Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Democracy at Work in America

Well, it's over and the United States will have four more years of Barack Hussein Obama, our President, our Chairman, the "Great Helmsman" etc and etc. Despite record debt, record unemployment, a sinking dollar and sky high energy prices, American voters decided they wanted to stick to the big B.O. from here on out. The Republican Party majority in the House of Representatives was maintained and even increased. The Democrat Party majority in the Senate was maintained and even increased and Secretary-General Obama was reelected. What does that mean? I'll tell you what it means; IT MEANS WE JUST SPENT TWO YEARS MUD-SLINGING, NAME-CALLING AND SPENDING MANY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND CHANGED ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Can anyone fully comprehend the sheer waste this represents? The United States is $16 trillion in debt, the most broke nation in history and we just spent many, many billions of dollars in the most expensive presidential race in American history and it changed absolutely NOTHING. Cry Baby Boehner is still the Speaker of the House, Harry 'We're-$16trillion-in-debt-but-can't-give-up-cowboy-poetry-month' Reed is still the leader of the Senate and Obama is still President. In other words, we just wasted two years of time for every American man, woman and child.

In his victory speech, Obama said the public didn't vote for "politics as usual". I'm sorry Comrade President, but yes they did, they voted for exactly that. Even if no one wants to admit it. Congress has never had a lower approval rating than now, yet the same people were voted back into office by both sides. Most people said that government should be smaller and that raising taxes would not solve the debt problem yet these same people voted for the President who promised bigger government and raising taxes to deal with the debt problem. In other words, the public doesn't seem to have any sense at all. You can blame the politicians for plenty but the public that keeps voting for them cannot get off totally blameless either. Sure, the choices the public are given don't help. I was never a fan of Romney or Obama (and didn't vote for either of them). I never heard Romney make the case for smaller government, in fact I never heard him present a plan at all. He was about as dull and ordinary as they come. He was a walking contradiction and, I have no doubt, would have been simply George W. Bush Part II: tax cuts but no spending cuts and so a still bigger debt. Obama, who claimed to be the "post-racial" President, has left the country more divided by race than I have ever known it. Never before have the voting blocs been so solid. Whites vote for the Republicans, non-Whites vote for the Democrats.

On that front, the Democrats are advising Republicans to face reality and they are probably right. Demographics cannot be changed. Once your population changes, that's it and, I know some people won't like this, but Europe and North America need to just get used to the idea that "White" people will soon be a thing of the past. I don't think there are any real racists to speak of these days but, if there are, especially if you have children, you better get over your prejudice or you are going to have a very miserable life. The racial changes to America are having an impact and no one can deny it any longer. Some thought Obama's about-face on gay "marriage" might alienate some African-Americans but that was not the case. Some thought his deportation of illegal immigrants and the fact that he broke his promise to tackle "immigration reform" in his first year in office might put off Hispanics but, that was not the case. He also supports gay "marriage" and abortion and the HHS mandate which the Catholic Church has called a violation of religious freedom -all things condemned by the Catholic Church, which the vast majority of Hispanics belong to, and it did nothing to deter from their support for Obama. Blacks, Hispanics and single women have the highest unemployement and poverty levels yet, they all voted for more of the same and, evidently, do not hold Obama responsible for this.

I have heard numerous pundits, from the left and the right, say that America has changed, that the "face" of America has changed and the Republican Party no longer represents the mainstream. Like it or not, racial and ethnic groups have been politicized and the GOP is on the losing side of the demographic battle. Fighting over immigration at this point is rather silly -what's done is done. More than that, values have changed. One-fifth of Americans no longer belong to any church and, evidently, single women at least consider their "right" to abortion and taxpayer-funded birth control a greater priority than the overall economy, their employment status and the price of gasoline. And all of this happened because "we the people" allowed it. And we gripe and moan and complain and still vote for more of the same. So the rule of Obama will continue, the deadlock will continue and, in my opinion, things will get worse rather than better. But that's coming from my worldview and virtually no one shares it. That's why I'm not a Republican or a Democrat but just ... The Mad Monarchist.

35 comments:

  1. The Culture Wars are what it is about, and we must be defiant. I like how in Europe, you have people like Viktor Orban (Hungary) and Jaroslaw Kaczynski (Poland) who are willing to stand for a nationalist, conservative and Christian Europe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd be all for it, and I'll never stop giving my view on things, but personally I think western civilization passed the point of no return some time ago. I don't think the west *wants* to survive and even if there was a total reversal today, I can't honestly say it isn't too late. I would say the future will belong to the East.

      Delete
    2. I think the gap between Western and Eastern Europe, for me, is shaped by Eastern Europe's actual experiences of Communism. So Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Croatia, etc are far more resistant to Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism, far more receptive to conservative and nationalist politics. I feel far closer to them, but that's because of my own (Czech) heritage.

      We can learn a lot from Asia. That Japan, South Korea and Singapore found models for success that works far better for them, is not to be dismissed.

      Delete
  2. I think your view on race is a bit too pessimistic: whites are still last time I checked the majority in both Europe and North America, and if my own experience is any indication of truth, the official marxist-liberal doctrine has no real foothold in the larger majority of the people. The "elite" only rule through more or less by bullying people stepping outside the line, and I don't think they can keep it up much longer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think so. I don't relish the thought but I'm not all that upset by it either. You cannot stop someone who wants to kill themself. "Whites" (Anglo and Hispanic) are the minority in my state and several others, Mohammed is the most popular baby name in Britain and 1/5 of Germans are of foreign ancestry. But that doesn't tell the whole story, it is primarily that "White" people have stopped reproducing and when you combine that with the unprecedented levels of immigration to North America and Europe in recent years it simply becomes inevitable. You cannot expel whole populations of people and you cannot force people to have children, history has shown, once demographics change they are changed for good. And I'm afraid the basic Marxist line is fairly widely accepted. Looking at America, it is accepted by almost all minority groups as well as by most women, the media, the entertainment industry and the education system.

      Delete
    2. But not every single one of us have stopped reproducing, so I don't understand why you think we'll be going extinct. Yeah, things will probably get pretty violent in parts of Europe due to ethnic conflicts, but it's way too early to decide what will happen next.

      Delete
    3. It's a simple matter of mathematics. People can still be reproducing but if a people are not reproducing in sufficient numbers (beyond replacement level) they will still die out. It has happened numerous times throughout history. Populations that do not grow are eventually outpaced and absorbed into other groups. No one ever stops reproducing entirely but there is a point after which it becomes impossible to reproduce in sufficient numbers to survive. Seen any Visigoths lately? Does anyone speak Manchurian anymore? Look at the United States; the Native Americans are a prime example. Even if they started multiplying like mad, at this point there simply are not enough actual Native American women of child bearing age to ensure their long-term survival. And even the numbers we do have are misleading as many/most of those who call themselves Native Americans are really people alot like myself; basically "European-Americans" with Native American ancestry. Read "The Death of the West" by Pat Buchanan for an account of this from someone who thinks it's a bad thing. But it's nothing new though, it's been happening to peoples all throughout history.

      Delete
    4. "Once your population changes, that's it and, I know some people won't like this, but Europe and North America need to just get used to the idea that "White" people will soon be a thing of the past."

      I wouldn't be so sure. In all honesty, birth rates have fallen for all racial groups. However, the Amish (Germanic white) still have very high birth rates, in line with rural Africa. They have their own way of life, and they're not going away any time soon.

      Mostly I agree with the material in your blog, but generally I have a more optimistic view than you do.

      On another note, you're dead-on that the American public voted for business as usual. I couldn't have said it better myself. But they're not going to get business as usual, because this crisis isn't going away.

      Delete
    5. It's not just birth rates, it's birth rates plus immigration. And, I am very familiar with the Amish and I can tell you they are almost extinct right now. People don't realize it because the "Amish" label is so often mis-used these days. Most of the people everyone calls "Amish" are really nothing of the sort. They do have alot of children but increasingly they are not choosing to stay in the Amish community. However, for me, optimism or pessimism has nothing to do with it. I could hardly be pessimistic about the facts considering my own situation. The only future for my family is my two nieces, they're half Asian and there is not a doubt in my mind they will do better than my sister and I have.

      Delete
    6. I lived in Amish country for quite some time and I can tell you right now that they're not almost extinct at all. Groups that keep track of Amish births and numbers say that the Amish have been thriving. This fact has been reported in mainstream sources, and it's what I saw in my own experience.

      http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-14-amish-population_N.htm

      This is not a tangential issue. Republicanism and democracy were able to once again become major forces in the world after the fall of the Roman Republic and Athenian Democracy directly because of the beliefs, influences, desires, and actions of the global rootless cosmopolitan bohemian multiculture which first arose in the West and dominates the world scene today.

      This doesn't just have to do with white people (an easy target in today's pc society if ever there was one). Monarchy cannot win if the global rootless cosmopolitan bohemian multiculture wins.

      However, the crisis that began in 2008 is a crisis within that global rootless cosmopolitan bohemian multiculture. Indeed, it as a whole is going through a similar crisis that the Soviet Union went through in 1989-91. Although this will not necessarily lead immediately to monarchy, it will lead at least to the downfall of the worst democratic-egalitarian governments, just as 1991 saw the downfall of the Soviet Union.

      Delete
    7. So? So did I. My mother grew up there and grew up with some Amish too (none of whom are Amish anymore) and I doubt USA Today would know a real Amish from a Mennonite. But it doesn't really matter if Amos and Sarah are having babies like bunnies, there is not enough of them to start out with to have any real impact and if this has nothing to do with white people I don't know why you're pinning your hopes on the Amish. They don't represent western culture as I understand it. I wouldn't even call them real Christians myself (and for once, there is a group I don't have to worry about offending on the internet).

      If the problem is about values and ideas, I don't see what you had to take issue with in the first place. I obviously don't think the battle of ideas is a lost cause, otherwise I wouldn't be doing what I am doing. The only question is who is going to carry those ideas forward in the future and most every serious person agrees it is not going to be Europeans. Most Christians I know look to Africa for hope where the Church is growing rather than fading away and not being watered down. So Christianity will go on but it will probably be a predominately African religion and there will certainly be some stylistic changes that go along with that.

      As for the bigger picture, my "hopeful" belief is that the future belongs to the East. I look at places like Japan, South Korea, ROC, Thailand, Hong Kong, Singapore and hope that they will all be more prominent leaders (Japan and Thailand in particular for obvious reasons). It will not be western culture but it the traditional culture of the Far East does embody many of the same values that "traditional" western culture did.

      Delete
  3. Romney's social agenda especially in terms of women was ghastly. That and he had no concrete plans other than apparently eliminating FEMA one agency that everyone knows they pay into and if something ghastly happens they will appear. It is only programs like FEMA that need to be run at a federal level that make it make sense to have a federal government. In any case it's hard working Americans that will work our way out of this mess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't know Romney had an agenda 'in terms of women' unless you mean he thought women could pay for their own birth control. I didn't see much an agenda period. As for FEMA, that was misconstrued. He wanted states to handle disaster-relief rather than the federal government, thinking they could do it better. Given the aftermath of Katrina and Sandy, I don't see the federal government doing a great job at it myself.

      Delete
  4. Sadly it's time to start PREPping..

    ReplyDelete
  5. As long as "Da People" get to vote, 14 Trillion Dollar deficits don't matter, Ambassadors being left for dead doesn't matter, the integrity of the country doesn't matter. All that matters to them is keeping them freebies coming.

    Democracy DOES NOT WORK!

    I think more people are slowing starting to understand that, Monarchy doesn't require elections and a King/Queen is not careless with the countries money.

    SIGH, we continue to live in this Republican Nightmare, but someday will resort to a proper form of government.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mad Monarchist, you are absolutely right.

    First, excuse me for my bad english. I'm writing this from south america, and spanish is my first language. I am a pan-monarchist, a radical traditionalist and a rabid anti-communist. But I don't feel any sympathy for the democratic "right" in any country, because they don't represent aristocratic values or worldview anymore. They are simply another "flavor" of the mob rule. And they don't offer any true alternative to the decadent state of things.

    Democratic politics is not about what is best for the nation; it's about winning votes. And that means you need to create division and take advantage of that. You create hate for the "rich", to gain the vote of the "poor", you create hate for the men to gain the vote of the women, you create hate for the "white" to gain the vote of the "non-whites". Only in monarchy there are unity in diversity,and you look for the benefit of all the nation instead of the interest of one of its facctions.

    I think we need to take seriously the example of the great Ungern-Sternberg. And create a pan-monarchist movement that integrates all the races and all the faiths, in one worldwide cause: the restoration of monarchy everywhere. The demolition of all the republics. The destruction of the modern world.

    By the way, I think all monarchists need to read Julius Evola. His thinking is the key to create a new monarchist ideology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have read Evola and there's alot of good material there but I have to part company with all of his mystical-spiritual nonsense.

      Delete
    2. Actually, I think his spiritual philosophy is very valuable. He shows that, behind all great religions, there is an universal truth: the truth of Tradition. As long as we are faithful to this primordial truth, we are on the same side, even if we belong to diferent religions. Something I found very important for a Pan-Monarchist perspective. Every king is sacred, regardless of his religion.

      I think we need to stop fighting among ourselves for religion, and unite against the real enemy: the modern worldview. A worldview that deny any form of spirituality, of transcendence, and of superiority. That's the true religion of satan.

      Delete
  7. I'm disappointed that America decided to keep up the game and staying with the same old, but I'm not surprised at the turn-out.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm more ambivolent about this. lets face it, Mitt Romney was a hirrible choice as president. It's not like much woudl be different ifhe were to become president. he'd still borrow Money from China, Abortion woudl still be legal, and pretty well most of the same policies woudl geo intoeffect. There woudl be some difference to be sure but, really neither Romney nor Obama cared about America's long term viability, they just catered to voters, and as others here have said, handign out freebies is more important in winnign votes than whats actually good for the coutnry.

    I wasn't surprised by the outcoem fo this race. But it was menaignless anyway. I agree with you, the West is in for a crash. But it'll be mroe liek the fall of ROme, a grsdual decline. I expect the economy to fall apart and from there policies to collapse. Greece is perhaps a picture of our future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I said much the same. I never liked Romney and I didn't think he would change much if elected. There was never much of a chance that the Democrats would lose the Senate so the stalemate would have continued, nothing would be rolled back and the debt would have continued to rise. And I've said before that people just don't "get" that there's no such thing as a free lunch and we're going to have to hit bottom *really* hard before anyone wakes up -and I mean so hard that the Great Depression looks like the Roaring 20's in comparison.

      Delete
  9. Thank You! No one has put into words the way I feel about this election & the country till I read your blog. The words of a song by Steely Wheels keeps playing over & over in my head that sums this all up nicely. "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right. Here I am stuck in the middle with you" Love your site. Please keep up the great work Mad Monarchist.

    ReplyDelete
  10. My sentiments exactly.Yesterday proved all that was wrong with Democracy. Alexander Tyler was 100% correct. As my wife says, we are too large to survive as one country. We need to be at least two. Let the left do its thing in the Northeast, and leave the Confederate South to its own ways, never the twain shall meet. That being said, I think we could come back as a culture, but America's future is not where it was since 1776: It belongs to those who survive its downfall. We must be like the OstroGoths, the Huns, the Franks, the Saxons and the Vikings and claim pieces of the Carcass as our own and form our own new map with our own traditions. Americans MUST return to Christ. As for me, I shall never put my trust in a nation again. Family, friends, GOD, Honor- These things you can trust. Just never a nation again. I believe it was Bismarck who said that the affairs of the day will not be decided by speeches and majority votes, but by Iron and Blood.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Since Obama only got only 50% of the popular votes and a little more than half of the eligible Americans vote in this election, only about 25% of Americans endorse and vote for Obama while many others didn't even participate. Since everything depends on the unfair electoral college system and the terrible two-party system, I am not surprised that Obama won, but it seems that even after the President and the politicians of the government did nothing beneficial in the last two years, their policies will continue and the United States and its national identity will never be the same after this point. After all, they are politicians and all these are enough for them to continue running our lives and dividing us. The American type of democracy is one of the worst of them all.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mr. Friel accurately and candidly explains our problem. I encourage everyone to watch the following video...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlEqseCKI84

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I watched it. But he still seems otthink votign is good.

      Still, I agree overall with him. Right thinking is needed. We need toteach the Children Traditional Family Vaklues and Monarhist Principles.

      Delete
  13. America has changed its National Identity numerous Tiems in tis History, thats nothign new. America is a Revolutionary Republic, the only constant then is the Change, and the beleif in a Republic (Now Democracy, so its not totally unchanged), all else is open for debate.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I would like to add one more comment. Not all is lost thus there is hope for these United States. These United States are predominately center-right. Look at the county map and one will see that these United States remain conservative. The urban and heavy unionized workforce counties are predominately center-left. Overall, I am not too worried about the future of these United States, since they remain center-right. Additionally, the GOP gained some seats in the House of Representatives and remained in control thereof. (Thank God for checks and balances in our system.)

    I do have one criticism of our system, i.e., the electoral college. First, I favor the electoral college and it serves a purpose. Moreover, the electoral college has been mathematically proven to thwart would-be tyrants. Second, my criticism of the electoral college. I have observed a trend with the electoral college in recent―recent as in the past century―elections. The electoral college is an independent body of electors. In other words, certain persons who are appointed or chosen to be electors of the president. In theory, or at least in original intent of the framers, the electoral college is subject neither to public opinion nor to popular vote. The electors of the president are supposed to elect the president based on their own conscious or awareness. Yet, I noticed that the electors of the president are given to the candidate who wins the popular vote of a particular State. For example, Obama won the popular vote of the State of Ohio, thus all eighteen electors went to Obama. That is not the function of the electoral college! Those eighteen electors do not have to follow the popular vote. Those eighteen electors can vote for whatever candidate they deem worthy of president. Hell, the electoral college could have voted for Ron Paul, or whomever. That was the idea of the electoral college. The framers of the federal constitution did not trust popular election, since the masses are ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Those conservatives who still believe that our nation's second founding under the Republic is somehow a religious cause (Glenn Beck believes the Constitution is "divinely inspired") are sadly placing their faith in a system that fundamentally undermines the very idea of God as King. What would happen, one is tempted to wonder, if all the Monarchies in the world were to be abolished? What would the biblical phrase "King of Kings" mean to anyone anymore? In fact, the average person would no longer be able to connect the meaning of kingship to God's person.

    As to the U.S. being predominantly center-right, that is true. However, as the "Right" in this Republic continues to drift "Left", the meaning of "center-right" is essentially a moving target. Also, the facts are what they are. A few days ago the "center-right" chose a not-so-center-Leftist as Head of The State and his sheep in the Senate got another two years of power. Faith in the "electorate" is almost always misplaced because most elections are usually just theater, and people realize they can vote themselves other people's money.

    God save the Queen.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It's interesting that you bring up Glenn Beck. To me, he's one of the biggest problems, along with Obama.

    In terms of Christianity, your right, the Kingship of Christ is central to the Christian Faith and the term becomes meaningless if there are no Kings. But you have to understand how the “Conservatives” these days in America think. and for that matter how they are startling to think elsewhere such as in the UK.

    But I'll focus only on the American variety for now.

    Most of what we are calling “Conservative” these days isn't really Conservative. Its Neo-Conservatism. Neo-Conservatism is really just repackaged Liberalism from the 1960's that didn't go along with Socialism or Communism. Its capitalistic Liberalism. Economic matters for the longest Time were the sole focus of the Neo-Cons till the mid to late 1980's when Pat Robertson helped initiate the Moral Majority and injected a sort of Christian Moral Flavour into the mix. But this Christianity isn't Traditional Christianity at all. In fact, its just a srt of Patriotic Mythos, combined with Economic beliefs and Neo-Conservative social values, with Jesus slapped onto it for decoration or to drape their beliefs in his Authority.

    Basically, the Bible and Christian Doctrine are redefined according to the ideals and principles of America's Founding Fathers, but even their Ideals and Beliefs are re-imagined according to a Neo-Con fantasy version of events. For example, Beck will extensively quote Thomas Paine and then claim he wants Christian Renewal, even though Paine mocked Christianity as false. Then again Paine also wanted wealth to be evenly redistributed to create Equality, another thing Beck seems to ignore in his writings.

    But that's the point. The American Revolutionary Founding Fathers are imagined to be a Band of Brothers who had no major disagreements with each other and who were all Devout Christians who read their Bibles, and drew their idea of a Republic strictly from Christianity. Jesus is Re-Imagined as a Revolutionary himself, standing for Freedom and Liberty and thus for Republican Values and Capitalism. Then, all fo them are made into Fre Market Capitalists who believed in Small Government and limited Government Regulations, as well as in whatever Beck or the Neo-Cons want them to believe.


    ReplyDelete
  17. Mind you, I don't hate Capitalism, but I also don't think its a central tenet of the Christian Faith at all.


    The thing is, though, that the Neo-Con ideology promotes not simply Free Market Capitalism, but Capitalism as a way of life so that the acquisition fo Money and Goods becomes a central element of life. Greed, the desire for power and money, is one of the central elements of Neo-COnservatism, and the Irony is, this is the exact opposite of the Christian Attitude. It's actually closer to Ayn Rand's Philosophy. But who cares?

    The point is, the Christianity you hear so often defended by American Conservatives isn't Really Christianity in a Historical sense. Its “A personal Relationship with Jesus” in which him being King is more of a Metaphor. Jesus is our buddy. And Jesus is a Republican who hates Monarchy. And Jesus wants you to get filthy stinking rich and hates Big Government. He also wants you to buy Gold from Glenn Beck. Oh, and hate Muslims. Jesus hates Muslims and you should too. You should also hate Liberals. You should sun social Justice, and focus only on acquisition.

    Now mind you, Liberals reshape Jesus to their own liking as well, so they arne't blameless, but i'm explainign Neo-Cons here.

    They don't really even read the Bible. I know, when I bring up a point of Traditional Christian thought I’m often mocked by them and told to read the Bible, even if I’m quoting it. They have also told me whoppers. I had one bloke tell em that it was OK to kill Muslims since God told David to kill heathens, and King David's Father Saul was told to kill the Amlekites. Of course Saul wasn’t David’s Father. On another occasion, one was deriding the Koran as unintelligible and disjointed. I pointed out that the Koran is not a single work or book, but a collection of poems called Suras, and this makes it more like the Book of Psalms. This guy told me that I was way off, then proceeded to claim that the Book of Psalms is the only book in the Bible to not tell a story chapter by Chapter. Apparently his Bible doesn’t have the Book of Proverbs in it. Or Ecclesiastes. Or any of the Epistles of St. Paul. On yet another occasion, I said the Bible said to “Honour the King”. I actually just quoted it out of the KJV from 1 Peter 2:17. I was then told “The Bible doesn't say that!”



    All of them berated me and told me that I obviously didn’t know the Bible, and told me I should read it before I make stupid comments about it. None of them got anything in the Bible right.

    Its clear that they don’t read the Bible and have no understanding of actual Christianity. They just slap Jesus onto their own Political Ideals, and make Christianity into nothing more than Neo-Conservatism the Religion.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I enjoy your blog very much but I respectfully disagree on the subject of race.

    Why should a person "accept" as "inevitable" the demographic transformation of his country any more than he should accept the triumphal march of republicanism? The same argument can apply. I don't think it is out of the question to reverse the flows of immigration to preserve European peoples, both in the United States and in Europe. We have a right to do so in our countries, just like we, as monarchists, have the right to fight for monarchy and protect it wherever it is.

    Again, with all due respect, of course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because republicanism is an idea which can be refuted. People can change their ideas but you cannot change the laws of mathematics. Once a people are gone, they are gone. And the fact is that southern Europe, now most of western Europe, have reached a point where there simply are not enough young women of child-bearing age to reverse the demographic trend toward extinction. And, I might add, even if there were, it likely would still not matter because most Europeans have decided to stop having children. As for immigration, it is only part of the problem -lack of reproduction is the main one- but again, even if ALL immigration was stopped this very minute, it would still be too late. 1/5 of all German citizens is no longer German and that 1/5 reproduces at more than the rate of the other aging 4/5 combined.

      Once people have relocated, there is really no going back. Japan has a higher death rate than birth rate, for example, but there is no significant non-Japanese population in Japan so, providing they start reproducing again (and alot) they could always reverse the trend. Southern and western Europe does not have this option. You cannot invite people in and then suddenly demand that they leave after they have settled. No country has ever done it and even if one tried, the numbers are too great to simply deport everyone.

      None of this, I should add, changes anything for me. I will still advocate for what I believe in and I doubt I will live to see the end of the western peoples but I accept it as a fact. My Native American blood might cause me to even smirk about a race of people being hoisted on their own petard. As to what the world will look like after the Europeans are gone, much, I think, will depend on the population that dominates next.

      Delete
  19. Mr Monarchist,
    You said in a comment on top that you believe the future of the world will be in the east. I also see you refer to the lord Jesus as your King of Kings, which means you are most likely a Christian (ever other religion and cult I know of refers to him as a "profit") You then know perfectly well (if you read your bible and biblical history) the the world started in the east and will end in the east with Israel, God's nation. I do think we need to remember this. Also, Jesus was not a European, he was Jewish. Lets remember this simple truth, our faith is first to the Jew, Then to the Greek, and THEN to the rest of the world.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...