Axiom IV: Every empire in history has eventually fractured a

Axiom IV: Every empire in history has eventually fractured along racial, ethnic and religious lines.

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

We have just examined why it is economically advantageous for ethnic communities to resist assimilation and preserve their group identity. But the reason why self-segregation occurs goes beyond economic models.

In America Balkanized, author Brent Nelson cites the finding by a prominent zoologist that, among mammals of North America (as opposed to insects, birds, reptiles or fish), no two subspecies of the same species occupy the same habitat. That is to say, you don't find mule-deer and white-tailed deer in the same forest, grizzly bear and black bear on the same mountain, wolves packing with coyotes, or bottle-nosed dolphin and spotted dolphin in the same pod. [Sorry, Greenpeace , but try to explain that one!] The implications are far-reaching: that what we call racist behavior is an instinctive mammalian response, not learned behavior.

It follows that the roots of so-called racism strike very deeply within the human psyche. And thus within any empire (or multi-racial state), there exists a primal centrifugal force that causes racial-ethnic segregation to occur. In order to maintain its existence, the empire must exert a counter-balancing force, capable of holding these disparate populations together. Should this compressive force of government fail, the empire will burst its seams. Every empire in history -- Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek-Macedonian, Roman, Islamic, Mongol, Turkish, Holy Roman, Austro-Hungarian, French, British, Russian -- has eventually fractured along deeply-embedded racial, ethnic and religious lines, at whatever time the centralized government failed. Why should America be an exception?

The multi-ethnic state can only survive by applying this constant, artificial force; otherwise, it must transform itself, by amalgamation, into a homogeneous racial state. It follows that, in order to eliminate racism from a society, all racial distinctions must be completely blotted out. Even in most ancient times, rulers were aware of this fact. That is why we read in the Bible how the Assyrians and Babylonians carried off the conquered Hebrews into captivity . These were not acts of vengeance. They were resettlement programs intended to stabilize the empire by separating all indigenous peoples from their homelands. The Assyrian Empire was a prototype of the New World Order, a kind of forced integration plan that, by relocating and scattering whole nations, caused them to relinquish their old ethnic identities and adopt a new one, as they were assimilated into the new social fabric. As the Hebrews were moved out of Samaria, for example, other peoples were moved in, who gradually abandoned their old culture and adopted pseudo-Hebrew ways: they became known as Samaritans.

In this respect, the Assyrian plan was completely successful, and the ten tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel disappeared without a trace, a result of deportation and assimilation. Not long afterwards, the Assyrian Empire was conquered intact by the Second Babylonian Empire, and that by the Persian, so that the final ethnic breakup did not occur until the collapse of central control following the death of Alexander the Great. When the Babylonians conquered the kingdom of Judea (beginning the period of the Babylonian Captivity ), they endeavored to do the same as their predecessors, the Assyrians. It was primarily due to the efforts of Isaiah and Micah who, anticipating the effects of the coming diaspora, had reformed the Hebrew religion and created Judaism, that the tribes of Judah and Levi successfully resisted amalgamation with the Babylonians and became the Jews. This event will be discussed in detail, in the chapters Zionism and the New World Order and An Outline of the Diaspora.

In later centuries, Alexander the Great tried to induce the Greeks into adopting Persian customs and the Persians into adopting the Greek. Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) attempted to Hellenize the Jews in order to integrate them into his empire and secure his southern border with Egypt. The Romans attempted much the same thing through subtler means, using commerce and public works (such as construction of the city of Caesarea) to complete their military conquests by assimilation into the Empire. In fact, during the second and third centuries, the Romans had tried unsuccessfully several times to create a new state religion that could assimilate various nationalist religious traditions. Ultimately, this goal was realized by the upstart cult of Christianity which, for example, assimilated the ancient Greek Elusinian Mysteries into the sacrament of the Eucharist. Small wonder the Jews were furious with the Christians for grafting pagan rituals onto Judaic tradition, or the thinly-veiled pantheistic doctrine of the Trinity. It was because of this willingness to assimilate paganism that early Christianity was so successful. It was through assimilation that the Christians destroyed virtually all of the old pagan religions and cultures across Europe and the Mediterranean. Often these "conversions" were made at the point of a sword, assimilating finally the Roman Empire itself into a Church, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free (Colossians 3:11). Christianity had become the quintessential New World Order . It remains so to this day.

Nor were the Assyrians, Romans and Christians the only cultural carnivores to build empires by assimilation and amalgamation. In similar fashion, the Arabs used Islam, the British used mercantilism and the Russians used Communism to overwrite ethnicity and create a new cultural paradigm for their subjects.

It is significant to note that, with the possible exception of the short-lived Assyrian Empire (which, as we saw, had been conquered intact), virtually all of these attempts eventually failed; and this despite every effort to introduce a new unifying concept. Even Christianity, which succeeded for many centuries in maintaining a unified Europe under the Roman Catholic Church, found itself rent by schisms that were essentially ethnic and nationalistic: Arian (or Aryan) Goths, Albigensians, Cathars, the eastern Orthodox Church of Constantinople, the Avignon Papacy of southern France, the Lutheran Church in Germany, Calvinism in France, Netherlands and Switzerland, and of course, the Church of England.

Thus in virtually every case, the old racial, ethnic and religious differences resurfaced when the central authority showed any sign of weakness, that the empire began to crack. When the British granted independence to India in 1947, the country had to be partitioned between Hindu and Muslim. Ireland, being racially homogenous, split between Roman Catholic and Protestant when the British loosened their grip. Islam split in many different ways, between Shiite and Sunni, and further along its many ethnic divisions. The evidence is clear: the unifying idea , be it religious or secular, is not as strong as old bloodlines, and the empire holds together only so long as the central governing institutions maintain constantly expanding power. See Axiom I.

We can see that, within any empire, ethnicity acts as a centrifugal force, always threatening to break up the union. The counterbalancing force is provided by institutions: government, commerce, industry, religion, education and so forth. Multi-culturalism is therefore inherently unstable, and in every multicultural state there is a constant tension/compression. On the one side we have the tension of self-segregating ethnic groups and, on the other, the compression of common institutions that endeavor to maintain integration. Should the institutions fail, as happened in the Soviet Union (notwithstanding that the failure may have been calculated), breakup becomes inevitable.

A very dramatic example of these stresses can be found in the former Yugoslavia. Created out of the ruins of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire in the aftermath of World War I, Yugoslavia is the classic example of a socio-political experiment gone awry. It was broken up during World War II, and then reconstituted under the Communist regime of Marshall Tito. For a while, this experiment in multiculturalism appeared to be working, as the country prospered during the postwar years. By the 1970s, Yugoslavia had become a mecca for college students touring Europe and, by the 1980s, it was the showcase of Communist eastern Europe. The 1984 Winter Olympic Games were held in Sarajevo, and Yugoslavia was the only Communist country to successfully market consumer durables in the West, prior to the economic miracle of Red China.

But the cohesion of Yugoslavia was only superficial, and despite every effort to force integration, a Yugoslavian national identity never took hold. When the Soviet Union broke up in 1992, the Yugoslavian government, economy and institutions were all shaken. That was all it took, a perceived weakness in the central governing authority, and the whole country literally burst apart along the old racial, ethnic and religious fractal planes. It is interesting to observe that the degree of violence experienced in the dissolution was directly proportional to the degree of integration that had preceded it. Hence the most savage fighting occurred in Bosnia, where there had been the highest degree of integration. The same phenomenon occurred in India in 1947.

Applying these lessons to America, where exist the largest number of ethnic minorities along with a very high degree of integration, one might well imagine the worst possible consequences, for example, to an economic collapse that would threaten the existence of our large integrating institutions. The Governing System is surely aware of the stresses within American society, of the incredibly complex array of fractal planes embedded within our social fabric, and how the only force holding it all together is institutional. This is why policies of affirmative action and political correctness are enforced with such severity. Our social engineers know a lot more than they let on.

This brings us to a very interesting question. If it is known that racial and ethnic diversity is a destabilizing force within any society, why is third-world immigration into the United States being encouraged? Why was the national origins quota system repealed? Why have the ceilings been lifted, so that nearly a million legal immigrants are admitted to this Country every year? The United States is accepting as many immigrants every year as all the rest of the world combined, and this has precipitated a major demographic shift within in our population, accompanied by dramatically increasing pressures within our society. Why?

This is clearly not by accident. Immigration is being deliberately used, as a tool, precisely to create instability and dislocations within our society. One might speculate that the objective is to divide and conquer, to break up the Anglo-Saxon majority, and to assure that any nativist movement will be crushed by an angry mob of negroes, feminists, mulattos, gays, Hispanics, Asians, Latinos, liberals, socialists and Jews. This all bespeaks an agenda, a conspiracy, whose objective is the subversion of the Republic, and the transformation of our Country into a multicultural, polycentric universe under the rule of -- whom?. We have already encountered this vision, in earlier chapters, and we know whom.

The next question that arises is this: once the Zionists succeed in this plan to destroy American nationalism by undermining the national identity, how do they propose to prevent the breakup that must certainly ensue?

Knowing, as they do, that psychological conditioning alone cannot overcome the centrifugal forces of ethnic self-segregation, and that the multi-ethnic state can only be maintained through the power of its large centralized governing institutions, the challenge to social engineers is clear-cut: how does one go about eliminating ethnicity itself, thus removing the fractal planes from within the multicultural society?

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