The Most Dangerous People in the World

Fjordman, in "Why We Need Germany," at The Brussels Journal writes:

[excerpts]

The most dangerous people by far are those running the European Union, who are busy dismantling European civilization and enlarging the borders of the EU to include the Middle East and North Africa, those flooding their own countries with tens of millions of Muslims and other hostile aliens without consulting the native population. This makes the EU the largest criminal entity on the planet, preoccupied with destroying an entire continent, dismantling the greatest civilization that has ever existed and replacing the native population with others. I have described this in my book Defeating Eurabia, which is available online.

***

Next to the EU, the most dangerous people are the Leftists all over the Western world who are waging a Jihad to destroy their own civilization and have teamed up with Muslims to achieve this goal. Unlike neo-Nazis, these people are not only far more numerous but socially accepted and disproportionately represented in the media and the education system, where they systematically silence “racist” dissenters by destroying their livelihoods and reputations. They use an imaginary “far-Right” threat to crush people they don’t like.

***

According to Dr Aidan Rankin, “anti-Fascism” is the new Fascism. The so-called anti-racists and Multiculturalists are aggressors with totalitarian leanings; the people they unfairly attack are victims of a failed social experiment and one of the greatest betrayals in history:

“Progressives (as they invariably call themselves) use accusations of racism and fascism as excuses to bully and oppress impoverished white communities and isolate them in racially based ghettos. For white liberals, anti-racism becomes a form of auto-racism, directed at members of their own race who are deemed to be socially inferior. It is, in other words, a new type of snobbery and social exclusion . . .

Continue reading at . . .

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3887

Read the whole thing!

HOW LAW ENFORCEMENT IS USED BY THOSE IN POWER . . .

. . . TO STAY IN POWER

The "Home of The Green Arrow," in the post "Nice little smear by the BBC on behalf of the state," says:

The BBC . . .

. . . in a tiny article . . . shout out . . .

"A candidate for the British National Party (BNP) has been arrested by armed police in Suffolk".

But armed police. I ask you. [The Green Arrow goes on to say . . . ] They report that David Lucas, a BNP candidate in the European Elections was arrested in connection with an incident at his farm last year. Incident? Last year?

Of course if you dig a little deeper you find out that the incident they refer to was a large fund raising party that was held on Davids property at which an old army weapon was on display.

http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/

and . . .

From the [tiny article on the] BNP website:

“Politically directed police are being sent to harass BNP activists and provide the controlled media with unsubstantiated smear stories as election day draws ever nearer,” said Simon Darby, deputy leader and press officer.

Reacting to the news that totally innocent BNP Euro Eastern region candidate Mr David Lucas had been detained yesterday, Mr Darby said such things were always expected in the run-up to each and every election.

“Mr Lucas had his home searched by police on the pretext of looking for illegal weapons, most likely because he was alleged to be the owner of the deactivated Bren gun which was used as a stage prop during the BNP’s recent Battle for Britain road shows,” Mr Darby said.

“Of course they found nothing at Mr Lucas’s house. They have now bailed him till after the June elections, at which time they will, as is always the case, withdraw any suggestions of charges. All this does is harass legitimate and innocent political activists while providing the media with an opportunity to print lurid anti-BNP stories.

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/04/labour-state%E2%80%99s-smear-campaign-moves-into-top-gear-for-fear-of-bnp-breakthrough/

Could this type of police action be in our future?

How to Save America I - Democracy Reform

Ohmyrus writes this about reforming our Democracy:

Democracy Reform: "Did America's Founders want Democracy? By Ohmyrus

We have come to believe in democracy almost like a religion. But I think it is time to rethink it because it is not working well. Therefore it is useful to start from first principles by looking at what America's Founders were thinking when it crafted the Constitution of the United States.

'Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.'
- James Madison 1




John Adams








Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
- John Adams 2"



[T]he experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.
- John Quincy Adams 3

[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few.
-John Adams 4

From this we can see that America's Founding Fathers did not intend for the US to be a democracy but a Republic with elected leaders. They were concerned more with liberty than with democracy.

You can see this with the way the Constitution was drafted. It has an electoral vote system which is still in use today. The people vote for these electors who then choose the President. If they had absolute confidence with democracy, they would have a direct vote system to choose the President.

Then there is the Supreme Court who can strike out any law that they regard as 'Unconstitutional'. That is also why the US has a Bill of Rights which they forsaw will protect the individual against the tyranny of the majority. This has worked well in some cases but not in others in ways that the Founding Fathers did not forsee. For example, unjust laws discriminating against blacks were ruled unconstitutional. But on the other hand, abortion was legalised angainst the wishes of the majority. So was pornography.

America's Founders understood, more than today's politicians, that liberty is the foundation for prosperity and the pursuit of happiness. They wanted secure property rights which they know that a true democracy will endanger.

You can see this from James Madison's comment about democracy being incompatible with the rights of property and time is proving him right. Private property rights have been eroded by the tyranny of the majority. In France for example, you cannot fire or hire at will. You have to keep sluggards in your work force. This of course will affect your rights as a property or business owner. In some modern democracies, you cannot easily kick out a tennant that you no longer want again affecting your property rights. Thus you cannot hire who you want and you cannot accept whatever tennants you want.

Like John Adams, I am worried that democracy will soon degenerate into anarchy and anarchy will in turn begat a dictatorship. I see this as a distinct possibility and even probability in the next few decades. I see the irrational decisions made by western democracies and wonder how long they can get away with it. How long before the cumulative effects of bad decisions cause system failure?

For example, governments are overspending all over the western world and Japan. As can be seen in my first article, 'Democracy needs a Reformation', the budget deficits in the OECD averages about 4% of GDP. The shortfall is made up for typically by borrowing money. Thus democracies are spending money to benefit this generation at the expense of future generations who must pay the bill eventually. Of course they can't vote and the current crop of politicians won't be in power by that time. This is a result of the problem I highlighted in my first article.
For a politician to win power, all he needs to do is to promise to redistribute income from the haves to the have-nots. This is also what James Madison feared. In 1792, he wrote, 'Government is instituted to protect property of every sort....This being the end of government....That is NOT a just government...nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has...is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.'

In other words, the Founding Fathers of America clearly saw the danger that one man one vote will bring about a redistribution of wealth from the able, diligent, disciplined and daring to those less able, diligent, disciplined and daring. The Socialist welfare state that we see today in most western democracies would, I am sure, appall America's Founders. Under democractic government, your property risks being taxed away by votrepreneurers so that they can win elections.

Secondly, there is the immigration time bomb. America has lost control of its borders as millions of illegal immigrants have found their way into the country and it looks like most will be allowed to stay legally. Now, both major parties panders to them because they both want to court the Hispanic vote even though they are a minority. It should be remembered that in a close election, even a few percentage of votes can make a difference.

In Europe, the immigration problem is even worse as the immigrants are usually Muslims who have an even more different culture than the Mexicans that go to America. The difficulty of assimilating them is compounded by the religious differences on top of linguistic and racial differences.

A sensible immigration policy should admit those with valuable skills and come from cultures that readily assimilates with the host. But if they stick with their own language and refuse to assimilate, you run the high risk of dividing the nation. A civil war is not unimaginable. The track record of people of different cultures living peacefully together is not good.

Of course the present day politicians won't be around when or if the problem becomes serious and so they don't care. In addition, instead of screening them so as to accept the best and brightest, it seems to me that most of the illegals lack education and skills. This does not make sense.

How long can this last? I see democracies unable to solve serious problems. The solution of these problems require short term pain in order to achieve long term gain. But the voters won't accept this and politicans cannot deliver the bitter medicine. This is the Achilles Heel of any democracy.

1. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, The Federalist on the New Constitution (Philadelphia: Benjamin Warner, 1818), p. 53, #10, James Madison.

2. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1850), Vol. VI, p. 484, to John Taylor on April 15, 1814.

3. John Quincy Adams, The Jubilee of the Constitution. A Discourse Delivered at the Request of the New York Historical Society, in the City of New York on Tuesday, the 30th of April 1839; Being the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington as President of the United States, on Thursday, the 30th of April, 1789 (New York: Samuel Colman, 1839), p. 53.

4. John Adams, The Papers of John Adams, Robert J. Taylor, editor (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1977), Vol. I, p. 83, from "An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, with the Author's Comment in 1807," written on August 29, 1763, but first published by John Adams in 1807.

posted by Ohmyrus @ 12:47 AM

3 Comments:

At 12:55 AM, Joe Rouse said...
Excellent analysis!

At 6:07 PM, Serendipity Collections said...
Joe took the words right out of my mouth! Thank you for this fine analysis!

At 2:44 PM, kenny said...

This is the doom of our time, Our constitutional protections have collapsed with 3 critical changes.

1: the 16th amendment made taxation possible ill respective of the power to spend. effectively poor states to spend on themselves from the pocket of rich states.
2: the 17th amendment broke the ability of the Interested State party to protect it's rights from usurpation by the federal government in all matters of judges, treats, laws, and important officers.

3: The 3rd and final nail was FDR's new deal and the poltical power he had thou both houses of congress which the mob gave him to blackmail the Cort until effective giving congress the broad spending and control power that has enabled them to buy their reelection if they were willing and incompetent enough to uses it.

This effectively makes congress Indifferent on all other matters, and predisposed to spending ever greater sums of money on securing ever more permanently their power. as the ones that don't go along lose with in a few elections until someone replaces them that does. a process of natural selection that favors Big government(socialism) for the composition of congress.

Our Constitutional System has been pretty much overturned with theses key changes, it's extremely unlikely we will be able to fix it, with a revolution of some kind, or the collapse of government.

Still, we have to try...


[First posted on] Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at
http://democracyreform.blogspot.com/2006/11/did-americas-founders-want-democracy.html

Can America be Saved?

Saving America
Prof. Paul Eidelberg

New Riddle of the Sphinx

What's Black and White, Islamic and Christian, Born in Africa and America, and Flies All Over the Place?

Possible Answers:

a. A Man for All Seasons

b. A Chessboard made of Ebony and Ivory being Tossed in the Air

c. A Police Car with Two Policemen of Different Races, Going off a Cliff

If you are asked by the Sphinx, however, I would not use any of the above answers. The Sphinx will Strangle you.

If you are a Modern Oedipus, and can come up with the right answer, the Sphinx will kill herself.

HINT for the correct answer: It (the creature contained in the correct answer) is whatever it thinks that you want it to be. If it advances its purpose, it will shed one skin and appear new and shiny in another one. It will not answer any straight question as to two of its conditions listed in the riddle. It will use either side of its three double-sided conditions to bedazzle and thus deceive you. Come to think of it, it is more noxious and dangerous than the Sphinx herself.

NOTE: Both Sphinx and Sphincter have the same root in Greek. Make of that what you will.

ADDENDUM

The answer to "The New Riddle of the Sphinx" was actually given--long before the New Spinx posed her new riddle--at http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12745.htm

"Obama wants it both ways, has always wanted it both ways. Black and white, Indonesian and American, Muslim and Christian. He loves playing one off the other, using one to hide the other even as the traces of the truth may be assembled to reveal the whole cloth of deception and self-promotion he has been weaving so skillfully since his childhood. No wonder he is a man of change. He IS a changeling, a veritable chameleon, adapting and amending his life story to fit the circumstances."

As the correct answer was given (Obama), the Sphinx (the Strangler) devoured (ate) herself before her new riddle was posted here. That leaves no Sphinx, but only a Sphincter.

A new riddle that must be asked by us is "Who is this Sphincter?"


As Sphincter has the same root as Sphinx--strangle--We ask: "Who is Strangling Us Now?"

"Who is it that is strangling our country, the United States of America, and turning it into another ruin of Western Civilization?"

Is it the One who is a product of this--Western Civilization? Or is he a product of the Other, the barbarous non-civilized world, the world proudly hailed by themselves as Dar al-Islam - areas where Muslims are in the majority - the House of Islam or better said, "The World of Islam."

The Strangler (Sphincter) would have it both ways, he wants to remain The Riddle, this riddler, this strangler of all we hold dear.

Although the Strangler wants us to be puzzled, not to know for certain who or what he is, his true agenda is exposed--ugly and stifling--through the thin-wearing veneer of his many poses: from easy-going, charming likeability to the arrogance of his narcisistic self.
























You see, the Strangler IS a Sphinx!



















AND BE SURE NOT TO MISS . . .

Islam's "Manchurian Candidate?"

At the tail-end of . . .

The Islamization of America - conquering Americans from within

Islamization of the U.S. and a possible "Manchurian Candidate"

"Many Muslims insist that Islam is consistent with democracy and can be modernized, but these ideologies are at their roots inconsistent and thus incompatible. Even the act of lying is permissible in Islam."

from The Islamization of America - conquering Americans from within

AND BE SURE NOT TO MISS . . .

Islam's "Manchurian Candidate?" *

At the tail-end of the Islamization of America post at Islamic Danger 2 U

______________________________________
* Obama, the Manchurian candidate

[from David Kupelian's "Yes, Barack Obama really is a Manchurian candidate"]

In the classic 1962 movie thriller "The Manchurian Candidate," a man was programmed by communist handlers, and then emerged into the public arena as a hero, with a largely manufactured history, large parts of which were either obscured or changed. Then he was planted into a position of great influence, having been programmed to usher in tremendous change at the appointed time.

Barack Obama was programmed for years by his atheist, Muslim father, by the communist sex pervert Frank Marshall Davis, by con man Tony Rezko, by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and others – most of all by black liberation theology screamer Jeremiah Wright. Obama's resume is largely manufactured. There is a total blackout on his college years. His campaign obscures what he did as a "community organizer." All his radical associations are denied or minimized. His miserable legislative record (voting "present" over 100 times to avoid taking a stand), his lack of achievement, his radical views and so on – all have been laundered through the magic of public relations into the near-sacred saga of "The One" who has been sent to serve, and to save, America.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=79411

Fitzgerald: "If General Petraeus Had Read "War And Peace"

A review of Hugh Fitzgerald's analysis of the war against the Islamics who attacked us can be found at How to Stop the Islamic Jihad--How to Defeat the Camp of Islam.



For the entire article, go to http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/36181/sec_id/36181