Why Hatred of Whites Is Here to Stay

Not so long ago, mere mention of the deliberate murder of whites in South Africa—country folk and commercial farmers, in particular—was called “racist.” “Raaacist!” the media collective brayed when candidate Trump retweeted a related “white genocide” hashtag.

It’s still “racist” to suggest that the butchering of these whites, almost daily, in ways that beggar belief, is racially motivated. Positively scandalous is it to describe the ultimate goal of a killing spree, now in its third decade, thus: the ethnic cleansing of white, farming South Africa from land the community has cultivated since the 1600s.

Be thankful for small mercies: At least the international media monopoly is finally reporting facts, such as that just the other day Andre and Lydia Saaiman, aged 70, were hacked to death in Port Elizabeth. (Imagine being chopped up until you expire.)

Or, that the elderly Bokkie Potgieter was dealt a similar fate as he tended his small, KwaZulu-Natal holding. Potgeiter was butchered during the October “Black Monday” protest, which was a nation-wide demonstration to end the carnage. Internationally reported as well were the facts of Sue Howarth’s death. The 64-year-old pharmaceutical executive was tortured for hours with … a blowtorch.

This black-on-white murder spree has been ongoing since a dominant-party political dispensation (mobocracy) was negotiated in my homeland for South Africans. (Learn about “The American Architects of The South-African Catastrophe.“) But while the criminal evidence is at last out in the open, the motive for these hate crimes is only mumbled about for fear of offending the offenders.

In South Africa we find a criminal class, born into freedom after 1994, that burns with white-hot hatred for whites.

Why?

The South African state’s stout indifference to the plight of whites does not exist in a void. Witness the steady, anti-white venom the dominant-party cobra-head, the ANC, spits out. “The de facto situation is that whites are under criminal siege explicitly because of their race,” writes a South African historian, cited in “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa” (2011).

“The black criminal collective consciousness understands whites are now historical fair game.”

The physical, existential vulnerability of white South Africans flows from a confluence of historical antecedents that have placed them in a uniquely precarious position. “The white minority surrendered political dominance in return for non-racial constitutional safeguards.” By forswearing control over the state apparatus, whites ceded mastery over their destiny, vesting their existential survival in a political dispensation: a liberal democracy.

In a needlessly optimistic assumption, whites imagined blacks too would be bound by the same political abstractions, and would relinquish race in favor of a constitutional design as an organizing principle in the society they now controlled.

Having “surrendered without defeat,” for a tepid peace, Europeans are, moreover, particularly and uniquely vulnerable within this political dispensation because of their history on the continent. Remedial historical revisionism notwithstanding, South Africa—with its space program and skyscrapers—was not the product of the people currently dismantling it. Rather, it was the creation of British and Dutch settlers and their descendants.

For what they’ve achieved and acquired—and for the original sins of apartheid in South Africa; slavery in America—whites are the objects of envy and racial enmity.

The observations of liberal, African-American journalist Keith Richburg are particularly pertinent here. Richburg believes that on the Dark Continent, tribal allegiance trumps political persuasion and envy carries the day. He cites the fate of the Tutsi—an alien, Nilotic African people, who formed a minority in Rwanda and Burundi—among the Hutu who are a Bantu people.

The Hutu have always resented the tall, imposing, attractive Tutsis, who had dominated them on-and-off since the 15th century. When Hutus picked up machetes to slash to bits nearly a million of their Tutsi neighbors in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, they were, on a deeper level, contends Richburg, “slashing at their own perceived ugliness, as if destroying this thing of beauty, this thing they could never really attain, removing it from the earth forever.”

Are shades of this impulse alive in the savagery inflicted on the European “settlers” of South Africa (and Zimbabwe and the Congo before them)? Who can say for sure? This much I know: Empowering political majorities in Africa has helped, not hindered, the propensity of hostile masses to exact revenge on helpless minorities.

It would be a mistake to believe, as the American ruling Idiocracy preaches, that minorities in the US—soon to form a majority—will relinquish race and tribe as unifying principles, in favor of the US’s constitutional design.

Like South Africa, America is a creation of (northwest) European settlers. And it is in Man’s nature to dislike those who are unlike him—all the more so when they, as a group, have accomplished what he has not.

Read More

Why isn’t the world recognizing the Holodomor as an act of genocide?

Source

By Oleksandr Kramarenko 

http://www.day.kiev.ua/171008/ 

This article was prompted by Minister of Foreign Affairs Borys Tarasiuk’s recent appeal to the international community to recognize the Holodomor of 1932-1933 in Ukraine as an act of genocide. As with his previous appeals, the world did not react to this one. I think that Mr. Tarasiuk, who is an experienced diplomat, was not counting on the success of that hopeless endeavor, just as he had not expected that last year’s appeals to step up Ukraine’s integration into NATO would have any positive effect.

Vivid proof of the unpreparednesss of the minister’s measures is the fact that our own Verkhovna Rada still has not recognized the Holodomor as an act of genocide. So, it was no surprise that in response to some Ukrainian parliamentarians’ appeal to the Israeli Knesset to recognize the Holodomor as an act of genocide, the Israeli parliament said it did not know anything about this genocide. This happened when Kyiv was marking the 65th anniversary of the Babyn Yar tragedy, so our MPs must have expected the Jews, moved as they were by the hospitality of the Ukrainian establishment during the ceremonies, to reciprocate.

I think that those gentlemen from the Verkhovna Rada not only have a rather vague idea about the Holodomor, they also failed to closely follow the events in Babyn Yar. They must have missed the speech delivered by Viacheslav Kantor, the leader of the Jewish communities in Russia, who angrily rejected all attempts to identify the Holodomor with the Holocaust because, in his opinion, the famine of 1932-1993 was not genocidal and that many peoples of the former USSR had also suffered.

We have heard statements like this before, haven’t we? Another possibility is that Kantor, as a representative of such a democratic country as Russia, simply had no choice. Yet his sharp condemnation of Ukrainians who had allegedly massacred Jews in Babyn Yar is evidence that he was voicing his own view.

Miracles do not happen in this world. The world will never recognize an act of genocide that is not perceived as such by the absolute majority of the people who suffered as a result of it. The question does not concern just the Verkhovna Rada’s procrastination (despite the fact that the parliamentarians are elected by those very people). Kantor’s speech in Kyiv must have been heard by our entire political leadership, including the president, by people who are supposed to be at the head of the movement to recognize the Holodomor as an act of genocide. Yet we have not heard a single response to the Moscow guest’s insolent statement. 

You must agree that against this background Ivan Dziuba’s speech during the ceremony (published in The Day) was like Don Quixote fighting windmills. [See below Невсипуща пересторога людству: Голодомор, Геноцид і Голокост]

At the same time, there is an essential methodological error in statements made by Tarasiuk and other politicians concerning the recognition of the Holodomor as an act of genocide. They all demand recognition of genocide with regard to Ukrainians in Ukraine, whereas this tragedy affected all Ukrainians who lived in the USSR at the time, Moreover, the consequences of that genocide were even more horrifying for Ukrainians who lived outside Ukraine.

When the Russian opponents of the Ukrainian genocide declare today that the famine took place not just in Ukraine but also in certain regions of Russia (the central Chernozem area, the North Caucasus, Central Volga region) and Kazakhstan, the Ukrainian side has no counterevidence. 

The impression is that our leaders either lack information about the Holodomor or are simply afraid to cross the Rubicon in their relations with the “elder brother” because he may react unfavorably.

Be that as it may, one could respond to the Russians in different ways, for example, by quoting Lenin’s right-hand man, Leon Trotsky, who can hardly be described as a Ukrainophile: “Nowhere else did repressions, purges, suppressions, and all other kinds of bureaucratic hooliganism in general acquire such a horrifying scope as in Ukraine, in the struggle against powerful forces concealed in the Ukrainian masses that desired more freedom and independence.”

True, this is an opinion voiced by a person who held a grudge against Stalin, but one can introduce more objective evidence of the Ukrainian genocide. Let us consider statistics-Soviet statistics, of course, but this very fact is what makes them more eloquent. The 1926 census points to 81,195,000 Ukrainians in the USSR, roughly the same number as the Russian population in this period. In 1939 the Soviet population showed an overall increment. There were considerably more Russians, but almost three times fewer Ukrainians: 28.1 million.

Even if we take the Holodomor death toll according to the maximum research figures (14 million victims), a big question remains. What happened to the other 39,095,000 Ukrainians? There were no world or civil wars in the Soviet empire between 1926 and 1939, and it was practically impossible to emigrate from the USSR.

It is impossible to answer this question immediately. No matter how you try, you have to begin looking for an answer from a distance. I will start by quoting Andrei Sakharov, the world-renowned Russian intellectual: “A large country was under communist control. Most of the population was hostile to the system. Representatives of the national culture and even a considerable part of the communists accepted Moscow’s rule only conditionally. 

From the party’s point of view, this was bad enough, but also because it represented a great danger for the regime in the future.” The great scientist said this precisely in regard to those 81,195,000 Ukrainians (as a humanist, Sakharov was hardly likely to regard Ukraine as only the territory determined by the Bolsheviks) of the 1920s, who, much to the chagrin of Comrade Stalin and his milieu, had no problems with national consciousness.

At the time the Russian Bolsheviks had to carry out Ukrainization in all ethnic Ukrainian lands. They were able to conquer Ukraine during the Civil War only on the third try. They succeeded only because none other than Ulyanov-Lenin, the evil genius of Bolshevism, realized in a timely fashion the mistakes of his chauvinistic policy and granted Ukrainians throughout the whole empire (not only the Ukrainian SSR) linguistic and cultural autonomy that would exist until the early 1930s.

Hence, there were more than 80 million people who were anything but Soviet, and on whom, strange as it may seem, the future of the Soviet empire depended, with its collectivization and industrialization campaigns, owing to the industrial and agricultural potential of the territories they inhabited. 

To understand this geopolitical discrepancy better, here is what V. Ovsiienko, a human rights champion from Kharkiv, has to say on the subject: “Ukrainians as an ethnos, with their profound religiosity, individualism, tradition of private property, and devotion to their plots of land, were not suited to the construction of communism, and this fact was noted by high-ranking Soviet officials. Ukraine had to be erased from the face of the earth, with the remainder of the Ukrainian people serving as material for a ‘new historical community,’ the Soviet people, the bulk of which were Russians and the Russian language and culture. Ukrainians as such could not enter communism in principle.”

But that is not all. Toward the end of the 1920s the Red Army did not have enough tanks, aircraft, and artillery for this materiel to play a decisive role in combat. In these conditions human resources and their combat experience counted for more, and cavalry was the main factor of success in battles.

All this was in the hands of the Ukrainians, who then occupied a large swathe of territory (300-400 km north of the Black Sea and over 1,500 km from the Zbruch River to the Terek. There were still Ukrainian veterans who had fought in elite tsarist units during the First World War. 

There were practically as many of them as the entire mobilization resource of the Red Army. During the New Economic Policy (NEP) almost every Ukrainian family had horses. There were also the Kuban and Terek Cossacks. At the time ethnic Ukrainians made up 83 percent of the Kuban population; 75 percent together with Stavropole; and 64 percent in the Russian part of Slobidska Ukraine (Kursk, Voronezh, and Belgorod oblasts). The Don area, part of this Ukrainian danger zone for the empire, would hardly have supported the Reds after the repressions against the White Cossacks.

Moreover, various kinds of otamans who terrorized Bolshevik grain delivery detachments would not lay down their arms until 1929, so in the event of an all-Ukraine uprising they would serve as battle-hardened field officers. All that such an uprising was missing was an organizer of the caliber of Symon Petliura. Such a personality could have emerged from among the nationally conscious Ukrainian communists or national intelligentsia, as some of these intellectuals had a classical military education.

That was why Stalin and his henchmen annihilated the Ukrainian intelligentsia and nationally conscious party members, dekulakized all potential leaders of a possible Ukrainian uprising under the guise of collectivization, and killed half the Ukrainian peasantry by famine. The other half suffered moral and psychological damage during the Holodomor, which has not healed to this day. This assumption is confirmed by the fact that there was no Holodomor in compact Ukrainian settlements in the Far East. They had the same mentality that was unacceptable to the regime, but they were safely isolated from the Ukrainian danger zone in the southwestern part of the empire by vast distances and means of communication of those days.

Of course, the Cossack population of the Kuban and Stavropole suffered the worst during that Bolshevik genocide. Those people were better organized in military terms and, naturally, fought the Red terror with all their might. Also, the Cossacks were forcefully Russified by a resolution of the CC AUCP (B) and the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR of Dec. 14, 1932.

The level of national consciousness of the Kuban people is attested by the fact that, starving as they were, they rebelled against the campaign of Russification, but were crushed by GPU troops. The Bolsheviks shot and sent to concentration camps a total of 200,000 Ukrainians. All 17,000 residents of the Cossack village (stanytsia) of Poltavska were deported. The stanytsia was then renamed Krasnoarmeiskaia and resettled with Russians.

However, famine is one thing, but the Holodomor is another. The latter’s peak dates to the second half of 1933. After that even the proud Cossacks turned into miserable people without family or clan. Thus, when they and other Ukrainians living outside the Ukrainian SSR were invited to register themselves as Russians during the 1939 census, they did not object.

Moreover, after the Holodomor a number of Kuban Ukrainians and those in the Russian part of Slobidska Ukraine, after realizing why they had been killed, voluntarily Russified their surnames. That is how we now have Garbuzov instead of Harbuz, Matvienkov instead of Matviienko, Zozulin instead of Zozulia, Primakov instead of Pryimak, Chepurnov instead of Chepurny.

Ask some of your friends with such distorted surnames whether their grandparents and great-grandparents were Russian. In most cases they will reply in the negative. Ask them why they consider themselves Russian, and you will hear something like, Kakaia raznitsa? (What difference does it make?). So here are your answers to the questions of what happened to the majority of Ukrainians after the Holodomor in the USSR; why the population of the Kuban has a low percentage of Ukrainians, what was that famine in the North Caucasus and Central Chernozem region, and how this genocide, unprecedented in the history of mankind, destroyed national consciousness.

The Stalinist totalitarian regime tried hard to ensure that everyone kept silent about the Holodomor, even people who had survived it, as well as their children and grandchildren; so that no one knew about this genocide abroad, and if they found out about it, they would keep silent. This is precisely what the Nazi regime did to conceal its genocide of the Jews from the international community. Sad but true, the international community pretended not to notice what was happening in both cases. Nazi Germany was defeated by that community, and the bankrupt communist regime in the USSR was transformed into an oligarchic regime, as instructed by its leaders, doing so painlessly, primarily for those leaders.

That was why there was a Nuremberg for fascism but no Nuremberg for communism. That is what the whole world knows about the Holocaust, while even most of those whose relatives died a most horrible death by starvation know nothing about the Holodomor.

I have visited villages in Luhansk oblast alone and as a member of a group of representatives of the Association of Holodomor Researchers. This area is inhabited by Ukrainians and Russians (mostly Don Cossacks). In Russian villages old people were eager to talk about the famine of 1932-1933, and they mentioned fellow villagers who had not survived it. They were all buried in village cemeteries, in accordance with tradition, in separate graves. No one could remember a single case of cannibalism.

Ukrainian villages presented an altogether different picture. It was hard to find a person willing to talk about the famine, as most old men and women treated those who were asking questions with suspicion and distrust. Those who agreed to answer our questions talked about the Holodomor as a disaster and wept. None of them demanded justice for the murderers of their parents, grandparents, brothers, and sisters.

There are also stories about cannibalism. The main difference between Ukrainian and Russian villages was that elderly Ukrainians pointed to a place, usually near a graveyard, where several hundred fellow villagers who had starved to death lay buried. Crosses had been erected in some of these places only recently.

In Luhansk oblast the distance between Ukrainian and Russian villages is sometimes only several kilometers. I consider this vivid proof of the Bolshevik genocide against the Ukrainians. However, to prove this to the international community, I think our state must open all these common graves in the presence of law enforcement officials, historians, ethnographers, forensic medical experts, and especially foreign journalists. 

Only then will the world learn that in Ukrainian villages and at Soviet railroad stations (and nowhere else) half the Ukrainian population died in 1933 alone (in some cases whole villages died). In fact, every Ukrainian village, except in western Ukraine, has its small Bykivnia.

The state must implement such measures on a daily basis and for many a year. Those who say that the famine encompassed all of the USSR at the time are right, of course. Yet, unlike the Holodomor, the peoples of the USSR survived that famine without such horrible losses. Only Ukrainians have such horrifying common graves that must be shown to the world. The presence of historians and ethnographers will be required in case Russia also wishes to show such graves in its “Russian” villages in the Chernozem region and in Cossack villages in the Kuban and Stavropole.

When all this happens, the international community will have no more arguments to refute the Bolshevik genocide of the Ukrainians. Of course, there will be no Nuremberg (there is no one left to stand trial), there will be no compensations from Russia — we don’t need them anyway.

But perhaps the most important thing will happen; its historical memory will finally be restored to the Ukrainian nation, and after that it will understand many things and will not allow outsiders to treat it the way they are doing now. 

This is now understood by a handful of Ukrainians who already know the truth about the Holodomor.

Read More

SOVIET GENOCIDE IN UKRAINE

I have reproduced below, excerpts from "Soviet Genocide in the Ukraine", the last chapter of a monumental History of Genocide, written in the 1950s by the Jewish-Polish scholar Raphael Lemkin. Unfortunately, the monograph has  not yet been published and the chapter on Ukraine is known only to a few Lemkin scholars. The whole chapter (12 double-spaced pages) on Ukraine will soon be published in the original English language in the USA and eventually in other languages, in other countries.

Lemkin¹s text deserves special attention by the Ukrainian community as it commemorates the 75th anniversary of the tragic events. It should be noted that Lemkin, the developed the concept and coined the term ³genocide², applies it to the destruction of the Ukrainian nation and not just Ukrainian

peasants. Lemkin speaks of: a) the decimation of the Ukrainian national elites, b) destruction of the Orthodox Church, c) the starvation of the Ukrainian farming population, and d) its replacement with non-Ukrainian population from the RSFSR as integral components of the same genocidal process.

The only dimension that is missing in Lemkin¹s excellent analysis is the destruction of the 8,000,000 ethnic Ukrainians living on the eve of the genocide in the Russian Republic (RSFSR).

As Ukraine and the Ukrainian diaspora commemorates, in the coming months of October and Novembe,r the 75th anniversary of the Genocide against the Ukrainians, it should be inspired by the all-encompassing approach to the analysis of the great Ukrainian catastrophe by the father of the concept of genocide and the man who did most to have it enshrined in the UN Convention of 1948. Lemkin¹s pereception of the Ukrainian genocide is a solid recommendation to the UN Assembly to finally recognize the Ukrainian tragedy for what it was ‹ ³a case of genocide, the destruction of a nation.²

Roman Serbyn

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

RAFAEL LEMKIN

 

SOVIET GENOCIDE IN UKRAINE

(excerpts)

 

[Š]

 

What I want to speak about is perhaps the classic example of Soviet genocide, its longest and broadest experiment in Russification ­ the destruction of the Ukrainian nation. [Š]

 

[Š] As long as Ukraine retains its national unity, as long as its people continue to think of themselves as Ukrainians and to seek independence, so long Ukraine poses a serious threat to the very heart of Sovietism. It is no wonder that the Communist leaders have attached the greatest importance to the Russification of this independent[-minded] member of their ³Union of Republics,² have determined to remake it to fit their pattern of one Russian nation. For the Ukrainian is not and has never been, a Russian. His culture, his temperament, his language, his religion ­ all are different. [Š]

 

Ukraine is highly susceptible to racial murder by select parts and so the Communist tactics there have not followed the pattern taken by the German attacks against the Jews. The nation is too populous to be exterminated completely with any efficiency. However, its leadership, religious, intellectual, political, its select and determining parts, are quite small and therefore easily eliminated, and so it is upon these groups particularly that the full force of the Soviet axe has fallen, with its familiar tools of

mass murder, deportation and forced labor, exile and starvation.

 

The attack has manifested a systematic pattern, with the whole process repeated again and again to meet fresh outburst of national spirit. The first blow is aimed at the intelligentsia, the national brain, so as to paralyze the rest of the body. [Š]

 

Going along with this attack on the intelligentsia was an offensive against the churches, priests and hierarchy, the ³soul² of Ukraine. Between 1926 and 1932, the Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church, its Metropolitan (Lypkivsky) and 10,000 clergy were liquidated. [Š]

 

[Š]

 

The third prong of the Soviet plan was aimed at the farmers, the large mass of independent peasants who are the repository of the tradition, folk lore and music, the national language and literature, the national spirit, of Ukraine. The weapon used against this body is perhaps the most terrible of all ­ starvation. Between 1932 and 1933, 5,000,000 Ukrainians starved to death, an inhumanity which the 73rd Congress decried on May 28, 1934. There has been an attempt to dismiss this highpoint of Soviet cruelty as an economic policy connected with the collectivization of the wheatlands, and the elimination of the kulaks, the independent farmers was therefore necessary. The fact is, however, that large-scale farmers in Ukraine were few and far-between.

As a Soviet writer Kossior [error: Kosior was party boss of Ukraine ­ R.S.] declared in Izvestiia on December 2, 1933, ³Ukrainian nationalism is our chief danger,² and it was to eliminate that nationalism, to establish the horrifying uniformity of the Soviet state that the Ukrainian peasantry was sacrificed. The method used in this part of the plan was not at all restricted to any particular group. All suffered ­ men, women, children. The crop that year was ample to feed the people and livestock of Ukraine, though it had fallen off somewhat from the previous year, a decrease probably due in large measure to the struggle over collectivization. But a famine was necessary for the Soviet[s] and so they got one to order, by plan, through an unusually high grain allotment to the state as taxes. To add to this, thousands of acres of wheat were never harvested, were left to rot in the fields. The rest was sent to government granaries to be stored there until the authorities had decided how to allocate it. Much of this crop, so vital to the lives of the Ukrainian people, ended up as exports for the creation of credits abroad.

 

In the face of famine on the farms, thousands abandoned the rural areas and moved into the towns to beg [for] food. Caught there and sent back to the country, they abandoned their children in the hope that they at least might survive. In this way, 18,000 children were abandoned in Kharkiv alone. Villages of a thousand had a surviving population of a hundred; in others, half the populace was gone, and deaths in these towns ranged from 20 to 30 per day. Cannibalism became commonplace.

 

[Š]

 

The fourth step in the process consisted in the fragmentation of the Ukrainian people at once by the addition to the Ukraine of foreign peoples and by the dispersion of the Ukrainians throughout Eastern Europe. In this way, ethnic unity would be destroyed and nationalities mixed. [Š]

 

These have been the chief steps in the systematic destruction of the Ukrainian nation. Notably, there have been no attempts at complete annihilation, such as was the method of the German attack on the  Jews. And yet, if the Soviet program succeeds completely, if the intelligentsia, the priests and the peasants can be eliminated, Ukraine will be as dead as if every Ukrainian were killed, for it will have lost that part of it which has kept and developed its culture, its beliefs, its common ideas, which have

guided it and given it a soul, which, in short, made it a nation rather than a mass of people.

 

The mass, indiscriminate murders have not, however, been lacking ­ they have simply not been integral parts of the plan, but only chance variations. Thousands have been executed, untold thousands have disappeared into the certain death of Siberian labor camps.

[Š]

 

[Š] This is not simply a case of mass murder. It is a case of genocide, of destruction, not of individuals only, but of a culture and a nation. [Š] Soviet national unity is being created, not by any union of ideas and of cultures, but by the complete destruction of all cultures and of all ideas save one ­ the Soviet.

http://www.infoukes.com/lists/politics/2008/10/0012.html

Read More

Libs Now Praising Genghis Khan for Mass Murder Because He Reduced Man’s Carbon Footprint

When we say that enviro-whackos just want everyone dead (except them) we are not joking:

Was Genghis Khan history’s greenest conqueror?- Mother Nature Network

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/was-genghis-khan-historys-greenest-conqueror

---------------------------------

Source

The Goracle has a new hero.

Was Genghis Khan history’s greenest conqueror?- Mother Nature Network

Genghis Khan’s Mongol invasion in the 13th and 14th centuries was so vast that it may have been the first instance in history of a single culture causing man-made climate change, according to new research out of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology, reports Mongabay.com.

Unlike modern day climate change, however, the Mongol invasion actually cooled the planet, effectively scrubbing around 700 million tons of carbon from the atmosphere.

So how exactly did Genghis Khan, one of history’s cruelest conquerors, earn such a glowing environmental report card? The reality may be a bit difficult for today’s environmentalists to stomach, but Khan did it the same way he built his empire — with a high body count.

Over the course of the century and a half run of the Mongol Empire, about 22 percent of the world’s total land area had been conquered and an estimated 40 million people were slaughtered by the horse-driven, bow-wielding hordes. Depopulation over such a large swathe of land meant that countless numbers of cultivated fields eventually returned to forests.

In other words, one effect of Genghis Khan’s unrelenting invasion was widespread reforestation, and the re-growth of those forests meant that more carbon could be absorbed from the atmosphere.

“It’s a common misconception that the human impact on climate began with the large-scale burning of coal and oil in the industrial era,” said Julia Pongratz, who headed the Carnegie Institution research project. “Actually, humans started to influence the environment thousands of years ago by changing the vegetation cover of the Earth’s landscapes when we cleared forests for agriculture.”

Pongratz’s study, which was completed with the help of her Carnegie colleague Ken Caldeira, as well as with German colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, measured the carbon impact of a number of historical events besides just the Mongol invasion, including the Black Death in Europe, the fall of China’s Ming Dynasty and the conquest of the Americas.

What all of these events share in common is the widespread return of forests after a period of massive depopulation, but the longevity of the Mongol invasion made it stand out as having the biggest impact on the world’s climate.

“We found that during the short events such as the Black Death and the Ming Dynasty collapse, the forest re-growth wasn’t enough to overcome the emissions from decaying material in the soil,” explained Pongratz. “But during the longer-lasting ones like the Mongol invasion… there was enough time for the forests to re-grow and absorb significant amounts of carbon.”

Rest here>>>

H/T:Fox Nation

Read More

Democrat/Socialist Party Road Map

Liberal-progressivism is a long step on the road toward the totalitarianism of communism, National Socialism, and Fascism.

Read More...

Liberal-progressives, giving them the benefit of doubt, are motivated by sincere faith that their secular materialist religion can transform human nature and perfect political society. To force everyone into equality of income and station, liberal-progressives employ mainly heavy taxation and strangling regulation. When voters inevitably resist, stronger measures must be brought to bear (for example, making it a crime not to buy Obamacare’s nationalized health insurance).

Liberal-progressivism, communism, National Socialism, and Fascism all are manifestations of the same underlying secular religion that rejects faith in our Creator God and substitutes worship of the political state (which amounts to liberal-progressive self-worship). Dependents on the welfare state are obviously more easily herded by the collectivized political state, as the German Empire’s Chancellor Otto von Bismarck observed when he created the world’s first welfare state in the 1880s.

President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are firmly persuaded that nationalizing health care is an essential component of Franklin Roosevelt’s so-called Second Bill of Rights, which substituted “security” in the arms of Big Brother for freedom from arbitrary government power limned in the original Bill of Rights. Liberal-progressives equate individualistic self-reliance with greed. Liberal-progressives, confident that they alone know what is best for society, aim to bring the masses under as nearly complete regulation of their everyday lives as possible.

Our present-day welfare-state servility differs only in degree, not in substance, from government under Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot. Liberal-progressives, looking down from their academic ivory towers, express their plans in vast computer models covering entire industries at one shot, abstractions entangled in 2,000± pages of incomprehensible legislation, implemented through tens of thousands of regulations promulgated by hundreds of new bureaus. That separation from reality affecting individual people, cramming everyone into one-size-fits-all regulatory boxes, too easily becomes the cold-heartedness of Stalin, who allegedly said, “One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is just a statistic.”

Guy Sorman, on the City Journal website, reminds us of the hideous results stemming from this mode of thinking.

Communism’s Nuremberg
The crimes of the Khmer Rouge are inextricable from Marxist/Leninist ideology.

Quote:

The true explanation, the meaning of the crime, can be found in the declarations of the Khmer Rouge themselves: just as Hitler described his crimes in advance, Pol Pot (who died in 1998) had explained early on that he would destroy his people, so as to create a new one. Pol Pot called himself a Communist; he became one in the 1960s as a student in Paris, then a cradle of Marxism. Since Pol Pot and leaders of the regime that he forced on his people referred to themselves as Communists—and in no way claimed to be heirs of some Cambodian dynasty—we must acknowledge that they were, in fact, Communists.

What the Khmer Rouge brought to Cambodia was in fact real Communism. There was no radical distinction, either conceptually or concretely, between the rule of the Khmer Rouge and that of Stalinism, Maoism, Castroism, or the North Korean regime. All Communist regimes follow strangely similar trajectories, barely colored by local traditions. In every case, these regimes seek to make a blank slate of the past and to forge a new humanity. In every case, the “rich,” intellectuals, and skeptics wind up exterminated.

Read More