we focus on the imaginary threats, like global warming, this planet will take care of itself, while real threats to our well being, and the continuation of liberty and western values are asaulted from within and from the outside.
listen to carlin he understood.
this by sultan kinish puts us all on notice what the real threat to our lives, our childrens lives our childrens childrens lives really is.
The Cold War between the economic empire of the West and the socialist tyrannies of the East made it seem as if the future would belong to the coalition with the best industrial machine and largest military. In he 21st century though the industrial machine has been traded off to China, and ICBM’s and armies haven’t managed to settle the brewing low tech conflicts of both empires with the Muslim world.
The scene above is Moscow at Eid al-Fitr, as Muslims protest the lack of additional mosques with street prayers. But it could just as easily be London, Paris, New York or dozens of other cities. While the two empires were stacking up ICBM’s, the Muslim world was stacking up babies. The empires suffer from low birth rates, and are experiencing an invasion that they have no defense against.
Islam is demographically set to dominate Russia and Europe, reversing five centuries of history, and seizing control of the heartland for which the old empires fought. West Berlin, East Berlin, it makes no difference when Turkey’s birth rate is double that of Germany. To the east, in Moscow and to the west in London, the overall picture is the same.
The Soviet Union and the Pax Americana both attempted to win the allegiance of the Muslim world with money, weapons and technology. And they are still at it today internationally and domestically. America, Russia and Europe all keep dividing ‘good’ Muslims who are loyal citizens or allies from ‘bad’ Muslims who set off bombs in schools and buses.
Russia’s ‘good’ state controlled mosques preach Jihad against the West, just as our ‘good’ Muslims were the ones who killed Russians. But we’re not the ones playing divide and conquer, they are.
Russian leaders, like their European counterparts, act as if the rising Muslim population is nothing to worry about. So long as they remain loyal citizens of Mother Russia, it will make no difference if Moscow ends up with more mosques than churches. But what exactly is Russia, if it is not the land of the Russian people.
Ask the workers on Russky Island, where a ban on Vodka during Eid al-Fitr resulted in violent riots between Muslims and Russians. Or the residents of Volga Street who managed to keep a mosque out of their neighborhood. Or Daniil Sysoyev, a Russian priest who criticized Islam and was shot in his own church. Just don’t ask Putin or Medvedev, who like their Czarist and Communist predecessors, are still thinking in terms of empire.
But what is it an empire of– besides oil and gas, trade monopolies and secret police? If the USSR embraced a larger revolutionary socialist identity, a Russia without Russians is absolutely nothing at all. What exactly are Russian Muslims to give their allegiance to besides the broken symbols of the Czarist and Soviet eras that have become kitsch in a vulgar oligarchy? The same question can easily be asked of the United Kingdom or America who have discarded their heritage and culture for political correctness and cheap consumer goods.
Can there be a Russia without Russians, or an England without the English or France without the French? In the same way that there can be a Constantinople without the Greeks. The buildings can remain, but without the people, there is no nation. National cultures are elastic, but not infinitely so. Immigrants can be absorbed or accommodated, but it is a two way street, and when the majority is too different from the people who defined the nation, then Constantinople becomes Istanbul.
The Cold War showdown was not really about economic systems, it was a continuation of the old power struggles in Europe. Communism and Capitalism were frosting on the cake, but the cake was nationalistic. The conflict continues today even now that Communism and Capitalism are dead, as a Russian oligarchy faces off against a European oligarchy. At stake are the same old prizes, but they’re not really theirs to win anymore.
Holding Europe no longer comes down to ideologies or armies. No amount of American tanks in Berlin will outweigh a thousand Turkish women in the hospital wards. And no amount of debates over class and revolution will drown out the cry of the Muezzin. There are no more new ideas anymore. Only two oligarchies wrestling over the crumbs of a continent and populaces taught to run up their credit cards for tomorrow they will die.
The ideologies have all been worn through. The leftist domination of the West is a faint shadow of the vicious energy of the early 20th century Reds. Its political correctness is an academic repression, the sound of a librarian shushing noisy patrons. But the great empty libraries of the West face the same fate as the Library of Alexandria, torched by Muslims because it contents contradicted the Koran. The librarians are acting as caretakers for the last generation of a culture, and overseeing an orderly transition of power to the arsonists of the stacks.
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns From The American Physical Society In Disgust Over Society’s Claim That “The Evidence Of Global Warming Is Incontrovertible”
|Dr. Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize in Physics (1973)|
(Fox News) The global warming theory left him out in the cold.
Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that “global warming is occurring.”
The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man’s actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.
Giaever does not agree — and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.
“I resign from APS,” Giaever wrote.
Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that “the evidence is incontrovertible.”
“In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?” he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.
“The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period,” his email message said.
A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.
The use of the word “incontrovertible” had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.
“The word ‘incontrovertible’ … is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century.”
Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signers of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.
Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since late 2009. A Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll from August noted that 57 percent of adults believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009.
The same study showed that 69 percent of those polled believe it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was “not at all likely.”