a new era of aggressive expansion?

In that overpopulation and its associated dreadful diseases brought Western civilization out of the Dark Ages into a new era of aggressive expansion, signs of similar problems emerging in today's western nations - caused by unprecedented immigration - may bring about a similar resurgence in western strength of purpose, but unfortunately there are no 'new worlds' like the Americas and Australia to discover and escape to.

Overpopulation in all parts of the world is worse than it has ever been, and it is a particular problem of big cities where the immigrants congregate. As the lebensraum: people per square mile chart shows, the Earth's total land surface is 575,096,920 square miles - not all of which, of course, is habitable - and in the 66 years from 1937 to 2003 the population of the world increased from 2,100m to 6,300m which, expressed as people per square mile of the earth's land surface, equates to an increase of 3.65 to 10.95.

In 2003, therefore, every one of us was living in nearly one-third less space than we had 66 years ago - and very shortly we will be living in half the space we have now. When there is nowhere to escape to - no Lebensraum - where is all that energy and aggression going to be directed?

Read the full story is western civilization facing a population crisis...

is greening destroying western civilization?

Pascale flatly refuses to make any ‘green’ adjustments to her home and lifestyle in order to pander to the greenies and she maintains that the current carbon emissions, global warming, climate change scaremongering is nothing more than an attempt by the elites to force us – by guilt, taxation and manipulating the supply of energy and products – to give up everything that constitutes the best of western civilization in order that they, the elites, can hog the lot for themselves.

“The Greenies are worse than hypocrites,” says Pascale. “They are evil social engineers and I am so glad that more and more reputable scientists are coming out and putting an end to this scaremongering about carbon emissions constituting pollution.”

“Carbon is necessary for life – it’s not pollution,” says Pascale. “We are made of carbon, so are they really trying to commit genocide?”

“The truth is that the elites want the roads to themselves, the skies to themselves and all the energy and food for themselves, too,” says Pascale. “They are nothing more than greedy pigs, and by taxing fuel, manipulating supply and trying to scare the living daylights out of us about the end of the world if we don’t cut our carbon emissions they are making sure that only the rich and those in power can continue living well.”

“I have long ago given up the notion that any social contract remains in western society and I believe that modern democracy is a farce - especially in relation to the green agenda being pushed upon us.”

“Whatever party I vote for turns around and does what the elites want it to do, not what we, the people, want it to do,” says Pascale, “and the biggest scam of the century, if not the ages, is global warming and carbon pollution.”

“China and India, the two greatest developing nations – and two of the greatest carbon emitters – are laughing all the way to the bank at the way our political elites are ruining our economies and our civilization with their neo-green weasel words about global warming.”

“It’s almost as if our political elites are deliberately selling us out.”

“Democracy is a farce and we may as well have a dictatorship of the elites, similar to how communist China is run,” says Pascale, “but hold on, doesn’t China already own us in terms of debt?”

“Looks like we’re already doomed.”

“I am very happy to grow tomatoes in a greenhouse, but I flatly refuse to make any ‘green’ modifications to my home and lifestyle – and live like a tomato – so that the elites who push the green agenda can get rich at my expense and hog the good life for themselves."

“When you consider that that someone like Al Gore – who goes around preaching that the end is nigh if we don’t cut our carbon emissions – boasts the highest carbon footprint in the nation, you get to understand exactly what these scaremongers are really all about.”

“If he really believed what he preached,” says Pascale, “wouldn’t he be keen to set a good example for the rest of us by riding a pushbike, turning off the lights and becoming a vegetarian? And the same goes for all the other weasel-mouthed neo-greenies who hypocritically jet-set around the world trying to convince us to give up our carbon rich lifestyles.”

“I refuse to modify my house to the dictates of these hypocrites, especially when the ‘green’ modifications they are trying to flog us are just sham, another product to put money into the tax-free Cayman Island bank accounts of these greedy elites.”

Will Obama end western civilization?

There was a time in history when a young black man, Elagabalus of Syria, became a Roman emperor and while there was certainly some horror expressed by the elitist white Roman supremacists at the time -- the year was 217 -- most ordinary Romans were enthralled by their exotic new emperor; and that’s exactly how most Americans, and people all over the world, reacted to Barack Obama’s presidential election win.

Elagabalus didn’t bring down the Roman Empire, start a black backlash against the whites or stop civilization from progressing. Obama’s administration is likely to be similarly benign.

Elagabalus did, however, stack his administration with Syrians and encourage a mass of black immigrants into Rome, but there’s not much evidence of that sort of thing happening in the Obama administration. Unlike 3rd century Rome and 19th century Britain, natives of the countries America invades are not entitled to American citizenship.

Like the Roman Empire, the price the civilized western nations pay for being so successful and globally influential is that people from less civilized and successful nations want to emigrate and share the good life, and it is only when a critical mass is reached that everything falls apart.

Because of geographical location and strict immigration and citizenship rules, the epitome of western civilization represented by the USA is unlikely to fall apart with Obama or any other president of non-Anglo Saxon descent, so relax everyone!

Read the full story Obama and the Black Emperor

Was Ireland England’s First Colony?

In many respects Ireland to Elizabeth I’s Protestant Christian England is very much like Iraq to Ahmadinejad’s Shia Muslim Iran, and -- disregarding the oilfields -- if Ahmadinejad were to extend Iranian rule into Iraq it would be largely for the same reason that Elizabeth extended English rule into Ireland. It would be a purely strategic political decision, to prevent being sandwiched between nations ruled by the same dominant religious-political power – in Ahmadinejad’s case the Sunni Muslims of Saudi Arabia, and in Elizabeth’s case the Pope in Rome.

Ireland was a problem for Elizabeth because it was run by the catholic priests and had the potential to harbor subversives and act as a launching pad for a foreign-backed western invasion – which, along with an eastern invasion from France or Spain would have destroyed England.

By extending English crown control over Ireland – and suppressing rebellions – Ireland could be seen as England's first colony but it was not colonized or plundered in the same sense that later colonies were; and real oppression of the Irish came under Oliver Cromwell, not Elizabeth I.

Read the full story Let's Thank Henry VIII and Elizabeth I

the rise of england and france

At the start of the 8th century, the whole of western Europe was literally in the Dark Ages. Its leaders were totally immersed in theology, personal enrichment, murder and self-aggrandizement and were oblivious not only of the rising Arab threat but also of the deep misery of the people they ruled.

Emperor Justinian II and the Roman Pope Constantine -- a Syrian, as was the former pope -- met for mutually enhancing discussions at Nicomedia in 711. Emperor Justinian dutifully kissed Pope Constantine's feet and took communion -- only to be murdered soon after, as was his successor.

The new Emperor Leo III (717-741) and the new Pope Gregory II (715-731) were not so cosy, but were equally neglectful of the people they ruled. Leo III imposed enormous taxes on Italy and ordered Pope Gregory II to break all images of worship. Pope Gregory II was having trouble at home with the Lombards and Emperor Leo III's impositions acted to draw the Lombards and the pope into an alliance against imperial rule.

In Britain, at the same time as the Lindisfarne Gospels were being written the Venerable Bede wrote 'The Ecclesiastical History of the English People' in 731 from a monastery in Jarrow of the River Tyne which, while religiously based, does take note of the ordinary English people -- the Angles and the Saxons -- as well as their conversion to Christianity.

Bede was put in a monastery at Wearmouth when he was seven, became a deacon at 19 and a priest at 30. Being a soldier or a priest -- or both -- was the only occupation open to most young men without a farm to inherit, and he was perfectly aware of the comfort of his life compared to that of others.

Previoulsly, in 725, he had written 'On the Reckoning of Time' arguing that the Church should not rely on the pagan system of dating according to the accession dates of the Roman Emperors. Instead, he suggested a new way of dating by the birth of Christ -- AD anno domini. So, we have an Englishman to thank or curse for our current dating system -- and that it came about shows how much lack of prestige the Roman Empire held at that time, and how influential England had become.

It was Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People of 731 that gained him the honor of becoming the 'the Father of English History' as it was the very first account of Anglo-Saxon England ever written.

Starting with Julius Caesar's invasion in the 1st century BC, it goes on to tell of the kings, bishops, monks and nuns who helped to develop government and convert the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity.

But, far more importantly, he also describes the landscape, the customs and the terrors facing ordinary people -- such as famines where starving South Saxon families, hold hands and jump off white cliffs in tragic suicide pacts. He also includes a famous analogy comparing life in Anglo-Saxon Britain to a sparrow's experience of flying out of the darkness into a great hall. "After a few moments of comfort the bird vanishes from sight into the wintry world that he came from."

Early western civilization, though, was about to suffer worse problems. By 750 the Ummayad caliphs were finally overthrown by the Abbasids who moved their capital to Baghdad, shifting attention to the east and splitting the Islamic empire. At that time, Persia had reasserted itself and North Africa came under the rule of the Aghlabids, Egypt was taken over by the Tulunids and Spain had been invaded and conquered by the Ummayad exiles.

During the Arab invasion, the Christian nobles of Spain rapidly converted to Islam but many Spanish scholars fled to other parts of Christian Europe, enriching their new countries with the texts they brought with them.

The Arabs were eventually checked from expanding into France in 752 by Charles Martel, a Frank, who was at the time the Mayor of the palace at Poitiers. Were it not for the actions of this man, Islam would have spread throughout western Europe in much the same way that Christianity had -- by forced conversion -- and in view of the fact that Spain flourished under Islam while the rest of Europe languished under Christianity for centuries after, one must ask whether early Islam provided a better way of life than early Christianity.

Because both the Roman Popes and the Roman Emperors were totally incompetent during this period, the resultant power vacuum was quickly filled by two rising nations -- France and Engand -- and these two countries formed the backbone of western civilization (in its Christian form) from then on.

PC Zealots and Dhimmis

Nikki draws a scary comparison between minorities living in countries run by zealous Muslims and minorities living in countries run by PC zealots of any persuasion -- especially climate change and non-smoking zealots -- and believes that sharia-type dhimmitude is being used by these zealots to force conversion in the same way that Islam gained ground and draws upon the history of western and Islamic civilizations, as well as the Abrahamic legacy, to make her point.

"Under sharia law," explains Nikki, "a dhimmi is a non-Muslim subject who, in return for paying a special tax designed to force acknowledgment of Muslim superiority, is allowed to practice another religion, subject to certain conditions."

"I know climate change and smoking are not exactly religions -- although to some indigenous people smoking is very much a part of their culture, and for the rest of us it is a way of life," says Nikki, "yet the analogy is pertinent because it is about an unfair tax and a zealous campaign to convert non-believers into believers."

"Like zealous Muslims who want to save non-Muslims from hell and a deluded, evil and unclean life spent without knowing the message of the true God -- the god of Abraham that the Jews and the Christians had corrupted -- climate change and non-smoking zealots want to save us from a similar fate," explains Nikki. "Conversion to Islam or a green or non-smoking life is good for us, you see. The modus operandi of the zealots is every bit as religious as that used by the Islamic fanatics."

"As more and more western nations come under the control of zealots, minority groups become dhimmis in these countries when they refuse to cut their carbon footprint or quit smoking or whatever, but, in return for paying a special tax designed to force acknowledgment of the superiority of non-smokers, they are generously allowed to continue their evil ways, subject to certain conditions."

"The object of dhimmitude was to put non-Muslims into such a precarious position -- financially and socially -- that they would willingly convert," explains Nikki. "As well as paying an exorbitant tax -- to bring them low, into a state of submission -- they were also subjected to social humiliation. So, if the tax didn't cripple them first then the social humiliation that went with it was sufficient to ultimately bring most non-Muslims into the Islamic fold."

"Doesn't this remind you of the current climate change and anti-smoking campaigns?"

"Special taxation was seen by Muslim rulers as a material proof of the dhimmi's submission," says Nikki, "but it was the various restrictions placed on dhimmis that made their lives unbearable."

"Most of these restrictions were designed to be symbolic, a constant reminder to the dhimmis that they were inferior to their Muslim peers -- like restricting where vehicles can park or where smokers can smoke," says Nikki. "And, because of these symbolic restrictions, their Muslim peers were encouraged to treat them with contempt -- like contemptuous defacing of SUVs or coughing around smokers."

"Unlike the early Christians who won converts by love, acceptance and incorporation of certain pagan customs, the early Muslims gave people three choices -- convert, pay a tribute, or die by the sword," says Nikki, "and that's exactly the sort of blackmail we're hearing from our zealous governments -- cut your carbon footprint, quit smoking or pay an exorbitant taxes -- but without an opportunity to fight for our rights and die by the sword if necessary!"

"Actually, the later Christians did enact dhimmitude laws against Jews so they were not exactly loving and accepting towards members of their parent religion," sighs Nikki. "Under Byzantine law, the Christians forbade Jews from praying too loudly, building new synagogues, criticizing Christianity, marrying a Christian, or owning a Christian slave and they were banned from all public offices and the army -- and were required to pay a special tax for being Jews, too."

"It was a poetic justice, perhaps, that all of these restrictions were then placed upon Christians when Byzantine lands became occupied by Muslim forces," says Nikki, "and, considering the likelihood that Europe will one day become Eurabia, our zealous Christian leaders should bear this fact in mind -- especially those who want alcohol on tap 24/7, at every street corner, because this just won't be allowed under Muslim rule."

"As I tried to explain before, religion and culture are so intertwined that it is not always possible to separate them," says Nikki. "Christianity and alcohol consumption go together like Islam and hookah smoking, right? I'm not exactly sure when the Arabs took up hookah smoking, but wine drinking was part of ancient Jewish culture and became an integral part of Christian ritual in respect of wine representing the blood of Jesus. Whereas smoking may be taken up by Muslims when they are young adults and is not related to religious ritual in any shape or form, the drinking of wine is introduced to Christians as little children as an integral part of the religious ritual."

"No wonder so many Christians end up drunks!"

"Early Islamic jurists took a relatively humane and practical attitude towards dhimmis compared to later jurists -- especially those after the 11th century when Islam was under threat both at home and abroad," says Nikki, "and if their later treatment of dhimmis is what we evil carbon emitters and smokers have to look forward to then God help us!"

"The early Islamic jurists insisted that dhimmis must not be burdened beyond their capacity to pay their special tax or be caused to suffer humiliation," says Nikki. "Later on, however, dhimmis were deliberately humiliated when paying their special tax -- they were disgraced, humiliated and belittled in order to support the goal of making Islam prevail over all other religions."

"They were kept in a perpetual state of worry by not being told about the exact amount of tax they had to pay (sounds familiar?); they were required to pay the tax standing, head bowed, while the Muslim tax collector sat and struck them on both cheeks, followed by a strike on the neck with his fist and then they were chased away -- and all Muslims were encouraged to watch and enjoy this spectacle."

"Watch out for this sort of thing coming soon at your local gas or tobacco outlet!"

"By the 11th century, discrimination against non-Muslims was deemed necessary and because dhimmis were not allowed to testify against a Muslim in court they became open slather for violence and robbery," sighs Nikki. "Non-Muslims were considered only worth a fraction of a Muslim's life, and if you weren't murdered or robbed of all possessions then you had to endure being pelted with stones, spat at and cursed at -- especially by Muslim children -- which is the sort of treatment a lot of non-PC minority groups like smokers are already reporting."

"Despite a prohibition on carrying weapons or joining the army, dhimmis were sometimes used as auxiliary soldiers, like a dog, and the use of derogatory names against non-Muslims was common and encouraged -- as it now is against non-PC minority groups."

"On top of the tax and the same restrictions that Christians placed upon Jews came extra conditions requiring non-Muslims to wear distinctive dress. Prohibitions were also placed on the visible display of religious symbols as well as wine and pork -- and they were also prohibited from riding on horses and camels, and had to ride donkeys instead (to highlight their inferiority)."

"Already in scientific circles the word of a smoker is considered less than that of a non-smoker; current hospital policy ensures that slim, non-smokers get better treatment than overweight people and smokers; and the EU -- the ostensible bastion of equal opportunity -- actually bans smokers from employment," sighs Nikki. "It won't be long before non-PC minorities are forced to wear a distinctive badge (like a Star of Marlboro, or a Carbon Footprint), forbidden to display a cigarette packet in public and prohibited from riding on public transport (just because we are smokers, not because we are smoking)."

"While Christians converted to Islam relatively quickly, most Jews remained obstinate and as a result suffered horribly under Islamic rule," says Nikki. "In Spain, Central Asia, and southern Arabia Christianity died out completely because transition from a superior to an inferior status was too much for the Christians to endure."

"This is so relevant to the climate change and smoking issues -- and so true in every respect -- that it almost makes me want to convert to Judaism (if they accept non-PC minorities?) in order to identify with a group of people who have the courage of their convictions and would rather die than submit to tyranny."

"Finally, forced conversions became mandatory when Islamic jurists began to realize that many Muslim communities were being wholly financed by dhimmi tax and as a result were becoming lazy, inept and corrupt," explains Nikki. "Just like big carbon footprint consumers and smokers are a vital source of revenue for our governments, so were the dhimmis to the Muslims -- and the result is the same. Easy tax makes fat cats, drunk on unearned power."

"From the 12th century until the Ottoman Empire was wiped out during WWI, Jews and Christians were being forcibly converted to Islam or killed," says Nikki, "and while non-PC minorities may never have to face the firing squad, being forced to convert to the zealot's beliefs is something we will ultimately have to face, too, unless some enlightened nation steps in and protects our rights as Britain and France did in 1866 in respect of the Jews of Barforoush."

"Beware, too, all non-PC minorities who have children because some Islamic rulers took non-Muslim children from their parents and raised them as Muslims -- and you can see that sort of thing being talked about already in respect of smoking mothers."

"Also, dhimmis were prohibited from proselytizing, publishing and selling non-Muslim literature and obstructing the spread of Islam -- which is similar to prohibitions on advertising tobacco products, forced anti-smoking propaganda on cigarette packs and a complete ban in the media of pro-smoking stories. Wonder when they will crack down on non-PC blogs about climate change and smoking?"

"With rare exceptions, dhimmis were not prohibited from living in certain places -- but there was the same antagonism between Muslim and non-Muslim neighbors as there now is between PC and non-PC neighbors," says Nikki. "We may not be required -- yet -- to attach distinctive signs to our houses to distinguish them from those of our zealous PC neighbors, but already the PC zealots are adopting Islamic social customs to make out that smokers, for instance, like non-Muslims, are 'unclean' and disgusting. The smell of wine and pork being as disgusting to a Muslim as cigarette smoke is to a non-smoker."

"As I see it, the climate change and anti-smoking campaigns have nothing to do with survival and everything to do with power and money and possibly a subtle backlash against Muslim immigrants, too" says Nikki. "Dhimmi carbon and tobacco taxes and dhimmi humiliation of non-PC minorities imposed by our so-called civilized Christian western governments makes them as intolerant, brutal and venal as the old Islamic nations but try pointing out these similarities to the average compliant citizen with an IQ of 100 or under and they are congenitally unable to get it."

"As all nations are based on some fanatical religion or ideology -- none of which appeal to me -- I am at a loss to know where non-PC minorities who refuse to capitulate to this blackmail can live in peace, prosperity and dignity."

how the west became christian, not jewish

Accepted by all religions is the fact that the first humans created had no religion, and as such any godly plans for humanity were meant for a unified family, not just limited to a chosen few.

Abraham's revolutionary notion of monotheism, a belief in one God, meant that God was not just a God of the Israelites but of all people. God revealed to Abrahamthat his people were to be messengers chosen to bring universal moral instructions to all humanity, not just the Jews.

The Torah was the revelation and the Mitzvot are the divine commandments defining a godly life, and God chose the landless and powerless Jewsas messengers because humans would be free to accept or reject the message on its merits. It was a message delivered without political and economic coercion.

In return for fulfilling their divine mission, God would make the Jews a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.

However, most Talmudic Rabbis do not interpret 'a kingdom of priests' as having universal implications. They believe that the covenant given by God not only provided the core religious content of the message the Jewish people were to convey to humanity but also a separate and distinctcontent designed to force Jews to maintain a separate culture. Being chosen to convey the message implied, to them, a superior position.

By superiority, the Talmudic Rabbis meant that Jews as a separate people were to be a 'light' unto the other nations. In offering the message, they cannot mandate its acceptance. Those who accepted the message choose to become chosen.

The Talmudic Rabbis saw the Jewish mission to convey the message of God, not to convert everyone to Judaism. They did not call for the annihiliation of gentile or non-Jewish religions. They saw salvation as dependent on moral behavior not on accepting Judaism, and accepted that the righteous of all faiths have an equal chance to be saved.

In this sense, the Talmudic Rabbis maintained a separate 'superiority'. They were into delivering the message to all but most certaininly do not believe in wholescale conversions.

However, in the early days of Judaism missionary activity was necessary for the growth of this revolutionary notion of monotheism to take place. In his journey from Haran to Canaan Abraham made many converts. In Deuteronomy 32:10, Abraham is described as so successful a missionary that God became known as King of the earth as well as King of heaven.

However, the word 'convert' is used loosely when referring to Abraham's missionary zeal. The formal notion of religious conversion did not emerge until much later in history. Abraham invited non-Israelites to join the Israelites, as did Isaac and Jacob.

By the time of Moses, the Torah was being expounded in seventy languages, andit provides numerous injunctions to the Jewish people to welcome strangers. It is believed, too, that God exiled Jews from their homeland for only one reason, to increase the number of converts!

Conversions came about through synagogues inviting guests and visitors -- there were thousands of houses of instruction in all towns serving as learning centers for gentiles; Jews were exhorted to personally approach potential converts; gentiles living among Jewish people were invited to assimilate; abandoned gentile children were adopted; and many gentiles converted to Judaism through marriage with a Jew.

The Jewish mission of conversion was also codifed in laws. It is not clear when these legal rules developed, but they most certainly existed after the destruction of the Second Temple when there was a need for clear religious rules to maintain the Jewish identity. So, from 400- 500 AD the existence of these laws indicates that converts were allowed, welcomed and had specific rites to undergo in their conversion.

As expected, conversions were increased during important periods of Jewish history. The Jews grew from 150,000 in 586 BC to more than eight million by the first century of the common era and, in the case of the conversion of the Idumaeans and the Ituraeans, force was uncharacteriscally used.

So widespread was Jewish missionary activty that Greek, Roman, and Christian authors wrote disparagingly about it. In Rome, for example, Tacitus, a rhetorical historian, Cicero, a lawyer, and Juvenal, a satirist, are bitter and serious about denouncing Jewish proselytizing activities, and Horace makes fun of them.

The most famous Christian comment came from Matthew 23:15 in which competition for converts became nasty: "Alas for you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over sea and land to make a single proselyte and anyone who becomes one you make twice as fit for hell as you are."

By the onset of the Christian era, 10% of the Roman Empire was Jewish and had the Romans and Jews not fought -- the Romans destroying the Temple in 70 AD, crushing the Bar Kochba rebellion in 135 AD and ultimately expelling the Jews from Jerusalem -- the Jews would have succeeded in winning more converts than the Christians and historywould have followed a different path.

While Jewish conversion efforts continued, the stateless and powerless Jews were restricted by Roman, and later Christian and Muslim laws regarding proselytism. In 131 AD, Hadrian prohibited circumcision and public instruction in the Jewish religion. In 198 and 199 the Emperor Severus passed laws forbiddinggentiles from embracing Judaism, and in 335 Constantine re-enacted Hadrian's law, forbidding Jews to circumcise non-Jewish slaves.

Cumulatively, these restrictions not only reversed the general Jewish attitude toward welcoming converts but also produced deep psychological change in the Jewish psyche. By the time of Constantine, many Jews would have embraced Christianity and those that remained faithful to Judaism became insular and messiahanic -- waiting for a messiahto raise them from a miserable existence made more miserable by the triumphant Christians accusing the Jews of Deicide -- killing Jesus -- and setting them up for mockery and persecution.

Christians took over the Jewish mission to welcome converts and transformed its meaning. Salvation was no longer dependent on moral behavior but on accepting Christ.The faiths of others were belittled, eternal rewards were promised for converting andeternal damnation was threated for refusing to convert. Bribery, threats, and ultimately violence and murder were used to expand the Christian faith. However, Christians did make it easier for pagans to convert by relaxing the Jewish need for male circumcision and the obligation to obey Jewish law.

Persecution and fear led, over time, to the transformation of the Jewish understanding of its mission. Spreading God's word came to be seen as against Jewish law.

(This article first appeared as god's chosen people, the jews and is reprinted with permission.)

how western was the roman empire?

The Roman Empire may have had Rome as its centre, but its original focus was never towards the northern barbarian lands that constitute today's West. Instead, its focus was North Africa -- it's bread basket -- and all of the Mediterranean lands from Syria to Greece.

The original inhabitants of Rome were from the native Latini tribe who were similar in ethnicity to the neighboring Germanic tribes -- fair skin, blue eyes, blond hair. The Latini were largely wiped out by war or interbreeding when Rome was invaded and settled by the Greeks and the Phoenicians (Syria).

Rome became the centre of civilization and the seat of a new empire by about 450BC and its ethnicity by then was wholly of Greek and Syrian origin -- olive skin, brown eyes, black hair -- typically known today as the Mediterrean type.

Because the Romans -- and Italians in general since 450BC -- were settlers from Greece and Syria their focus was always towards the lands of their origin from which they inherited their languages, religions and customs. Their only concern with the barbarians to the north was keeping them out of Italy!

It was not until 54BC that Caesar took an interest in Britain, but it took nearly a century before Claudius actually brought Britain into the empire in 43BC.

By then, continuing conquests by Rome had brought many more ethnic types into Italy -- either as conquered slaves or new citizens asserting their right to live wherever they liked in the empire -- and these conquests also provided opportunities for ordinary Greek-Syrian Romans to live in northern lands as the ruling administrative and military class.

Ethnically, then, the Roman Empire was never white and neither was the early western civilization which evolved from it. In fact, as the Romans with their legions of African soldiers moved into the northern lands the ethnicity of the local populations changed dramatically. Gaul (France) was the first area to experience a change in ethnicity from white to Mediterranean, and then southern Britain. The Scandinavian lands of the Vikings were the only parts of Europe that were impervious to Roman invasion and ethnic change.

will immigration end western democracy?

When non-white immigrants and their descendants outnumber the white race in western countries - which they will do by 2200, if not long before - western civilization will necessarily be replaced with a New Order.

This New Order, of necessity, will be reminiscent of the brutal regimes from which the refugees originally escaped.

In effect, western nations will ultimately be forced to supplant democracy in favor of a more manageable way of controlling jobless, hungry, hopeless and uncontrollable immigrant populations.

Brutal dictators, similar to Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler, will necessarily rise to take control of western nations. It may seem ironic that America and its allies went to war to depose Saddam only to appoint someone like him to take charge in their own nations, but when civilizations evolve they do not necessarily evolve into progressive and happy societies.

They do what they need to do in order to survive, and if that means sacrificing half of an overpopulated country by introducing a deadly disease or a so-called natural disaster then so be it.

Throughout history, populations have been sacrificed for the so-called good of the nation - Coventry and Pearl Harbor are well known WWII sacrifices. In fact, some theorists insist that 9/11 was another sacrifice in that the American government knew it was coming, but failed to protect its citizens because it wanted to protect its information sources and also wanted an excuse for war.

Non-white immigrants will out-populate the white race because they do not practice birth control. They hold deeply ingrained views about large families being a protection against all ills. Somehow it escapes them that large families are the cause of all ills!

Overpopulation, resulting in constant war, abject poverty, disease, famine, unemployment and brutal regimes originally caused these people to leave their homelands in search of a new life, and when they unwittingly recreate the same conditions in the host western countries - which they will do - few people will have anywhere on planet Earth to escape to.

Not the white race, nor the non-white immigrants.

China forcibly instituted the one-child policy in order to save its civilization. If western civilization is to survive, it will need to institute similar drastic measures, but no politician elected by a multi-racial and multi-cultural voting population can possibly achieve this goal by transparent democratic means.

That's why a new autocratic regime will necessarily replace democracy when the homeland populations get out of control.

can western civilization be saved?

Bearing in mind that the rulers of other civilizations maintain blatantly exclusive policies in relation to the rest of the world - without them they would not survive - it is a constant source of amazement and amusement to them that western civilization has shot itself in the foot with policies designed to include all cultures and creeds.

In view of the increasing decadence of western civilization, perhaps a better question would be 'is western civilization worth saving?' However, if what remains of traditional western civilization is deemed worthy of saving - in its white, Christian and democratic form - then an approach similar to, and probably as brutal as, that adopted by Adolf Hitler would need to be taken. Since nobody is likely to be doing anything as drastic as that within our lifetime, western civilization will necessarily continue to decline.

To save what remains of traditional western civilization, a stand would need to be taken by a future western government against all measures taken last century. Globalization, extensive welfare, open immigration and racial, cultural and religious diversity would need to be halted. Western governments would need to be replaced by the type of governments that closed cultures espouse in respect of:

prohibiting immigration and dual-citizenship;
abolishing welfare;
repatriating non citizens;
creating full employment;
protecting primary and secondary industries;
withdrawing from global involvements;
curbing government and corporate excesses; and
promoting racial, cultural and religious homogeneity.

In the new multi-racial and multi-cultural western nations anyone holding such radical views would have a hard time expressing them in private let alone promoting them in a political arena. He or she would be branded as a dangerous racist or a rabid reactionary and be jailed or murdered. But already halting steps are being taken to implement such measures.

There are some concerned westerners who claim that if the white race does not take a stand to protect what remains of its civilization, then another civilization will most certainly make that stand in its favor when it takes over - and that scenario is well and truly on the cards.

The Islamic nations make no secret of the fact that they expect Islam to one day rule the world - and they actively support the spread of Islam and the destabilization of western culture within western nations by the agents of Islam that the western nations accepted as refugees.

However, by sheer numbers, without even trying, the eastern nations of China or India are far more likely to inherit the lands that formerly cradled western civilization.

In the long-term - if no heroic white knight figure emerges to save the Anglo-Celtic white race from extinction - western civilization by the end of the 21st century will be supplanted by either the Chinese or the Hindu civilization.

But, paradoxically, all will not be lost!

Because of the innate preference in those cultures for 'whiteness', what was bred out during the 21st century will be selectively bred-in during the 22nd century, resulting in a new superior white race similar to the one envisioned by Hitler.

This race may not speak English, hold Christian values or have any ties whatsoever with Europe, but the power invested in it by its Chinese and Indian ancestors will be greater than anything hitherto known.

If being 'western' means being 'white', then natural selection by non-white populations assures white supremacy. If being 'western' means holding Christian beliefs, then by the sheer numbers of immigrants holding other beliefs it will cease to be believable. If being 'western' means being European, then by the sheer numbers of non-Europeans in Europe it will cease to have any meaning. If being 'western' means espousing democracy, then by the sheer numbers of immigrants raised under other forms of government it will cease to be workable.

Therefore, the only aspect of western civilization that can be saved - or is worthy of being saved - is a white skin!

was race or religion the unique feature of western civilization?

At no other time in history - other than in the 7th century when Rome chose it as the bastion of Christianity in the face of rising Islam - has Ireland played any major role in shaping the political, economic or cultural evolution of the western world. Indeed, the universal state of western civilization was represented by the Hapsburg Monarchy 1526-1918, not the Celtic kings.

And, except for continuing to lead the Catholic Church, the political power of the Pope in Rome has diminished considerably in modern times.

If Christianity - in particular Catholicism - were the unique feature of Western civilization at its inception in 675 in Ireland, then it did not remain so forever.

However, Ireland cannot be discounted for another major unique feature of Western civilization at its inception in 675 that has remained strong - it's white Celtic ethnic identity.

Because of the abominable conditions of overpopulation and poverty in Ireland, the Irish provided by far the most immigrants to the new worlds in centuries to follow. In that respect, the Irish Celts most certainly played the most important part in shaping the ethnic identity of the evolving western civilization.

In that respect, Ireland in 675 was indeed the 'cradle' of western civilization. If historians believe that a unique ethnicity founded western civilization, then it was a white Irish Celtic ethnicity - not the Mediterranean ethnicity of the Romans, French and Spanish, nor the polyglot ethnicity of the various other northern tribes in the western world at the time.

In fact, because three separate and distinctive Christian civilizations evolved in Turkey, Russia and Europe - respectively represented by the Ottoman Empire, the Muscovite Empire and the Hapsburg Monarchy - indicates that Christianity was not a unique feature of western civilization.

Of race and religion, then, race in the form of white Celtic ethnicity, was the unique feature of Western civilization.

did christianity hold back western civilization?

While western civilization may have had Ireland as its cradle, it nevertheless evolved to become distinctively European - geographically, racially and culturally - and it remained geographically, racially and culturally intact for another 600 years, repelling Jews and Moslems and other non-Christian invaders.

At that time, Christianity was a repressive religion and it was used by the political rulers to make the masses do their bidding. It destroyed the pagan culture upon which the glorious Hellenic civilization and the Roman Empire was based, and definitely held back western civilization for centuries.

What brought western civilization out of a period that historians call the 'Dark Ages' was increasing exposure to the fabulous wealth and inventiveness of other civilizations - notably the Chinese through Marco Polo's travels between 1275-1292, and the Islamic nations through the Crusades of the same era.

The horrors of overpopulation and disease represented by the Black Death of 1348-1349 also had its impact.

The Christian Western civilization was looking decidedly primitive in relation to other civilizations.

An enlightenment was necessary, and the course it took brought out the best but also the worst in the white Christian populations.

what are the signs of western civilization crisis?

Signs of reductions in democratic freedoms in order to cope with overpopulation and social tensions are already evident. Western governments and their enforcers are necessarily becoming as invasive and brutal as those of the regimes the immigrants escaped from.

The existence of increasingly generous welfare programs in western countries is creating another crisis. While western women practice birth control and either choose to remain childless or work hard 24/7 to give themselves and their 2.1 children a good life, the original welfare payment they were granted to encourage them to rear families is now being taken advantage of shamelessly by the new immigrants.

Not only are these new immigrants being paid welfare to have huge families, but they are also being paid not to work - a situation which attracts hoards of freeloading illegal immigrants claiming to be refugees.

The new ideals in respect of extensive human rights force western nations to be accepting of anyone claiming refuge for any reason - even as trivial as being vilified in another culture for being homosexual.

In that 99% of the non-western world can claim to be refugees, either fleeing oppressive regimes or economic disasters - it is only a matter of time before 99% of the non-Western world arrives at the West's front doors (but more likely the back doors).

Already, up to 50% of some apartment blocks, streets, workplaces and/or government departments are comprised of non-white immigrants. When it was 5% nobody noticed or good-naturedly accepted the non-white immigrants as 'cultural enrichment'. What percentage will it take before white Europeans realize that they have divested their children of jobs, homes and a unique culture?

Globalization is another new ideal that is undermining Western civilization. Helping third-world countries to help themselves is a good thing, but allowing global companies to practice off-shore job placement - ostensibly to ease unemployment in those countries but effectively to boost company profits and CEO salaries - is a sign of worsening job markets in western nations and a bigger divide between the haves and the have-nots.

Computerization of many industries has already made millions of western people redundant. There are not enough jobs for western populations let alone the rest of the world. With an increasing pool of jobless and casually employed people, the signs of increasing incidents of social unrest - crime and violence - are evident.

The streets are no longer safe to walk - especially for women - and there is no joy living in a western nation geared for mass consumption if you don't have a job paying a decent wage.

Other cultures, particularly the Islamic nations, do not want to be polluted with liberal western values through globalization. They see the new western civilization as a godless and impure society.

The Islamic nations protect their own cultures from being polluted with western values by isolation, and if that fails they then resort to acts of terror that are growing in number and severity in direct proportion to western pollution of their culture.

If 9/11 wasn't a sign that Western civilization has created more enemies than friends, then what more evidence is needed?

As all terrorists maintain - with a logic that is hard to refute - there is little difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter.

Western freedoms end at the point at which they infringe upon the freedoms of other cultures.

That point was reached long ago in respect of the Moslem world.

will western civilization repeat history?

Western civilization - now led by the USA - appears to be following the same route as the Hellenic civilization which, in its later years, was led by Rome. The Romans crucified Jesus of Nazareth - a revolutionary Jew whom they saw as a rabble rouser - and in doing so they made a martyr of him, allowing his followers to found a new religion based on his life and teachings that eventually swept through to the four corners of the Earth, destroying not only the Hellenic civilization but also the Roman Empire.

The parallels with the current situation in the Middle East are glaring.

Some claim that the clash of civilizations desired by Islamic revolutionaries - such as Osama bin Laden and the young Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq - will not eventuate, ever. They base their claim on the fact that the Islamic world did not rise up to support bin Laden after 9/11, and it never will. They claim that the Islamic world is far too divided along national lines - and is far too eager to remain trading partners with the western world - to become a cohesive belligerent force determined to impose its beliefs on the world.

However, the Jews did not rise up to support Jesus either. In fact, they 'betrayed him' to the Romans in much the same way that liberal Islamic nations wash their hands of the Islamic revolutionaries and 'betray' them to the Americans.

By sparing the lives of prominent Islamic revolutionaries - allowing bin Laden to go free, and negotiating with al-Sadr - America will avoid repeating history. This, in fact, is exactly what America is doing.

Had the Romans allowed Jesus to live and carry on his revolutionary social war against his own people - the Jews - Christianity, if it survived, would have probably remained an eastern cult religion and the Romans would never have had to deal with the spread of religion that ultimately destroyed their own.

Although purely speculative, in that Christianity might have spread with or without the crucifixion of Jesus, America is banking on the belief that revolutionary Islam will die out if its leaders are allowed to live.

However, by invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein in order to impose democratic leadership in Iraq - and in doing so hopefully protecting Israel and lessening the spread of Islamic revolutionaries - America is courting trouble because Saddam was more western in outlook than any other leader of the Islamic nations and as monstrous as his regime was it did, at least, keep Iraq free of Islamic revolutionaries and provide its citizens, especially women, with basic freedoms.

The scenario unfolding in Iraq would be like the Romans deposing the Jewish leader in some other city where Jesus was not preaching and imposing upon the Jews of that city a Jewish leader of Roman persuasion in the hope that in doing so the revolutionary Jews, like Jesus, would not spread.

That the Romans did not do this is to their credit for it would have incensed the Jews in that city and no doubt precipitated the very situation that the Romans were trying to avoid.

In invading Iraq, America has, in effect, precipitated the spread of Islamic revolutionaries. In trying to avoid repeating history by making a martyr of the Islamic revolutionaries, America chose a route that the Romans wisely avoided.

If America really wanted to avoid repeating history it might have followed the teachings of Jesus and turned the other cheek.

has western civilization changed too fast?

All civilizations evolve over time, but none has evolved so fast and so dramatically as Western civilization has since the colonial expansion period began after 1492.

Compared to other civilizations over the same period, the West was traveling at light years while the others were standing still. Bearing in mind, though, that during the Dark Ages under repressive Christianity Western civilization went backwards, it had a lot of catching up to do before it surged ahead of the others.

That so many people in western nations are still going through a painful identity crisis attests to the fact that the most dramatic change since 1492 has happened in recent years - since 1945 - and it never seems to stop.

Many fear that Western civilization has changed too far, too fast, and that the end is nigh - but change, even rapid change, does not necessarily bode of terrible times ahead.

It may be politically expedient to feed into the dark fears of the population, but if western nations had leaders with vision of a good future ahead for everyone - not just western nations - then everyone would be calling for faster change!

does westernized constitute western civilization?

There is a big difference between being a western nation and being 'westernized'. The adoption of western architecture and technologies - or food or clothes - does not make a nation part of western civilization.

Japan, for instance, is highly westernized, yet remains uniquely Japanese.

Christianity as opposed to Paganism was one of the distinctive founding bases of western civilization in 675AD, but this distinction has progressively eroded over the years to the point where it is more a force in Africa and Asia than it is in Europe.

The Orthodox Christian populations of Turkey and Russia split from Europe centuries ago to form their own distinctive civilizations, so being Turkish or Russian or European was far more distinctive than being Christian - and as far as Western civilization was concerned, being white was far more important than anything else.

To qualify as being part of western civilization up to 1918, and largely up to 1945, was - in order of importance - to be ethnically white, geographically European and culturally Christian.

The differences between the pre 1918 and the post 1945 western nations are so obviously different - like chalk and cheese in some nations - that 'western' civilization is no longer an appropriate umbrella term.

Many nations these days are 'westernized', but it is still commonly understood that Western civilization resides primarily in Europe.

is america evolving a new civilization?

Because of its unique original racial mix, and the type of immigrants it attracted, the United States may prefer to see itself as an 'American civilization' or as a 'Judaic-Christian civilization' - but most observers see it as an 'African-American-Latino civilization' separate and distinct from other western nations.

America was founded with European and African populations - the two races evolved together in a new land - but in Europe the picture was very different.

Europe, until the end of WWII, was always peopled by white races. It had never imported into its culture other races as slaves or indentured servants on the enormous scale that America had.

The granting of citizenship and residency to non-white populations at the end of the colonial era came as a shock to most European nationals because until then very few Europeans had ever seen a non-white person in the flesh. There was no referendum to vote on whether or not European populations wanted non-white immigrants. It was foisted upon the people by their governments.

Established in their new countries, working largely in low ranking government positions that their former masters were able to use their influence to place them in - many of the ex colonial immigrants quickly worked through the ranks to relatively high positions of backroom power.

This sort of instant power was never available to the African Americans. They arrived in America as slaves and remained that way until 1865. And it took another 100 years before the Black Rights movement enabled their people to be finally treated with some semblance of equality.

The non-white European immigrants retained strong ties with their old countries and their old cultures and religions - sending home money to their extended families and bringing in an endless flow of new immigrants through marriage and family reunion schemes that they were able to promulgate easily with their 'instant' positions of relative power.

Voting rights also gave them an immediate and powerful source of influence. As their numbers increased, their ability to sway political parties became significant. They became a formidable lobby group.

In America, a bloody Civil Rights Movement was necessary in order to create the same advantages for the descendants of the African slaves that the black ex-colonial migrants were being granted freely and immediately upon their arrival in Europe post WWII.

what's the new basis of western civilization?

Through immigration of non-white races, the concept of racial purity and superiority - the same concept that keeps other civilizations proud and strong - is being largely destroyed, along with Christianity, in all western nations.

In place of Christianity and racial purity, the new western nations espouse:

racial diversity;
cultural diversity;
religious diversity;
equal opportunity,
affirmative action;
political correctness,
globalization;
open immigration; and
extensive welfare and human rights programs.

These factors most definitely separate and divide western civilization from other civilizations - in that no other civilization would dream of implementing such crazy, liberal ideals - but what is the cohesive force that keeps western civilization together?

What is the essence, what is the unique feature of the new western civilization that distinguishes it from other civilizations and protects it from extinction?

Diversity? How can diversity be a cohesive force?

In the event of war with a civilization from which most immigrants came, what side would they be on?

will the european union save western civilization in europe?

The EU is developing as a major geographical region, but geography may not be enough to distinguish Western civilization from, say, Islamic civilization - particularly when Islam is fast becoming a major religion in Europe and the largely Islamic non-European nation of Turkey is in the process of joining the Union.

Far from saving Western civilization, the EU may, in fact, be in the process of creating a new civilization; or, more likely, it is in the process of becoming absorbed into the Islamic civilization in much the same way as Australia is in the process of becoming absorbed into the Chinese civilization.

Drop someone in the middle of Paris or London and they wouldn't know where they were - Baghdad, Cairo or Beirut; but drop someone in the middle of Tokyo and there would be no doubt of the location.

France is one western nation that is doing something tangible to protect its western culture; but, like the Maginot Line, the steps it is taking to protect itself are far too late and are doomed to failure.

Furthermore, for a nation like France which is politically secular but essentially Christian to prohibit all appearance of religious dress or icons in public school children - Islamic, Jewish and Christian - is as ridiculous as India forbidding sacred cows in the street in deference to the growing number of Indians who eat beef.

Hinduism and sacred cows distinguish India from other cultures. Similarly, Christianity distinguishes France from India, and if Christianity is no longer a distinguishing feature of French western civilization then what is? Surely not the Eiffel Tower!

How can the EU save western civilization in Europe when western civilization no longer exists in a racially and culturally pure form?

Bearing in mind that the EU was never set up to protect western civilization, it should come as no surprise that it has shown little interest in preserving it.

is the west polluting other civilizations?

The new post-WWII ideals of western civilization, in both Europe and America, enshrine within and encourage throughout the rest of the world:

• racial, cultural and religious diversity;
• immigration rights;
• democratic government;
• welfare rights;
• freedom of speech;
• extended human rights; and
• globalization.

These ideals were designed to promote cohesion and world peace, but they are effectively creating a crisis both within and without.

Far from promoting democratic ideals, for instance, globalization of western values is antagonizing other cultures and providing fertile ground in which dictators and fanatics can flourish.

All that is good about western civilization is vastly outweighed by all that is really bad about it.

Pornography, violence, drugs, alcohol, religious hypocrisy, gross obesity and rampant commercializion and greed are seen by other nations as particularly polluting, and these elements are not exactly embraced by most westerners, either.

Within, there is a backlash against the breakdown of a civilization that developed in Europe as an ethnically cohesive population with strong Christian roots; and without, there is a backlash against what other cultures see as widespread pollution by the West of values that are anathema to theirs.

Both within and without there are also environmental concerns that the rampantly greedy, globalizing western nations are destroying the planet.

The post-WWII western civilization adopted racial, cultural and religious diversity as its mantra, but no civilization can survive with a population bitterly divided by racial, cultural and religious divisions, especially one that allows its immigrants to denigrate and eschew all that the host nation holds dear.

The backlash from within emanates from terrified ethnic Europeans being forced to assume inferiority rather than equality with the non-European immigrants that are colonizing their countries rather than integrating with them.

Also, the backlash from within is targeted at the new multi-cultural ideals which they believe are polluting their own culture as much as they are other cultures.

Modern western civilization is not just polluting other civilizations but it is also polluting itself.