The mismatch between “Post-ABC News poll, those more tuned into the ‘08 race” and the post-Republican Candidate debate online polls of ABC and MSNBC goes well beyond normal disparities between “scientific” polling and online polling.  Ron Paul leads all other candidates by a more than comfortable margin in the online polls and is hardly even considered a “dark horse” candidate by the offline “scientific” polls.  This is made even more interesting if, as has been reported here the MSNBC online poll prior to the debates had Ron Paul with only about 9% vs its present 34%.

Glib explanations that “Ron Paul’s supporters are internet addicts…”, as have been advanced on neocon sites such as Freerepublic.com, while very unsatisfying, are at least better than the utter silence regarding the glaring disparity from the mainstream media whose own online polls so drastically depart from their “scientific” polls.

Moreover, at present it appears that FOX News is excluding Ron Paul from the upcoming South Carolina debate because:

“the public is better served when serious candidates speak on the issues”

One can’t help but entertain the possibility that perhaps some of the disparity is due to Ron Paul’s consistent opposition to Neocon “invade the world, invite the world” policy that has taken hold of the mainstream media… that plus the fact that—rare among self-described “libertarians”—he doesn’t seem very hypocritical when it comes to recognizing the asset known as national citizenship.  (His immigration report card is an astounding B+.)

A quantitative estimate of approximately how far off we can expect these online polls to be is called for…

READ MORE...

MR commenter Gongstar posted a link to a BBC Radio 4 documentary which, as he says, is worth a listen.  Somewhat ironically from our point of view, it is titled Peckham’s Lost.

That title actually refers to the abject failure of innumerable government thaumaturgies to save the younger generation of black “South Londoners” from themselves.  It is a 40-minute investigation of feral black youth in Peckham, scene of some particularly savage, recent black-on-black lethality.

READ MORE...

There is an important article posted to VDARE today by Randall Burns titled: “Immigration Policy Squanders The Value of Citizenship” exemplified by this passage:

If we take the current theoretical value of citizenship at a midpoint estimate of $225,000: we can ask ourselves, is the American public really getting $1.4 trillion per year in value for current levels of legal immigration? I would argue that it isn’t. In fact recent immigration—which is often unskilled, uneducated and often actively hostile to the existing US population— is creating nowhere close to that level of benefit.

It also isn’t surprising that the predatory wealthy like Bill Gates can make money when they have something to dangle in front of prospective foreign employees—the perquisites and privileges of US residency and citizenship, paid for by the rest of us.

To underscore the importance of my point: If we look at the median level of privately- held wealth, it was only about $61,000 per citizen family in 1998. (The average level of privately held wealth is around $270,000 per family). That means decisions regarding immigration policy and the definition and value of citizenship are far more important to a clear majority of Americans than any personal savings or earnings they are likely to have over their lifetime.

If we use a higher value on citizenship, immigration swamps even our currently absurd trade deficit as a liquidation of American assets.

As we move towards a saner immigration policy, we need to think of policies that maintain the current value of US citizenship and broadly held private property levels for those already here-and that are calculated to attract those immigrants who really do bring something to America.

Americans deserve at least the consideration from their political leaders that property owners would get from a real estate developer.

Part of the importance of this article is that it attacks the fallacy of hypocrites claiming to be libertarians who demand open borders.  It does so by treating citizenship itself as a property right with estimable monetary value.

Now, agreed, it ignores the enormous value most people attach to kinship, however it is the first time someone has called the bluff of self-proclaimed “libertarians” by putting numbers to the asset that we know as national citizenship.

This evening the BBC News website is running an article headed Violent immigrants fuelling crime:-

Young immigrants from violent and war-torn countries are fuelling mayhem and murder on London’s streets, according to a new report.

Research from Scotland Yard says increasing numbers of youths with significant post-traumatic stress are having a negative impact in the city.

There are currently 171 street gangs operating in London says the report.

... Some 43% of gangs are estimated to have more than 20 members, while 18% have more than 50 members.

Although 90% of gang participants are male, there are believed to be three female gangs operating in London, and women are often used “to mind weapons” for brothers and partners.

The document states that half of gangs identified by police intelligence are based in the African-Caribbean community.

Now, I checked the Met’s website to see if there was a press release about this rather interesting new research.  There wasn’t.  But there were seven “news headlines” listed to the right of the front page, on each of which I clicked.  The first link was to an all too typical “triple success story”.  That was followed by two links to the jailing of the Crevice terrorists, then one to another six charged with terror offences, one to a top-brass speech on counter-terrorism, one to the jailing of four bank-robbers and, finally, one to a typically surreal PeeCee campaign the Met is running under the name of Communities Together.

Elsewhere on the front page, and in true soviet style, the Met talks up its role in making London one of the safest cities in the world with, apparently, falling crime and rising detection rates.

Meanwhile, the BBC website’s leading front page news story concerns growing pressure for a public enquiry into MI5’s handling of 7/7 intelligence.  The lead story on the “England news page” ventures outside the capital to vibrant and unhideous Gorton in Manchester, where a “youth” managed to kill his 12 year old sister by shooting her in the head.

Alone against this relentless torrent of diverse horrors, the BNP is putting up 880 candidates across the 10,500 council seats to be contested this Thursday in 312 English local authorities.  That is immeasurably more realistic than the 1,000+ claimed by UKIP and the 1,419 of the Greens, and, of course, only a fraction of the effort being mounted by the three diversity-celebrating, mainstream parties.  But it still represents a great step forward from the 363 who stood a year ago in that tranch of Britain’s 21,892 council seats where elections were then due.

Media-wise, there has been some speculation that BNP councillors in Sandwell could increase from four to ten, and maybe snatch control of the council in the process.  But by and large the concentration of the press and TV has been elsewhere, and little has been said about Nick Griffin’s boys and girls.  The party itself, though, is brim-full of confidence from the warm public response it is receiving - even to the extent of running an article on its website advising giddy activists to keep their feet on the ground.

So how high can they do?

READ MORE...

If it were possible to sustainably support people at the current US standard of living with an ecological footprint (as little as 1/100 gha percapita) quite conceivably less than 1/10,000 of the current US ecological footprint (109 gha percapita)—and do so using reasonably low risk technologies at a capital cost (fitting the US’s entire footprint in a desert area the size of South Carolina) equal to one year’s GDP, you’d think some of the geniuses running our lives would come up with the solution.  Well, maybe they just haven’t thought of this yet:
Read on for the details.

READ MORE...

Just forty-eight hours of campaigning remain for the candidates in Super Thursday’s three elections in Britain.  So this is as good a time as any to hazard a guess as to the outcomes.

Or possibly not.  There aren’t many experienced pundits prepared to do so because of complications inherent in all three elections.  The council elections in England are horribly complicated because parties stand in some areas but not in others.  Labour has candidates in only about half the seats on offer.  No party is standing across the board.

But the list systems employed for the Scottish and Welsh Assembly elections don’t make prediction easy, either.  They were plainly designed to maintain the liberal-left pro-Westminster status quo, and to prevent nationalism (that’s the constitutional variety, of course) from ever placing a hand on the tiller.

In Scotland, 73 of the 129 MSPs are elected to single-member constituencies and 56 are chosen for one of eight regions using proportional representation.  The cost of this system to its architect, the late Donald Dewar, was the Genscherisation of Scottish politics.  Labour, as the eternal largest party in Scotland, may never be able to govern alone.  A permanent place at the governing table was, therefore, the Scottish LibDems for the asking.

When I last ventured into Scottish political punditry, on January 13th I presumed that the SNP would be forced to make common cause with the Scottish Conservatives.  At the time Labour and the SNP were pretty much neck and neck in the polls, but headed in opposite directions.  So I predicted that the real poll would give the SNP 35% and Labour 30%, and these figures are now reported by the major polling organisations.

But I also predicted that sufficient shy Conservatives would support David Cameron and his Scottish leader, Annabel Goldie, in the voting booth to make an SNP/Con coalition viable.  In fact, the opinion polls have not been kind to the Conservatives, and it seems unlikely that they will gain on their 18 MSPs from the last Parliament.  Meanwhile Labour is eyeing a “traffic light” coalition with the Scottish LibDems and Greens.

The LibDems, however, are not to be trusted.  They will want more from Alex Salmond than the Environment portfolio that would go to the Greens in the Labour’s three-party arrangement, and they will get it.

One thing is certain.  Whichever way the LibDem’s eventually go they will try to present the decision as one of high principle.  Re-enter an administration with Labour and they are acting on their first duty is to preserve the Union.  Go with Salmond and Co and they are acting on their first duty to the Scottish electorate, who made the SNP the largest party in the new Parliament.

So, am I going to predict what evil little thoughts are spinning round and round inside LibDem brains?  Surprisingly, yes.  It is always possible to seek “assurances” and “guarantees” on a referendum three years in the future.  But how, if such are forthcoming and are demonstrably reasonable, can the LibDems reject them and face the electorate again without bringing the entire system into disrepute, and risking grave and lasting damage to themselves?

No, they will follow their ultimate self-interest.  It will be Salmond who leads the next administration at Holyrood.  And everything else I wrote about on January 13th, including the forthcoming death of the Labour Party (to the lasting benefit of the BNP), will come to pass in the fullness of time.

Going from The Top 100 cities with Youngest Population (pop. 5000+), the ones with people looking like they’re reproducing the fastest are:

* Estimated by empirical formula based on known data from Kiryas Joel: Median Age/1.5

In European culture, polytheistic beliefs began to dwindle with the rise of Christianity.  In the centuries to come it was to be expected that the polymorph system of explanation, whether in theology or, later on, in sociology, politics, history, or psychology, in short, the entire perception of the world, would gradually come under the influence of Judeo-Christian monotheistic beliefs.  Unquestionably, the two thousand year impact of Judeo-Christian monotheism, with its distilment of Americanism, has considerably altered its approach to politics as well as the overall perception of the world.

... In modern consciousness, the centuries long and pervasive influence of Christianity has contributed significantly to the modern view that holds any glorification of polytheism or, for that matter, nostalgia for the Greco-Roman spiritual order, as irreconcilable with contemporary Americanised society.  Modern individuals who reject Jewish influence in America often forget that much of their neuroses would disappear if their Biblical fundamentalism was abandoned.  One may contend that the rejection of monotheism does not imply a return to the worship of ancient Indo-European dieties or the veneration of some exotic gods and goddesses.  It means forging another civilisation or, rather, a modernized version of scientific and cultural Hellenism, considered once as a common recepticle of all European peoples.

Dr Tomislav Sunic writing under his heading of “American neo-paganism in his book, Homo americanus.

Now, I’ve put together this quote because it contains both halves of what I suppose we must call the Christianity Question, namely:-

1) The role of the Bible in communicating the Jewish materialistic worldview, out of which came the obsessive 20th Century drive for world improvement.

All liberalism’s children, including communism, democratism, predatory capitalism, even anti-semitism in Tom’s view, are just secular offshoots of this strange, borrowed Levantine faith.  And there is no end to it as long as we draw water from that well.

2) The desirability and grave difficulty of recovering mythological value for Europeans (which Tom qualifies as “the quest for their ancestral heritage”).

I am going to make a few observations about both issues.  I do so with some nervousness about treading on hallowed ground.  I am a stranger to faith myself and would not, even if I was able, wish to follow Richard Dawkins’ tasteless precedent.  I am not, therefore, making a case against faith.  My case against Christianity is the case against the leaden characteristics of the Jewish god.

With that caveat then, here goes.

READ MORE...