0 comment Sunday, November 16, 2014 | admin
Have you read about the lights going off around the world?
''SYDNEY/LONDON (Reuters) - People switched off lights across the world on Saturday, dimming buildings, hotels, restaurants and bars to show concern at global warming.
Up to 30 million people were expected to switch off their lights for 60 minutes by the time "Earth Hour" -- which started at 8 p.m. in Suva in Fiji and Christchurch in New Zealand -- completed its cycle westwards.''
Are any of you observing 'Earth Hour' and turning off your lights at the designated time? Apparently we're supposed to turn off our lights at 8 o'clock local time, according to what I have heard.
This is typical liberal 'activism': a symbolic show with little of substance behind it. As if turning off our lights for 60 minutes would forestall this global warming doomsday that they keep prophesying.
It's not that I am one of those 'conservatives' who scorns concern for the environment just because of the liberal hysteria aboout it. It's true that the left and the liberals go overboard in their obsessing about Mother Earth, and it's true that much of their purported concern for the environment is limited to a kind of neo-Luddite hatred of our first-world lifestyle, mingled with a loathing for Big Business and all its works. However, having said that, I don't completely disregard environmental concerns; I think much of the damage to the environment is a result of overpopulation in most of the world, and of course 'most of the world' is taken up by the hallowed 'developing countries', who are for some reason held blameless when it comes to environmental damage. The best thing that could be done for the environment would be to stop all this reckless overpopulating, which is, after all, the main reason for this flood of immigration which threatens to overwhelm the entire Western world. Third World peoples keep breeding recklessly and irresponsibly, and of course they and their countries cannot support the children they are bringing into the world, so the overflow is being dropped on our doorstep, and we are being forced to deal with it.
For years, for decades, actually, the left has preached that our First World lifestyle is evil. Now, with the belief that we are on the 'Global Warming Eve of Destruction,' they preach more insistently than ever that we have to stop burning fossil fuels and living our generally wasteful and ecologically irresponsible way of life. Books like 'Small is Beautiful' and leftist films like 'Koyaanisqatsi' idealized the primitive lifestyle of Third World peoples and shamed us for living as we do. We should emulate the primitives, so the message implied, and "live simply that others may simply live." While there is a grain of good advice there, and no doubt simpler living would be healthier for all of us, it is just one more piece of hypocrisy from the left. Why do I say this? Because if they really, honestly believed what they say and preach, they would do all in their power to see that these 'noble savages' remained in their Third World Edens, living their 'small and beautiful' lifestyle. The last thing leftist and liberals should want, if man-made global warming is really occurring, is to bring as many as possible from the Third World to join in our First World lifestyle. Mass immigration to the West is, if anything, only accelerating global warming, as we add tens of millions of new consumers and more cars on the roads, meaning more emissions and more waste dumped in our environment. Does this make even an iota of sense? Of course it doesn't.
I might conclude that the global-warming, 'sky-is-falling' crowd don't really believe their own prophecies of looming disaster. I might wonder if they are cynically manufacturing panic about 'global warming' just to push their agenda.
However it may well be that they believe what they are saying; liberals and leftists have no problem holding many contradictory positions and professing illogical beliefs.
Why is it that they can't, or won't, see the deleterious role mass immigration is playing in their supposed global warming scenario?
I tend to be something of an agnostic on whether or not global warming is a long-term trend, whether it is irreversible, or whether it is merely part of the cycles in our climate that come and go. I tend to think the latter. However I suppose one could argue, as a conservative, that it would be better to prepare for the worst and to try to fend off any global warming which would tend to be disruptive of human society or destructive of human life. But then again, if global warming is happening, and if it is happening as rapidly as the doomsayers insist, is it even possible to stop it, much less to reverse it? Are we human beings really powerful enough to effect permanent changes in the earth's cycles by our relatively puny human efforts? And what could we realistically do, short of destroying all our modern technology and returning to a primitive lifestyle? How realistic would that be?
It might be a good thing in many ways, including from the perspective of improving the quality of our lives, to simplify the way we live, and return to living more as our ancestors did two or three generations ago. But can we, and would even returning to the horse-and-buggy days remove the environmental Sword of Damocles hanging over us?
I don't know that many leftists would sign on to such a program. I think their constant cries of 'repent! The time is at hand!' are mostly just secular versions of the warnings of the old prophets of the Bible. For many leftists and liberals, their politics are their religion, and although many of them scoff at Christian beliefs in heaven and hell, they very much believe that heaven and hell are here on earth.
In his 'Screwtape Letters', C.S. Lewis has his character, the devil's minion Screwtape, instructing the apprentice "Wormwood" on the devil's plans for humanity:
"...we want a man hagridden by the Future -- haunted by visions of an imminent heaven or hell upon earth...''
The idea was to make people believe that they had it in their power to attain heaven on earth or avert hell on earth.
This is the hubris of the liberal.
Unfortunately, it isn't just the left; we have the globalists, including transnational business interests, pushing for a one-world order, and the global warming scare is another tool they are employing to convince us that we must accept a powerful global government, along with a drop in our living standards, and the loss of our national sovereignty and personal freedoms. And people will accept these things, if they become convinced that it is necessary to avert the global warming hell.
''SYDNEY/LONDON (Reuters) - People switched off lights across the world on Saturday, dimming buildings, hotels, restaurants and bars to show concern at global warming.
Up to 30 million people were expected to switch off their lights for 60 minutes by the time "Earth Hour" -- which started at 8 p.m. in Suva in Fiji and Christchurch in New Zealand -- completed its cycle westwards.''
Are any of you observing 'Earth Hour' and turning off your lights at the designated time? Apparently we're supposed to turn off our lights at 8 o'clock local time, according to what I have heard.
This is typical liberal 'activism': a symbolic show with little of substance behind it. As if turning off our lights for 60 minutes would forestall this global warming doomsday that they keep prophesying.
It's not that I am one of those 'conservatives' who scorns concern for the environment just because of the liberal hysteria aboout it. It's true that the left and the liberals go overboard in their obsessing about Mother Earth, and it's true that much of their purported concern for the environment is limited to a kind of neo-Luddite hatred of our first-world lifestyle, mingled with a loathing for Big Business and all its works. However, having said that, I don't completely disregard environmental concerns; I think much of the damage to the environment is a result of overpopulation in most of the world, and of course 'most of the world' is taken up by the hallowed 'developing countries', who are for some reason held blameless when it comes to environmental damage. The best thing that could be done for the environment would be to stop all this reckless overpopulating, which is, after all, the main reason for this flood of immigration which threatens to overwhelm the entire Western world. Third World peoples keep breeding recklessly and irresponsibly, and of course they and their countries cannot support the children they are bringing into the world, so the overflow is being dropped on our doorstep, and we are being forced to deal with it.
For years, for decades, actually, the left has preached that our First World lifestyle is evil. Now, with the belief that we are on the 'Global Warming Eve of Destruction,' they preach more insistently than ever that we have to stop burning fossil fuels and living our generally wasteful and ecologically irresponsible way of life. Books like 'Small is Beautiful' and leftist films like 'Koyaanisqatsi' idealized the primitive lifestyle of Third World peoples and shamed us for living as we do. We should emulate the primitives, so the message implied, and "live simply that others may simply live." While there is a grain of good advice there, and no doubt simpler living would be healthier for all of us, it is just one more piece of hypocrisy from the left. Why do I say this? Because if they really, honestly believed what they say and preach, they would do all in their power to see that these 'noble savages' remained in their Third World Edens, living their 'small and beautiful' lifestyle. The last thing leftist and liberals should want, if man-made global warming is really occurring, is to bring as many as possible from the Third World to join in our First World lifestyle. Mass immigration to the West is, if anything, only accelerating global warming, as we add tens of millions of new consumers and more cars on the roads, meaning more emissions and more waste dumped in our environment. Does this make even an iota of sense? Of course it doesn't.
I might conclude that the global-warming, 'sky-is-falling' crowd don't really believe their own prophecies of looming disaster. I might wonder if they are cynically manufacturing panic about 'global warming' just to push their agenda.
However it may well be that they believe what they are saying; liberals and leftists have no problem holding many contradictory positions and professing illogical beliefs.
Why is it that they can't, or won't, see the deleterious role mass immigration is playing in their supposed global warming scenario?
I tend to be something of an agnostic on whether or not global warming is a long-term trend, whether it is irreversible, or whether it is merely part of the cycles in our climate that come and go. I tend to think the latter. However I suppose one could argue, as a conservative, that it would be better to prepare for the worst and to try to fend off any global warming which would tend to be disruptive of human society or destructive of human life. But then again, if global warming is happening, and if it is happening as rapidly as the doomsayers insist, is it even possible to stop it, much less to reverse it? Are we human beings really powerful enough to effect permanent changes in the earth's cycles by our relatively puny human efforts? And what could we realistically do, short of destroying all our modern technology and returning to a primitive lifestyle? How realistic would that be?
It might be a good thing in many ways, including from the perspective of improving the quality of our lives, to simplify the way we live, and return to living more as our ancestors did two or three generations ago. But can we, and would even returning to the horse-and-buggy days remove the environmental Sword of Damocles hanging over us?
I don't know that many leftists would sign on to such a program. I think their constant cries of 'repent! The time is at hand!' are mostly just secular versions of the warnings of the old prophets of the Bible. For many leftists and liberals, their politics are their religion, and although many of them scoff at Christian beliefs in heaven and hell, they very much believe that heaven and hell are here on earth.
In his 'Screwtape Letters', C.S. Lewis has his character, the devil's minion Screwtape, instructing the apprentice "Wormwood" on the devil's plans for humanity:
"...we want a man hagridden by the Future -- haunted by visions of an imminent heaven or hell upon earth...''
The idea was to make people believe that they had it in their power to attain heaven on earth or avert hell on earth.
This is the hubris of the liberal.
Unfortunately, it isn't just the left; we have the globalists, including transnational business interests, pushing for a one-world order, and the global warming scare is another tool they are employing to convince us that we must accept a powerful global government, along with a drop in our living standards, and the loss of our national sovereignty and personal freedoms. And people will accept these things, if they become convinced that it is necessary to avert the global warming hell.
Labels: Environmentalism, Global Warming, Globalism, Liberalism, Overpopulation
0 comment Saturday, June 28, 2014 | admin
This story appeared a few days ago:
UK population must fall to 30m, says Porritt
JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown�s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.
Porritt�s call will come at this week�s annual conference of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), of which he is patron.
The trust will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30m if the country wants to feed itself sustainably.
Porritt said: "Population growth, plus economic growth, is putting the world under terrible pressure.
"Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact."
Population growth is one of the most politically sensitive environmental problems. The issues it raises, including religion, culture and immigration policy, have proved too toxic for most green groups.
However, Porritt is winning scientific backing. Professor Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, will use the OPT conference, to be held at the Royal Statistical Society, to warn that population growth could help derail attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Rapley, who formerly ran the British Antarctic Survey, said humanity was emitting the equivalent of 50 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.
"We have to cut this by 80%, and population growth is going to make that much harder," he said.
Such views on population have split the green movement. George Monbiot, a prominent writer on green issues, has criticised population campaigners, arguing that "relentless" economic growth is a greater threat.
Many experts believe that, since Europeans and Americans have such a lopsided impact on the environment, the world would benefit more from reducing their populations than by making cuts in developing countries. ''
So why, if the world would benefit more by reducing the population of the most developed countries, are we being forced to import tens of millions of people into these countries, while we are supposedly already overpopulated?
At least the article acknowledges the fact that overpopulation is a 'politically sensitive' problem, although nobody seems willing to discuss just why it is so, or why it must be so. It's politically sensitive only because the environmentalist left has made multiculturalism and 'diversity' sacred cows. Multiculturalism and diversity as unquestioned values demand mass immigration from Third World countries, the overpopulated countries of the global South, because the 'rich world' as the globalists call us of the Western nations, are apparently too White and too 'sterile' without imported diversity.
So now most Western countries are madly importing millions of 'diverse' people from backward nations in order to attain some unspecified level of 'diversity' and the strength that is said to reside therein. How many immigrants are enough, Mr. Porrit, or Mr. Brown? How much 'diversity' is sufficient?
And why is there no mention of curtailing immigration as the most obvious way of stopping runaway population growth? The stark fact is that almost all population growth in Western countries is due to immigration and/or to American-born 'diversity.' Almost none of it is ascribable to irresponsible reproduction by White citizens of those countries.
So how does the multiculturalist left propose to 'cut the population by 80 percent' without repatriating millions of people who do not belong in the United Kingdom and without stopping the insane policy of importing immigrants at a furious pace?
There are hundreds of reader comments following the article, and very few even mention immigration, much less repatriation or deportation. Does it not make sense to stop digging when you are in a deep hole?
But one commenter makes a valid though unsettling point:
Does anyone else find this to be a rather disturbing statement to come from an officer of a government that controls your health care?''
That's similar to a point that I brought up a few weeks ago in connection with an article about the new health care proposals by the administration which would put our electronic medical records into a government database, and provide for a government bureaucracy which would oversee patient care, and could potentially dictate to doctors the care and treatment they administer to all their patients.
Of course in any nationalized health care system there would be a necessity for rationing care at least to some extent, and does anyone doubt that people with chronic illnesses and especially the elderly would be deemed liabilities to the system? I am convinced that we would eventually see at least passive euthanasia, with older and chronically ill patients being simply warehoused without the treatment they might expect to receive in our present system.
If Porritt and the other leftists in the United Kingdom think that the population must be reduced drastically, and if they have shown that they consider immigration sacred, where else can the population be cut? Western countries already have widespread abortion, but even with the greatly reduced native-born White birth rates, Western countries are becoming overcrowded. Yet immigration must continue. It's because of bizarre and irrational behaviors like this that I occasionally say our elites have gone mad. Their actions make no earthly sense.
And what makes even less sense is how few average citizens even think about the insanity of the situation, and the utter incompetence -- or is it simply malevolence -- of the judases who sit in positions of power.
It has never made sense to me that the environmentalist left refuses to even question or mention the role played by mass immigration by high-birth-rate peoples into Western countries. I've posted pictures before of the mountains of trash left by illegals traipsing across the former borders in the Southwestern states.
There are so many environmental issues that are exacerbated by mass immigration of all varieties, but all these things go unexamined and unmentioned because the left does not want to criticize their protected minority groups. And yes, I have heard of the Sierra Club payoff made by a certain wealthy individual who stipulated that immigration not be opposed -- but the Sierra Club is just one such organization; what is keeping all the others from speaking out against mass immigration and the overpopulation it brings?
Are they all so enamored of immigration and multiculturalism that they are willing to sacrifice the environment they profess to love and protect? Or are they all so indoctrinated to believe that Whitey is the cause of all evil in the world, while minorities are poor lambs who can do no wrong? It would certainly seem so, but again, I can't find a way to understand their way of thinking.
It may be that Mother Nature or divine intervention will have to provide a way out of this dilemma; our so-called leaders obviously have no acceptable and morally sound answers to our problems. Their incompetence or willful malfeasance should, in a just world, see them removed from power, but that will not happen unless the populace comes to their collective senses.
UK population must fall to 30m, says Porritt
JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown�s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.
Porritt�s call will come at this week�s annual conference of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), of which he is patron.
The trust will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30m if the country wants to feed itself sustainably.
Porritt said: "Population growth, plus economic growth, is putting the world under terrible pressure.
"Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact."
Population growth is one of the most politically sensitive environmental problems. The issues it raises, including religion, culture and immigration policy, have proved too toxic for most green groups.
However, Porritt is winning scientific backing. Professor Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, will use the OPT conference, to be held at the Royal Statistical Society, to warn that population growth could help derail attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Rapley, who formerly ran the British Antarctic Survey, said humanity was emitting the equivalent of 50 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.
"We have to cut this by 80%, and population growth is going to make that much harder," he said.
Such views on population have split the green movement. George Monbiot, a prominent writer on green issues, has criticised population campaigners, arguing that "relentless" economic growth is a greater threat.
Many experts believe that, since Europeans and Americans have such a lopsided impact on the environment, the world would benefit more from reducing their populations than by making cuts in developing countries. ''
So why, if the world would benefit more by reducing the population of the most developed countries, are we being forced to import tens of millions of people into these countries, while we are supposedly already overpopulated?
At least the article acknowledges the fact that overpopulation is a 'politically sensitive' problem, although nobody seems willing to discuss just why it is so, or why it must be so. It's politically sensitive only because the environmentalist left has made multiculturalism and 'diversity' sacred cows. Multiculturalism and diversity as unquestioned values demand mass immigration from Third World countries, the overpopulated countries of the global South, because the 'rich world' as the globalists call us of the Western nations, are apparently too White and too 'sterile' without imported diversity.
So now most Western countries are madly importing millions of 'diverse' people from backward nations in order to attain some unspecified level of 'diversity' and the strength that is said to reside therein. How many immigrants are enough, Mr. Porrit, or Mr. Brown? How much 'diversity' is sufficient?
And why is there no mention of curtailing immigration as the most obvious way of stopping runaway population growth? The stark fact is that almost all population growth in Western countries is due to immigration and/or to American-born 'diversity.' Almost none of it is ascribable to irresponsible reproduction by White citizens of those countries.
So how does the multiculturalist left propose to 'cut the population by 80 percent' without repatriating millions of people who do not belong in the United Kingdom and without stopping the insane policy of importing immigrants at a furious pace?
There are hundreds of reader comments following the article, and very few even mention immigration, much less repatriation or deportation. Does it not make sense to stop digging when you are in a deep hole?
But one commenter makes a valid though unsettling point:
Does anyone else find this to be a rather disturbing statement to come from an officer of a government that controls your health care?''
That's similar to a point that I brought up a few weeks ago in connection with an article about the new health care proposals by the administration which would put our electronic medical records into a government database, and provide for a government bureaucracy which would oversee patient care, and could potentially dictate to doctors the care and treatment they administer to all their patients.
Of course in any nationalized health care system there would be a necessity for rationing care at least to some extent, and does anyone doubt that people with chronic illnesses and especially the elderly would be deemed liabilities to the system? I am convinced that we would eventually see at least passive euthanasia, with older and chronically ill patients being simply warehoused without the treatment they might expect to receive in our present system.
If Porritt and the other leftists in the United Kingdom think that the population must be reduced drastically, and if they have shown that they consider immigration sacred, where else can the population be cut? Western countries already have widespread abortion, but even with the greatly reduced native-born White birth rates, Western countries are becoming overcrowded. Yet immigration must continue. It's because of bizarre and irrational behaviors like this that I occasionally say our elites have gone mad. Their actions make no earthly sense.
And what makes even less sense is how few average citizens even think about the insanity of the situation, and the utter incompetence -- or is it simply malevolence -- of the judases who sit in positions of power.
It has never made sense to me that the environmentalist left refuses to even question or mention the role played by mass immigration by high-birth-rate peoples into Western countries. I've posted pictures before of the mountains of trash left by illegals traipsing across the former borders in the Southwestern states.
There are so many environmental issues that are exacerbated by mass immigration of all varieties, but all these things go unexamined and unmentioned because the left does not want to criticize their protected minority groups. And yes, I have heard of the Sierra Club payoff made by a certain wealthy individual who stipulated that immigration not be opposed -- but the Sierra Club is just one such organization; what is keeping all the others from speaking out against mass immigration and the overpopulation it brings?
Are they all so enamored of immigration and multiculturalism that they are willing to sacrifice the environment they profess to love and protect? Or are they all so indoctrinated to believe that Whitey is the cause of all evil in the world, while minorities are poor lambs who can do no wrong? It would certainly seem so, but again, I can't find a way to understand their way of thinking.
It may be that Mother Nature or divine intervention will have to provide a way out of this dilemma; our so-called leaders obviously have no acceptable and morally sound answers to our problems. Their incompetence or willful malfeasance should, in a just world, see them removed from power, but that will not happen unless the populace comes to their collective senses.
Labels: Demographics, Diversity, Environmentalism, Leftism, Multiculturalism, Overpopulation, Race Replacement, United Kingdom
0 comment Tuesday, May 6, 2014 | admin
I've just recently been spending some time looking at City-data.com, which provides statistics on many things about towns and cities in all 50 states. The information is on things like population, demographics, housing, education, crime rates, and so on. The website is one option for those who, contemplating ''flight'', are looking for a decent place to which they might relocate.
As I explored the website, I found this list of ''High-growth cities with relocation interest"
There are 100 cities listed there. I'm not familiar with many of the cities listed, but my curiosity is piqued by this list. Many of the cities look like prime destinations for illegal (and legal) immigrants, for example, #17, Los Angeles, and #19, Las Vegas. #1 and #4, Fort Worth and San Antonio, Texas, respectively. But I wonder how many of these places are popular destinations for people fleeing immigration and ''diversity"?
The site also has forums which enable visitors to post questions on a given locality and which allow those questions to be answered by posters who live in the area, or who have knowledge of it.
The one thing I notice from reading the forums is the sheer numbers of people who seem to be on the move in this country, or at least contemplating a move. Perusing the forums, a reader can get the impression that we are a nation of nomads, shifting from place to place to cope with the constant changes in our country.
Most of the questions on one forum for a Southeastern state are from would-be migrants seeking ''good schools" ''nice neighbors", low taxes, and so on. It's easy to connect the dots and see that these are people who are now in places which have been overrun with immigrants of either the legal or the illegal variety, once-orderly places which are now mini-Babels with deteriorating schools, rising crime and taxes, the whole raft of problems with which ''diversity" tends to ''enrich" us.
A few of the posts even ask how much ''diversity'' exists in the destination town; however when there is any inkling that the question is racially motivated, the questioners sometimes hastily add that they just don't want an area with many ''illegals'' because of the problems they bring.
There are others who state they are looking for a ''progressive" town, though the area is in the conservative Bible belt. It seems to me that these people are looking in the wrong place for ''progressive'' towns, unless they pick the big city or the college towns, which are usually more liberal than their environs.
Another questioner wants to know if the locals will be''welcoming'' of their interracial marriage. Someone else asks about the presence of a certain politically incorrect pro-White organization.
So it definitely looks as if not all White flight, so-called, is by conservative, racially conscious people. There seem to be just about as many liberals and 'colorblind' respectables of whichever party who are fleeing all the 'diversity' and 'change', too. The difference seems to be that the liberals and ''progressives'' would not admit that they prefer to live in a non-diverse, mostly White area, and even worse, the liberals and 'respectables' refuse to see that liberal and open policies regarding immigration and 'diversity' are lethal to good towns and neighborhoods. They refuse to acknowledge cause and effect. They seem to think that when an area succumbs to 'diversity' and all the ills which follow in its train, the decay is caused by some inevitable natural process, not by stupid choices and policies on the part of the town fathers and the citizens themselves.
A friend and I were having a discussion about the infllux to our town. My friend pointed out that no matter who the people are who are moving here, their presence in such large numbers changes this town irrevocably. Why don't people realize this? The people who are moving like Bedouins all around the country, looking for fresh pastures, don't seem to get it, and the immigrants don't care. They simply see this as a place to be despoiled, and they see us as prey.
While most of the "flight" people who are new arrivals here are well-off people, professionals and others who might otherwise be an asset, they are no doubt bringing their ''progressive'' attitudes which portend trouble for this town, sooner or later. These new neighbors, relieved to have found a town with old-fashioned attitudes, natural beauty, low crime rates, and relatively good schools, will eventually revert to liberal form and bring their ''progressive'' and tolerant attitudes into our local culture, eventually changing the place. The very things that drew them here will gradually -- or precipitately -- be destroyed, and these progressives will wonder why. And then they will move on to some new, pristine place -- if there are any such places left. And of course a few steps behind these people will be the immigrants, mostly illegals who are hired to build the big sprawling houses the ''White flight" liberals like, and the illegals who are hired as domestic help. These same White flight types, often even the 'conservative' ones, will be those who think a colony of refugees would just be wonderful here.
How do we avoid this? Can it be avoided?
I can only hope that many of these liberals and 'respectable Republicans' who are fleeing the mess made by their misguided policies elsewhere, are reading sites like City-Data and ruling out the kinds of conservative areas where they do not belong. I am all in favor of them restricting themselves to places populated by ''diversity'' and by fellow deluded liberals, places where the amount of damage they can do is limited, because the places are already in ruins. It's only just, too, that they be forced to live with the policies they have pushed so relentlessly.
It makes no sense for liberals to deliberately park themselves in the Bible belt, where all those people ''clinging to religion and guns" live. Why do they do it? I think it's much like the Mohammedans who hate infidels coming to the West; they intend to 'convert' us, set us straight, or drive us out and replace us. Or the Mexicans, who, despite hating gringos, come en masse to our country. They all intend to come, see, and conquer.
I wonder if those of us who live in areas receiving a lot of ''White flight" should make our presence felt on some of these sites where people are inquiring about relocating. I think we should do all we can to discourage the ''progressives'' and the politically correct Republican types to look elsewhere for their next move. It isn't only the immigrants themselves who bring unwelcome change. This vast game of musical chairs will soon leave our country utterly unrecognizable everywhere, and unlivable in most places.
For those of us who might be looking for an area which is not too devastated by ''diversity'' just yet, we have to be aware of who else is looking to flee there; what's the use of relocating to some idyllic new place, only to find our new neighbors are our old liberal enemies from the big city?
As I explored the website, I found this list of ''High-growth cities with relocation interest"
There are 100 cities listed there. I'm not familiar with many of the cities listed, but my curiosity is piqued by this list. Many of the cities look like prime destinations for illegal (and legal) immigrants, for example, #17, Los Angeles, and #19, Las Vegas. #1 and #4, Fort Worth and San Antonio, Texas, respectively. But I wonder how many of these places are popular destinations for people fleeing immigration and ''diversity"?
The site also has forums which enable visitors to post questions on a given locality and which allow those questions to be answered by posters who live in the area, or who have knowledge of it.
The one thing I notice from reading the forums is the sheer numbers of people who seem to be on the move in this country, or at least contemplating a move. Perusing the forums, a reader can get the impression that we are a nation of nomads, shifting from place to place to cope with the constant changes in our country.
Most of the questions on one forum for a Southeastern state are from would-be migrants seeking ''good schools" ''nice neighbors", low taxes, and so on. It's easy to connect the dots and see that these are people who are now in places which have been overrun with immigrants of either the legal or the illegal variety, once-orderly places which are now mini-Babels with deteriorating schools, rising crime and taxes, the whole raft of problems with which ''diversity" tends to ''enrich" us.
A few of the posts even ask how much ''diversity'' exists in the destination town; however when there is any inkling that the question is racially motivated, the questioners sometimes hastily add that they just don't want an area with many ''illegals'' because of the problems they bring.
There are others who state they are looking for a ''progressive" town, though the area is in the conservative Bible belt. It seems to me that these people are looking in the wrong place for ''progressive'' towns, unless they pick the big city or the college towns, which are usually more liberal than their environs.
Another questioner wants to know if the locals will be''welcoming'' of their interracial marriage. Someone else asks about the presence of a certain politically incorrect pro-White organization.
So it definitely looks as if not all White flight, so-called, is by conservative, racially conscious people. There seem to be just about as many liberals and 'colorblind' respectables of whichever party who are fleeing all the 'diversity' and 'change', too. The difference seems to be that the liberals and ''progressives'' would not admit that they prefer to live in a non-diverse, mostly White area, and even worse, the liberals and 'respectables' refuse to see that liberal and open policies regarding immigration and 'diversity' are lethal to good towns and neighborhoods. They refuse to acknowledge cause and effect. They seem to think that when an area succumbs to 'diversity' and all the ills which follow in its train, the decay is caused by some inevitable natural process, not by stupid choices and policies on the part of the town fathers and the citizens themselves.
A friend and I were having a discussion about the infllux to our town. My friend pointed out that no matter who the people are who are moving here, their presence in such large numbers changes this town irrevocably. Why don't people realize this? The people who are moving like Bedouins all around the country, looking for fresh pastures, don't seem to get it, and the immigrants don't care. They simply see this as a place to be despoiled, and they see us as prey.
While most of the "flight" people who are new arrivals here are well-off people, professionals and others who might otherwise be an asset, they are no doubt bringing their ''progressive'' attitudes which portend trouble for this town, sooner or later. These new neighbors, relieved to have found a town with old-fashioned attitudes, natural beauty, low crime rates, and relatively good schools, will eventually revert to liberal form and bring their ''progressive'' and tolerant attitudes into our local culture, eventually changing the place. The very things that drew them here will gradually -- or precipitately -- be destroyed, and these progressives will wonder why. And then they will move on to some new, pristine place -- if there are any such places left. And of course a few steps behind these people will be the immigrants, mostly illegals who are hired to build the big sprawling houses the ''White flight" liberals like, and the illegals who are hired as domestic help. These same White flight types, often even the 'conservative' ones, will be those who think a colony of refugees would just be wonderful here.
How do we avoid this? Can it be avoided?
I can only hope that many of these liberals and 'respectable Republicans' who are fleeing the mess made by their misguided policies elsewhere, are reading sites like City-Data and ruling out the kinds of conservative areas where they do not belong. I am all in favor of them restricting themselves to places populated by ''diversity'' and by fellow deluded liberals, places where the amount of damage they can do is limited, because the places are already in ruins. It's only just, too, that they be forced to live with the policies they have pushed so relentlessly.
It makes no sense for liberals to deliberately park themselves in the Bible belt, where all those people ''clinging to religion and guns" live. Why do they do it? I think it's much like the Mohammedans who hate infidels coming to the West; they intend to 'convert' us, set us straight, or drive us out and replace us. Or the Mexicans, who, despite hating gringos, come en masse to our country. They all intend to come, see, and conquer.
I wonder if those of us who live in areas receiving a lot of ''White flight" should make our presence felt on some of these sites where people are inquiring about relocating. I think we should do all we can to discourage the ''progressives'' and the politically correct Republican types to look elsewhere for their next move. It isn't only the immigrants themselves who bring unwelcome change. This vast game of musical chairs will soon leave our country utterly unrecognizable everywhere, and unlivable in most places.
For those of us who might be looking for an area which is not too devastated by ''diversity'' just yet, we have to be aware of who else is looking to flee there; what's the use of relocating to some idyllic new place, only to find our new neighbors are our old liberal enemies from the big city?
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Demographics, Diversity, Ethnic Division, Ethnoconservatism, Liberalism, Overpopulation, White Flight
0 comment Sunday, May 4, 2014 | admin
I've mentioned the Paleo-Future blog before; its theme is past generations' depictions of 'the future', their 'future' being our present. It's interesting and sometimes amusing or ironic to read how past generations envisioned the world of the present day. Occasionally the visions displayed a prescience that was impressive, but more often than not, the predictions seem to have erred on the side of overoptimism. The fifties and early sixties particularly seem to have been an era in which there was an unshakable confidence in the ability of 'science' and technology to solve virtually any problem, and an implicit faith in the idea that people of 'the future' would somehow be wiser, better adjusted, and more enlightened. Actually many people still accept the premise behind that belief, which is the somewhat absurd and unfounded notion that every generation is a step upward from the previous generation.
This recent post on Paleo-Future is about Rejuvenated downtowns.
If you click on the link and look at the illustration, you will see the typical late-50s vision of what the 'city of tomorrow' would look like. From the text of a syndicated newspaper column called 'Closer Than We Think!':
...Traffic-choked downtown sections will be rejuvenated and transformed into airy, wide pedestrian malls when the designs of city planners are adopted in a none-too-distant future.
Large-scale plans and programs are springing up all over the country. One example is fashionable Lincoln Road in Miami Beach, being studied today for conversion into a traffic-free shopping promenade. Another is utilitarian Woodward Avenue in downtown Detroit. There are many more in between.
Traffic will be parked in adjoining areas. Store fronts will be modernized and beautified. New lighting at night and newly planted trees, shrubs and flowers will give these malls an exciting air. The aim is to regain for downtowns their former status as urban headquarters.''
It hasn't exactly played out that way, has it? Our urban cores are deteriorating, or decayed beyond hope in some cities.
The idea that car-free pedestrian malls were the wave of the future has proven false, as we see that many such experiments have been dismantled. 'Pedestrian malls' have usually been associated with the decline of the central business district of a town or city.
This New York Times article from 13 years ago describes how downtown pedestrian malls have been unsuccessful and are being removed as shoppers prefer enclosed malls. One rationale given for why enclosed suburban malls were superior was that there was less crime. But there has been an increase in crime at many malls in upscale suburban areas, thanks (apparently) to mass transit being extended there from inner cities.
The politically correct journalists and many commenters decry any complaints about public transit bringing in petty criminals or gang members from less desirable areas, but the connection seems unquestionable; whenever public transit extends service to upscale malls in suburban areas, crime increases. So suburban malls, even in nice, upscale communities, are now being 'urbanized', shall we say.
The pleasant future predicted by so many 'seers' of the mid-20th century was predicated on the assumption that America would stay what it was then, a mostly homogeneous country with middle-class, conservative values. Few anticipated the massive demographic shifts that would occur as the after-effects of the disastrous 1965 Immigration Act.
It isn't polite or politically correct to mention it, but people make the place; change the population and you change the place. The more different the people who come to displace the existing population, the greater the changes to the place.
And surprise, surprise: people from Third-World cultures bring Third World conditions and standards.
Why it has become taboo to mention or even to notice this most obvious of points is baffling. Actually, it isn't really; we have to pretend not to notice such things lest we hurt the feelings of the new population of the country, who are not to be criticized, only to be flattered.
So the future that the starry-eyed believers in 'progress' envisioned was not to be. But what caused the destruction of that dream, other than the obvious demographic changes, which were purposely engineered by our duplicitous rulers? There were multiple factors at work, and it's hard to disentangle them, or to recognize cause and effect in some cases.
Another factor in the story of urban decay and the dying of our cities as centers of civilization is the rise of the car culture during the post-WWII era. It was then that many young families abandoned the cities and existing towns to move to new suburban developments which represented a real change in the way people lived. The change was not all for the better, although at the time it seemed, for many young couples, to be a dream come true to own a new home in the suburbs, even if the new homes were all cookie-cutter in design, and even if the new suburbs offered little in the way of community, compared with the established towns.
Some of us on the right tend to react against criticisms of the car culture and the move to the suburbs, because this is a favorite hobby horse of the left. for example, the writer Jane Holtz Kay, from a review of her book:
[I]t is a false form of consciousness that fails to assess women's enslavement to the motor vehicle in the auto-dependent households and society it has helped install" . "False form of consciousness"? "Enslavement"? These are fighting words. Kay then goes on to enumerate other victims, the "mobility disenfranchised"--children, the poor, the elderly--people who live without cars in a car-dependent society.
Kay blames the automobile for virtually all of society's ills, from a withering political consciousness, to the deterioration of the family, to a junk food diet. She recognizes the zeal of her argument: "It may sound ludicrous to blame the car for fewer oven-baked potatoes and more fatty french fries, less grandma's chicken soup, and more franchised chicken nuggets, but the junk food diet--and the environmental toll from its trash also stems from the wrappings of the highway-based franchise. The car is scarcely the sole villain in the growth of Kentucky Fried Chicken but it is an accomplice".
It's ironic that some of the liberal critics seem to deplore the loss of the same things many conservatives lament: family and community ties, more wholesome ways of eating and living. It's a shame that they seem to blame all the evils of the 20th century on capitalism and traditional Americans, rather than recognizing that liberal policies helped to create the problems they lament. It was big liberal government that set out to ensure that all Americans had 'affordable housing', in the suburbs which was a nice idea especially for returning veterans, but it's still government meddling and practicing social engineering.
How much, I wonder, has the car culture contributed to the crises we discuss on this blog?
With the talk of 'peak oil' and the looming economic crisis, will the car-oriented lifestyle, with suburban sprawl, still be viable? Will our ever-increasing population, thanks mostly to mass, uncontrolled immigration allow for this lifestyle to continue?
As our population threatens to reach half a billion by mid-century, (and that may be an underestimate), it seems absurd to assume that our present way of life can continue without drastic changes.
For the liberals, the answer seems to be to build more densely in the suburbs and the cities, and turning more to mass public transit -- which to many of us seems an imperfect solution at best, and nightmarish at worst.
In many places, public transit is unsafe, unsanitary, and not pleasant or easy to use. And no amount of government subsidies can fix these problems if the people using the system are the source of the problems. I've used public transit in a number of large cities and medium-sized cities, and to paraphrase something Jay Leno said once, buses and trains in many places are 'rolling bad neighborhoods.'
And as we continue on our reckless path to bring more 'diversity' and more warm bodies to our country, the social frictions will certainly increase rather than decrease.
Why the leftists cannot see the danger of mass immigration while they decry overpopulation and overdevelopment is unfathomable.
One more thought that occurs is: if only. If only our country had not had to spend untold amounts of money on 'social programs', on accommodating the dysfunctional elements in our society, if only we did not have to spend astronomical sums to provide for immigrants and their many attendant expenses -- who knows what our society might have been. Maybe the visions of the optimists of the 1950s would have come to pass. But they could not have known what awaited them in the 1960s and beyond.
I bless them for their childlike faith in human technology and wisdom, but it's easy sometimes to want to curse them for their blindness as to the real future that lay in wait for them -- and for us.
But I believe in honoring our fathers and mothers, and it's also well to remember that our progeny may well hold us to account for what we failed to see and failed to act on while there was time. That's where our focus should be.
And perhaps we need to try to recover some of the ideas and attitudes and values that made our society work so well, once upon a time.
History has repeatedly demonstrated that empires seldom seem to retain sufficient cultural self-awareness to prevent them from overreaching and overgrasping�Any culture that jettisons the values that have given it competence, adaptability, and identity becomes weak and hollow. A culture can avoid that hazard only by tenaciously retaining the underlying values responsible for the cultures nature and success." - Jane Jacobs, Dark Ages Ahead
This recent post on Paleo-Future is about Rejuvenated downtowns.
If you click on the link and look at the illustration, you will see the typical late-50s vision of what the 'city of tomorrow' would look like. From the text of a syndicated newspaper column called 'Closer Than We Think!':
...Traffic-choked downtown sections will be rejuvenated and transformed into airy, wide pedestrian malls when the designs of city planners are adopted in a none-too-distant future.
Large-scale plans and programs are springing up all over the country. One example is fashionable Lincoln Road in Miami Beach, being studied today for conversion into a traffic-free shopping promenade. Another is utilitarian Woodward Avenue in downtown Detroit. There are many more in between.
Traffic will be parked in adjoining areas. Store fronts will be modernized and beautified. New lighting at night and newly planted trees, shrubs and flowers will give these malls an exciting air. The aim is to regain for downtowns their former status as urban headquarters.''
It hasn't exactly played out that way, has it? Our urban cores are deteriorating, or decayed beyond hope in some cities.
The idea that car-free pedestrian malls were the wave of the future has proven false, as we see that many such experiments have been dismantled. 'Pedestrian malls' have usually been associated with the decline of the central business district of a town or city.
This New York Times article from 13 years ago describes how downtown pedestrian malls have been unsuccessful and are being removed as shoppers prefer enclosed malls. One rationale given for why enclosed suburban malls were superior was that there was less crime. But there has been an increase in crime at many malls in upscale suburban areas, thanks (apparently) to mass transit being extended there from inner cities.
The politically correct journalists and many commenters decry any complaints about public transit bringing in petty criminals or gang members from less desirable areas, but the connection seems unquestionable; whenever public transit extends service to upscale malls in suburban areas, crime increases. So suburban malls, even in nice, upscale communities, are now being 'urbanized', shall we say.
The pleasant future predicted by so many 'seers' of the mid-20th century was predicated on the assumption that America would stay what it was then, a mostly homogeneous country with middle-class, conservative values. Few anticipated the massive demographic shifts that would occur as the after-effects of the disastrous 1965 Immigration Act.
It isn't polite or politically correct to mention it, but people make the place; change the population and you change the place. The more different the people who come to displace the existing population, the greater the changes to the place.
And surprise, surprise: people from Third-World cultures bring Third World conditions and standards.
Why it has become taboo to mention or even to notice this most obvious of points is baffling. Actually, it isn't really; we have to pretend not to notice such things lest we hurt the feelings of the new population of the country, who are not to be criticized, only to be flattered.
So the future that the starry-eyed believers in 'progress' envisioned was not to be. But what caused the destruction of that dream, other than the obvious demographic changes, which were purposely engineered by our duplicitous rulers? There were multiple factors at work, and it's hard to disentangle them, or to recognize cause and effect in some cases.
Another factor in the story of urban decay and the dying of our cities as centers of civilization is the rise of the car culture during the post-WWII era. It was then that many young families abandoned the cities and existing towns to move to new suburban developments which represented a real change in the way people lived. The change was not all for the better, although at the time it seemed, for many young couples, to be a dream come true to own a new home in the suburbs, even if the new homes were all cookie-cutter in design, and even if the new suburbs offered little in the way of community, compared with the established towns.
Some of us on the right tend to react against criticisms of the car culture and the move to the suburbs, because this is a favorite hobby horse of the left. for example, the writer Jane Holtz Kay, from a review of her book:
[I]t is a false form of consciousness that fails to assess women's enslavement to the motor vehicle in the auto-dependent households and society it has helped install" . "False form of consciousness"? "Enslavement"? These are fighting words. Kay then goes on to enumerate other victims, the "mobility disenfranchised"--children, the poor, the elderly--people who live without cars in a car-dependent society.
Kay blames the automobile for virtually all of society's ills, from a withering political consciousness, to the deterioration of the family, to a junk food diet. She recognizes the zeal of her argument: "It may sound ludicrous to blame the car for fewer oven-baked potatoes and more fatty french fries, less grandma's chicken soup, and more franchised chicken nuggets, but the junk food diet--and the environmental toll from its trash also stems from the wrappings of the highway-based franchise. The car is scarcely the sole villain in the growth of Kentucky Fried Chicken but it is an accomplice".
It's ironic that some of the liberal critics seem to deplore the loss of the same things many conservatives lament: family and community ties, more wholesome ways of eating and living. It's a shame that they seem to blame all the evils of the 20th century on capitalism and traditional Americans, rather than recognizing that liberal policies helped to create the problems they lament. It was big liberal government that set out to ensure that all Americans had 'affordable housing', in the suburbs which was a nice idea especially for returning veterans, but it's still government meddling and practicing social engineering.
How much, I wonder, has the car culture contributed to the crises we discuss on this blog?
With the talk of 'peak oil' and the looming economic crisis, will the car-oriented lifestyle, with suburban sprawl, still be viable? Will our ever-increasing population, thanks mostly to mass, uncontrolled immigration allow for this lifestyle to continue?
As our population threatens to reach half a billion by mid-century, (and that may be an underestimate), it seems absurd to assume that our present way of life can continue without drastic changes.
For the liberals, the answer seems to be to build more densely in the suburbs and the cities, and turning more to mass public transit -- which to many of us seems an imperfect solution at best, and nightmarish at worst.
In many places, public transit is unsafe, unsanitary, and not pleasant or easy to use. And no amount of government subsidies can fix these problems if the people using the system are the source of the problems. I've used public transit in a number of large cities and medium-sized cities, and to paraphrase something Jay Leno said once, buses and trains in many places are 'rolling bad neighborhoods.'
And as we continue on our reckless path to bring more 'diversity' and more warm bodies to our country, the social frictions will certainly increase rather than decrease.
Why the leftists cannot see the danger of mass immigration while they decry overpopulation and overdevelopment is unfathomable.
One more thought that occurs is: if only. If only our country had not had to spend untold amounts of money on 'social programs', on accommodating the dysfunctional elements in our society, if only we did not have to spend astronomical sums to provide for immigrants and their many attendant expenses -- who knows what our society might have been. Maybe the visions of the optimists of the 1950s would have come to pass. But they could not have known what awaited them in the 1960s and beyond.
I bless them for their childlike faith in human technology and wisdom, but it's easy sometimes to want to curse them for their blindness as to the real future that lay in wait for them -- and for us.
But I believe in honoring our fathers and mothers, and it's also well to remember that our progeny may well hold us to account for what we failed to see and failed to act on while there was time. That's where our focus should be.
And perhaps we need to try to recover some of the ideas and attitudes and values that made our society work so well, once upon a time.
History has repeatedly demonstrated that empires seldom seem to retain sufficient cultural self-awareness to prevent them from overreaching and overgrasping�Any culture that jettisons the values that have given it competence, adaptability, and identity becomes weak and hollow. A culture can avoid that hazard only by tenaciously retaining the underlying values responsible for the cultures nature and success." - Jane Jacobs, Dark Ages Ahead
Labels: Crime, Demographics, Diversity, Mass Immigration, Overpopulation, Social Change, Social Engineering, Societal Decay