resistance.
>
> Vitamin D deficiency
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110920100100.htm
>
> Sickle Cell Anemia
> http://www.hematology.org/patients/blood-disorders/anemia/5228.aspx
>
> Lactose Intolerance
> http://milk.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000661
>
>
>> Farm animals are pure bred, and usually in-bred by the breeder too. Are
>> you a man or a piece of livestock?
>>
>> So why support the racists? It means you'll get less benefits, less
>> personal freedom, less job opportunities and more tax. It doesn't
>> benefit you at all. It does benefit power freaks who want to make money
>> by fighting ordinary people, often the poor, disadvantaged and
>> uneducated against each other.
>>
>> Your choice.
>>
>> I have black and Asian friends who are descended from local soldiers who
>> died to give us freedom. If this country belongs to anyone, whatever
>> they look like, it belongs to them.
>
> However white British people have been fighting and dying
> for this land for a couple of thousand years in a couple
> of thousand wars. And if fighting for a land meant your
> whole race could move in and expect the native population
> to roll over and die then British folk have fought in almost
> every country around the world but I don't see them being
> so eager to roll over and die.
>
> Anyway you go jump on a plane and tell the South Africans
> and Zimbabweans and Egyptians and Americans that because
> we had British some folk fight over that land they must all
> roll over and die now.

People living in Great Britain consider themselves British.
But the original British race were here when the Romans invaded, and now are
mainly in Wales and Cornwall, with their own language.
(The Cornish language died out years ago, but remains in many names. "By
Pol, Tre and Pen ye shall know Cornish men").
The English are descended from Angles, Jutes and Saxons, with a bit of
Danish and Norman added.

Don't worry about skin colour. With intermarriage dark skin will disappear
over the generations.

[saracene]

On Sunday, June 16, 2013 3:44:50 PM UTC+1, geopelia wrote:


>
>
>
> Don't worry about skin colour. With intermarriage dark skin will disappear
>
> over the generations.

It might, if mass coloured immigration stopped right now.

[abelard]

almost everywhere lighter skin is preferred...

that is a heavy evolutional selector if it continues...

though as soon as people realise baybees are expensive and
troublesome, and they can buy more ipads without them...
population increase starts to fall...

educating females is also a major birth control pill...

[Bill]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:36:13 +0100, Blue <bl...@there.com> wrote:


>It is glib and out dated when the native population
>is staring extinction in the face.

Can we define 'native' here please?

I mean, do you consider the current royal family to be so?

[Bill]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:48:02 +1200, "geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>(Modern civilization will be long gone. Raw materials would have been used
>up.)

I doubt that.

There's plenty of raw materials out there in the solar system.

We could probably reach them now if we really wanted to, and when we
really need them we'll go and get them.

[Andy Wainwright]

Something you might find interesting is my experience of sex-themed
multi-user-dungeons- i.e. second life etc.

I found making my female avatar plumper and darker skinned got me a
better class of virtual date. I could even dress up in very revealing
and sexy clothes without being constantly pestered for sex.

As a metaphysical experiment it challenged many established theories
about sexual attractiveness and the concept of physical beauty.

So you could on one hand have the most fashionable people breeding,
maybe fighting each other for the right to do so.

Alternatively, you could gain an evolutionary advantage by genetic
diversity, and perhaps more importantly, more emotionally mature
partners will have a more stable relationship so the child is better reared.

[abelard]

why do you believe people will carry out their fantasies in real life

who is going to out themselves as politically unfashionable?

do you intend to get a sex change?

[Bill]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:35:36 +0200, "M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se>
wrote:

>. Black people in the U.S haven't been able to become
>succesful in white civilization.

Have you looked at a photograph of your president recently?

[Bill]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:07:37 +0100, Andy Wainwright
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>I found making my female avatar plumper and darker skinned got me a
>better class of virtual date. I could even dress up in very revealing
>and sexy clothes without being constantly pestered for sex.
>

That is a very disturbing statement, in more than one way...

[geopelia]

"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message

news:jgsrr81no3mtc0ioc...@4ax.com...

So is the expense of raising children these days.
A large family is no longer an economic asset, as it was in the days of
child labour.

The need for mothers to work outside the home and pay for child care is
working like China's one child policy.

[geopelia]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:093sr8lt6pgud27fh...@4ax.com...

The last two generations have chosen English wives. The Hanoverian strain is
being bred out.

And how about all those English of Saxon descent?
Should we all go back to Germany, after around 1500 years, and let the Welsh
"natives" return to their lost lands in England?

[geopelia]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:bdcsr8pnn6br515jn...@4ax.com...

People can do as they like on the computer, and experiment as they wouldn't
do in real life.
I might have a go if I knew enough about computers.

I'd be some kind of historical warrior.
Maybe a Greek at Troy, if there is such a game.
"Sacker of Cities".

As it is, the only games I play are Code Cracker and Tetris.

[geopelia]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:lh3sr8pfudlekj11b...@4ax.com...

Look at the cost of getting them. If there was gold on the Moon, would it be
worth getting?
What did it cost to bring back a few tiny rocks?
Mars is the only feasible place to get anything.
But Earth's resources are limited for building space ships and returning
with anything worth while.

[Andy Wainwright]

It's fantasy. What's the point of being the same as your real life in a
game? I've no burning desire for a sex change, but was quite interested
in experiencing sexuality from a female perspective.

Plato and Aristottle and the like would have killed for virtual reality.

Possibly I'll be a women in my next life, or maybe a fish or a bird or
something.

[Blue]

On 16/06/2013 15:44, geopelia wrote:

> People living in Great Britain consider themselves British.
> But the original British race were here when the Romans invaded, and now are
> mainly in Wales and Cornwall, with their own language.
> (The Cornish language died out years ago, but remains in many names. "By
> Pol, Tre and Pen ye shall know Cornish men").
> The English are descended from Angles, Jutes and Saxons, with a bit of
> Danish and Norman added.
>
> Don't worry about skin colour. With intermarriage dark skin will disappear
> over the generations.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100093184/are-the-english-really-germans-or-spaniards/

[abelard]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:25:41 +1200, "geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

the critical factor is energy costs...

doubtless methods will improve over time...at some
point it will become profitable...

it's already profitable to drag materials around the world...
once upon a time it mostly wasn't...

meanwhile methods of extraction continue to advance...

it all come back to the energy efficiency...

that's why your computer is getting smaller and cheaper
every year...
and there are similar trends in horseless carriages

[Bill]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:01:19 +1200, "geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>
>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:093sr8lt6pgud27fh...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:36:13 +0100, Blue <bl...@there.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It is glib and out dated when the native population
>>>is staring extinction in the face.
>>
>> Can we define 'native' here please?
>>
>> I mean, do you consider the current royal family to be so?
>
>The last two generations have chosen English wives. The Hanoverian strain is
>being bred out.
>

It was bred out years ago.

What's interesting is Albert and Phillip, two 'prince consorts' of
undoubted foreign origin who seem to became more English than the
English...

[Bill]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:25:41 +1200, "geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>

Atomic pulse jets are reasonably cheap way of moving very large
objects in space.

I have no doubt that when we really need the stuff we'll go and get
it.

We always have in the past.

[Abhidevananda]

If history books can be believed, in the USA, the White race - or
representatives thereof - took far more drastic steps than mere
migration and procreation to dominate the native population (the
American Indians). So when Whites opine about possible "extinction"
due to shifting demographics in the USA - a country that greeted
immigrants with the words, "Give me your tired, your poor, your
huddled masses yearning to breathe free" - it is highly hypocritical.

[geopelia]

"Andy Wainwright" <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kpllil$bfb$1...@dont-email.me...

I suppose everyone knows Plato's tale of the prisoners in the Cave. Films
and now TV seem to have brought it to life.

I've never been sure what I'm supposed to be in this life. Something like a
worker bee, I think.

[geopelia]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:vbmtr8hljn9v9l4tu...@4ax.com...

It's all very well moving very large objects in space. But what happens when
we have to land them in Earth's gravity?

[Bill]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 02:45:35 +1200, "geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com>

Shallow orbit re-entry onto large bodies of shallow water, as we do
with spaceships now.

[M Winther]

Yes, of course, they should have allowed the Americas to remain a
continent of animistic cultures and hunter-gathering societies. That
would certainly have worked! A brilliant and intellectually mature
contribution from you, as usual.

M.


"Abhidevananda" <abhide...@themarga.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:51BEF74...@themarga.com...

[saracene]

On Monday, June 17, 2013 10:39:25 AM UTC+1, Bill wrote:


>
> >The last two generations have chosen English wives. The Hanoverian strain is
>
> >being bred out.


>
> >
>
>
>
> It was bred out years ago.

What would be your criterion for that?

>
>
>
> What's interesting is Albert and Phillip, two 'prince consorts' of
>
> undoubted foreign origin who seem to became more English than the
>
> English...

Albert is remembered as an archetypal German. Philip is hardly a Greek.

[Bill]

Phillip isn't hardly British at all.

[saracene]

On Monday, June 17, 2013 5:29:01 PM UTC+1, Bill wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:19:21 -0700 (PDT), saracene
>

wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Monday, June 17, 2013 10:39:25 AM UTC+1, Bill wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >The last two generations have chosen English wives. The Hanoverian strain is
>
> >>
>
> >> >being bred out.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> It was bred out years ago.
>
> >
>
> >What would be your criterion for that?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> What's interesting is Albert and Phillip, two 'prince consorts' of
>
> >>
>
> >> undoubted foreign origin who seem to became more English than the
>
> >>
>
> >> English...
>
> >
>
> >Albert is remembered as an archetypal German. Philip is hardly a Greek.
>
>
>
> Phillip isn't hardly British at all.

He was educated here. He's white. Speaks with an impeccable accent. His mother was born here and had some claim to Britishness.

[Bill]

You could say much the same for King Zog of Albania

[Abhidevananda]

On 2013-06-17 19:00, M Winther wrote:
> "Abhidevananda" <abhide...@themarga.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:51BEF74...@themarga.com...
>> On 2013-06-16 22:09, Bill wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:36:13 +0100, Blue <bl...@there.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It is glib and out dated when the native population
>>>> is staring extinction in the face.
>>>
>>> Can we define 'native' here please?
>>>
>>> I mean, do you consider the current royal family to be so?
>>
>> If history books can be believed, in the USA, the White race - or
>> representatives thereof - took far more drastic steps than mere
>> migration and procreation to dominate the native population (the
>> American Indians). So when Whites opine about possible "extinction"
>> due to shifting demographics in the USA - a country that greeted
>> immigrants with the words, "Give me your tired, your poor, your
>> huddled masses yearning to breathe free" - it is highly hypocritical.
>
> Yes, of course, they should have allowed the Americas to remain a
> continent of animistic cultures and hunter-gathering societies. That
> would certainly have worked! A brilliant and intellectually mature
> contribution from you, as usual.

Mats, as a humanist, I do not endorse the sort of White supremacist
outlook that you clearly have. As a neohumanist, I do not subscribe to
dogmas like the one you opened this thread with ("freedom and
democracy"). As I see it, the end result of an arrogant outlook like
your is well exemplified in this latest post of yours, where you
apparently countenance genocide for the self-serving purpose of
promoting your own ethnic group. Would you truly have us believe that
the immigrant Whites did a service to the world by not "allowing" (to
the point of "extermination") the "animistic" and "hunter-gathering"
American Indians (for example, through distribution of blankets
infected with smallpox)? If tomorrow, a more advanced civilization
from another galaxy were to arrive on Planet Earth, would you then be
content if they were to put all humans to sleep (a euphemism) -
including yourself - for the good of the universe (as evaluated by them)?

Mats, you are free to post your racist, Neo-Nazi propaganda on any
newsgroup you like. But you should not be surprised to receive
negative feedback for it from readers on a newsgroup dedicated to
humanism.

[saracene]

On Monday, June 17, 2013 6:04:13 PM UTC+1, Bill wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:40:25 -0700 (PDT), saracene
>

> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Monday, June 17, 2013 5:29:01 PM UTC+1, Bill wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Phillip isn't hardly British at all.
>
> >
>
> >He was educated here. He's white. Speaks with an impeccable accent. His mother was born here and had some claim to Britishness.
>
>
>
> You could say much the same for King Zog of Albania

I think not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zog_of_Albania

[geopelia]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:tagur8de9m3a2ilcb...@4ax.com...

Most European Royalty descends or is connected with Queen Victoria.
George V, the last Tsar and the old Kaiser were related, cousins I think.

If kings still ruled their countries instead of politicians, would we get
all these wars?

[Bill]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:32:01 +1200, "geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

We always did in the past.

Indeed since the end of the major European monarchies at the end of
WWI I think we've had fewer European wars than ever before.

[geopelia]

"M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:51bf328f$0$3748$c83e...@weathergirl-read.tele2.net...

If the British had remained in charge in America, I wonder how the native
population would have been treated?

[geopelia]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:a98ur89arg7tk3ku7...@4ax.com...

If the object is large enough as it would need to be, to be worth bringing
here, wouldn't that cause a tsunami?

[Bill]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:37:40 +1200, "geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>If the British had remained in charge in America, I wonder how the native
>population would have been treated?
>

Much as they have been in Canada...

[Bill]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:42:54 +1200, "geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>>>It's all very well moving very large objects in space. But what happens
>>>when
>>>we have to land them in Earth's gravity?
>>>
>> Shallow orbit re-entry onto large bodies of shallow water, as we do
>> with spaceships now.
>>
>
>If the object is large enough as it would need to be, to be worth bringing
>here, wouldn't that cause a tsunami?
>

Break it up in orbit then.

[M Winther]

"Abhidevananda" <abhide...@themarga.com> skrev i meddelandet

news:51BF6927...@themarga.com...

You always shoot yourself in the foot by your incessant charge of
Neo-Nazism, because you are only projecting your own shadow. What I am
saying is that animistic culture was doomed when Western civilization
settled in the Americas, whether or not the continent was taken over by
criminal and murderous means. I do not condone genocide. Nor do I
condone the cruel murder of white settlers, by cowardly attacks of the
natives. But Amerindian culture was doomed.

"White supremacism" in the Americas, the African continent, etc., has
paved the way for an advanced society, which has allowed an enormous
population increase. Without advanced societal institutions, better food
distribution, vaccination against disease, etc., Africa would still
have been a region with tribal wars and slavery. By example, the Bush
negroes and the Hottentoots were hunted almost to extinction by the
Bantu negroes, whereas the Somali held Bantu peoples in slavery. With
the arrival of the colonial powers and modern civilisation, people's
life expectancy increased enormously, not the least thanks to
vaccination programmes. The French, especially, invested forcibly in
this.

The colonial era certainly represents some very dark aspect of Western
history, but it is not only dark and reprehensible. In Africa and
elsewhere, it has given rise to an enormous population increase, for
good and bad, and it allowed the Black nations to build modern societies
with modern legislation, etc. If the Western states hadn't invaded these
countries, then white criminals would have taken control of them, with
foreseeable results. This was what happened in Belgian Congo, by the
way.

So, "white supremacism" could not be avoided. When Western civilisation
met animistic culture, the latter had to recede. It is ludicrous to
argue that history could have taken another course. Your high-school
intellectualism and anti-white sentiments correspond to the intellectual
level of Neo-Nazism.

M. Winther

[Abhidevananda]

That is neither what you said nor how you said it... although your
revised version is little better. "Cruel murder of white settlers, by
cowardly attacks of the natives"? :)

> "White supremacism" in the Americas, the African continent, etc., has
> paved the way for an advanced society, which has allowed an enormous
> population increase.

And so here and below you openly endorse "white supremacism"... or
Aryan supremacy (which certainly does smack of neo-nazism).

> Without advanced societal institutions, better food
> distribution, vaccination against disease, etc., Africa would still
> have been a region with tribal wars and slavery. By example, the Bush
> negroes and the Hottentoots were hunted almost to extinction by the
> Bantu negroes, whereas the Somali held Bantu peoples in slavery. With
> the arrival of the colonial powers and modern civilisation, people's
> life expectancy increased enormously, not the least thanks to
> vaccination programmes. The French, especially, invested forcibly in
> this.

Great... but was it necessary to physically or economically enslave
the indigenous Africans to accomplish those worthy ends? In my
opinion, it most certainly was not.

> The colonial era certainly represents some very dark aspect of Western
> history, but it is not only dark and reprehensible. In Africa and
> elsewhere, it has given rise to an enormous population increase, for
> good and bad, and it allowed the Black nations to build modern societies
> with modern legislation, etc. If the Western states hadn't invaded these
> countries, then white criminals would have taken control of them, with
> foreseeable results. This was what happened in Belgian Congo, by the
> way.
>
> So, "white supremacism" could not be avoided. When Western civilisation
> met animistic culture, the latter had to recede.

If you are saying that in cultural matters, the more refined culture
will naturally dominate, I have no problem with that argument. But if
you are saying that the White race represents the height of
civilization, then I consider that viewpoint to be myopic.

> It is ludicrous to
> argue that history could have taken another course.

Obviously, history could have taken another course, but that was not
my argument. My argument is that your views smack of racism and are
hence narrow-minded.

> Your high-school
> intellectualism and anti-white sentiments correspond to the intellectual
> level of Neo-Nazism.

Why would you think that I have anti-White sentiments? Just because I
do not consider the White race (or any race) to be innately superior -
not in existential terms and also not in all utilitarian terms - that
does not mean that I am against any particular race.

[geopelia]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:sm3vr81g1un3va9mp...@4ax.com...

In the old days, kings would lead their armies into battle.
Even these days, the younger Royals still serve in the Forces.
Perhaps today we should put politicians in the front line.

Or do as the Romans did in the early days.
Pick three men from each side to fight the war.
(Horatii and Curiatii).
But today would any country abide by the result?

[geopelia]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:r45vr89qtmaeqbhbn...@4ax.com...

Very likely, I suppose.

Does any other country have anything like New Zealand's Treaty of Waitangi?

[Bill]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:27:15 +1200, "geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>
>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:sm3vr81g1un3va9mp...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:32:01 +1200, "geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:tagur8de9m3a2ilcb...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:40:25 -0700 (PDT), saracene
>>>> <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Monday, June 17, 2013 5:29:01 PM UTC+1, Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Phillip isn't hardly British at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>He was educated here. He's white. Speaks with an impeccable accent. His
>>>>>mother was born here and had some claim to Britishness.
>>>>
>>>> You could say much the same for King Zog of Albania
>>>
>>>Most European Royalty descends or is connected with Queen Victoria.
>>>George V, the last Tsar and the old Kaiser were related, cousins I think.
>>>
>>>If kings still ruled their countries instead of politicians, would we get
>>>all these wars?
>>>
>> We always did in the past.
>>
>> Indeed since the end of the major European monarchies at the end of
>> WWI I think we've had fewer European wars than ever before.
>
>In the old days, kings would lead their armies into battle.

In England that idea died, along with the king concerned, in 1485...

>Even these days, the younger Royals still serve in the Forces.
>Perhaps today we should put politicians in the front line.

The only distinguished soldier who seems to have become a successful
politician was Atlee

Well when you look at the other politicians who did have reasonably
distinguished military careers (Healey, Carrington, Heath, Powell,
Crosland, Merlyn Rees, Whitelaw, Iain Macleod, Sir Keith Joseph,
Barber) they all seem to stumble somewhere.

Perhaps generals should go into politics?

However the only two I can think of in England are Cromwell and
Wellington, and neither is remembered as a distinguished political
figure...

[geopelia]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:t55vr8pi0357f0ihr...@4ax.com...

The speed of orbit might be a problem. How do you slow it enough to be safe
without Earth's gravity taking over?
Coming in fast and out of control, it might be as devastating as a large
meteor or even a small asteroid.
And if something went wrong and it hit a large city...............

We could all join the dinosaurs.

[Bill]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:47:43 +1200, "geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

I'm afraid that orbital mechanics are a bit beyond me, but I'm told
the problem isn't that difficult to solve.

It will probably only be done when there's no alternative except a
return to a simple agrarian lifestyle..

[geopelia]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4tn1s8dft56dv2mr5...@4ax.com...

That was a civil war.

Shakespeare gives Henry V a great speech before a battle. I wonder what the
king really said.

>
>>Even these days, the younger Royals still serve in the Forces.
>>Perhaps today we should put politicians in the front line.
>
> The only distinguished soldier who seems to have become a successful
> politician was Atlee
>
> Well when you look at the other politicians who did have reasonably
> distinguished military careers (Healey, Carrington, Heath, Powell,
> Crosland, Merlyn Rees, Whitelaw, Iain Macleod, Sir Keith Joseph,
> Barber) they all seem to stumble somewhere.

Winston Churchill took part in the last cavalry charge of the British Army.
The Duke of Marlborough (victor of Blenheim) was a Churchill.

>
> Perhaps generals should go into politics?
>
> However the only two I can think of in England are Cromwell and
> Wellington, and neither is remembered as a distinguished political
> figure...

Cromwell became Lord Protector, dictator in all but name.
The Duke of Wellington became Prime Minister, among other posts.

Eisenhower seemed to do all right in America.

[geopelia]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:l0p1s8lp79bjiva6n...@4ax.com...

I don't know orbital mechanics either. Let's hope those who do know don't
make one unfortunate mistake.
I don't trust computers!

> It will probably only be done when there's no alternative except a
> return to a simple agrarian lifestyle..

That could be a problem, the way the climate is changing.
But we couldn't go back even farther to being hunter gatherers.
Large game animals are scare and may be extinct by then, like the mammoth.
But just now there are plenty of wildebeeste.
That's good gnus! (Groan).

[Bill]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 01:26:20 +1200, "geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>
>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>news:4tn1s8dft56dv2mr5...@4ax.com...

>> In England that idea died, along with the king concerned, in 1485...
>
>That was a civil war.

So what?

>Shakespeare gives Henry V a great speech before a battle. I wonder what the
>king really said.

In reality Henry V was something of a religious fanatic who gave
orders that no songs were to be sung in praise of his greatest
victory.

The 'Agincourt Carol' was written in spite of that, but he banned it.

>>>Even these days, the younger Royals still serve in the Forces.
>>>Perhaps today we should put politicians in the front line.
>>
>> The only distinguished soldier who seems to have become a successful
>> politician was Atlee
>>
>> Well when you look at the other politicians who did have reasonably
>> distinguished military careers (Healey, Carrington, Heath, Powell,
>> Crosland, Merlyn Rees, Whitelaw, Iain Macleod, Sir Keith Joseph,
>> Barber) they all seem to stumble somewhere.
>
>Winston Churchill took part in the last cavalry charge of the British Army.

But he wasn't a distinguished soldier.

And his account of that cavalry charge does rather make the point that
it was ambushed when it dropped into a gully and they had to run
away...

>The Duke of Marlborough (victor of Blenheim) was a Churchill.

He was a bloody awful politician as well...

>> Perhaps generals should go into politics?
>>
>> However the only two I can think of in England are Cromwell and
>> Wellington, and neither is remembered as a distinguished political
>> figure...
>
>Cromwell became Lord Protector, dictator in all but name.

And was a disaster.

As even he admitted at the end of his life.

>The Duke of Wellington became Prime Minister, among other posts.

And went down in history as just about the most reactionary Prime
Minister we ever had.

>Eisenhower seemed to do all right in America.

So did Grant.

And Andrew Jackson.

And Washington come to that...

The US seems to like old generals as President.