Cheese whiz Wacky Dude, you'd bore the heck out of Forrest Gump with your
pointless pedantic drivel. This is not the relevant group for you to
proclaim you looniness. You are completely off-topic and nobody gives a
flying fig about your many inadequacies.

You should follow the advice of William Schatner and "GET A LIFE"!!

It isn't xenophobia little one, its just than nobody takes a Webtver
seriously, nor should they. You should move out of your parent's garage too!


Michael Ragland wrote in message
...


Certainly topics such as territoriality, xenophobia, kin selection and
aggression are part of evolutionary biology. They are aspects of our
biology which have persisted ever since Homo Sapiens have been around.
Evolutionary biology encompasses much more than just Homo Sapiens (which
when all is said and done) are a minor player in evolutionary biology.
But Homo Sapiens are a part of evolutionary biology and I think we
should start discussing more if we are evolutionarily adaptive.

My whole effort ever since I've been posting to sci.bio.evo has been to
point out the extreme dangers human aggression poses to humans and the
earth and other creatures and how we can't wait for Darwinian evolution
to catch up. Maybe this outline of possible future horrors to come will
make some reflect more on what I'm trying to get across.

Now maybe you are concerned others will respond angrily or dismissively
to what I've written. But I'm not necessarily wrong. The National
Alliance has chapters all across the U.S. and it is growing. It has a
platform of whites living separate from non-whites. It has a goal of
securing living space to this effect no matter what it entails. It is
rabidly antisemitic.

Everything is biology when it comes down to humans. By that standard
there are many things which wouldn't be considered appropriate on
sci.bio.evo. But I'm discussing things such as territoriality,
xenophobia and aggression and these have been observed in other animals
and even insects. They are very relevant to evolutionary biology.

Granted I'm not discussing a particular biological aspect or scientific
finding but projecting what..given our biology..could theoretically
occur. It is not pleasant but who ever said that biology is necessarily
pleasant..that Darwinian evolution is pleasant.

Science has nothing necessarily to do with morality but in the case of
genetic engineering of humans I think morality can and most likely will
play a decisive part. Research on aggression is ongoing and there is no
morality involved but rather a desire to understand aggression. This is
a salient feature of science..the desire to understand. Assuming we
eventually do understand all the genetic mechanisms of aggression...then
morality may come into play. If through advances in genetic engineering
we are able to remove aggression from human DNA "should" the decision be
made to do so? If so, who will make that decision?

This also gets into the argument of "playing God". I personally don't
believe in a personal God or anthropomorphic God. But the "playing God"
debate can be boiled down to should humans let Darwinian evolution
follow its natural course or should we intervene?

Obviously the science has to exist to be able to intervene through
genetic engineering but it is also a moral as well as political
decision.
There have been many posts to sci.bio.evo which haven't been especially
relevant to evolutionary biology. Recently, you posted Mr. Stonjek's
post on Hitler's ideas about evolution. I understand why this was
allowed because Hitler was a historical person and therefore his ideas
on evolution had some relevance.

I'm trying to get people to see that science isn't some cold detached
thing. Especially with evolutionary biology we are dealing with things
which are alive and breathing. And I'm also trying to get across the
enormous responsibility we have in changing and directing our own
evolution and not letting Darwinian evolution exact its murderous death
toll.

Human nature is often inflammatory and polemical so the scenario I
outline reflects that. I'm not intending to be inflammatory and
polemical but future balkanization and genocide in the U.S. is a
possibility. It is not a possibility a year from now or even five or ten
years but in thirty or forty years who knows.

I think we have a responsibility to discuss these things long before
they may occur. The reality is the U.S. is not a melting pot but a
country where various ethnic groups compete. European Americans who for
over 200 years dominated are now projected to be a minority in the near
future. Many are flocking to groups such as the National Alliance which
promote "racial" separation and "living space" for whites. I will admit
this part has nothing to do per se with evolutionary biology although
such behavior is certainly reflective of it and I'm curious if this is
an aspect of our biology which should be commended or seen as a
dangerous threat.

P.S. Obviously my point about genetic engineering being used to remove
aggression is a "moot" point since there is currently no fixer and won't
be for quite some time. The "challenge" we face as a society then is can
America exist as an ethnically diverse country without becoming
increasingly balkanized? What, if anything, can be done to prevent this?
Is it inevitable each ethnic group will primarily be concerned with its
own interests without any regard for other groups? If so, this paints a
very bleak future.

_____________________________________

The below article was written by a Dr. Brent Nelson who is a European
American "racialist". It could just be my lack of exposure but it seems
to me there is more and more "discussion" on the far right /anti
Establishment regarding immigration and the projection "whites" are to
become a minority in the near future. This is true even of organizations
such as the National Alliance which are rapidly antisemitic. But even if
the National Alliance gained political control in the U.S. it seems
likely its policies would target more than just "Jews". Interestingly,
Nazi Germany was rapidly antisemitic and its main genocide was against
Jews but was by no means limited to them. Germany's disabled, Roma,
Poles and Russians were all killed in signifigant numbers. All were
considered racially inferior to Germans. So there is no reason
theoretically why a regime in the U.S. couldn't come to power and be
essentially antisemitic but target other "racial" groups for persecution
and/or extermination. In fact, when you think about the history of the
U.S. with its genocide of Indians, slavery, mistreatment of Chinese and
other groups...it would seem totally natural historically for their to
be more persecution and genocide.
How does all this relate to sci.bio.evolution? Dr. Nelson mentions the
racist Dr. Raymond Hall.

He states, "Dr. Hall's observation regarding subspecies of mammals is
that two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same
geographic area. Dr. Hall notes that there may be some intergradation
(mixing) of subspecies, but much more often one subspecies thrives and
the other goes into extinction. One subspecies proves to be more
prolific than the other and wins the territory for itself. Dr. Hall
concluded that the natural territory of a human subspecies is
continental in scope. He warned that two different subspecies of humans
will not co-exist indefinitely on the same continent. Ultimately one or
the other will pass from the scene.

It would seem Dr. Hall is right as much as I disagree with his racist
views. If the term "race" has no scientific meaning then what of
"subspecies"? We know all ethnic or so-called "racial" groups belong to
the species Sapien and to the same only remaining genus Homo. There were
other genus in our evolutionary past such as Homo Erectus, etc. but
we're the only remaining one left. What happenned to all the others? Why
did they become extinct? Were they killed off by Homo Sapiens...at least
some of them? There is speculation Neanderthal lived at some point at
the same time as Cro-Magnon and that Cro-Magnon killed off Neanderthal.

In our evolutionary past murder wasn't a crime and neither was genocide.
With all the advances in science and technology and civilization in
general we've been taught these things are wrong yet evolutionarily
speaking we haven't changed much at all. Sure, there may be more
recessive genes in the population as a result of the weakening of
natural selection but aggression is still imprinted on our DNA.

Idealistically I would have hoped all the different ethnic groups in the
U.S. would learn to live together. I have always been a true
cosmopolitan. But if Dr. Hall is correct (and I think he is) then that
may not be an option.
Let's take Dr. Hall's points one by one. He states two subspecies of the
same species do not occur in the same geographic area. Dr. Hall notes
that there may be some intergradation (mixing) of subspecies, but much
more often one subspecies thrives and the other goes into extinction. Is
this true?

I happen to live 30 miles from Washington D.C. so I'm surrounded by many
different ethnic groups. I don't feel like I'm in the minority and I
don't feel like I'm in the majority. For much of the U.S., however, that
is not the case. Many parts of the country are ethnically
demographically isolated. Many cities are ethnically segregated. In
short, subspecies may occur in the same "geographic" area but even
within such a geographic area there will be isolated ethnic groups and
segregation.

The second point Dr. Hall makes is one subspecies proves to be more
prolific than the other and wins the territory for itself. He concludes
that the natural territory of a human subspecies is continental in
scope.and warns that two different subspecies of humans will not
co-exist indefinitely on the same continent. Ultimately one or the other
will pass from the scene.

In the U.S. there are many different "subspecies". But in considering
their political influence there are only three major groups in the U.S.
and those are Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans and European
Americans. There are Asian-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Native Americans
and others but the three major groups are Hispanic-Americans,
African-Americans and European Americans.

Although Jewish-Americans number only about seven million in the U.S.
many are represented in medicine, arts, law, etc. If the National
Alliance ever came to power or a group like it one can expect it would
enact anti-Jewish laws even though Jews are a minority in the U.S. Such
laws would likely bar Jews from certain professions.

Ironically, the U.S. could see the development of two different
subspecies committing genocide against another subspecies. The Nation of
Islam is vehemently antisemitic and known to be on friendly terms with
"white" groups.

If genocide were committed in the U.S. the targeted group would likely
be murdered on the spot. Trains would be used to transport the corpses
to incineration facilities. Of course, their clothing and valuables
would be plundered by the state.

It seems inevitable there will be an increasing Balkanization of the
U.S. I know there are Hispanics who are aware of their prolific numbers
and "winning" territory i.e. California, Texas and New Mexico and feel
they should regain the land they lost to the U.S. I know there are
African-Americans who support the Nation of Islam. I know there are
Asians who see California as their "second home".

But beyond the shadow of a doubt I see more "white" Americans publicly
denouncing multiculturalism, immigration, etc. This stands to reason.
Since the time the U.S. was founded it has been primarily a nation of
European immigrants. It killed most of the Native Americans, brought
over African slaves, mistreated Chinese migrant laborers, etc.

America is still mainly governed by European Americans but that is
threatened. And for this reason European Americans (as a group) present
the greatest possible danger to other groups...because they have the
most to "lose". In short, they stand to lose power. It would be nice to
think European-Americans could be a minority in the U.S. and continue to
be treated fairly and engage in power sharing...but have European
Americans done this with other groups?

I'm pessimistic about the future. I hope some will now better understand
when I state we can't wait for Darwinian evolution to catch up. I'm
European American but I could never support or participate indirectly or
directly in the persecution and genocide of another ethnic group. I
would seek to shelter and protect any person who was targeted for
extermination simply on the basis of their ethnic background.


The Balkanization of America
Dr. Brent Nelson

A year ago the U.S. Bureau of the Census published a report which
revised previous estimates of the future population of the United
States. According to the Census Bureau, there will be 400 million people
in the United States in the year 2050. One important fact about this
figure is that it is much greater than the optimum population for a land
area the size of the United States. Another important fact concerns the
nature of that population. In 2050 the United States will consist of
several blocs of minority groups. There will be no majority group. By
2050 European Americans, who for the first 200 years of the existence of
the United States had been its majority population group and who had
founded and maintained its culture, laws, and economic life, will find
themselves in the minority.

There is yet another important fact to be noted about this mass of 400
million people. This is a fact which suggests that the United States of
2050 will be America Balkanized, an America without Americans, an
America in which citizens will identify with their minority status and
forget about the nation as a whole. This is the fact that three of the
four major population blocs will constitute visible minorities. Three of
the four blocs -- European Americans or Whites, African Americans or
Blacks, Asian Americans or Yellows -- will be what the anthropologist
Sir Arthur Keith has called "macrodiacritic" groups. That is, more than
90 percent of their members are visibly identifiable. The fourth bloc,
Hispanic Americans, is a conglomerate created by the Federal
bureaucracy. Hispanics, who can belong to any race, will no doubt still
be a political bloc.

Indeed, all four blocs will be relentlessly political, locked in a
struggle to determine how the increasingly scarce economic goods and
natural resources are to be distributed to each group. Can a nation so
wracked by internal struggle long endure? History suggests not. History
suggests that by the time that America lacks Americans to the extent
that Yugoslavia now lacks Yugoslavs, it will undergo a more or less
painful process of deconstruction. That time may, in fact, occur long
before 2050.

The predicted great shift in the composition of the U.S. population is
attributed by the Census Bureau to an estimated yearly influx of 1
million legal immigrants. There may be an equal number of illegal
immigrants entering the United States each year. The overwhelming
majority of immigrants, both legal and illegal, come from the Third
World. Another factor which will radically change the ethnic composition
of the population -- a factor given less attention by the Census Bureau
-- is the differential birth rates of the various groups involved. It is
quite likely that, given current trends, the European American will find
himself in a minority long before 2050.

The three highly visible groups -- the Whites, Yellows, and Blacks --
are, of course, the three major races. Biologists refer to these races
as subspecies. The differences among them go far beyond skin color.
There is no point in enumerating all of those differences, but one fact
about these subspecies needs to be recognized. It has been summed up in
a thought-provoking essay called "Biological Subspecies of Man," written
some thirty years ago by Professor E. Raymond Hall, who was probably the
foremost authority on American mammals. Dr. Hall's observation regarding
subspecies of mammals is that two subspecies of the same species do not
occur in the same geographic area. Dr. Hall notes that there may be some
intergradation (mixing) of subspecies, but much more often one
subspecies thrives and the other goes into extinction. One subspecies
proves to be more prolific than the other and wins the territory for
itself. Dr. Hall concluded that the natural territory of a human
subspecies is continental in scope. He warned that two different
subspecies of humans will not co-exist indefinitely on the same
continent. Ultimately one or the other will pass from the scene.

Territoriality is an imperative for man as it is for all other mammals.
European Americans know well that much of urban America and wide areas
of the South have become the territory of another subspecies. Is it too
farfetched to say that what is publicized as a crime wave is really the
strategy, combined with high birthrates, by which one subspecies is
supplanting another, either by outbreeding European Americans or by
forcing them to flee?

Territoriality is central to understanding the future America. Let
current trends go for another 50 years, and it is obvious that then the
Southeast will largely be African territory, and the Southwest
mestizo-occupied territory, with various urban enclaves in the West
under the control of Asians.

But why should we care about what will happen 50 years from now? The
answer to that is the fact that the future is already with us in many
areas. America Balkanized is now a reality in southern California,
southern Florida, and in other places all across the continental United
States. The politics of Balkanization -- a recurrent cycle of
polarization, confrontation, and violence -- is already emerging in Los
Angeles and Miami. But even where one would least expect to find it
there is evidence of the coming Balkanization of America.

Let us consider one rather improbable example. The state of Arkansas is
in the center of the United States. It has less than 1 percent of the
U.S. population. It is almost the poorest of the 50 states. It has
nothing to attract immigrants, yet the immigrant influx is apparent even
in Arkansas.

Rogers is a small city of about 30,000 people, located in the middle of
the Ozarks, in the extreme northwest corner of the state. Now the
majority of the schoolchildren in Rogers are Spanish-speaking. Only a
few years ago there were almost no Mexicans in the Ozarks. What
happened? The answer is that a huge poultry processing firm, Tyson
Foods, has imported thousands of Mexicans in order to use them as cheap,
easily controlled labor.

In the extreme northeast corner of the state there is the small city of
Jonesboro, which has approximately 45,000 people. Jonesboro also has a
huge mosque with a 100-foot-tall minaret. This mosque was not built by
local Black Muslims. It was built by Moslems from the Arab states,
students at the local university who have come to the United States to
study business administration and learn how to manage American
corporations which are being bought up by their countrymen.

On the far western border of Arkansas there is Fort Smith. Almost 10,000
of the 90,000 people in Fort Smith are Asians. They have built a huge
Buddhist temple. Recently one of the schools in Fort Smith had to be
shut down for the day when gang warfare broke out between gangs of
Cambodians and Blacks. The Asians in Fort Smith were originally refugees
housed at nearby Fort Chaffee. Many of them stayed in Fort Smith when
they were offered employment in local factories.

In the center of the state, in Little Rock, a group of Chinese American
investors representing business interests in Hong Kong held a meeting in
August of this year and announced their intention to establish a new
community to be called Chinatown, Arkansas. Chinatown, Arkansas, is to
be developed on 500 acres to be purchased south of Little Rock and will
be the home of 2,000 Chinese immigrants. It will include a shopping
center and two schools. The investors promised that at least one out of
every four jobs created by Chinatown, Arkansas, will be given to local
people. Moreover, they promised that if Chinatown, Arkansas, is
successful in achieving its purpose of facilitating the transfer of Hong
Kong businesses to the United States, then similar Chinatown
developments will arise in Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee,
Mississippi, and Louisiana.

A delegation from the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce was
present and expressed its enthusiasm for the projected Chinatown,
Arkansas. The mayor of Little Rock also expressed his gratitude. In his
words, "A culturally diverse community really has something to offer."
The mayor said that he was happy that Chinatown would offer some jobs to
local people, but he did not say whether or not any member of his own
family might be ready to apply for one of those jobs. Even where we
would least expect it, there is today a foreshadowing of the coming
America, an America in which European Americans will no longer be able
to speak of "our country" but only of "this country."

What is behind the immigrant invasion? The answer is obvious. It was
apparent in each of the examples cited. The culprits responsible are not
the Illuminati, not the Insiders, not the Humanists, not even the
Communists. No, the cause of America's surrender to the immigrant
invasion is simply the shameless, hoggish greed of the ruling elite of
this nation!

The ruling elite can dispatch hundreds of thousands of troops to Kuwait,
Somalia, Rwanda, and Haiti, but for some reason a few thousand men
cannot be spared to patrol the nation's southern border and stop the
influx of illegal immigrants. The reason, of course, is that the elite
is quite happy with the nation's highly permeable borders. The Wall
Street Journal has even editorialized in favor of open borders.

The strategy of the elite is clear: In the new global economy the
American elite will become part of an international elite, while the
mass of Americans who work for a living must accept their future place
in a global labor pool. In other words, the overwhelming majority of
European Americans are supposed to accept a way of life that will be
somewhere between the European standard and that prevailing in the Third
World.
What can be done about this threat to the future of our people?

There are at least three possible courses of action.

First, we can continue to do what we have been doing. That is,
communicating our views to our elected representatives in Washington,
D.C. This is an essential, never-ending task. If we cease to undertake
it, there will be no voice against those who urge our representatives to
open our borders to an even larger influx of immigrants.

Second, we can work to change the legislative bodies by encouraging
people who agree with us to run for election. We need candidates who
will express our views. It is much more cost-effective to put in office
people who already agree with us than it is to attempt to convert to our
views those officeholders who may be hostile to us. Even unsuccessful
campaigns are useful in mobilizing the people and broadcasting our
views. It is also useful to put on the ballot referenda such as
Proposition 187 in the recent California elections.

Third, we can begin to work for the implementation of a long-range
strategy in which we turn away from the legislative talk shops and look
to the rank and file of our own people. We need to work to build a sense
of community among European Americans that is as strong as the sense of
community that now exists among African Americans and Asian Americans.
There is now a large population of European Americans, but there is not
a community of European Americans led by European Americans who are
conscious, avowed leaders of that community.

There is a nationwide African American community led by African
Americans who are leaders not because they are accepted as part of the
ruling elite, but because they are leaders of their community as such.
They are race leaders.

European Americans have no race leaders. There is no end of European
Americans who belong to the ruling elite, but -- claiming to represent
all Americans -- they are not our leaders.

In America, unlike Eastern Europe, the politics of Balkanization is the
politics of race. The politics of race terrifies the ruling elite
because it is a politics which is carried on outside of the legislative
talk shops. It is a politics which is rooted in life, which defines
friend and enemy once and for all. It is a politics which is climactic.
It is a politics which is final.

A great campaign in that politics has begun. We cannot look to the
ruling elite for leadership in that campaign. If it is to be found
anywhere, we must look to ourselves alone.

Cheese whiz Wacky Dude, you'd bore the heck out of Forrest Gump with your
pointless pedantic drivel. This is not the relevant group for you to
proclaim you looniness. You are completely off-topic and nobody gives a
flying fig about your many inadequacies.

You should follow the advice of William Schatner and "GET A LIFE"!!

It isn't xenophobia little one, its just than nobody takes a Webtver
seriously, nor should they. You should move out of your parent's garage too!


Michael Ragland wrote in message
...


Certainly topics such as territoriality, xenophobia, kin selection and
aggression are part of evolutionary biology. They are aspects of our
biology which have persisted ever since Homo Sapiens have been around.
Evolutionary biology encompasses much more than just Homo Sapiens (which
when all is said and done) are a minor player in evolutionary biology.
But Homo Sapiens are a part of evolutionary biology and I think we
should start discussing more if we are evolutionarily adaptive.

My whole effort ever since I've been posting to sci.bio.evo has been to
point out the extreme dangers human aggression poses to humans and the
earth and other creatures and how we can't wait for Darwinian evolution
to catch up. Maybe this outline of possible future horrors to come will
make some reflect more on what I'm trying to get across.

Now maybe you are concerned others will respond angrily or dismissively
to what I've written. But I'm not necessarily wrong. The National
Alliance has chapters all across the U.S. and it is growing. It has a
platform of whites living separate from non-whites. It has a goal of
securing living space to this effect no matter what it entails. It is
rabidly antisemitic.

Everything is biology when it comes down to humans. By that standard
there are many things which wouldn't be considered appropriate on
sci.bio.evo. But I'm discussing things such as territoriality,
xenophobia and aggression and these have been observed in other animals
and even insects. They are very relevant to evolutionary biology.

Granted I'm not discussing a particular biological aspect or scientific
finding but projecting what..given our biology..could theoretically
occur. It is not pleasant but who ever said that biology is necessarily
pleasant..that Darwinian evolution is pleasant.

Science has nothing necessarily to do with morality but in the case of
genetic engineering of humans I think morality can and most likely will
play a decisive part. Research on aggression is ongoing and there is no
morality involved but rather a desire to understand aggression. This is
a salient feature of science..the desire to understand. Assuming we
eventually do understand all the genetic mechanisms of aggression...then
morality may come into play. If through advances in genetic engineering
we are able to remove aggression from human DNA "should" the decision be
made to do so? If so, who will make that decision?

This also gets into the argument of "playing God". I personally don't
believe in a personal God or anthropomorphic God. But the "playing God"
debate can be boiled down to should humans let Darwinian evolution
follow its natural course or should we intervene?

Obviously the science has to exist to be able to intervene through
genetic engineering but it is also a moral as well as political
decision.
There have been many posts to sci.bio.evo which haven't been especially
relevant to evolutionary biology. Recently, you posted Mr. Stonjek's
post on Hitler's ideas about evolution. I understand why this was
allowed because Hitler was a historical person and therefore his ideas
on evolution had some relevance.

I'm trying to get people to see that science isn't some cold detached
thing. Especially with evolutionary biology we are dealing with things
which are alive and breathing. And I'm also trying to get across the
enormous responsibility we have in changing and directing our own
evolution and not letting Darwinian evolution exact its murderous death
toll.

Human nature is often inflammatory and polemical so the scenario I
outline reflects that. I'm not intending to be inflammatory and
polemical but future balkanization and genocide in the U.S. is a
possibility. It is not a possibility a year from now or even five or ten
years but in thirty or forty years who knows.

I think we have a responsibility to discuss these things long before
they may occur. The reality is the U.S. is not a melting pot but a
country where various ethnic groups compete. European Americans who for
over 200 years dominated are now projected to be a minority in the near
future. Many are flocking to groups such as the National Alliance which
promote "racial" separation and "living space" for whites. I will admit
this part has nothing to do per se with evolutionary biology although
such behavior is certainly reflective of it and I'm curious if this is
an aspect of our biology which should be commended or seen as a
dangerous threat.

P.S. Obviously my point about genetic engineering being used to remove
aggression is a "moot" point since there is currently no fixer and won't
be for quite some time. The "challenge" we face as a society then is can
America exist as an ethnically diverse country without becoming
increasingly balkanized? What, if anything, can be done to prevent this?
Is it inevitable each ethnic group will primarily be concerned with its
own interests without any regard for other groups? If so, this paints a
very bleak future.

_____________________________________

The below article was written by a Dr. Brent Nelson who is a European
American "racialist". It could just be my lack of exposure but it seems
to me there is more and more "discussion" on the far right /anti
Establishment regarding immigration and the projection "whites" are to
become a minority in the near future. This is true even of organizations
such as the National Alliance which are rapidly antisemitic. But even if
the National Alliance gained political control in the U.S. it seems
likely its policies would target more than just "Jews". Interestingly,
Nazi Germany was rapidly antisemitic and its main genocide was against
Jews but was by no means limited to them. Germany's disabled, Roma,
Poles and Russians were all killed in signifigant numbers. All were
considered racially inferior to Germans. So there is no reason
theoretically why a regime in the U.S. couldn't come to power and be
essentially antisemitic but target other "racial" groups for persecution
and/or extermination. In fact, when you think about the history of the
U.S. with its genocide of Indians, slavery, mistreatment of Chinese and
other groups...it would seem totally natural historically for their to
be more persecution and genocide.
How does all this relate to sci.bio.evolution? Dr. Nelson mentions the
racist Dr. Raymond Hall.

He states, "Dr. Hall's observation regarding subspecies of mammals is
that two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same
geographic area. Dr. Hall notes that there may be some intergradation
(mixing) of subspecies, but much more often one subspecies thrives and
the other goes into extinction. One subspecies proves to be more
prolific than the other and wins the territory for itself. Dr. Hall
concluded that the natural territory of a human subspecies is
continental in scope. He warned that two different subspecies of humans
will not co-exist indefinitely on the same continent. Ultimately one or
the other will pass from the scene.

It would seem Dr. Hall is right as much as I disagree with his racist
views. If the term "race" has no scientific meaning then what of
"subspecies"? We know all ethnic or so-called "racial" groups belong to
the species Sapien and to the same only remaining genus Homo. There were
other genus in our evolutionary past such as Homo Erectus, etc. but
we're the only remaining one left. What happenned to all the others? Why
did they become extinct? Were they killed off by Homo Sapiens...at least
some of them? There is speculation Neanderthal lived at some point at
the same time as Cro-Magnon and that Cro-Magnon killed off Neanderthal.

In our evolutionary past murder wasn't a crime and neither was genocide.
With all the advances in science and technology and civilization in
general we've been taught these things are wrong yet evolutionarily
speaking we haven't changed much at all. Sure, there may be more
recessive genes in the population as a result of the weakening of
natural selection but aggression is still imprinted on our DNA.

Idealistically I would have hoped all the different ethnic groups in the
U.S. would learn to live together. I have always been a true
cosmopolitan. But if Dr. Hall is correct (and I think he is) then that
may not be an option.
Let's take Dr. Hall's points one by one. He states two subspecies of the
same species do not occur in the same geographic area. Dr. Hall notes
that there may be some intergradation (mixing) of subspecies, but much
more often one subspecies thrives and the other goes into extinction. Is
this true?

I happen to live 30 miles from Washington D.C. so I'm surrounded by many
different ethnic groups. I don't feel like I'm in the minority and I
don't feel like I'm in the majority. For much of the U.S., however, that
is not the case. Many parts of the country are ethnically
demographically isolated. Many cities are ethnically segregated. In
short, subspecies may occur in the same "geographic" area but even
within such a geographic area there will be isolated ethnic groups and
segregation.

The second point Dr. Hall makes is one subspecies proves to be more
prolific than the other and wins the territory for itself. He concludes
that the natural territory of a human subspecies is continental in
scope.and warns that two different subspecies of humans will not
co-exist indefinitely on the same continent. Ultimately one or the other
will pass from the scene.

In the U.S. there are many different "subspecies". But in considering
their political influence there are only three major groups in the U.S.
and those are Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans and European
Americans. There are Asian-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Native Americans
and others but the three major groups are Hispanic-Americans,
African-Americans and European Americans.

Although Jewish-Americans number only about seven million in the U.S.
many are represented in medicine, arts, law, etc. If the National
Alliance ever came to power or a group like it one can expect it would
enact anti-Jewish laws even though Jews are a minority in the U.S. Such
laws would likely bar Jews from certain professions.

Ironically, the U.S. could see the development of two different
subspecies committing genocide against another subspecies. The Nation of
Islam is vehemently antisemitic and known to be on friendly terms with
"white" groups.

If genocide were committed in the U.S. the targeted group would likely
be murdered on the spot. Trains would be used to transport the corpses
to incineration facilities. Of course, their clothing and valuables
would be plundered by the state.

It seems inevitable there will be an increasing Balkanization of the
U.S. I know there are Hispanics who are aware of their prolific numbers
and "winning" territory i.e. California, Texas and New Mexico and feel
they should regain the land they lost to the U.S. I know there are
African-Americans who support the Nation of Islam. I know there are
Asians who see California as their "second home".

But beyond the shadow of a doubt I see more "white" Americans publicly
denouncing multiculturalism, immigration, etc. This stands to reason.
Since the time the U.S. was founded it has been primarily a nation of
European immigrants. It killed most of the Native Americans, brought
over African slaves, mistreated Chinese migrant laborers, etc.

America is still mainly governed by European Americans but that is
threatened. And for this reason European Americans (as a group) present
the greatest possible danger to other groups...because they have the
most to "lose". In short, they stand to lose power. It would be nice to
think European-Americans could be a minority in the U.S. and continue to
be treated fairly and engage in power sharing...but have European
Americans done this with other groups?

I'm pessimistic about the future. I hope some will now better understand
when I state we can't wait for Darwinian evolution to catch up. I'm
European American but I could never support or participate indirectly or
directly in the persecution and genocide of another ethnic group. I
would seek to shelter and protect any person who was targeted for
extermination simply on the basis of their ethnic background.


The Balkanization of America
Dr. Brent Nelson

A year ago the U.S. Bureau of the Census published a report which
revised previous estimates of the future population of the United
States. According to the Census Bureau, there will be 400 million people
in the United States in the year 2050. One important fact about this
figure is that it is much greater than the optimum population for a land
area the size of the United States. Another important fact concerns the
nature of that population. In 2050 the United States will consist of
several blocs of minority groups. There will be no majority group. By
2050 European Americans, who for the first 200 years of the existence of
the United States had been its majority population group and who had
founded and maintained its culture, laws, and economic life, will find
themselves in the minority.

There is yet another important fact to be noted about this mass of 400
million people. This is a fact which suggests that the United States of
2050 will be America Balkanized, an America without Americans, an
America in which citizens will identify with their minority status and
forget about the nation as a whole. This is the fact that three of the
four major population blocs will constitute visible minorities. Three of
the four blocs -- European Americans or Whites, African Americans or
Blacks, Asian Americans or Yellows -- will be what the anthropologist
Sir Arthur Keith has called "macrodiacritic" groups. That is, more than
90 percent of their members are visibly identifiable. The fourth bloc,
Hispanic Americans, is a conglomerate created by the Federal
bureaucracy. Hispanics, who can belong to any race, will no doubt still
be a political bloc.

Indeed, all four blocs will be relentlessly political, locked in a
struggle to determine how the increasingly scarce economic goods and
natural resources are to be distributed to each group. Can a nation so
wracked by internal struggle long endure? History suggests not. History
suggests that by the time that America lacks Americans to the extent
that Yugoslavia now lacks Yugoslavs, it will undergo a more or less
painful process of deconstruction. That time may, in fact, occur long
before 2050.

The predicted great shift in the composition of the U.S. population is
attributed by the Census Bureau to an estimated yearly influx of 1
million legal immigrants. There may be an equal number of illegal
immigrants entering the United States each year. The overwhelming
majority of immigrants, both legal and illegal, come from the Third
World. Another factor which will radically change the ethnic composition
of the population -- a factor given less attention by the Census Bureau
-- is the differential birth rates of the various groups involved. It is
quite likely that, given current trends, the European American will find
himself in a minority long before 2050.

The three highly visible groups -- the Whites, Yellows, and Blacks --
are, of course, the three major races. Biologists refer to these races
as subspecies. The differences among them go far beyond skin color.
There is no point in enumerating all of those differences, but one fact
about these subspecies needs to be recognized. It has been summed up in
a thought-provoking essay called "Biological Subspecies of Man," written
some thirty years ago by Professor E. Raymond Hall, who was probably the
foremost authority on American mammals. Dr. Hall's observation regarding
subspecies of mammals is that two subspecies of the same species do not
occur in the same geographic area. Dr. Hall notes that there may be some
intergradation (mixing) of subspecies, but much more often one
subspecies thrives and the other goes into extinction. One subspecies
proves to be more prolific than the other and wins the territory for
itself. Dr. Hall concluded that the natural territory of a human
subspecies is continental in scope. He warned that two different
subspecies of humans will not co-exist indefinitely on the same
continent. Ultimately one or the other will pass from the scene.

Territoriality is an imperative for man as it is for all other mammals.
European Americans know well that much of urban America and wide areas
of the South have become the territory of another subspecies. Is it too
farfetched to say that what is publicized as a crime wave is really the
strategy, combined with high birthrates, by which one subspecies is
supplanting another, either by outbreeding European Americans or by
forcing them to flee?

Territoriality is central to understanding the future America. Let
current trends go for another 50 years, and it is obvious that then the
Southeast will largely be African territory, and the Southwest
mestizo-occupied territory, with various urban enclaves in the West
under the control of Asians.

But why should we care about what will happen 50 years from now? The
answer to that is the fact that the future is already with us in many
areas. America Balkanized is now a reality in southern California,
southern Florida, and in other places all across the continental United
States. The politics of Balkanization -- a recurrent cycle of
polarization, confrontation, and violence -- is already emerging in Los
Angeles and Miami. But even where one would least expect to find it
there is evidence of the coming Balkanization of America.

Let us consider one rather improbable example. The state of Arkansas is
in the center of the United States. It has less than 1 percent of the
U.S. population. It is almost the poorest of the 50 states. It has
nothing to attract immigrants, yet the immigrant influx is apparent even
in Arkansas.

Rogers is a small city of about 30,000 people, located in the middle of
the Ozarks, in the extreme northwest corner of the state. Now the
majority of the schoolchildren in Rogers are Spanish-speaking. Only a
few years ago there were almost no Mexicans in the Ozarks. What
happened? The answer is that a huge poultry processing firm, Tyson
Foods, has imported thousands of Mexicans in order to use them as cheap,
easily controlled labor.

In the extreme northeast corner of the state there is the small city of
Jonesboro, which has approximately 45,000 people. Jonesboro also has a
huge mosque with a 100-foot-tall minaret. This mosque was not built by
local Black Muslims. It was built by Moslems from the Arab states,
students at the local university who have come to the United States to
study business administration and learn how to manage American
corporations which are being bought up by their countrymen.

On the far western border of Arkansas there is Fort Smith. Almost 10,000
of the 90,000 people in Fort Smith are Asians. They have built a huge
Buddhist temple. Recently one of the schools in Fort Smith had to be
shut down for the day when gang warfare broke out between gangs of
Cambodians and Blacks. The Asians in Fort Smith were originally refugees
housed at nearby Fort Chaffee. Many of them stayed in Fort Smith when
they were offered employment in local factories.

In the center of the state, in Little Rock, a group of Chinese American
investors representing business interests in Hong Kong held a meeting in
August of this year and announced their intention to establish a new
community to be called Chinatown, Arkansas. Chinatown, Arkansas, is to
be developed on 500 acres to be purchased south of Little Rock and will
be the home of 2,000 Chinese immigrants. It will include a shopping
center and two schools. The investors promised that at least one out of
every four jobs created by Chinatown, Arkansas, will be given to local
people. Moreover, they promised that if Chinatown, Arkansas, is
successful in achieving its purpose of facilitating the transfer of Hong
Kong businesses to the United States, then similar Chinatown
developments will arise in Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee,
Mississippi, and Louisiana.

A delegation from the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce was
present and expressed its enthusiasm for the projected Chinatown,
Arkansas. The mayor of Little Rock also expressed his gratitude. In his
words, "A culturally diverse community really has something to offer."
The mayor said that he was happy that Chinatown would offer some jobs to
local people, but he did not say whether or not any member of his own
family might be ready to apply for one of those jobs. Even where we
would least expect it, there is today a foreshadowing of the coming
America, an America in which European Americans will no longer be able
to speak of "our country" but only of "this country."

What is behind the immigrant invasion? The answer is obvious. It was
apparent in each of the examples cited. The culprits responsible are not
the Illuminati, not the Insiders, not the Humanists, not even the
Communists. No, the cause of America's surrender to the immigrant
invasion is simply the shameless, hoggish greed of the ruling elite of
this nation!

The ruling elite can dispatch hundreds of thousands of troops to Kuwait,
Somalia, Rwanda, and Haiti, but for some reason a few thousand men
cannot be spared to patrol the nation's southern border and stop the
influx of illegal immigrants. The reason, of course, is that the elite
is quite happy with the nation's highly permeable borders. The Wall
Street Journal has even editorialized in favor of open borders.

The strategy of the elite is clear: In the new global economy the
American elite will become part of an international elite, while the
mass of Americans who work for a living must accept their future place
in a global labor pool. In other words, the overwhelming majority of
European Americans are supposed to accept a way of life that will be
somewhere between the European standard and that prevailing in the Third
World.
What can be done about this threat to the future of our people?

There are at least three possible courses of action.

First, we can continue to do what we have been doing. That is,
communicating our views to our elected representatives in Washington,
D.C. This is an essential, never-ending task. If we cease to undertake
it, there will be no voice against those who urge our representatives to
open our borders to an even larger influx of immigrants.

Second, we can work to change the legislative bodies by encouraging
people who agree with us to run for election. We need candidates who
will express our views. It is much more cost-effective to put in office
people who already agree with us than it is to attempt to convert to our
views those officeholders who may be hostile to us. Even unsuccessful
campaigns are useful in mobilizing the people and broadcasting our
views. It is also useful to put on the ballot referenda such as
Proposition 187 in the recent California elections.

Third, we can begin to work for the implementation of a long-range
strategy in which we turn away from the legislative talk shops and look
to the rank and file of our own people. We need to work to build a sense
of community among European Americans that is as strong as the sense of
community that now exists among African Americans and Asian Americans.
There is now a large population of European Americans, but there is not
a community of European Americans led by European Americans who are
conscious, avowed leaders of that community.

There is a nationwide African American community led by African
Americans who are leaders not because they are accepted as part of the
ruling elite, but because they are leaders of their community as such.
They are race leaders.

European Americans have no race leaders. There is no end of European
Americans who belong to the ruling elite, but -- claiming to represent
all Americans -- they are not our leaders.

In America, unlike Eastern Europe, the politics of Balkanization is the
politics of race. The politics of race terrifies the ruling elite
because it is a politics which is carried on outside of the legislative
talk shops. It is a politics which is rooted in life, which defines
friend and enemy once and for all. It is a politics which is climactic.
It is a politics which is final.

A great campaign in that politics has begun. We cannot look to the
ruling elite for leadership in that campaign. If it is to be found
anywhere, we must look to ourselves alone.

Cheese whiz Wacky Dude, you'd bore the heck out of Forrest Gump with your
pointless pedantic drivel. This is not the relevant group for you to
proclaim you looniness. You are completely off-topic and nobody gives a
flying fig about your many inadequacies.

You should follow the advice of William Schatner and "GET A LIFE"!!

It isn't xenophobia little one, its just than nobody takes a Webtver
seriously, nor should they. You should move out of your parent's garage too!


Michael Ragland wrote in message
...


Certainly topics such as territoriality, xenophobia, kin selection and
aggression are part of evolutionary biology. They are aspects of our
biology which have persisted ever since Homo Sapiens have been around.
Evolutionary biology encompasses much more than just Homo Sapiens (which
when all is said and done) are a minor player in evolutionary biology.
But Homo Sapiens are a part of evolutionary biology and I think we
should start discussing more if we are evolutionarily adaptive.

My whole effort ever since I've been posting to sci.bio.evo has been to
point out the extreme dangers human aggression poses to humans and the
earth and other creatures and how we can't wait for Darwinian evolution
to catch up. Maybe this outline of possible future horrors to come will
make some reflect more on what I'm trying to get across.

Now maybe you are concerned others will respond angrily or dismissively
to what I've written. But I'm not necessarily wrong. The National
Alliance has chapters all across the U.S. and it is growing. It has a
platform of whites living separate from non-whites. It has a goal of
securing living space to this effect no matter what it entails. It is
rabidly antisemitic.

Everything is biology when it comes down to humans. By that standard
there are many things which wouldn't be considered appropriate on
sci.bio.evo. But I'm discussing things such as territoriality,
xenophobia and aggression and these have been observed in other animals
and even insects. They are very relevant to evolutionary biology.

Granted I'm not discussing a particular biological aspect or scientific
finding but projecting what..given our biology..could theoretically
occur. It is not pleasant but who ever said that biology is necessarily
pleasant..that Darwinian evolution is pleasant.

Science has nothing necessarily to do with morality but in the case of
genetic engineering of humans I think morality can and most likely will
play a decisive part. Research on aggression is ongoing and there is no
morality involved but rather a desire to understand aggression. This is
a salient feature of science..the desire to understand. Assuming we
eventually do understand all the genetic mechanisms of aggression...then
morality may come into play. If through advances in genetic engineering
we are able to remove aggression from human DNA "should" the decision be
made to do so? If so, who will make that decision?

This also gets into the argument of "playing God". I personally don't
believe in a personal God or anthropomorphic God. But the "playing God"
debate can be boiled down to should humans let Darwinian evolution
follow its natural course or should we intervene?

Obviously the science has to exist to be able to intervene through
genetic engineering but it is also a moral as well as political
decision.
There have been many posts to sci.bio.evo which haven't been especially
relevant to evolutionary biology. Recently, you posted Mr. Stonjek's
post on Hitler's ideas about evolution. I understand why this was
allowed because Hitler was a historical person and therefore his ideas
on evolution had some relevance.

I'm trying to get people to see that science isn't some cold detached
thing. Especially with evolutionary biology we are dealing with things
which are alive and breathing. And I'm also trying to get across the
enormous responsibility we have in changing and directing our own
evolution and not letting Darwinian evolution exact its murderous death
toll.

Human nature is often inflammatory and polemical so the scenario I
outline reflects that. I'm not intending to be inflammatory and
polemical but future balkanization and genocide in the U.S. is a
possibility. It is not a possibility a year from now or even five or ten
years but in thirty or forty years who knows.

I think we have a responsibility to discuss these things long before
they may occur. The reality is the U.S. is not a melting pot but a
country where various ethnic groups compete. European Americans who for
over 200 years dominated are now projected to be a minority in the near
future. Many are flocking to groups such as the National Alliance which
promote "racial" separation and "living space" for whites. I will admit
this part has nothing to do per se with evolutionary biology although
such behavior is certainly reflective of it and I'm curious if this is
an aspect of our biology which should be commended or seen as a
dangerous threat.

P.S. Obviously my point about genetic engineering being used to remove
aggression is a "moot" point since there is currently no fixer and won't
be for quite some time. The "challenge" we face as a society then is can
America exist as an ethnically diverse country without becoming
increasingly balkanized? What, if anything, can be done to prevent this?
Is it inevitable each ethnic group will primarily be concerned with its
own interests without any regard for other groups? If so, this paints a
very bleak future.

_____________________________________

The below article was written by a Dr. Brent Nelson who is a European
American "racialist". It could just be my lack of exposure but it seems
to me there is more and more "discussion" on the far right /anti
Establishment regarding immigration and the projection "whites" are to
become a minority in the near future. This is true even of organizations
such as the National Alliance which are rapidly antisemitic. But even if
the National Alliance gained political control in the U.S. it seems
likely its policies would target more than just "Jews". Interestingly,
Nazi Germany was rapidly antisemitic and its main genocide was against
Jews but was by no means limited to them. Germany's disabled, Roma,
Poles and Russians were all killed in signifigant numbers. All were
considered racially inferior to Germans. So there is no reason
theoretically why a regime in the U.S. couldn't come to power and be
essentially antisemitic but target other "racial" groups for persecution
and/or extermination. In fact, when you think about the history of the
U.S. with its genocide of Indians, slavery, mistreatment of Chinese and
other groups...it would seem totally natural historically for their to
be more persecution and genocide.
How does all this relate to sci.bio.evolution? Dr. Nelson mentions the
racist Dr. Raymond Hall.

He states, "Dr. Hall's observation regarding subspecies of mammals is
that two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same
geographic area. Dr. Hall notes that there may be some intergradation
(mixing) of subspecies, but much more often one subspecies thrives and
the other goes into extinction. One subspecies proves to be more
prolific than the other and wins the territory for itself. Dr. Hall
concluded that the natural territory of a human subspecies is
continental in scope. He warned that two different subspecies of humans
will not co-exist indefinitely on the same continent. Ultimately one or
the other will pass from the scene.

It would seem Dr. Hall is right as much as I disagree with his racist
views. If the term "race" has no scientific meaning then what of
"subspecies"? We know all ethnic or so-called "racial" groups belong to
the species Sapien and to the same only remaining genus Homo. There were
other genus in our evolutionary past such as Homo Erectus, etc. but
we're the only remaining one left. What happenned to all the others? Why
did they become extinct? Were they killed off by Homo Sapiens...at least
some of them? There is speculation Neanderthal lived at some point at
the same time as Cro-Magnon and that Cro-Magnon killed off Neanderthal.

In our evolutionary past murder wasn't a crime and neither was genocide.
With all the advances in science and technology and civilization in
general we've been taught these things are wrong yet evolutionarily
speaking we haven't changed much at all. Sure, there may be more
recessive genes in the population as a result of the weakening of
natural selection but aggression is still imprinted on our DNA.

Idealistically I would have hoped all the different ethnic groups in the
U.S. would learn to live together. I have always been a true
cosmopolitan. But if Dr. Hall is correct (and I think he is) then that
may not be an option.
Let's take Dr. Hall's points one by one. He states two subspecies of the
same species do not occur in the same geographic area. Dr. Hall notes
that there may be some intergradation (mixing) of subspecies, but much
more often one subspecies thrives and the other goes into extinction. Is
this true?

I happen to live 30 miles from Washington D.C. so I'm surrounded by many
different ethnic groups. I don't feel like I'm in the minority and I
don't feel like I'm in the majority. For much of the U.S., however, that
is not the case. Many parts of the country are ethnically
demographically isolated. Many cities are ethnically segregated. In
short, subspecies may occur in the same "geographic" area but even
within such a geographic area there will be isolated ethnic groups and
segregation.

The second point Dr. Hall makes is one subspecies proves to be more
prolific than the other and wins the territory for itself. He concludes
that the natural territory of a human subspecies is continental in
scope.and warns that two different subspecies of humans will not
co-exist indefinitely on the same continent. Ultimately one or the other
will pass from the scene.

In the U.S. there are many different "subspecies". But in considering
their political influence there are only three major groups in the U.S.
and those are Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans and European
Americans. There are Asian-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Native Americans
and others but the three major groups are Hispanic-Americans,
African-Americans and European Americans.

Although Jewish-Americans number only about seven million in the U.S.
many are represented in medicine, arts, law, etc. If the National
Alliance ever came to power or a group like it one can expect it would
enact anti-Jewish laws even though Jews are a minority in the U.S. Such
laws would likely bar Jews from certain professions.

Ironically, the U.S. could see the development of two different
subspecies committing genocide against another subspecies. The Nation of
Islam is vehemently antisemitic and known to be on friendly terms with
"white" groups.

If genocide were committed in the U.S. the targeted group would likely
be murdered on the spot. Trains would be used to transport the corpses
to incineration facilities. Of course, their clothing and valuables
would be plundered by the state.

It seems inevitable there will be an increasing Balkanization of the
U.S. I know there are Hispanics who are aware of their prolific numbers
and "winning" territory i.e. California, Texas and New Mexico and feel
they should regain the land they lost to the U.S. I know there are
African-Americans who support the Nation of Islam. I know there are
Asians who see California as their "second home".

But beyond the shadow of a doubt I see more "white" Americans publicly
denouncing multiculturalism, immigration, etc. This stands to reason.
Since the time the U.S. was founded it has been primarily a nation of
European immigrants. It killed most of the Native Americans, brought
over African slaves, mistreated Chinese migrant laborers, etc.

America is still mainly governed by European Americans but that is
threatened. And for this reason European Americans (as a group) present
the greatest possible danger to other groups...because they have the
most to "lose". In short, they stand to lose power. It would be nice to
think European-Americans could be a minority in the U.S. and continue to
be treated fairly and engage in power sharing...but have European
Americans done this with other groups?

I'm pessimistic about the future. I hope some will now better understand
when I state we can't wait for Darwinian evolution to catch up. I'm
European American but I could never support or participate indirectly or
directly in the persecution and genocide of another ethnic group. I
would seek to shelter and protect any person who was targeted for
extermination simply on the basis of their ethnic background.


The Balkanization of America
Dr. Brent Nelson

A year ago the U.S. Bureau of the Census published a report which
revised previous estimates of the future population of the United
States. According to the Census Bureau, there will be 400 million people
in the United States in the year 2050. One important fact about this
figure is that it is much greater than the optimum population for a land
area the size of the United States. Another important fact concerns the
nature of that population. In 2050 the United States will consist of
several blocs of minority groups. There will be no majority group. By
2050 European Americans, who for the first 200 years of the existence of
the United States had been its majority population group and who had
founded and maintained its culture, laws, and economic life, will find
themselves in the minority.

There is yet another important fact to be noted about this mass of 400
million people. This is a fact which suggests that the United States of
2050 will be America Balkanized, an America without Americans, an
America in which citizens will identify with their minority status and
forget about the nation as a whole. This is the fact that three of the
four major population blocs will constitute visible minorities. Three of
the four blocs -- European Americans or Whites, African Americans or
Blacks, Asian Americans or Yellows -- will be what the anthropologist
Sir Arthur Keith has called "macrodiacritic" groups. That is, more than
90 percent of their members are visibly identifiable. The fourth bloc,
Hispanic Americans, is a conglomerate created by the Federal
bureaucracy. Hispanics, who can belong to any race, will no doubt still
be a political bloc.

Indeed, all four blocs will be relentlessly political, locked in a
struggle to determine how the increasingly scarce economic goods and
natural resources are to be distributed to each group. Can a nation so
wracked by internal struggle long endure? History suggests not. History
suggests that by the time that America lacks Americans to the extent
that Yugoslavia now lacks Yugoslavs, it will undergo a more or less
painful process of deconstruction. That time may, in fact, occur long
before 2050.

The predicted great shift in the composition of the U.S. population is
attributed by the Census Bureau to an estimated yearly influx of 1
million legal immigrants. There may be an equal number of illegal
immigrants entering the United States each year. The overwhelming
majority of immigrants, both legal and illegal, come from the Third
World. Another factor which will radically change the ethnic composition
of the population -- a factor given less attention by the Census Bureau
-- is the differential birth rates of the various groups involved. It is
quite likely that, given current trends, the European American will find
himself in a minority long before 2050.

The three highly visible groups -- the Whites, Yellows, and Blacks --
are, of course, the three major races. Biologists refer to these races
as subspecies. The differences among them go far beyond skin color.
There is no point in enumerating all of those differences, but one fact
about these subspecies needs to be recognized. It has been summed up in
a thought-provoking essay called "Biological Subspecies of Man," written
some thirty years ago by Professor E. Raymond Hall, who was probably the
foremost authority on American mammals. Dr. Hall's observation regarding
subspecies of mammals is that two subspecies of the same species do not
occur in the same geographic area. Dr. Hall notes that there may be some
intergradation (mixing) of subspecies, but much more often one
subspecies thrives and the other goes into extinction. One subspecies
proves to be more prolific than the other and wins the territory for
itself. Dr. Hall concluded that the natural territory of a human
subspecies is continental in scope. He warned that two different
subspecies of humans will not co-exist indefinitely on the same
continent. Ultimately one or the other will pass from the scene.

Territoriality is an imperative for man as it is for all other mammals.
European Americans know well that much of urban America and wide areas
of the South have become the territory of another subspecies. Is it too
farfetched to say that what is publicized as a crime wave is really the
strategy, combined with high birthrates, by which one subspecies is
supplanting another, either by outbreeding European Americans or by
forcing them to flee?

Territoriality is central to understanding the future America. Let
current trends go for another 50 years, and it is obvious that then the
Southeast will largely be African territory, and the Southwest
mestizo-occupied territory, with various urban enclaves in the West
under the control of Asians.

But why should we care about what will happen 50 years from now? The
answer to that is the fact that the future is already with us in many
areas. America Balkanized is now a reality in southern California,
southern Florida, and in other places all across the continental United
States. The politics of Balkanization -- a recurrent cycle of
polarization, confrontation, and violence -- is already emerging in Los
Angeles and Miami. But even where one would least expect to find it
there is evidence of the coming Balkanization of America.

Let us consider one rather improbable example. The state of Arkansas is
in the center of the United States. It has less than 1 percent of the
U.S. population. It is almost the poorest of the 50 states. It has
nothing to attract immigrants, yet the immigrant influx is apparent even
in Arkansas.

Rogers is a small city of about 30,000 people, located in the middle of
the Ozarks, in the extreme northwest corner of the state. Now the
majority of the schoolchildren in Rogers are Spanish-speaking. Only a
few years ago there were almost no Mexicans in the Ozarks. What
happened? The answer is that a huge poultry processing firm, Tyson
Foods, has imported thousands of Mexicans in order to use them as cheap,
easily controlled labor.

In the extreme northeast corner of the state there is the small city of
Jonesboro, which has approximately 45,000 people. Jonesboro also has a
huge mosque with a 100-foot-tall minaret. This mosque was not built by
local Black Muslims. It was built by Moslems from the Arab states,
students at the local university who have come to the United States to
study business administration and learn how to manage American
corporations which are being bought up by their countrymen.

On the far western border of Arkansas there is Fort Smith. Almost 10,000
of the 90,000 people in Fort Smith are Asians. They have built a huge
Buddhist temple. Recently one of the schools in Fort Smith had to be
shut down for the day when gang warfare broke out between gangs of
Cambodians and Blacks. The Asians in Fort Smith were originally refugees
housed at nearby Fort Chaffee. Many of them stayed in Fort Smith when
they were offered employment in local factories.

In the center of the state, in Little Rock, a group of Chinese American
investors representing business interests in Hong Kong held a meeting in
August of this year and announced their intention to establish a new
community to be called Chinatown, Arkansas. Chinatown, Arkansas, is to
be developed on 500 acres to be purchased south of Little Rock and will
be the home of 2,000 Chinese immigrants. It will include a shopping
center and two schools. The investors promised that at least one out of
every four jobs created by Chinatown, Arkansas, will be given to local
people. Moreover, they promised that if Chinatown, Arkansas, is
successful in achieving its purpose of facilitating the transfer of Hong
Kong businesses to the United States, then similar Chinatown
developments will arise in Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee,
Mississippi, and Louisiana.

A delegation from the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce was
present and expressed its enthusiasm for the projected Chinatown,
Arkansas. The mayor of Little Rock also expressed his gratitude. In his
words, "A culturally diverse community really has something to offer."
The mayor said that he was happy that Chinatown would offer some jobs to
local people, but he did not say whether or not any member of his own
family might be ready to apply for one of those jobs. Even where we
would least expect it, there is today a foreshadowing of the coming
America, an America in which European Americans will no longer be able
to speak of "our country" but only of "this country."

What is behind the immigrant invasion? The answer is obvious. It was
apparent in each of the examples cited. The culprits responsible are not
the Illuminati, not the Insiders, not the Humanists, not even the
Communists. No, the cause of America's surrender to the immigrant
invasion is simply the shameless, hoggish greed of the ruling elite of
this nation!

The ruling elite can dispatch hundreds of thousands of troops to Kuwait,
Somalia, Rwanda, and Haiti, but for some reason a few thousand men
cannot be spared to patrol the nation's southern border and stop the
influx of illegal immigrants. The reason, of course, is that the elite
is quite happy with the nation's highly permeable borders. The Wall
Street Journal has even editorialized in favor of open borders.

The strategy of the elite is clear: In the new global economy the
American elite will become part of an international elite, while the
mass of Americans who work for a living must accept their future place
in a global labor pool. In other words, the overwhelming majority of
European Americans are supposed to accept a way of life that will be
somewhere between the European standard and that prevailing in the Third
World.
What can be done about this threat to the future of our people?

There are at least three possible courses of action.

First, we can continue to do what we have been doing. That is,
communicating our views to our elected representatives in Washington,
D.C. This is an essential, never-ending task. If we cease to undertake
it, there will be no voice against those who urge our representatives to
open our borders to an even larger influx of immigrants.

Second, we can work to change the legislative bodies by encouraging
people who agree with us to run for election. We need candidates who
will express our views. It is much more cost-effective to put in office
people who already agree with us than it is to attempt to convert to our
views those officeholders who may be hostile to us. Even unsuccessful
campaigns are useful in mobilizing the people and broadcasting our
views. It is also useful to put on the ballot referenda such as
Proposition 187 in the recent California elections.

Third, we can begin to work for the implementation of a long-range
strategy in which we turn away from the legislative talk shops and look
to the rank and file of our own people. We need to work to build a sense
of community among European Americans that is as strong as the sense of
community that now exists among African Americans and Asian Americans.
There is now a large population of European Americans, but there is not
a community of European Americans led by European Americans who are
conscious, avowed leaders of that community.

There is a nationwide African American community led by African
Americans who are leaders not because they are accepted as part of the
ruling elite, but because they are leaders of their community as such.
They are race leaders.

European Americans have no race leaders. There is no end of European
Americans who belong to the ruling elite, but -- claiming to represent
all Americans -- they are not our leaders.

In America, unlike Eastern Europe, the politics of Balkanization is the
politics of race. The politics of race terrifies the ruling elite
because it is a politics which is carried on outside of the legislative
talk shops. It is a politics which is rooted in life, which defines
friend and enemy once and for all. It is a politics which is climactic.
It is a politics which is final.

A great campaign in that politics has begun. We cannot look to the
ruling elite for leadership in that campaign. If it is to be found
anywhere, we must look to ourselves alone.

You should follow the advice of William Schatner and "GET A LIFE"!!

Q: What did Spock find in Captain Kirk's bathroom?

A: The Captain's log.

Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.bio.botany:21431

Was that before or after he boned your mother silly?


Michael Ragland wrote in message
...

You should follow the advice of William Schatner and "GET A LIFE"!!

Q: What did Spock find in Captain Kirk's bathroom?

A: The Captain's log.

Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.bio.botany:21431

Was that before or after he boned your mother silly?


Michael Ragland wrote in message
...

You should follow the advice of William Schatner and "GET A LIFE"!!

Q: What did Spock find in Captain Kirk's bathroom?

A: The Captain's log.