With a dying white race, why are we not encouraging more white births?

But I think I have an idea of what is being said. Understand that the public-domain history books (even to this day, everything after 1923 is under "copyright protections" thanks to congress and a worthless Supreme Court), that many have read, are out of date on India, Iran, China, etc. (much worse in the case of the former). Needless to say, older generations of Americans were exposed to very out of date material.We now know that India had 25%-33% of the worlds GDP/GNP on the eve of the British Empire (1750). China also have about 50% of the world's GDP by around 1800. This was even AFTER (long after) Genghis Khan destroyed Asia, and after the European Renaissance.India invented Algebra and Chess, China invented books (in the modern sense, though with ink stamps and not movable press). India and Iran are the origin of most of what would make up Christianity (Heaven, Hell, Judgment Day, Afterlife, Satan, etc. And that's just what is certain).The Egyptian Sphynx dates no later than 2500 BCE and possibly as early as 4000 BCE. Regardless of the date, it has a pure black African face. Detective Frank Domingo of New York is an expert in facial recognition and a June 27, 1992 New York Times article mentioned his discovery. An Orthodontist, Sheldon Peck, wrote a letter to The New York Times in early July 1992 and said that he noticed the same thing about the Sphynx-- independently. (This isn't "black nationalist" Nation of Islam conspiracy b.s. either. If you learn about those who discovered/funded these investigations, then you will know that they agree with the Egyptologists standard views on the racial mix of dynastic Egyptians. The burial remains show that the average ancient Egyptian was 39% black and 61% Mediterranean and that was true of both the rich and poor. Even today Egypt has the exact same mix.)There are undeciphered written records in the Harrapa Culture phase of India (in modern Pakistan) which have carbon dates of 3251 BCE. using tree-ring calibration (when carbon dates say 3251 BCE then it tends to be around BCE 2925-2950 in actuality though, so don't be confused into thinking they are oldest written records. The 3100 BCE Egyptian and Sumerian writings are in contexts that carbon-date to about 3450-3500 BCE.) Mohenjo-Darro is the famous and impressive Harrapan site that many used to think belonged to the Aryan invaders, but actually predated the invasions by a good while.There are un-deciphered Elamite writing's that carbon date before 3000 BCE.I doubt that more than a small percentage of the lighter skinned central-Asians (who have a visible presence today) came to India & Iran by the time of the Harrapan culture. The Aryans are said to have come after 2000 BCE, but even if they came earlier then it is still clear that India, Pakistan, and Iran were much darker 5000 years ago than today.Here is a 16 page article by the right-wing neo-con City Journal of New York, and even it mentions how much worse off the British Empire made India
The Indian Century?: Education, entrepreneurialism, and democratic institutions bode well for the country’s futurebut profound challenges remain. | City Journal The article reminds me of something else though. Not only are we ignorant of the fact that very dark (even "black" African) people were way AHEAD "of the curve", when one understands the historical evidence, but even the modern situation (where darker peoples are much poorer) isn't always as bad as it seems. India had an average per capita income of about $300 per person in 1998. It just went up to $1,631 in 2014 and I suspect it will be about $1800 at the end of 2015. BUT. BUT. In pale Ukraine, the average income is only around $3000 per person (Poland used to be just as bad off but joined the EU in 2004 and now the average Pole makes about $10,000 per year).The May 2013 census numbers came in around May of 2015 and showed that the 3.6 million Indian Americans were the first group ever to make $100,000 per year average (or median).So even the modern situation (where evidence of whites higher wealth is used as prime evidence) isn't as crystal clear as many David Duke followers feel that it is. I think the historical evidence should be the decisive factor to look at though.(and David Duke types used to say that Chinese-type orientals were only smart when they had a higher percentage of white/Central Asian blood in them. I suppose that was when the average Chinese made only $300 per year in 1990 and about $600 per year in 1996 and about $1000 per year in 2000. Now the average Chinese make $8000 per year in 2015, and that is higher than most central Asian nations. It's higher than many if not most Eastern European nations. The highest SAT scores in the USA come from Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans so it seems that the lighter-skinned Japanese aren't smarter than the "cockroaches" in Korea and China, huh?)

quote:

---

Faith
You can talk about the achievements of western civilization but that isn't about race. And of course I attribute those achievements to the Christian religion, at least the Christian religion since the Reformation. But GIA hates Christianity so he's got his head tied in a knot about the whole subject in my opinion.

​

Coyote
True, it isn't about race. Not true about Christianity. The beginnings of western culture were in Greece, hundreds of years before Christianity.

​

Faith
People say that but the culture of Greece disappeared completely in Europe until the Renaissance, had no part at all in the formation of European culture to that point.

---

West Europeans (including Italy) saw the Ancient Near East (essentially Egypt, Palestine, and Mesopotamia but absent Greece)as their heritage until Italians discovered the Greek language and the libraries next door in Constantinople-hence the "renaissance" of classical learning and a recognition that they were heirs to Greece.

quote:

---

Coyote

​

It can also be argued that Christianity helped bring about the Dark Ages.
Faith
Roman Catholicism DID bring about the Dark Ages, by usurping power over the various nations, suppressing the Bible and substituting its ridiculous pagan superstitions. It was the influence of the Bible after the Reformation that built up Western Civilization. The Renaissance had some influence as the ancient pagan writings were made available, but the Bible is what encouraged the orderly society that made for prosperity, and certainly the prosperity of America.

---

The Catholics (and the Popes) were the source for institutional funding of the rebirth in learning Greek, and they also brought chairs in universities to teach Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. Italy was the "alma mater studiorum" for post-graduate studies in the entire European world. This went on for some 200 years until the "counter-reformation" around c1500 (Im going by memory of what I read).

quote:

---

Coyote
And, it is little known that the Arab world was the center of science and culture for quite a period while Europe was in the Dark Ages.
Faith
That too is a bit of politically correct revisionist history. The Arab science was limited to Spain and really didn't have anything to do with the development of empirical observational experimental science that was based on the Reformation view of the God of the Bible.

---

Arabs were much better at NOT burning documents (though they finished burning off what was left of the ancient Alexandrian library), tolerating religious diversity (something Catholics, Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc. couldn't bring themselves to do), and in general they helped transmit knowledge from India to the Atlantic. It was the Mongolian's that killed off the religious minorities (Zoroastrians, Manicheans, etc.) of the ancient world, though not for their religion (people were killed and robbed simply for the crime of breathing in an enemy town). Catholics were the worst at killing people for the sake of their religion. Arabs and Muslims were great at tolerating Jews, "Christians" (though they decided who was a Christian based on Catholic pronouncements, which meant Arabs didn't consider Manicheans "Christian"), and Hindus (the numerical superiority of Hindu's in India might have required it).

quote:

---

Coyote
This period lasted until fundamentalism took over there. That was about the same time the Renaissance was beginning in Europe, and the Renaissance was based in large part on documents preserved in the Arab/Persian world (such as the writings of Aristotle) or created in there and then translated into Latin and other European languages. This preserved knowledge was a major impetus for the Renaissance.
Faith
Yes the Renaissance had some influence but this too is mostly revisionist history to put the real influence of the Reformation in the shade. Aristotle for instance was elevated in Roman Catholicism to the point that priests were deprived of the Bible and read nothing but that pagan philosopher. It wasn't Catholicism with its pagan philosophy and superstitions that made the west the great success it became, it was Protestantism. Certainly the case in America. Why are so many trying to escape the Catholic countries South of us? Because the Catholic influence does not develop prosperous orderly societies like the U.S.

---

Catholics used philosophy to defend the Bible (and their doctrines) against critics. (and there were a lot of ethnic-semitic critics and they had something of a voice in Venice I think). The popes uses Thomas Aquinas' writings (c1100) to excuse away the prohibition of non-kosher food in Acts 15:20,29;21:25 (or around there). He invented the "cultic/ceremonial law concept" and divided law into national Israelite laws, moral laws, and ceremonial laws. That's why Catholic (and their Protestant followers) Christians commonly beat pigs over the head with a hammer to kill them and eat them. (or shoot them or whatever).The renaissance saw Catholics dethrone Plato as their favorite philosopher and elevate Aristotle. Aristotle was used to defend Christian views of the resurrection. Philosophers had to be careful to support Christian doctrine though. They used a loophole "the two truths" if their study of philosophy led to promoting a view that was contradictory to doctrine.

quote:

---

And Communism doesn't want the free society either, they want everyone to conform to Communist objectives. Prison or execution in that case?

---

Protestants supported Hitler in higher numbers than Catholics in the 1930s election (and more protestants voted for Hitler than his ally the Christian Democratic party).The admiration for Hitler seemed to be because he had views that seemed to come straight from Luther. (Hitler did deem some protestants as anti-nationalist and he rounded them up with Gypsies, Communists, Jews, etc. The enemy list included Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, and even Mormons as people whose loyalty he questioned) Jews supported socialists and communists in the election because they were more into equal rights. Ho Chi Min became a communist because every other party in France was only in favor of French rights. He was heart broken when he found out that the French Socialist party was only in favor of worker rights based on race. The equality for all, regardless of race, that Communists promoted was what he admired.

quote:

---

The Protestant Church was an apostate mess due to the Liberal Theology that had developed in Germany in the 19th century, so that Hitler was able to manipulate them. However, I've heard the opposite, that it was the Catholic Centre Party that voted in Hitler. Hitler was himself a Catholic and he had the Pope of the time on his side, said he modeled the Holocaust after the Inquisition. That same Pope is known for having organized the "rat lines" that provided escape for thousands of criminal Nazis after the war, mostly to Catholic Countries in South America.

---

The Catholic Centre Party? That might be the case. I was thinking his coalition partner was the Christian Democrats. I don't know enough about the pope though even harsh revisionists disagree with the "Hitler's Pope" conclusion. By "harsh revisionists", I mean those who demonstrate that Catholics really didn't do much to challenge Hitler despite the boasts of their apologists. An example is that Catholic apologists claim that they challenged Hitler's right to round up people who were "1/4" or "1/2" Jewish (those who weren't Jewish but had Jewish grandparents or parents), while I saw a book recently that demonstrated that the Catholic church only was defending the right's of Catholics (with Jewish ancestry)from being persecuted.As for who voted for Hitler.
GoogleEdited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It is a states duty to insure that it maintains itself.

​

That is why they have always been involved in the demographics of our nations.

---

I remember how back in 1990-1991, Asians numbered about 5 million. As of June of 2013, they are now 19.6 million (and the number would be even higher if Iranians, Turks, Arabs, etc. would count as Asian). As of June of 2013, Indian Americans (specifically from India; there are more members of the Indian geographical race present which includes Pakistani-Americans, Afghani-Americans, etc.) numbered 3.6 million.I wish it was more like 100 million Asians here with full citizenship rights (the census numbers aren't about citizenship). Our economy would be twice as large for starters (our population is about 321 million but the workforce is only around 160 million or so), our national debt would quickly be paid down, interest rates would be lower, the dollar would be stronger, and unemployment would be lower.But the increase in productivity that 100 million more Asians would bring would create so many jobs that we would need another 100 million on top of them just to keep the economic wheels greased.Conversely, sending home 12 million undocumented immigrants would be an economic disaster. It would shrink the workforce nearly 10%, and cause businesses to conduct every last bit of outsourcing, plant closing, foreign consolidation they can think of. It would reduces economic output to the point that our economy could shrink perhaps 10% and then the tax revenue would fall so low that the deficit would skyrocket and we would need to jack interest rates up to 10% or more to lure investors to buy our treasury bonds to finance the ever mounting debt (a horrible thing when it is nearly $20 trillion and the only thing preventing a collapse is the near 0% current interest rates).People make a big fuss out of the $400-$600 billion that Donald Trump's round-up of the 11 million undocumented immigrants would cost. That isn't even a peanut compared to the price we would pay from a total, complete economic collapse. We would default on the debt in just a few years if Trump got his way and the initial cost to chase the immigrants down is the least we need to worry about.We better be involved in saving our nation from such idiotic b.s. and I can assure you that Trump knows his ideas are foolish. He is just playing to a base so he can "win" the primary and be all proud of himself. It's all a game to him. I bet he didn't think his game plan would get him this far into the primary contest. It's almost 2016 and his crapola has kept him in the lead since, what, July? 6 months now and I bet he didn't have a clue he would be so strong and for so long.I agree that we better be "involved" in this issue. All of us with voting rights better wake up and realize that Trump will collapse this nation if his words become policy.

quote:

---

"Neanderthal admixture is present in the DNA of modern Eurasians and Oceanians, and nearly absent in sub-Saharan African populations.

​

This indicates more diversity in whites.

---

But East Africans are 25% Caucasian despite the very dark skin. How can they lack "Neanderthal DNA" (assuming the DNA labeled such has been properly identified).And you said "Eurasians" , which is so broad of a term that it surely would cover the Berbers who migrated to North Africa (from "Eurasia") 5000 years ago. (I can assure you that some Berbers made it to the sub-Saharan part of Africa too.)Obama has no connection to (the typical)American blacks through his black dad because American blacks (that went through slavery) are descended from West Africans. His dad is East African (a group which does have some "Caucasian" ancestry however, but those Caucasians aren't the same as Brits, Irish, etc.).The closest DNA link Obama has to American blacks is through his mother. American blacks have about 20% of the type of "white" blood that his mother has close to 100% of (her parents were Irish Americans).

quote:

---

History is written by the winners and that facts makes it easy to understand why history is poorly presented.

---

I think the history books used to universally tell us that the British made India (plus other colonies) so much better than they were. I know of plenty of examples (New York has booksellers selling old books on the sidewalk for quite a bargain)just from my reading this year.Actually India saw it's GDP go down from 30% of the worlds output (c1700) all the way down to 2% in 1947 (the British didn't fully pull out till 1961) and it got close to 1% by 1998-1999. The Brits made sure they chopped India up before they pulled out. The Brits did an amazing job of turning religious group against religious group long enough so they could shatter India into several ruinous pieces. Amazing that Hindus and Muslims always got along except when the Brits were there.Reminds me of the job the Brits did in turning middle-easterners against each other when they shattered the middle east into 22 pieces. It was only when the Brits colonized the Middle East (after World War 1) and threw up fake borders that peoples became enemies. Amazing.And the House of Saud is a fake British-invented House of Fraud.Same with the Hashemites. F-A-K-E!Same with the Shah of Iran. F-A-K-E monarch with no ancient roots!Same with the murderous Kuwaiti "monarchy" (a nation that is just a "royal" family and a bunch of glorified slaves with 10% of the worlds oil reserves)I still remember that just as Bush was saying in 1991 "Kuwait is liberated", nearly 500,000 Palestinian Kuwaitis were rounded up (many killed in blood and tears) and kicked out simply because Arafat sided with the middle eastern people against the fake monarchs and the Lethal Enforcers (i.e. good ole U.S. of A.) of the British Empirical designs.As long as middle easterners have to deal with a never ending (latent)CIA presence and a B-I-G G-I-A-N-T rotten western overlordship, then we have no right to judge them.Arabs are fine individuals and so are Indians.
So are Chinese.
So are Africans.I think we are much better off with them here. They don't have any freedom to traverse the choking borders the west imposed on them in their region. Count me as a supporter of Arab or Syrian immigration. The way we have ruined their nations (how could they not be refugees when we designed it thus?), the least we can do is let them immigrate here.

The "Arab League" is dominated by our allies. And our creations.

quote:

---

LamarkNewAge
TVO | Current affairs, documentaries and education

​

I think that if the U.S. had just decided to be the new Imperial power and taken the world as it's own reward for winning WWII, we might not have had to suffer any of this history.

​

I hope the winner of WWIII is not as stupid because I think the world seeks to be united either in a NWO be it democratic or a caliphate.

​

Humans like order and security and creating a world Empire is the greatest order and security we can create.

​

It would be too big to fail.

---

I went to your link ready to read, but it is a video. I will listen to it at some point, but now isn't a good time.Remember, Iran was the first country to challenge the new U.S. Empire (USA after 1945-1947=British Empire II),specifically over the issue of owning its own oil, and the Brits and CIA overthrew its democracy (with "false flags!) in 1953. Ironically, the Shah had a "white revolution" (1960s) where he took land from the wealthy (but not foreign-westerners!)and gave to the poor (and Khomeni, from afar, said that only God can decide who is rich and poor, not the government)But much more ironic (and sad) is that Iran appeared to be a lone-country in south-Asia(actually Afghanistan was maliciously split from India back around 1911 so that makes 2) that was "free" of Imperial control during World War II. Not so! 1953 proved that and Kermit Roosevelt (the CIA station chief there) wrote a book on that one around 1990s. There is also a book called "All the Shah's Men" or something and it might cover the CIA coup.The Arabs feel so stupid for accepting the "help" of the British to "free themselves from the Turks" that is can't be described in words alone. "Arab nationalism" during World War 1 would qualify as "anti-nationalism" today as the British and American New World Order have moved the goalposts so far in a nationalist direction that yesterdays nationalists would be todays anti-nationalists. This NWO is all about splitting the world into as many little pieces as possible.I was reading a truly fascinating Smithsonian article earlier this year about the Hejaz railroad project which was built by the Turks to connect Turkey to Arabia 100+ years ago. Needless to say, it never can ever be built with the god awful borders. Poor people in Jordan, along the 100 year old dead-path, really are feeling the sting because they know that it would have made them prosperous to be along a busy railway. There is an academic study called the Great Arab Revolt Project or something, and Arabs wish they never revolted against the Turks. They used to feel Lawrence of Arabia was a hero because he tried hard to keep Syria from being split into 4 nations (Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan and modern Syria). He even attempted to get an army of Arabs to Damascus first once he found out the British gave (what is today) Syria and Lebanon to France. he felt terrible at the double-cross. Then after WW1, he rushed to Paris in 1921 to represent the wishes of the Arab people to not have Syria split up. The failure to keep Syria from being split up is known in the Arab world as Am Al- Nakbah (the year of the catastrophe) though the 1948 slaughter is also called that. The 1921 decision to destroy the middle east with fake borders is the catastrophe that keeps on choking out the peace and prosperity of not just Syria but the entire middle east. The famous 1921 Am Al Nakbah is a concept that might be seared into the conscience of every middle eastern person but the 22 British/ USA colonies in the Middle East have leaders that (almost to the last one) live, swear and die (though the leaders kill their own people) to oppose the wishes (infact the very souls) of the people. They promote nationalism as their colonial masters demand. And the CIA will even go so far as to create an ISIS to show us how "evil those middle easterners are if they have freedom". Thankfully Rand Paul, at least, has been honest about who has created ISIS. (the quotes were my words, not his. That isn't even his logic. But at least he is upfront about the creation of ISIS being the USA Empire.)

quote:

---

Placing Saudi Arabia in charge of it is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

​

I cannot see that being a Western idea.

---

Americans don't know the history of the region very well. Americans have a CIA run media brain-washing us constantly and confusing the issue. EXAMPLE: The media told us that Middle Easterners were dancing in the streets celebrating the 9/11 attack.CORRECTION PLEASE!The Middle Eastern view was that a western intelligence agency (typically the CIA is the assumption) attacked us. Like 80% hold that view.We don't get told that though because it would cause too much discussion that might cause us to understand middle easterners and what they go through.How many Americans so you think ever heard of the Am al Nakbah 1921 issue? Its the biggest issue to middle easterners, just like 9/11/01 is a big issue to us. Lets flush CNN and Fox News down the toilet for keeping us in the dark about such a fundamental issue.

quote:

---

LamarkNewAge
Have you listened to this speaker?

​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4

​

Regards

---

I will eventually, thanks to your link. Just not right now. I prefer reading at the moment.History lesson!Do you know the second Middle Eastern nation (after Iran?) to challenge the western oil companies?It was Iraq. In 1958, the people overthrew the phoney Hashemite monarch ("Jordanians" were never able to overthrow their British puppet and are stuck with Hashemite "kings") and nationalized the oil (and they were opposed to the petro-dictatorship colony of Kuwait being split into a separate nation). Then the CIA installed the Baath party in a 1963 coup. Among the Baathist party was a Mr. Saddam Hussein. That guy got into BIGGGGGGG trouble, later on, when he decided that he was sympathetic to a Pax Arabia (Arabian peace), opposed the disgrace known as the Kuwait monarchy (and the existence of a fraudulent nation in and of itself), and strongly supported the distribution of oil revenue to the people of the ENTIRE Arabian world!Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Placing Saudi Arabia in charge of it is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

​

I cannot see that being a Western idea.

---

I found the Great Arab Revolt Project article.Link in in this EVC link.EvC Forum: The True Story of Lawrence of ArabiaI hope we can get a thread started on this one. We will go a very long way towards understanding what this "western idea" is exactly and why middle easterners don't like it. The Hashemites weren't so bad during WWI, but they became puppets that went along with splitting the mid-east later on (like after WW2).