Do Western Authorities Care More About Hamsters Than About Europeans?

In January 2011, the EU Observer stated that France stands to lose a case at the European Court of Justice over its neglect of the Great Hamster of Alsace, a species facing extinction. Sweden was about to be taken to court by the European Commission for allowing wolf hunting. Paris stands to be slapped with a multi-million euro fine for not protecting hamsters.

Notice how the EU worries more about hamsters than about the native peoples of an entire continent, the cradle of the most creative and innovative civilization in the history of mankind. We are worth less than dust. I cannot recall having seen a single report from the European Union, or for that matter the US Government, about the wave of racist violence against whites in major cities caused by the mass immigration of alien peoples that is actively promoted by Western authorities. Yet we now have one about hamsters. Does this mean that Western authorities care more about hamsters than about Europeans? It probably does, yes.

If the EU cared half as much about preserving the Swedes, Italians, Danes, Dutch, English, Germans, French or Poles as they do about animals then we might be getting somewhere.

The total human population on this planet when the last Ice Age ended may have been in the range of four to six million people, less than that of a single city the size of London, Paris or Moscow today. Another way of putting this is that for every living person on Earth ca. 9000 BC there are now at least one thousand, perhaps as many as two thousand, in the early twenty-first century. This should provide us with some perspective on just how much our numbers have increased in the course of the past ten thousand years. Two great revolutions caused this.

With the Neolithic Revolution, agriculture began more or less independently in a handful of different regions and spread very slowly from there for thousands of years. Understanding that the seeds of food plants could be collected and deliberately grown was a major turning point in history, but it was time-consuming. Even though the first farmers may, ironically, have enjoyed less leisure time and more health problems than their hunter-gatherer contemporaries, their numbers and the complexities of their societies increased so much that they drove the latter into extinction. Settled communities eating agricultural products have by now enjoyed a global triumph, although a few isolated communities of hunter-gatherers exist here and there. The biggest and fastest upheaval was the Industrial Revolution, though.

Unlike the Neolithic Revolution, the Industrial Revolution began in just a single location – Western Europe – and spread from there throughout the globe in a few generations, not thousands of years. Whereas the pace of change was barely noticeable for a person in 6000 BC, a man born in 1799 who lived a very long life would have witnessed a world utterly transformed. When he was a boy, the fastest way to transport information or people was still generally on horseback or by sailing ships, as it had been for thousands of years. Long-distance travel was rare and unusual. By the time he died, railway lines crisscrossed the continents, steamships carried bulky goods, cars with internal combustion engines rolled in the streets, the first airplanes had flown and radio waves had been transmitted across the Atlantic Ocean, following the already existing transatlantic telegraph cables. Add another century or so and billions of people annually travel by airplanes to distant places in a few hours, with space tourism in its infancy. Vast amounts of information are transmitted daily at the speed of light. This represents the greatest communications revolution in history, all achieved within the space of a couple of human lifetimes.

There really was no such thing as “world history” before the European global expansion over the past few centuries. For better or worse, European peoples have created an integrated and truly global technological civilization for the first time, and developed an international culture of organized science where none had existed before. That’s an extraordinary achievement.

One would think that their share of world population would increase after such an enormous success. For a while, it did. From the Scientific Revolution and roughly until the First World War – or the Great European Fractricide as it should properly be called – it grew, and then it plummeted during the twentieth century. By 2011, the European share of the global population is lower than it has ever been in recorded history, even if you count their descendants overseas, far lower than it was before Europeans created this globalization, and the rate keeps falling fast. The percentage of Europeans worldwide is now approaching that of whites in South Africa. This happened partly because their own numbers stagnated – all European nations apart from Muslim Albanians currently have below replacement-level birth rates, some of them far below – but mainly because populations exploded in other parts of the world. Apparently, Europeans created a world which they ultimately did not benefit from.

A person born in 1970 in Sweden, a country which has no colonial history outside of Europe, would have started school in a nation that was still nearly 100% ethnically homogeneous. If current trends continue, he will be a minority in his native land as an old man. Not only does he have to endure this or be socially vilified and maybe fired from his job or worse, he has to fund his own colonization and publicly celebrate it as a great and positive development. There has been no full-scale armed invasion here, nor has any deadly plague devastated the native population, unless, that is, you count Multiculturalism as a plague, and perhaps you should.
White Westerners have given other peoples, including actively hostile tribes, the tools needed to multiply beyond their native capacity, the transportation needed to travel to our countries, the human rights legislation needed to settle here and the welfare states needed to exploit us.

My personal opinion is that this situation is so unnatural that it cannot go on for much longer, nor will it. For one thing, the Western world simply no longer possesses the physical capacity to fund all of this madness even if it wanted to. I strongly suspect that the current Western-created international political order will soon implode and may take many of the networks it created down with it. Most likely, the global population will be nowhere near the 10-12 billion people many demographers now predict by the year 2100. The simple fact is that the planet cannot support such numbers. Much of Africa can barely feed itself today and will collapse without continued external aid. Human numbers have become artificially inflated because of the technological civilization created by Europeans and could plummet within the coming one hundred years due to wars, epidemics, natural disasters and ecological collapse.

Personally, I can live with China being the world’s largest economy. I cannot and will not accept, however, not having a single major Western city where my daughter can go without being verbally, physically and perhaps sexually harassed because of the color of her skin, eyes and hair. We simply have no other choice than to establish, or re-establish, countries that are exclusively or overwhelmingly for people of European origins. It’s the single greatest challenge we will face over the coming one hundred years. We will do that or we will perish.

http://europenews.dk/en/node/40090