ON THE HISTORY OF SLAVERY

When a group of people keep repeating as facts, things that have no basis in fact, they soon begin to believe their own rhetoric. For example, recently, a man that indicated he was Black, called a radio station and proclaimed loudly that "hundreds of millions of Blacks lost their lives to slavery in America!"

He was adamant in his testimonial but fortunately he was wrong. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. And yet, none of the on-air hosts challenged his statement. I am therefore sure that many blacks in the listening audience accepted as absolute fact his assertion that “hundreds of millions” of Blacks lost their lives in slavery in America despite the fact that the statement is untrue. So let's try to set the record staight.

To begin with, we must all understand that slavery - no matter where it is practiced and by whom - is an absolute abomination. There can be no mistake about that. Subjugating any human being to the horror of slavery is a repulsive act to be reviled by all. But such has not always been the case.

Slavery had been practiced around the world for centuries before slaves were brought to the Americas; in fact, slavery was fairly common in Africa prior to, during, and after slavery came to the Colonies in the 17th century. For example, gold and silver mines on the African continent - run by Africans - condemned captive blacks to a lifetime of horror working in the mines. Once African captives were put into the mines, they never again saw the light of day. This slavery – practiced by Blacks against Blacks - was in fact far more despicable, far more hateful, far more utterly destructive of its slaves than anything that happened in the American Colonies centuries later. (And weren’t the Jews captured and placed into slavery in Egypt a millennia before the American Colonies existed? I think so.)

So the truth is – and it is the truth - much of the known world at that time and even prior to that time - and certainly much of the Black African continent – considered slavery to be their right of conquest. You captured a tribe, you made the losers your slaves for the rest of their lives. That was slavery at its worse.

Slavery was hardly invented when it was transplanted into the America in the early 1600’s. Nevertheless I repeat, no matter where it was practiced and by whom, or for how long - slavery was and has always been a cruel and vicious abomination.

It has long been believed that in the American Colonies, the place we are about to discuss, it was only Southerners who felt they had a right to own slaves. That is completely untrue. The truth is, many Northerners as well as many people in societies around the world, felt that same way. The real reason slavery was largely confined to the Southern States in the American Colonies was more practical: it was only the South that had an economic system that needed slaves and therefore, it was only in the South that owning slaves could be practiced profitably. That reason was “King Cotton”. In the 17th century, cotton had become the backbone of the new Southern American economy and cotton fields needed cheap field workers; hence, the introduction of slavery.

But owning and "keeping" slaves cost money. Slaves had to be fed and housed and cared for if you expected them to work for you. Therefore if you weren't using them to make you money (i.e. picking cotton to be sold), then where was the money to come from to pay for their upkeep and care and if they just cost you money, what would be the purpose of owning them? There obviously would be none.

That’s why there were so few slaves in the Northern States. It was not some great moral revulsion against owning slaves, there was just no economic reason for the North to want to do so.

Many Americans think the Civil War was fought to free the slaves. That's not true. The Civil War was fought more to hold the Union together than to abolish slavery. Certainly there was a strong - if limited - sentiment against slavery which continued to grow as the war progressed, but it is more accurate to say that the abolition of slavery was a consequence of, rather than a motivation for, the Civil War.

Nevertheless, our primary focus here today is in the slave trade that existed between West Africa and the Americas in the period 1670-1860 when millions of African slaves were shipped across what was then known as "The Middle Passage". What is truth and what is fiction.

Before we get into the actual details of that slave trade, let’s talk about how it actually worked. First, if you think of bunch of White guys got into boats, made their way across the ocean, landed on the shores of Black Africa, stole a bunch of African men and women, marched them across the continent to waiting boats and shipped them to America, you are flat out of your mind. That never happened because it couldn’t have happened.


Back in 1600, two hundred million Blacks lived on the continent of Africa. If a small band of Whites suddenly appeared in native lands, they would have stood out like a sore thumb and likely been killed. They would have been no way they could sneak in, kidnap Blacks and escape across the Continent with being apprehended. They couldn’t do it and they didn’t do it. That’s just not the way it happened.

The way it happened was like this: Africa had many local tribes back then and many tribal chiefs. These tribes were constantly at war with one another and in those wars, the losers – male and female - would be taken away to become lifelong slaves of the winners. That had been going on for centuries in Africa before any White man showed up.

One day, White slave traders from Portugal found their way to the African shore. African tribal leaders learning of the traders’ presence came to the shore to investigate the invaders. There, the tribesmen inter-acted with the traders and a “business arrangement” developed. The traders wanted to know what the leaders had to sell and the leaders had slaves to sell. That was the beginning of the American slave trade.

Tribal leaders would return to their camps on the Continent, put their captives into chains, then march them across the continent to the waiting boats and there, sell them to the White traders. The traders would then transport the slaves across the Middle Passage to the Americas – a very long and dangerous sea voyage – and those that survived the trip would be sold.

That was the slave trade. There were three parties to this evil practice – (1) the Black African tribal chiefs who had slaves and sold them to the traders for money and goods (2) the traders who transported their captured slaves to the Americas (North and South America) and (3) the cotton farmers who bought the slaves to work their fields. Slavery was nothing about color unless it was the color of money.

Over the years, there have been many wild claims about the number of slaves that came to North America (the 13 British Colonies). At one time or other, it has been claimed that as many as 40 million blacks were shipped here in the 190-year period 1670-1860. That is not true and for a lot of reasons. For one thing, the population of the Colonies in 1700 was only 4 million total including Blacks and Whites. For another, importing slaves became illegal after 1807.

In the days in question, ocean-going ships of the type used in the slave trade held about 400 slaves. The trip across the Middle Passage took three months in each direction so a round trip would take a minimum of six months. Therefore, to haul 40 million slaves with two round trips per year carrying 400 slaves each, would have required 50,000 cumulative years which is longer than man has been on this planet. So you can scratch that idea.

Another problem was the availability of ocean going ships in those days. As an example, the US Navy had only 40 ocean-going vessels in service in 1700 and just four available to patrol the Slave Coast of Africa, which they did for a hundred years. So even if all the ships in the Navy were used to transport slaves it would still have taken more than 1,250 years to ferry that many slaves here. So that never happened either.

The book, "The History of Slavery" uses a number between 8-9 million and that makes much more sense although I think it's still too high. After all, if the entire United States Navy had just 40 ocean-going vessels, how many slave traders could there have been? Let’s see what we can calculate.

I will start with a realistic estimate of transport ships - slave traders. I will use 40 - the same number of ocean-going vessels that were in service with the United States Navy.
So, 40 ships carrying 800 slaves a year between 1670 and 1860 (190 years) = 6,100,000 slaves and to me, that sounds more accurate. So six million slaves were shipped across the "Middle Passage" over that period of time (but none to the Colonies after 1807).

Of these 6 million slaves, 94% (5,640,000) went to South America or the Islands while just 6% (360-400,000 were shipped to the British Colonies of North America.

You seldom hear this but it’s a fact: the great majority of slaves that were shipped from West Africa to the Americas were shipped to South America and to the Caribbean Islands not to the British Colonies. That why Hispanic is defined as a mix of Black, Spanish and Indian. Because so many Black slaves ended up in South America, where they intermarried and created the Hispanic race.

So the total number of slaves brought to North America over 190 years was not counted in the millions at all, it was about 400,000. And these numbers are supportable by slave records. In the British Colonies, slaves had financial value so strict records were kept of who they were, who bought them, who owned them, and what happened to them.

Some Black activists have also claimed that “millions of blacks died in slavery” in the Colonies. That also is untrue. For one thing, there weren't millions of black slaves here. For another, as I just pointed out, slaves were valuable property and there was no advantage to killing them and losing your investment. Quite the contrary was true: they were kept, housed, fed and certainly worked hard but they were taken care of and encouraged to have children because that increased the owner’s net worth. Slaves were worth money alive, they were worth nothing dead. Like the Biblical Jewish slaves of Egypt, the Black slaves in America multiplied. By the end of slavery in 1861, the total population of America was nearly 32,000,000 of which some 4,000,000 were Black. That means the Black slaves here had multiplied from 400 thousand to four million. That’s a multiplication factor of 10 and at that time, they represented approximately 12.5% of the total American population. Despite that, their percentage of the whole had actually shrunk because the number of Whites had exploded too, increasing from 7 million in 1808 to over 30 million in 1862.

Here is a table of Blacks as a percentage of the American population:


YEAR Total .....…... …Blacks ......... Blacks %

1650 50,000 ......…..…..1,600 ........ 3.5%
1700 473,959 ......…....28,000 ........ 6.0%
1760 1,600,000 .....…..328,090 ........ 20.5%
1780 2,780,400 .....…..575,961 ........ 20.7%
1808 7,200,000 .…...1,400,000 ........ 19.4%
1900 249,464,396 .. 31,183,049 ........ 12.2%
2010 309,381,000 .. 38,363,244 ....... . 12.4%

So Blacks did not die in the wildly exaggerated numbers sometimes reported, but many did die so who or what killed them?

Well, most of them died either (1) in Africa where they were captured, beaten, then chained and force-marched across the continent by their African captors to the seaports where they could be sold or (2) on board those dreadful ships in that dangerous passage between West Africa and the Americas. The remainder, those that reached the Colonies safely, actually saw their plight improve considerably.

Blacks have a distorted picture of the number of slaves that came to America as they have a distorted picture of how many Blacks live in America today (2010). In a recent poll of inner city residents, when Black Americans were asked how much of America was Black, they replied 75%. This is completely erroneous of course but quite understandable. Since most Blacks live in Black neighborhoods, all they see are Blacks so they think Blacks are in the majority in this country. But they aren’t. They are just 12.4% as estimated by the Department of the Census in 2010. This is very nearly identical to the 12.2% back in 1900 but almost half of what it was in 1807.

Demographically, Hispanics in this country now outnumber Blacks by a considerable margin. Hispanics in 2010 are estimated to be 14% of our population legally with another 3-4% here illegally. That could give them 18% compared to the Black's 10.4%. Clearly, Hispanics are increasing in numbers as Blacks are remaining dormant or decreasing.

Slavery was a horrendous event in the history of our country and it continues in remote areas around the world even to this day. Wherever it is practiced, it is an abomination to human dignity.

But slavery is evil enough to stand condemned for what it is without resorting to distortions and exaggerations by those who would use it for perceived political or financial advantage. And the basis for slavery has never really been color; it has usually been about the accumulation of wealth and the availability of forced cheap labor.

There is no substitute for truth. To be best of my ability, I have presented the truth here.

JOEY

PS There has really never been a major migration of Blacks from Africa to North America since the day importing slaves was outlawed back in 1807. This means most of the Blacks in America today can trace their ancestry back that far and further.

For many of the rest of us, our ancestry is traced back to the big migrations from Germany, Ireland and Italy in the 19th and early 20th centuries. That’s something to keep in mind.

Joey
http://www.blogger.com/profile/00659050837324784709
Welcome to Joey’s Newspage, where people come to exercise their mind

Do Women Really Have The Right To Choose?

NOT IF WE WANT TO SURVIVE, THEY DON’T.

(This article was written I think in 2005. At the end there is an update from 2010. All I can say about the update is: I told you but you wouldn't listen!)

Fact: In 2008, the average births-per-Caucasian-American-woman was 1.5. That is far short of the necessary 2.1 which is what is needed to sustain ourselves. For that reason, Caucasians are a dying race. Not just here but in all of Western Europe, Canada and Australia too. Too few babies has resulted in self-destruction after 5,000 years. This is our last half-century of signficance.

That's a fact not an opinion.

A lot of women took issue with this article when it was first written five years ago. But today, the warnings have become reality. Because of abortion, Caucasian whites are disappearing from the planet. (There are also Spanish "whites".)

This week, the US Census Bureau's press release stated that Caucasians in the United States will cease to be a majority (46%) in their own nation by 2042 – if not sooner. That is just 34 years from now.

Thirty years later in 2072 (well within the life span of your baby), Caucasians will be 20-25% of our population. By the end of this century, they will be all but gone destroyed by "A Woman's Right To Choose".

In Western Europe, things are no better. Whites in Europe will become a minority – probably by 2025-2030 and continue a steady decline after that. By the end of this century, they will be effectively gone along with their American counterparts. At that time, the continent of Europe will be majority Muslim.

If that were all there is to this, it might not be so bad. But there are other pressures at work that are not so nice. Most whites are Christian and the Qu’ran thinks of Christians as Infidels and the Qu'ran strongly suggests, "cutting off the heads and fingertips of Infidels”. This could signal the end of Christianity and maybe of Christians too.

I pity the Caucasian children of today’s Western Europe. With Islam in the ascendancy, their future may be bleak indeed. Were I living there - other than in Ireland - I would get my small children to America as quickly as I could. America might be the last place where they will be safe fifty years from now.

America is the best refuge for one reason: countering the decline of White American Christians is the increase in Spanish-Mexican Christians. This immigration is keeping America’s population at an even keel although the mix of races is changing. Because of Mexicans (different from Hispanics), America should remain Christian which is why I say it’s the best refuge for those unlucky European Caucasian kids.

But if you think I am exaggeratig and that once the Muslims have gotten control of European countries, things will be the same, you might want to think again. Check our history and see the bloodletting that routinely takes places across our planet when Demographics undergo major changes. Nothing is ever the same. No one is ever safe. Change itself is unsafe and when religion is involved, it is doubly unsafe.

Following is the original article which caused so many 'free choice' women of that time to become angry. Perhaps now they know better. the Article is titled:

"A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE"

2003 - This is an excerpt from the writings of a Black author:

"Disappearance of the Caucasian Race - The Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Directive 15, designates racial and ethnic categories used in the US Census and in other innumerable public and private research projects.

When the term 8 percenters is used in this article, it refers to the disappearance of the European (Scandinavian/Nordic) White Caucasian Race. You can do a quick examination for yourself. Go to the Population Reference Bureau Website for 2003 and add the figures together. If you take the numbers given for Europe and North America and divide them by the numbers given for Africa, Asia, South America and Oceania you can calculate the percentages. At the present time (2003) Whites amount to about 30 percent. By 2040 that percentage will drop to between 15 - 20%. At that time, some 85% of the world's population will be non-White.

Today, the following countries show a serious population decline: Italy, Spain, Germany, France, Belgium, Portugal, Greece, Croatia, Ukraine, Russia, Slovakia, Romania, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, and Bulgaria with more on the way. Germans – like the Italians, Russian, Spanish and Greeks - are also an endangered species. And what is the common bond? They are all 'white' nations."

This is the end of the excerpt and he beginning of my Article.
______________________._____________

POP QUIZ:

1. One Western European predominantly Caucasian country is not on that list. Which is it? A. Ireland.

2. One Western European predominantly Caucasian country is not dying. Which is it? A: Ireland.

3. One Western European predominantly Caucasian country is thriving. Which is it? A: Ireland.

Ireland is the answer to all three questions. And what makes Ireland different from the 43 Caucasian countries of Western Europe, and from Caucasian Australia, Canada and the Untied States?

Simple: Ireland doesn't need others to rush in to fill a population void because - there is no population void. You see: IRELAND HAS BABIES to replace their dying adults.

________________________________________________________

UPDATE: Press release: August 15, 2008: US Census bureau now estimates that "white Caucasians in the United States will be a MINORITY by 2042". That's four years EARLIER than anticipated and just 34 years from now. A caveat suggests they may have to revise the date downward (sooner). Way to go, girls.
_______________________________________________________

If you are a woman, there is something I wish to call to your attention. The human race cannot survive without replacing those who die. The exact average number of replacements that are necessary for survival is 2.1 offspring per healthy adult female. There are no exceptions. Where babies are the result of copulation between male and female, each female must produce on average, 2.1 offspring for survival. Since this is fact, when we say that a woman has the right to choose whether or not to have children, we are also saying she has the right to determine the future of mankind. Did we mean to say that?

When men and women were created, they were created as a matched set. Like a nut and bolt, together they served a purpose. The purpose - the only purpose - was the propagation of the species. Were it not for that, one gender would have been sufficient.
_________________________________________________________________

I am aware that many women today object to the thought that there is a greater power than themselves so let me take a moment to put this on a personal level. If you are a family man or woman, and you do have children, are there not rules of behavior for your family? Can your 14 year old stay out til 4:00 AM solely because he or she wants to? No? Why not?

The answer is obvious. Your family like any group has benefits but it also has responsibilities and obligations to go along with those benefits. That’s necessary both for prosperity and for survival. In that regard, your family is a microcosm of society.

So what if your 19 year-old son refused to do the one thing that he had to do for the family’s survival? Whatever that might be. And what if there was no one else who could do it but him? Would you just shrug it off and let him stay in your home, under your protection, even as he threatened your family’s survival? What if he said maybe the kid next door will come over and fulfill this vital function instead of him? Would you accept that?

My guess is you wouldn’t. If your son placed you and your family’s survival in jeopardy, and he wouldn’t change his conduct, eventually you would have to ask him to leave. There would be little choice.

In tribal days long gone, any member of a tribe who didn’t perform services that were necessary for the good of that tribe, was evicted. Existence within a group is a quid pro quo arrangement. You must do what the society requires of you or get out. Try living on your own.

This same thing holds good today. If your country goes to war and troops are required, your government authorizes a draft. All young men are required to register for that draft and if selected, those young men must go to war to kill or be killed, like it or not. You go or they will put you in jail, and in some circumstances, even shoot you. The good of the society transcends your individual rights.

There are essential responsibilities and obligations that must be fulfilled by a group's members if the group – in this case society – is to survive. Having the requisite number of babies is one of those essential responsibilities and obligations. It is mandatory, not voluntary. There is simply no substitute for babies. We need 2.1 babies per healthy adult women or we perish and it's just that simple.

Women today have been taught that abortion is an inalienable 'right'. To that, I would say nonsense. Abortions affect the ability of a society to survive so your abortion is everybody's business.

In this country, abortions have only been legal since 1973 - a period of about 35 years. It was illegal, and not a 'right' at all, for the first 200 years of our country's existence. So if it's a 'right' today, it was a 'wrong' yesterday. My point here being that 'rights' and ‘wrongs’ come and go according to society's needs. They are not assigned by a higher power.

In this country, like all others, there are a hundred thousand laws that in some way restrict or even deny us certain of what we might think of as our 'rights'. That all part of being a society. Rights are defined for the good of that society and must be observed by every member thereof. As the needs of the society change, so do "rights'. Therefore, when you speak of the 'right to choose', keep in mind that "right" is nothing more than what the current law says it is. And that can change for the good of the society at any time.

Today, many women have adopted a "let the women who want kids, have them" philosophy Of course they, much like your son, do want to continue to live at home (in our society) availing themselves of the family’s goods, services, and protection (society’s goods, services and protection) but they just don’t want to meet their own obligation (having the children we need to survive).

Well, it doesn't work that way. This is a totally egocentric position which completely ignores an absolute need of society, which is the production of children. These women don’t care and if they don’t care then they cannot be allowed to continue within the society they are destroying. Does this sound like your son?

In November of 2007, an adult European female took it upon herself to proclaim to the world that she had undergone sterilization to fight overpopulation. "Having children," she declared with grave pomposity, "is selfish".

The woman, if she is a Caucasian (which I suspect she is) couldn't be more wrong.

In that part of the world where overpopulation is indeed a problem, they won't pay the slightest attention to her. In that part of the world that will pay attention,. the problem isn't too many babies, it's too few.

If this woman is Caucasian, rather than sterilization, she would have better served her society by getting pregnant.

Today's birth rate for Caucasian woman in most of the Western world, is way below the sustaining rate of 2.1 per healthy adult woman. Therefore, they are effectively terminating their entire race. After 5,000 years women like this one, will have destroyed it.

While this is true of Caucasian women, it is not so true of other women. For example, the birth rate in Muslim countries is way over 3.0 per woman; hence, Muslim populations are expanding and will not disappear. It’s the same with African and South American Hispanics (mix of White, Black and Indian), These population groups also have sustainable birth rates and therefore are not in danger of imminent extinction. Today, only Caucasians are in danger of extinction, with one major exception: Japan: Japan too is dying. It's birth rate is so low, they no longer have the children they need to care for their elderly so they are actually turning to robots to take care of their aged.

How sad is that? Because of what this woman and others like her are doing, Muslims are moving into formerly Caucasian countries all over Western Europe. They are exercising more and more power and growing stronger even as the indigenous white populations are growing older and becoming weaker. It's just a matter of time until the Caucasians are replaced as the power in Western Europe and I don't imagine it will be a peaceful transition.

And that’s the problem. A peaceful transition would be fine but this is not likely to be peaceful. The fact is that it may eventually become a living hell for those who are giving up power. If you read The Qu’ran, you will see that Islam is an intolerant religion when it comes to Infidels and all those Christian white people who are left will be seen as Infidels. There may come a time when those who are left may curse the women who so proudly carried those "CHOICE" banners today.

So, I guess the real question now is, will the world be better or worse off for this woman's decision to end the Caucasian race - a race that has contributed so much to the development of civilization and human rights? Will it be better or worse off without us?

Well, that depends on your point of view.

Looking around, it seems clear to me that most of the non-Caucasian world has less of the things that we Caucasians cherish: less personal prosperity, less personal freedom, less of the good things in life. Some may not like hearing that but look around and see where you want to go if you leave your homeland in America or in Western Europe or Australia or Canada. Where do you want to go to live? In truth, you won't find many places like your homeland.

But it doesn't matter any more. The fat is in the fire and western civilization is on the way out thanks to the women who have simply been too busy doing important things to have babies.

Caucasian women with their 'right to choose' will have 'chosen' to converted those 43 formerly Western European Caucasian nations (birthplace to so many of our ancestors) to Muslim nations perhaps to the horror of the few remaining Christians. This upcoming population change has been confirmed by the UN Center on Population Control and by the US Census Bureau and is well underway already.

Sadly, our Caucasian women have made one too many bad choices. They came to believe that what they were doing out in the world was more important than having babies when in truth, nothing else a woman - any healthy woman - does, is one tenth as important as having babies. We can exist without her production in the workforce, we cannot exist without her babies in life.

Now some of you undoubtedly don't like hearing this but unfortunately it's still true. And because it's true, it has to be said. The decision not to have babies has condemned some of our people to a very sad ending to their life. The pity is that it won't happen to those who caused it. It will happen to their children and grandchildren. They will be ones that have to pay the price for "a woman's right to choose". .

This is not a political blog. It is not a religious blog. It is not a sexist blog. And it is NOT a racist blog.
This is a demographic blog - a blog about worldwide population statistics as complied by the UN and the US Census Bureau. The unhappy truth is, there are consequences to behavior and this blog is about those consequences.

How important these consequences may be, is up to you to decide. If you don't think it matters, then fine, it doesn't matter. But how you feel about it won't really matter because what is going to be, is going to be - with your permission or without it.

Note: For those of you who want to think of this article as racist, try to use your heads. If this were about Italians disappearing from the human race, or Chinese, you could understand why it might upset some Italians or Chinese. If it was about the last Protestants disappearing, you would understand why the remaining Protestants might be upset. You can say the same thing about any nationality, religious or racial group. For that matter you can say the same about any important group of long standing. When the now-famous Knights of the Templar were disappearing, there must have been those who deeply regretted their passing too. Being Caucasian and looking back at what my race has brought to this world, I deeply regret its passing – and for what I think of as all the wrong reasons. That’s why I wrote this article – and that’s hardly racism. It’s simply a matter of speaking the truth. So here it is.

Caucasian women worldwide now have a birth rate ranging from a catastrophic 1.1 (Spain, Germany and Italy) to a self-destructive 1.5 (America) with a worldwide average of 1.5, numbers which guarantee the end of their race. These women have chosen extinction for the rest of us. They are altering the very world we live in. Here are some examples from around the world:

EUROPE: The populations of Canada and Western Europe – largely Caucasian - are in serious decline. So bad is it that, according to the reports of the US Census Bureau and of Johns Hopkins University, they have already passed the point of no return.

Each of these countries must now find new populations to replace the current Caucasian populations that are disappearing because of a lack of sufficient replacement babies. In Europe, the answer is now clear: Muslims.

Muslim populations in Western Europe are mushrooming and in 20-30 years, Caucasian will be a minority there just as they are in the United States.

CANADA: Canada's problem is not as dangerous as Europe's (Muslim extremism) but much worse than the problem in the United States. Unlike the United States where Mexican Christians are quietly replacing the dwindling white race, Canada has no such available asset. The races and cultures in the world that are producing excess populations are far removed from Canada’s borders both in miles and ideologies. There is also the matter of climate to consider. Canada is cold while the Middle East and Africa with burgeoning populations, are both warm. Local populations there might not find the colder climate of Canada appealing. So where can Canada look to find its new Canadians before their Caucasian population dies out? It’s a good question and I wish I had a good answer. But I don’t.

Canada's future - or lack thereof - is sealed. It is destined to return to its former state, that of a pristine wilderness.

UNITED STATES; In the United States things are not as bad. Despite the fact that that the birth rate of Caucasian woman has fallen to 1.5 births per adult female (25% short of a sustaining rate), as I have pointed out the influx of Mexican women with a much higher birth rate is making up for the shortfall. Averaging the lower birthrate of Caucasians with the higher birth rate of these immigrants gives America an overall birth rate of 2.0 which is sufficient to sustain the population level about where it is. The caveat is that the racial mix of America is undergoing radical change and in the near future, the dying Caucasian race will be replaced by Mexican Spanish (Whites) and South American Hispanics (mixed Indian, Spanish, and Black).

Following is an official list of European countries that have surprisingly announced improved birth rates in 2007. Wait until you see who is kidding whom:

1) France 2) Netherlands 3) Belgium 4) Switzerland 5) Austria 6) Germany 7) Italy and 8) Spain

That was a surprise until we checked into the European countries that have the highest proportion of Muslims in their populations. They are:

1) France 2) Netherlands 3) Belgium 4) Switzerland 5) Austria 6) Germany 7) Italy and 8) Spain

Notice anything? Of course you do.

The two lists are identical.

The increase in population they are so proud of all came from the Muslims that have moved into their countries; their indigenous Caucasian populations are still dying out.

Has anyone noticed the riots around London and Paris and in The Netherlands recently? Who was rioting? It was reported that "youths" were rioting in France. Youths? No, it wasn't "youths", it was Muslims. How is that possible when in France, only 10% of the population are reported to be Muslim? Easy. The riots took place around urban areas like Paris and that's where the Muslims live. In those areas, the Muslims are 30% of the people and they are young and male compared to the local populations which are much older and have more females. It's not even close to a fair fight.

The future for France (like much of Europe) is sadly clear: Too few babies = too few adults /=/ takeover. Spain, Germany and Italy and maybe even England aren't far behind France. In 2006, they all reported very low Caucasian birth rates averaging around 1.25 per woman. England slightly higher, but others slightly lower.

November, 2006 New York Times:

"Unlike (other) dips in population growth throughout history, this slide, which began in the ‘60s, was not caused by a natural or economic disaster or war or a plague. There’s no Black Death to blame, no World War I, no Great Depression. This decline is widespread; it is steady, and the current decline shows no signs of reversing as earlier ones have."

End Excerpt.

The United Nations Population Division’s Biannual Compendium on World Population Prospects:

"In an underdeveloped country, the average woman must have 2.2 babies in her lifetime in order to maintain a stable population. In a developed nation it is 2.1

July 16, 2006 - Tokyo, Japan

TOKYO -- Japan has embarked on a path no developed nation has ever followed -- of sustained and inexorable population decline.

SPAIN: Spain faces massive decline in population

RUSSIA: Russia is facing a demographic crisis so dire that its population could shrink by half within 40 years.

MEXICO: Surprisingly, even Mexico's population is beginning to decline. Bad habits catch on quickly

____________________________________________

Okay, so what do we do to save ourselves from extinction - because that is exactly what we are talking about – extinction brought about by women who think working in an office or a store or whatever is more important than having the babies upon which our future depends. Well, I don't think anything will reverse today's reality, but here are some ideas being talked about:

(1) Restore motherhood to the place it once held. Elevate motherhood and pay women for raising children just as we pay for any other service.

(2) Encourage women to have babies in those places where babies are in short supply.

(3) Reward families (financially) that have the babies that society needs to survive. Either that or encourage - and finance - mass migration from countries with too many babies to countries with too few babies. That would work but it would also change forever the demographics of the host nations from the old Caucasian base to the new Muslim/African base. The time of this transition might also be the time of huge pain and suffering for those being dispossessed.

Those are some of the ideas being discussed but sadly, there is no one solution to all the problems since one half the world has too many and the other has too few babies.

Finally, I have heard women argue that this type change is normal. That if the white Caucasians disappear, there will be others to replace them so why would it matter? It's just a change and if it happens, so be it.

Well, to some extent, that may be true. But the white Caucasian race has been on this planet for over 5,000 years and it has been responsible for many of the best things that have happened to humanity. I wouldn’t refer to its demise as just a "change". Not at all. In some places it's going to be catastrophic. This kind of change always is.

I pity the children who must grow up to face this daunting challenge.

Yet, there is nothing to be done about it now. I therefore write this only to inform those who were so sure they were right that they were devastatingly wrong. Many continue to be, to this day.

We have wasted our heritage through our selfishness and stupidity. And now, we have to deal with it.

I leave you with this thought:

“When left to its own devices, humanity seldom makes the right choice."

JOEY

UPDATE: SEPTEMBER 2010

HISPANIC LEADERS SPEAK OUT
2010-09-27

HISPANIC LEADERS SPEAK OUT

Augustin Cebada, Brown Berets; "Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people. It is your duty to die . . Through love of having children, we are going to take over.

Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council. "They're afraid we're going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They're right. We will take them over . . . We are here to stay."

Excelsior, the national newspaper of Mexico, "The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot."

Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas; "We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. The explosion is in our population . . . I love it."

Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party, "Remember 187--proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non-citizens--was the last gasp of white America in California."

Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor, "We are politicizing every single one of these new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country . . . I gotta tell you that a lot of people are saying, "I'm going to go out there and vote because I want to pay them back."

Mario Obledo, California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations and California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Governor Jerry Brown, also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bill Clinton, "California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it should leave."

Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General, "We are practicing 'La Reconquista' in California." [that means "taking back"]

Professor Fernando Guerra, Loyola Marymount University; "We need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood [only] by Latinos . . . "

So, are these just the words of extremists? Nope, we could fill up many pages with such quotes. These are mainstream Mexican leaders.

THE U.S. VS MEXICO:
On February 15, 1998, the U.S. And Mexican soccer teams met at the Los Angeles Coliseum. The crowd was overwhelmingly pro-Mexican even though most lived in this country. They booed during the National Anthem and U.S. Flags were held upside down. As the match progressed, supporters of the U.S. Team were insulted, pelted with projectiles, punched and spat upon. Beer and trash were thrown at the U.S. Players before and after the match. The coach of the U.S. Team, Steve Sampson said, "This was the most painful experience I have ever had in this profession."
(The Americans were strangers in their own land. All this thanks to Democrats.)

Did you know that immigrants from Mexico and other non-European countries can come to this country and get preferences in jobs, education, and government contracts? It's called affirmative action or racial privilege. The Emperor of Japan or the President of Mexico could migrate here and immediately be eligible for special rights unavailable for Americans of European descent. Recently, a vote was taken in the U.S. Congress to end this practice. It was defeated. Every single Democratic senator except Ernest Hollings voted to maintain special privileges for Hispanic, Asian and African immigrants. They were joined by thirteen Republicans. Bill Clinton and Al Gore have repeatedly stated that they believe that massive immigration from countries like Mexico is good. They have also backed special privileges for these immigrants.

Even corporate America has signed on to the idea that minorities and third world immigrants should get special, privileged status. Some examples are Exxon, Texaco, Merrill Lynch, Boeing, Paine Weber, Starbucks and many more. Why? Maybe cheaper labor means bigger profits???

DID YOU KNOW?:
Did you know that Mexico has NEVER extradited a Mexican national accused of murder in the U.S. in spite of agreements to do so? Not once.

Is education important to you? Here are the words of a teacher who spent over 20 years in the Los Angeles School system. "Imagine teachers in classes containing 30-40 students of widely varying attention spans and motivation, many of whom aren't fluent in English. Educators seek learning materials likely to reach the majority of students and that means fewer words and math problems and more pictures and multicultural references."

When I was young, I remember hearing about the immigrants that came through Ellis Island. They wanted to learn English. They wanted to breathe free. They wanted to become Americans.

Now too many immigrants come here with demands. They demand to be taught in their own language. They demand special privileges--affirmative action. They demand ethnic studies that glorify their culture.

Makes you wonder, if they loved it so much, WHY THE HELL DID THEY LEAVE AND WHY DON'T THEY JUST GO BACK???

"ALICE IN OBAMA-LAND" - The New American Fantasy

Once upon a time, there was a land of make believe called "Obama-Land". In "Obama-Land" up was down and down was up and nothing existed unless it existed left of center.

One day there developed in “Obama-Land", a practice known as "Enjoy Today and Pay Tomorrow" the accepted vehicle for which was the all-purpose credit card. For people that had no job or could not pay their bills, the credit card was like a ticket to Candyland. They helped people make ends meet. Of course these people who used their credit cards to make ends meet couldn't hope to repay them (much like the folks who got those Fannie Mae free mortgages) but who cares? Alice certainly didn't.

And so, Alice along with many of the residents of "Obama-Land" became enamored of the practice of borrowing money they could never hope to repay and began to live the "Enjoy Today and Pay Tomorrow" philosophy.

But over time, something happened. This practice of living on borrowed money became malevolent and soon, many "Obama-Land" residents found themselves in dire financial straits with still no money but big credit card balances at high interest rates. And slowly and inexorably they began to fall behind.

Enter the Master of Obama-Land, Barako-Bama. Master Bama determined that what had to be done was that the purveyors of the credit cards had to be prevented from charging so much interest to those who already had balances which they could not pay. Charging these people higher interest rates, reasoned Master Bama, when they had no money to pay was cruel and inhuman since the people living off their credit cards couldn’t pay their loans back so how in the world could they pay higher interest rates too? They couldn't.

And so, the Master decreed that these higher interest rates would be lowered to a more reasonable rate, say that of people who did make their payments on time.

But this new law led to consternation on the part of the credit card industry because the very people who were running the biggest unpaid balances and getting the furthest behind were now protected from being charged the high-risk interest rates that were mandated by their financial condition. It was a lot like what happened with Fannie Mae which almost dissolved the world’s credit markets.

This change of affairs put the credit card companies in the trying circumstance of having to accept less interest revenue from the very people that were their biggest risks - an unsustainable method of running a financial loan business which could only lead to the credit card companies themselves eventually defaulting.

After all, how could you not charge the highest interest to the people carrying the highest unpaid balances over the longest time? But you couldn't. It seemed things were backward in the Magic Mirror.

And then someone close to Master Bama suggested an answer. Find the persons with low balances, people who DID pay on time every month, people who are NO problem and raise the interest rates on them to pay for the loss of interest on those who are always behind.

Brilliant but what, the Master was asked, if those people are not running big enough balances month to month from which interest can be earned sufficient enough to offset what is being lost on the delinquent accounts?

But the Master smiled knowingly. "Then charge them a fee for using your credit cards in the first place," he said.

"Can we also charge a fee to those who are delinquent", asked the stunned officials of the credit card companies?

"No, they have enough to deal with."

The owners of the credit card companies looked at one another. "You mean," they said to the Master, "we lowered the interest rates on the people who run delinquent high balances and then to recoup our losses, we raise the interest rates on those that do not?"

"Exactly. And you can also charge them a fee to offset your losses. After all, which money is more likely to be paid?"

"The interest and fees from those who pay their bills on time, certainly."

"Exactly. And which are less likely to be paid?"

"The fees, interest and balances from those who do not pay their bills on time."

"So there you go. Raise the fees on those that pay and pay on time to cover the losses from the new lower interest rates on the delinquent accounts. It seems clear to me."

"Really? I find that a most amazing concept."

"Exactly but what do you expect. You are now in, "Alice In Obama-Land".

Have a nice day, Alice.

(9 TRILLION dollars in debt? Hell, until a few months ago I never even heard of a trillion let alone nine trillion. Who's going to pay all this money and how? And do you know that nine trillion is half way to Alpha Centauri - the nearest STAR????)

Joey

Where people come to exercise their minds:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/00659050837324784709