Messages

[FLASH!: Whites account for only 15% of growth in U.S. since 2000]

FLASH!: Whites account for only 15% of growth in U.S. since 2000
---

Census shows big gains for U.S. minorities
The growth in the Hispanic population is expected to have political implications

By HOPE YEN
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — U.S. racial minorities accounted for roughly 85 percent of the nation's population growth over the last decade — one of the largest shares ever — with Hispanics accounting for much of the gain in many of the states picking up new House seats.

Preliminary census estimates also suggest the number of multiracial Americans jumped roughly 20 percent since 2000, to over 5 million.

The findings, based on fresh government survey data, offer a glimpse into 2010 census results that are being released on a state-by-state basis beginning this week. New Jersey, Mississippi, Virginia and Louisiana are the first to receive the census redistricting data, which will be used in the often contentious process of redrawing political districts based on population and racial makeup.

"There are going to be a lot of additional Hispanic officials elected when redistricting is done," said E. Mark Braden, a former chief counsel to the Republican National Committee who now advises state governments on redistricting. "But folks in power don't give up control that easily — there will be tension between the ins and outs."

Four of the eight states gaining House seats owe roughly half or more of their population gains over the last decade to Hispanics. They include Texas, which picks up four seats; Florida, which will add two seats; and Arizona and Nevada, picking up one seat apiece.

In Georgia and Washington state, which also gain one seat each, Hispanics combined with other minority groups accounted for a majority of their growth since 2000...

...In all, non-Hispanic whites make up roughly 65 percent of the U.S. population, down from 69 percent in 2000. Hispanics had a 16 percent share, compared with 13 percent a decade ago. Blacks represent about 12 percent and Asians roughly 5 percent. Multiracial Americans and other groups made up the remaining 2 percent.

[SOUND BODY]

here i go again.
Salubrious Living ? how many people in the church lives by the founders teachings on Salubrious Living.
how many smokes ? how many drinks ? how many only eats the way put down in the teachings ?
going off the post about lucky find . i don't think many.
i don't.

I don't either, but I follow a lot of the guidelines in SL, like eating lots of fresh, uncooked fruits and vegetables, plenty of nuts. I eat meat, eggs and dairy products, but stay away refined sugar, soft drinks, alcohol and tobacco. I definitely enjoy a little heliotherapy, as DeVries called it, mixed with physical work outdoors, but I don't do yoga or fast, as recommended in SL. I remember PM Klassen experimented with fasting, but he certainly didn't follow SL entirely. He said changing our people's bad health habits would take generations, that it wouldn't happen overnight. When we have our own racially conscious nutritionists and physiologists, etc., we can formulate a more perfected, comprehensive, more scientific plan for healthful living than what's in SL. 

Founder Klassen only wrote the one chapter in SL, the last one on eugenics, addressing our racial health. The rest of the book was written by a Mr. Arnold Devries who was not "racially-minded," as PM Klassen put it. A lot of what Devries wrote is just his opinion or theory; it's not carved in stone. He gives good advice for the most part, but he also has some odd advice like advising folks to throw away their eyeglasses and exercise the eye muscles to improve eyesight. I believe that in 2011 most people would think we only throw away our glasses after lasik surgery to correct vision. I don't want to throw away my reading glasses at all. I need them to read. I prefer wearing them to having some doctor cut on my eyeballs. When Mr. DeVries wrote that section that's in SL, laser surgery was something out of science fiction, if that.

Things change; we adapt incrementally, but our fundamentals on the primacy of race remain the same -- they are carved in granite. When Ben Klassen wrote all his books there was no Internet, there was no Skinhead movement or AIDS or DNA discoveries, or other factors that have had an impact on our race, whether beneficial or detrimental. What American in the 1970s would believe we'd have a Negro President in "our" White House now, or that our nation would be flooded with mestizos or Muslims to threaten our majority status?

What Ben Klassen had right was that his people need a religion that's exclusively eurocentric, devoid of alien influence. SL expands on healthful living that was covered somewhat in The White Man's Bible (WMB). A SOUND MIND in a SOUND BODY in a SOUND SOCIETY in a SOUND ENVIRONMENT. Creativity is more than slogans we repeat by rote. We invoke Natural Law, logic, lessons from history, science, but also our COMMON SENSE. We're learning more and more what's healthful for our minds, our bodies, society and the environment. We'll strive always to become better, the best we can be. After all, we're Nature's Finest creation.

I wonder, Conna97, have you read Salubrious Living?

I just Googled Arnold DeVries, _Fountain of Youth_ (the book PM Klassen used for most of his _Salubrious Living_. It was published in 1948, 63 years ago. Things have changed and knowledge has expanded in the field of healthy living since then, so an updated version of SL would not be out of the question when the talent and resources are available for that. I found another title by Mr DeVries, _Nude Culture_, 1946. The blurb accompanying this out of print title: "This early work discusses the virtues, ethics and morality of social nudism." I'm not sure what social nudism is, but I'm glad PM Klassen didn't include that as a chapter in _Salubrious Living_.

[Good discussion, thanks for posting.]

Good discussion, thanks for posting.

You're quite welcome, Rev. Cook. Every Creator should find the subject of religious discourse, as it relates to White racial loyalty, his domain, his area of expertise; we are the preeminent experts.

You will find this current discussion interesting as well. http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=122985 Alex Linder, owner of Vanguard News Network, is "one of us" in spirit, and like many of us is a former National Alliance member. However he doesn't like yours truly, so I am banned from his forum and can't respond to this Christian, Andrew, who challenges Mr. Linder to explain his anti-Xianity stance.

Perhaps we have someone here at CA who is registered at VNN forum and can give the measured Creator position without unnecessarily offending our Christian cousins? The Alliance members who post the best responses at VNN in this thread will get guaranteed "rep" points. 

---begin Andrew's VNN thread-starter:---
Andrew
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 10

In Defence of Christianity - Attention, A Linder!
Alex

I've noticed that lately you've been saying over and over again that Christians are stupid, ignorant, insane etc. I get the feeling you've always been anti-Christian but you seem to be increasing the anti-Christian attacks lately, so I'm moved to respond....

My first point is: do you think E Michael Jones is stupid, ignorant and insane? Do you really think that? I would say he's one of the least stupid, ignorant or insane publishers/writers/intellectuals around today, and he's a hardcore Catholic (for those who aren't familiar with him). He's actually the opposite of these things – obviously. That's self-evident to anyone who knows anything about him – as you do. Plus, he actually achieves things out there in the real world – publishing a magazine, writing books, and influencing the public discourse. Don't you agree? How then, are all Christians stupid and insane etc?

To discuss the point more generally: like it or not, Christianity (especially Catholicism) is responsible for a hell of a lot of the good, basic things in our culture, e.g. Western science, hospitals, and the University system, to name a few. Not to mention our basic ethical foundation and moral outlook, in the Western (White) world. If you don't believe me, see the following book:

Thomas E. Woods Jr, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.

I'm curious – since you reject Christianity - what do you base your moral outlook on? I used to listen to Goyfire back when you were doing those broadcasts - I'm sure I remember you saying you were against homosexuality, abortion and sexual promiscuity. Also I'm pretty sure I remember you saying you're against contraception - at least I remember a comment along the lines of "using a condom is like fucking a plastic bag" (that's a great quote BTW!) So, what do you base your opposition to these things on? Interestingly, the Catholic Church opposes all these things. Even more interestingly, it's quite possible to be in favour of all these things and be a "White Nationalist" - there's no inconsistency there at all. So why, exactly, are you against these cultural phenomena - all of which were practised by the ancient Greeks and Romans - paragons of pagan White culture?

And - what does "White Nationalism" have to offer in the bigger scheme of things? Christianity (Catholicism) offers a total world-view - an explanation of the world and universe, and the origins, reason and meaning behind it all. It offers meaning to life, and life after death, no less!

In my opinion "White Nationalism" is a worthy cause and must be pursued – Whites are under attack today, and must defend themselves. But isn't it ultimately a bit limited – taken in isolation, by itself, devoid of any other meaning, rationale or other ideology? Where does it lead? What happens after you've achieved your White "ethno-state" (that's if you do – which is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, sad to say)? The whole pro-White thing is important and necessary, but it's a bit limited in-and-of itself, I think.

Being a "White Nationalist" leader or intellectual is like being Secretary of "The Burmese Cat Preservation Society" (or something along those lines). It's all well and good, and it's a worthy and necessary cause, but once you've secured the existence of Burmese cats and a future for their kittens, then what? That's where "White Nationalism" falls short....

You may argue that organised Christianity (including the Catholic Church) has been complicit in some of the most destructive social/cultural trends over the last 50 years or so. And you would be right. But is that because of something wrong or untrue in Christianity itself? Or it is because some (or even many) of the people within Christian institutions have lately decided to swim with the destructive post-1960 cultural tide, for all sorts of reasons? I suspect the latter. And there are a lot of reasons for this – where do we start ? Do any of these reasons fatally and finally undermine Christianity itself, as opposed to being extrinsic forces attacking Christianity? No. And there are plenty of worldly and theological reasons for these attacks – no need to get into them all here (a lot of this has been discussed already on VNN over the years).

Don't forget - Christianity (the Catholic Church) has been a bulwark of Western values and civilisation (and most of the things "White Nationalists" hold dear) for many centuries. Many would argue it actually created Western values and civilisation! Europe, the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand etc were basically "fine" from a "While Nationalist" point of new up until the mid to late 1960's (more or less). Christianity was the backbone of European culture and civilisation from the very early days – going back over many, many hundreds of years. It's only gone wrong in the last 5 minutes - so is Christianity really to blame? As for the newer, formerly-White countries such as the USA, Canada, Australia etc – Christianity was part of the blood and marrow of such societies from the very beginning, but they've only gone off the rails in recent decades. Again – is Christianity to blame, or is it something else? I think it's something else.

Finally – you may wish to say that Christianity is ridiculous and absurd, because it relies on the supernatural, i.e. Christ rising from the dead and other miracles. I could go on about this particular point for pages, but I won't. I'll just say two things here:

1) aren't the world, the universe and human life, all somehow miraculous? How do you explain them? What's your world-view or grand explanation, in this regard? Do you even have one?

2) over the past 2000 years, many thinkers and writers who are more intelligent and educated than me or you (probably) have dealt with these questions, and have put up a convincing defence of the Christian/theist position. I'm happy to provide further details if you wish. But one reference I can provide off the top of my head is the following:

Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Catholic Apologetics: Reasoned Answers to Questions of Faith.

If you read parts of this book with an open mind, you may find it hard to dismiss Christianity as insane, stupid and ludicrous, etc.

I realise this is an argument I can't possibly win, and this post will probably be ignored or ridiculed – so be it. I just felt I had to say something in view of all the anti-Christian attacks, lately.

In closing – thank you for providing VNN forum, it's great to have a free-speech forum where some of the most serious problems of our day can be discussed. Sadly, this is rare. Also – I hope you'll think about doing some podcasting again sometime - you have real talent as a broadcaster and it's a shame you seem to have given up on this!

*************

Europe is the faith and the faith is Europe - Hilaire Belloc
---end Andrew's post---

i can understand how the brother feels i have been there myself in the past. but as is stated this is not the way of the church  we need to keep to the teachings and leave that sort of thing to the people who are happy to spend there life behind bars teaching the word.

Thank you, Rev.PaulW. You took the words right out of my mouth. I had the same reaction when I read the opening post in this thread.

My, my, Brother Jimbo. Your hate is showing. Let us try to channel that anger and frustration in a more productive direction, friend.

If I had the authority, I would remove your post and suspend your posting privileges until I was assured you could make your case in a manner that doesn't repel those we wish to attract. Creators are not exterminationists; our first task most certainly is NOT "to RID this planet of 95% at least of these sadistic *n vermin!" Since I do not have the authority, I'll simply register my disappointment in you by knocking back your respect level one notch. I'll give it back when I see you've swallowed your bile and are comporting yourself in a more dignified manner, one Alliance members do not have to apologize for.

I followed the supplied link to VNN to see what all the fuss was about and found the following on this topic (post #8), a transcribed excerpt from one of Dr. William Pierce's American Dissident Voices broadcasts, from May, 2001, entitled Feces, Fetuses, Etc.:

---begin---
When I spoke about the psychological differences between Chinese and Europeans, I focused on the eating habits of the Chinese. Specifically, I mentioned their habit of eating aborted human fetuses and also domestic dogs and cats and body parts from various wild animals, including those belonging to endangered species, and I gave tiger penis and rhinoceros horn as examples.

I also remarked that what the Chinese do to cats and dogs is much worse than merely eating them. Some listeners questioned this statement.

"What could the Chinese do to cats and dogs that would be worse than eating them?" I was asked. What's worse is the way the cats and dogs are treated before and during being killed for eating -- and also before and during being skinned for their fur. And I should warn you that I'm a bit of an extremist on the subject of cruelty to animals. I abhor cruelty, whether the perpetrator is Chinese or European. I abhor the practices of White men who trap fur-bearing animals. I am horrified especially by the killing of big cats to make fur coats or jackets for rich women, but I am extremely hostile even to the breeding of mink and other small mammals just so that they can be skinned to help the female lemmings who can afford it be more fashionable. The fact that there are White people who are cruel, callous, and indifferent to the suffering of animals and who are unmoved by the killing of such beautiful and magnificent creatures as the big cats, however, doesn't mean that we are just as bad as the Chinese in this regard. There are substantial differences. In general, there seems to be no feeling at all among the Chinese and other Asians for the feelings of animals. There seems to be no understanding, no comprehension, of the White man's sympathy for animals. To the Chinese an animal is simply an object, which may or may not have any economic value. If it does have economic value, then it should be used in any way that is profitable.

In addition to this general inability to sympathize with animals, the Chinese do have their peculiar culinary habits and their peculiar notions about diet. The consequence is that cats and dogs intended to be eaten or skinned are treated in an almost unbelievably inhumane manner. The cats generally are strangled or drowned before being skinned, so as not to damage the fur. Some dogs, who do not have a cat's ability to inflict damage on their tormentors with their claws, are actually skinned alive. And there is the Chinese gourmet's peculiar notion that the more painful a death the animal suffers, the more tender and tasty is the meat. So, to please the customer, a dog or cat will be selected from a cage in a restaurant, then taken into the kitchen to have all its bones broken before it is slaughtered. The customer, seated at his table, can enjoy the screams of agony coming from the kitchen as he awaits his meal.

There's a great deal of very unpleasant information on this sort of thing available at the Web site of the Humane Society of the United States. That's hsus.org. The Humane Society even has sent undercover investigators with video cameras into China to record some of the horrible things that are done to cats and dogs there.

The subject on which I received the most questions was my report on the eating of human fetuses by Chinese, who believe the practice is healthy, just as they regard powdered rhinoceros horn as an aphrodisiac and tiger penis as a potency enhancer. Some people who wrote to me just didn't believe that the Chinese could be so different from Europeans -- or at least, they didn't want to believe it. Some of them accused me of being untruthful. Others simply requested proof. Actually, there's a great deal of evidence available on the subject, but the language difference, along with the characteristic Chinese suspicion of outsiders, does pose some difficulties in gathering it. For this reason I'll restrict my evidence today to an English-language Chinese source, the Hong Kong newspaper Eastern Express. All the quotes which follow are from a lengthy article which appeared in the April 12, 1995, issue of the Eastern Express. A reporter visited several hospitals in mainland China seeking aborted fetuses for eating and found that they were readily available. I quote from the Eastern Express:

Reports that dead embryos were being used as dietary supplements started to spread early last year with reports that some doctors in Shenzhen hospitals were eating dead fetuses after carrying out abortions. The doctors allegedly defended their actions by saying the embryos were good for their skin and general health...

Read the rest, here: http://www.natvan.com/free-speech/fs0105c.html
---end---

Welcome Swamp Fox.! We'll bring you up to speed about Creativity.