By ANDREW JOYCE

“The intermarriage of nations gradually extinguishes the characters, and is, despite any pretended philanthropy, not beneficial to mankind.”
Immanuel Kant

The recent engagement of Britain’s Prince Harry to a mixed-race actress of Black and Jewish origins has delivered something of a propaganda coup to the promoters of miscegenation. It’s been hailed as a “great day for interracial relationships and mixed race girls everywhere.” It’s been claimed that it will “change Britain’s relationship with race forever.” The New York Times has even suggested it will “save the monarchy.”

While hyperbole saturates each one of these statements, they all betray the truism that, in a ‘celebrity culture,’ such events can spark ill-informed attempts at imitation among the dedicated and dim-witted followers of fashion.

The excitement over the racial status of Meghan Markle is all very reminiscent of similar propaganda in the wake of London’s 2012 Olympic Games, when a number of mixed-race athletes, Jessica Ennis in particular, were singled out and promoted as the ‘new face of Britain.’ According to a celebratory report published shortly after the Olympics by British Future, a ‘think-tank’ funded by George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, Ennis and other mixed-race celebrities had “helped to change perceptions about interracial relationships.” This seemed to have been largely borne out by the 2011 census, which revealed “the mixed race population is the fastest growing in Britain with more than one million people born of interracial parentage.” British Future point out, probably with good justification, that this figure “is only half the story of the rapid growth of mixed Britain. Twice as many people have ethnically mixed parentage – but over half of them choose other census categories, such as black or white.” Ennis, in some senses the precursor to Markle as the darling of miscegenation propagandists, was chosen by British Future to grace the front page of its report, The Melting Pot Generation: How Britain Became More Relaxed About Race, and opened it with the line: “Jessica Ennis was not just the face of the Olympics this summer; she could stake a fair claim to be ‘the face of the census’ too.”

One of those most concerning aspects of the report, if accurate, concerns the statement that “it is Britain, not America, which has the stronger claim to be a “melting pot” on race.” The rationale here is that those of mixed racial parentage tend not to marry or reproduce with American Whites — those of mixed race normally become absorbed into the minority ethnic group. By contrast, those of mixed race in Britain marry heavily into the White majority. We might therefore state that while America currently has the more pressing demographic concern in terms of the White share of the population, miscegenation may be considered a greater concern in Britain. The report explains:

“On no other country on earth is my story even possible,” said Barack Obama, a product of Kenya and Kansas, as he burst onto the US political scene in 2004. His is a great story, but he was wrong about that. Mixed marriages are more likely in Britain, where the dynamics of mixing are different too, and accelerate faster in Britain. That is because most Americans from mixed parentage marry somebody from a minority group, as Obama himself did. By contrast, three-quarters of Britons from mixed parentage marry somebody from the majority white group (it does contain over three-quarters of the population, after all)…10% of African Americans are in mixed marriages [with Whites]…compared to over 40% for British born black Caribbeans.

It is difficult to make a full assessment of the true scale of the problem because the Black population of Britain (including those described as “African/Caribbean/Black British”) is roughly 3% of the overall population of England and Wales. One might be tempted to conclude that, while the number of Black men marrying or reproducing with White women is very high, their relatively small percentage of the overall population means that the number of White women entering relationships with Black men is also relatively small. However, these relationships are almost exclusively forming at the lower end of the socio-economic scale, and often at the very bottom.

This is crucial because those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, rather than the middle classes, are a key driver of national fertility. The same phenomenon is of course also apparent in the United States, where author and demographic expert Jonathan Last observes in What to Expect When No One’s Expecting: “The bearing and raising of children has largely become the province of the lower classes. It’s a kind of reverse Darwinism where the traditional markers of success make one less likely to reproduce.” Similarly, with the rise of the welfare state and the contemporary squeeze on the middle class, anthropologist David Lawson of University College London has argued that “poorer households have relatively little to gain by limiting fertility.” The result, as one article in The Economist put it, is that “mixed-race children are now about as common in Britain as in America—a country with many more non-whites and a longer history of mass immigration.”

Britain thus finds itself in a situation where White, middle class couples are numerically far superior to the number of mixed race couples, but this balance is radically offset in demographic terms by significant differences in fertility — the White couple have no children, or very few, and the mixed couple produce several children. In other possible scenarios, the Black father sires a number of children with several low-status, low-IQ White women. It is very likely that this is the dynamic driving the increase in mixed-race children in Britain. Indeed, the Runnymede Trust argues that at least “61% of mixed race children are being raised in single mother households. … African Caribbean fathers are twice as likely as white fathers to live apart from their children.” Black men are also the demographic least likely to enter into marriage, which accounts well for the fact that despite the rising number of mixed-race births, “interethnic marriages account for only 2% of all marriages in England and Wales. … Caribbeans have very low partner rates by comparison with other ethnic groups.” The overwhelming tendency then is for very short-term, low-commitment, sexual relationships between Black males and White females, resulting in high numbers of mixed-race children being raised in low-income single mother households. This is of course just one of the dark aspects of miscegenation that is left out of the panegyrics of its promoters.

The nature of Britain’s social housing arrangements, combined with a lower-class “TV culture” in which celebrity interracial relationships are incessantly portrayed as fashionable, exciting, and successful, make the lowest socio-economic strata of the White population particularly prone to entering into mixed relationships. The Economist reported in 2014 that “mixed black-African and white children are particularly common in working-class suburbs and commuter towns such as Croydon and Southend-on-Sea, possibly because black Africans are rarely tied to city centres through social-housing tenancies.” Further suggesting that housing and immediate cultural factors are important in the behavior of lower-class White women, it is interesting to note that Black men have also reproduced to a significant degree with White immigrants from continental Europe. The Economist notes that “most of the 21,000 children born to Polish mothers in 2012 had Polish fathers; but of the rest, 23% had African or Asian fathers.” Remarkably then, almost one in four “Polish” births in Britain involve a Black or Indian/Pakistani father.

These are of course far more likely to be Black fathers given that ‘British Asians,’ the term used mainly for Muslims from the Indian subcontinent, are the population most reluctant to engage in the production of mixed-race children, the main reasons being, in the politically correct terminology of British Future, “parental resistance to mixing, influencing marriage choices across either faith or ethnic boundaries; or more limited contact between some minority groups and others.” For this explanation one may simply substitute “Islamic cultural practices.” Another study found that “British Asians are five times less likely to marry outside their race than their white population.” Interestingly, British Jews also demonstrate a relatively low rate of intermarriage, roughly half that seen among Jews in the United States. The future of Britain, should present trends continue, will therefore be that of a mixed-race population, punctuated, and perhaps dominated, by endogamous Muslim and Jewish communities.

It goes without saying that the grubby origins of the rise of mixed-race Britain do not feature in the growing number of panegyrics devoted to the biracial population. In 2011 the BBC had a “mixed race season” to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the category “mixed race” being added to the census. It included a three-part documentary titled Mixed Britannia, praising the ‘tolerant values’ of the British and presenting an image of miscegenation stripped of its statistical realities. Joseph Harket, a journalist at the Guardian, wrote of a new “love of mixedness.” In the scientific sphere, dubious studies have promoted the idea that mixed-race individuals are seen as more beautiful and healthy, apparently ignoring existing research indicating that adolescents “who self-identify as more than one race are at higher health and behavior risks.” Suggestions that mixed-race individuals would be seen as healthier and more attractive because of the genetic process of heterosis, or hybrid vigor, (i.e. that cross-bred offspring have greater genetic fitness than pure-bred offspring), also seem to be flatly contradicted by evidence showing that, while mixed-race adolescents perform better than their purely Black counterparts, they have a lower birth weight, lower intelligence, and greater disposition to promiscuity than their White counterparts.

It would thus be extremely maladaptive for a White woman desiring healthy offspring of optimal intelligence to reproduce with someone of African origin. In an age before Cultural Marxism took hold in academia, Herbert Spencer Jennings, the Harvard professor of experimental biology, was able to advocate the idea that the mixing of two different but genetically similar ethnic groups (e.g. the Celt and the Saxon) would produce very strong offspring, but the mixing of two very diverse groups would mean “a lowering of quality” — a distance theory of hybridity.[1]

Really there is only one way in which the mixed-race individual is ‘superior’ or best adapted, and that is entirely due to the cultural environment we currently find ourselves in. We happen to live in an age in which the development of ‘technological man’ is almost complete, by which I mean that we are racing headlong into an era in which man himself is viewed almost exclusively as technology, a tool, a resource. This is the age of the ‘human resources’ department, and the predisposition of individuals and governments to encounter human beings in a technocratic way. In today’s environment, the best ‘human resource’ is the man or woman most flexibly able to deal with shifts in the marketplace (able to cross borders and move where the jobs are), capable of existing among pluralities of cultures (loyal to none, and open to all), and content with changes in social norms. In ‘fluid’ environments, those orchestrating things, and profiting from them, require ‘fluid’ people. Ideas of nationhood, of rootedness to the land, of fixed sexual identity, of coherent ancestry, and future destiny, are all viewed as obstructions to the rush of ‘progress’ and globalized, usurious capital. The mixed-race individual ultimately possesses a plurality of origins and consequently a loyalty to none. He or she is the ultimate tabula rasa upon which may be written the fevered dreams of Cultural Marxism; the apex global citizen, and the final destination in the search for a ‘technological man.’ The first casualty, other than native birth-rates, will be individual White national identities. The Economist opineswith the greatest of under-statements, that “Englishness, which has remained distinctly a white identity for many, may become less exclusive.” The truth is that it will cease to exist in any manner commensurate with its historical form. Englishness, as a centuries-old sense of defined peoplehood, will have made its last entry in the annals of Man.

In this context, and at this crucial point in the history of the British, it is highly symbolic that Prince Harry should take a mixed-race woman as his bride. The Royal Family, along with the entirety of the British aristocracy, is a dying breed, now a mere parody of what it once was. Forced by modern capitalism to compete for resources rather than derive wealth from ancestral rights, many of the landed gentry have collapsed into bankruptcy. Since 1900, 1,200 country houses once owned by Lords have been demolished in England. A significant proportion of those remaining are kept alive only via the renting of the property for weddings or other gatherings, with many listed on dedicated websites.

The self-styled aristocrat is thus reduced to proffering his wares to the ‘commoner’ in order to maintain even the semblance of dignity and continued refinement. In much the same way, the Royal Family in recent decades, perhaps with the exception of the Queen herself, has taken to trading in its dignity in order to appear more user-friendly and accessible (again, we are in the age of ‘technological man’) to the masses. Part of this approach has been the intermingling of the Royals with the cause célèbres of the multicultural age, including but not limited to the appearance of Prince William on the cover of a gay magazine and an accompanying interview in which he issued the apparently obligatory statement that homosexuals and transsexuals are “truly brave.” Prince Charles has apparently shown an interest in having his coronation reflect “the religious diversity of the country that he will be ruling,” by having a multi-faith ceremony — leading The Spectator to ask if he will be “the first multicultural monarch.”

A nation overseen, even symbolically, by stagnant aristocracy is like a lion pride overseen by a toothless, old, former alpha male. It has outlived its purpose. Aristocracy assumed its power through competition and violence, and grew stale in comfort and peace. If it can be said that the Alt Right is an elitist movement in the sense that it believes in inequality and the will to power, then it must be clarified that this does not necessitate an acceptance of those currently holding elite positions. In many cases these positions are unearned or sustained through corruption, and it should be an essential principle of our thinking that meritocracy is the only means by which we select our elites. Uniquely of course, we face a scenario in which our current leaders have “failed the pride” by essentially inviting rival factions to share in our resources and territory.

Young lions have risen up for less.

Notes

[1] H.S. Jennings, The Biological Basis of Human Nature (1930), p.287. For a useful, if flawed, discussion see T. Teo, ‘The historical problematization of ‘mixed race’ in psychological and human-scientific discourses’ in A.S. Winston (ed.) Defining difference: Race and racism in the history of psychology (Washington, D.C., American Psychological Association, 2014), pp. 79–108.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)

byThierry Meyssan

The Argentinian authorities are wondering about the massive purchase of land in Patagonia by a British billionaire, and the « holidays » that tens of thousands of Israëli soldiers are enjoying on his property.

Owner of 175 companies, including restaurant chains and Tottenham Hotspur football club – whose fans call themselves the « Yid Army » – the very discreet billionaire Joe Lewis speculates on the exchange market in partnership with his friend George Soros.

In the 19th century, the British government were undecided as to where they should settle Israël – either in what is now Uganda, in Argentina or in Palestine. In fact, Argentina was at that time controlled by the United Kingdom and, on the initiative of French baron Maurice de Hirsch, had become a land of refuge for Jews who were fleeing the pogroms in central Europe.

In the 20th century, after the military coup d’Etat against democratically elected President General Juan Perón, a current of antisemitism developed within the armed forces. A brochure was distributed accusing the new State of Israël of preparing an invasion of Patagonia, the « Andinia Plan ».

It has become apparent today that even though the Argentinian extreme right had exaggerated the facts in the 1970’s, there was indeed a project for implantation (and not invasion) in Patagonia.

Everything changed with the Falklands War in 1982. At that time, the Argentinian military junta attempted to recuperate the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, which from their point of view had been occupied by the British for a century and a half. The UNO recognised the legitimacy of the Argentinian claim, but the Security Council condemned the use of force to recover these territories. The stakes are considerable, since the territorial waters of these archipelagos offer access to all the riches of the Antarctic continent.

At the end of this war, which cost more than a thousand lives (official British figures are largely understated), London imposed a particularly severe Peace Treaty on Buenos Aires – Argentinian armed forces are limited to their most simple expression. Above all, the control of their Southern and Antarctic air space is confiscated for the profit of the Royal Air Force, and they are obliged to inform the United Kingdom about all their operations.

In 1992 and 1994, two particularly devastating, murderous and mysterious attacks successively destroyed the Israëli embassy and the headquarters of the Israëli association AMIA. The first attack took place when the station chiefs of Israëli Intelligence had just left the building. The second occurred in the context of joint Egypt-Argentinian research for the development of Condor ballistic missiles. In the same period, the main Condor factory exploded, and the sons of Presidents Carlos Menem and Hafez el-Assad died accidentally. The various enquiries gave rise to a succession of manipulations.

After having blamed Syria, prosecutor Alberto Nisman turned on Iran, whom he accused of having ordered the two attacks, and Hezbollah, who he claimed had carried them out. The ex- Peronist President Cristina Kirchner was accused of having negotiated the end of the legal proceedings against Iran in exchange for advantageous oil prices. Prosecutor Nisman was found dead at his home, and President Kirchner was found guilty of high treason. However, last week, a coup de theâtre destroyed everything we though we knew – the United States FBI handed over DNA analyses which attest to the absence of the presumed terrorist among the victims, and the presence of a body which has never been identified. 25 years later, we know nothing more about these attacks.

In the 21st century, benefitting from the advantages offered them by the Falklands War Treaty, the United Kingdom and Israël are now setting up a new project Patagonia.

British billionaire Joe Lewis has acquired immense territories in the South of Argentina and even neighbouring Chile. His properties cover areas several times larger than the State of Israël. They are situated in Tierra del Fuego, at the extreme Southern point of the continent. In particular, they surround the Lago Escondido, which effectively denies access to the entire region, despite a legal injunction.

The billionaire has built a private airport with a two kilometre landing strip, in order to be able to receive civil and military aircraft.

Since the Falklands War, the Israëli army has been organising « holiday camps » (sic) in Patagonia for its soldiers. Between 8,000 and 10,000 of them now come every year to spend two weeks on Joe Lewis’ land.

While in the 1970’s, the Argentinian army noted the construction of 25,000 empty houses, which gave rise to the myth of the Andinia Plan, hundreds of thousands have been built today.

It is impossible to verify the state of the construction work, since these are private lands, and Google Earth has neutralised the satellite photographs of the area, just as it does with NATO’s military installations.

Neighbouring Chile has handed over a submarine base to Israël. Tunnels have been dug in order to survive the polar winter.

The Mapuche Indians who inhabit both Argentinian and Chilean Patagonia were surprised to learn that the Resistencia Ancestral Mapuche (RAM) had been reactivated in London. This is a mysterious organisation which fights for independence. First accused of being an old association recuperated by the Argentinian secret services, the RAM is today considered by the left as a legitimate secessionist movement, but by the Mapuche leaders as an initiative financed by George Soros.

On 15 November 2017, the Navy lost all contact with the submarine ARA San Juan, which was finally declared lost at sea. It was one of the TR 1700 class diesel-electric submarines which were the flagships of the reduced Argentinian army. The Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) has announced that it has recorded an unusual acoustic phenomenon in the Atlantic, close to the area from which the San Juan sent its last signal. The government finally admitted that the submarine was on a non-specified « secret mission », of which London had been informed. The USA began a search, while the Russian Navy deployed a drone capable of exploring the ocean to a depth of 6,000 metres, but found nothing. The San Juan probably exploded. The Argentinian Press is convinced that the submarine had either collided with a mine, or was destroyed by an enemy torpedo.

It is impossible for the moment to determine if Israël is engaged in a programme for the exploitation of Antarctica, or if it is building a rear base in case of defeat in Palestine.

Thierry Meyssan

Political consultant, President-founder of the Réseau Voltaire (Voltaire Network).

Translation
Pete Kimberley

According to London gold clearing statistics for 2016, the total trading volume in the London Over-the-Counter (OTC) gold market is estimated at the equivalent of 1.5 million tons of gold. The volume of 100oz gold futures on New York’s COMEX reached 57.5 million contracts during 2016 or 179,000 tonnes of gold, the analyst notes.

The amount of mined gold is much smaller

“If we now take into consideration that only approximately 180,000 tons of gold have actually been mined up to today the scam is just gigantic and obviously unsustainable. The paper scams in London and New York will either blow up when the paper price of gold drops to zero or when just a fraction of investors insists upon receiving physical gold in return,” Grass said.

The expert believes that with paper gold trading, the established gold exchanges could cease to exist sooner or later.

“They will likely become obsolete and lose their importance over time. Although one cannot predict exactly how fast this will happen, the trend is clear: OTC and COMEX are working toward their own destruction,” he said.

Read more
Russia continues stocking up on gold under Putin’s strategy

Gold prices could explode if trading were backed by physical precious metals

“It will definitely lead to higher prices for physical gold. Imagine if you could buy on COMEX and OTC gold at a much lower price and still have the option to sell it in Asia for a much higher price; this would kill the old paper scams immediately. Therefore, I would guess that both could come up with new restrictions that only cash settlements will be allowed to avoid this. We know for example that even today 99.96 percent of COMEX gold futures are settled in cash,” Grass wrote.

The final battle: Gold vs. US dollar

The analyst recollected the Heartland Theory of Halford Mackinder, a British geostrategist at the beginning of the 20th century who influenced the likes of Kissinger and Brzezinski. Following the theory, we will soon face a war between physical gold and the US dollar.

“As per my understanding, we are moving into the final phase, the battle between currencies – one that will be backed by a hard asset which was real money since time immemorial until 1971 and the other one, backed by promises that future generations will pay through debt, inflation and ever-rising taxation,” he said.

Getting away from fiat currencies will be good for gold

“I would like to conclude with a final thought from my friend Jayant Bandari: the combination of negative yields, massive political risks around the world, and any attempt to move away from traditional currencies will be positive for gold and will take it to the next level. Investing is very much linked with geopolitics – once you understand the big picture, it becomes apparent what you should invest in,”Grass told RT.

by Tyler Durden

A new study in the New York Times suggests that Saudi Arabia’s state of the art defense system failed to intercept the ballistic missile fired by Yemen’s Houthi rebels which nearly hit Riyadh’s international airport on November 4th. The report contradicts the official claims of the Saudi and American governments, which both announced immediately after the incident that the US-supplied Patriot missile defense system had successfully intercepted the Houthi fired Scud.

The analysis, which utilized open-source material in the form of available video and social media photos of the aftermath of the attack, was conducted by a team of missile experts, and threatens to shake confidence in the US system, which is currently implemented by American allies around the world from South Korea and Taiwan to Turkey, Israel and Japan, among others.

Image via Indian Express, representational image

And notably President Trump himself had announced while aboard Air Force One on the day following the attack, “Our system knocked the missile out of the air.” Trump also emphasized the importance of demonstrable success of the systems and added, “That’s how good we are. Nobody makes what we make, and now we’re selling it all over the world.”

But The New York Times report begins with a flat contradiction of that claim:

The official story was clear: Saudi forces shot down a ballistic missile fired by Yemen’s Houthi rebel group last month at Saudi Arabia’s capital, Riyadh. It was a victory for the Saudis and for the United States, which supplied the Patriot missile defense system.

…But an analysis of photos and videos of the strike posted to social media suggests that story may be wrong. Instead, evidence analyzed by a research team of missile experts appears to show the missile’s warhead flew unimpeded over Saudi defenses and nearly hit its target, Riyadh’s airport. The warhead detonated so close to the domestic terminal that customers jumped out of their seats.

The Houthi missile was identified at the time as a Burqan-2, revealed in a video of the November 4 launch produced by a Houthi group, and is a variant of the Scud missile commonly used in the region. The attack took Middle East observers by surprise as the missile traveled about 600 miles and reveals a growing sophistication in the Houthi arsenal – all of which led to a number of researchers to claim Iranian origins of the weapon, something which Iran and its regional allies continue to deny.

Image via How Stuff Works/Raytheon

As part of the NYT investigation experts primarily examined the multiple videos and photos of missile debris locations and missile parts, and concluded that the Saudis couldn’t have intercepted the warhead, which further appears to have exploded on impact, something which wouldn’t have happened had the projectile been effectively intercepted.

The report continues:

Saudi officials said the debris, which appears to belong to a downed Burqan-2, showed a successful shootdown. But an analysis of the debris shows that the warhead components – the part of the missile that carries the explosives – were missing. The missing warhead signaled something important to the analysts: that the missile may have evaded Saudi defenses.

…This would explain why the debris in Riyadh only appears to consist of the rear tube. And it suggests that the Saudis may have missed the missile, or only hit the tube after it had separated and begun to fall uselessly toward earth.

Researchers also examined extensive video and eyewitness testimony from the airport and in the vicinity of what the Saudi authorities initially reported as mere falling debris, however, the evidence points to an explosion that could only be explained by the impact of the warhead, which likely evaded the defensive measures. Videos recorded an explosion which occurred at a location very near the main domestic terminal of the airport, the immediate aftermath of which was clearly visible and was strongly felt inside the terminal.

Video sequence showing footage collected from the November 4th attack.

The warhead, the report says, continued on its trajectory after mid-air separation from the rest of the missile, which it is designed to do, making it harder to intercept as it nears its target. Though Saudi officials claimed that it was only debris from an intercepted missile that hit the airport, researchers concluded:

The blast was small, and satellite imagery of the airport taken immediately before and after the blast is not detailed enough to capture the crater from the impact, the analysts said. But it does show ground damage from the emergency vehicles, supporting the finding that the warhead hit just off the runway.

While the Houthis missed their target, Mr. Lewis said, they got close enough to show that their missiles can reach it and can evade Saudi defenses. “A kilometer is a pretty normal miss rate for a Scud,” he said. “The Houthis got very close to creaming that airport.”

One scientist cited in the report, Laura Grego, noted that it’s hugely significant that the Saudis fired five times at the incoming missile and missed. “You shoot five times at this missile and they all miss? That’s shocking,” she said. “That’s shocking because this system is supposed to work.”

Though the Saudi government didn’t respond to the report, and will likely not address the findings, it will be interesting to see the Patriot system’s performance during the next incursion. As fighting is continuing to intensify in neighboring Yemen, it is likely only a matter of time.