Mongol (2007)

din necenzurat....

si varianta pe steroizi:))......

Stop hate!

menuett:)

Search engine optimization (SEO)

Search engine optimization (SEO) is the process of affecting the visibility of a website or a web page in a search engine's "natural" or un-paid ("organic") search results. In general, the earlier (or higher ranked on the search results page), and more frequently a site appears in the search results list, the more visitors it will receive from the search engine's users. SEO may target different kinds of search, including image search, local search, video search, academic search, news search and industry-specific vertical search engines.

The Forgotten Story of Royal Raymond Rife

Gratulerer med dagen, Norge!:)

No Peace Prize for our time!

"caci am fost si mai sunt".....

employers seek data on Internet

Your Future Employer Is Watching You Online. You Should Be, Too.

Welcome to the Permanent Job Search. From now on, all of us will be "looking" for a job even when we're not actually looking for a job. Employers are researching each of us digitally 24/7/365. Our resumes are perpetually available online in various forms, some of which we control and some of which we don't. Those of us who exert the necessary effort to maximize our digital reputations will be rewarded: opportunities will find us. Those of us who don't will miss out.



Here's how it works:

1. Our information is collected online. All of the information about us — from social media profiles, to digital CVs, to credit card transactions, to app usage to the rest of our digital "footprint" — is being collected by third parties. This includes information that we choose to publish ("I'm a small business owner in Florida."), information that others publish about us ("Sarah is a great team player."), and information that is aggregated and shared behind the scenes without our knowledge ("Jonathan spends 400 minutes on sports websites and $300 on specialty foods per month.").

2. The data is analyzed. Machines compile demographic and psychographic profiles of each of us, based on all of the available data out there. We are all "scored" in different ways. One of the most familiar "scores" is for marketing purposes: data brokers tell advertisers whom they should target for ads about, say, hiking gear. But increasingly, the same data sets about us are being scored for other, much more important reasons, including employability.

3. Employers use the data analysis to evaluate us. Already, recruiters and hiring managers are relying heavily on the internet to research candidates for employment. Multiple studies* show convincingly that more than 75% of employers actively research candidates online. They show further that more than 70% have decided NOT to hire a candidate based on what they've found. Recruiters have been shown to not just look people up on search engines, but to dig very deep, through social media profiles, shopping profiles, online gaming sites, classifieds and auction sites (think eBay and craigslist) — and even in virtual worlds like SecondLife! This type of employer behavior is pretty similar across the world.

4. But, wait — there's more... Now these same employers, who have become adept at manually researching and evaluating candidates through their digital footprints, are getting machine-based number-crunching tools that will make the entire screening process faster. Employment is joining other fields like higher education (heavily dependent on standardized test scores for admissions), where machine-based scores will determine or all-but-determine our fate.

We can illustrate the impact. Using today's technology, an employer can search 1,000 submitted resumes for keywords such as university name, previous employer name, and specialty. The computer can serve up the three people who fit the employer's criteria. The employer reaches out, interviews them, and hires one. More than 99% of candidates didn't even get at bat. No human evaluation — for subtlety, interesting career paths, etc. — was needed or utilized to get to the top of the pile.

Let's imagine what this looks like with tomorrow's technology. The computer knows the digital profiles of top employees at the employer's company. It knows their backgrounds; their reputation on the internet for professionalism, hard work, and achievement; their previous patterns of work history and tenure; their collaboration styles; what the internet thinks their personal interests and habits are; what their friends are like; what their family lives are like, etc. The employer tells the machine that she'd like to get a terrific new employee for the Customer Service department. The machine then researches the million people who live closest to her office, surfaces three names based on their digital reputations and how similar they are to top employees at the company, and she reaches out to them. She and the candidates are mutually delighted with the result.

That's good news for the three candidates with the sterling digital reputation. It's bad news for the 999,997 others.

The future of employment and digital reputation is likely going to be a one-way ratchet. Employment decisions are already being made based on our online reputations by people. But more and more, those decisions will be made or all-but-made by machines.

So what do you do about it? The good news is that the Internet Giveth, and the Internet Giveth Some More.

Here's how you can start to manage your online reputation:

1. Make sure your online persona matches your offline persona. If your passion and education are in environmental engineering, make sure your social media profiles reflect those facts. LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter accounts that emphasize your tastes in food will seem incongruous to the people seeking to hire you.

2. Curate your search results. Recruiters and other key career decision-makers in our lives rely chiefly on our top-ten Google search results to make decisions about us. It's amazing how powerful even the top five results are! (See this heatmap for a visual depiction of where people are looking and clicking most often on Google search results.) Instead of leaving those search results to fate, or to the sometimes random-seeming Google algorithm, proactively shape the first results for your name. Build a simple website for yourself with the URL firstnamelastname.com (or similar), so that your site shows up high in search engines for queries of your name. Likewise, set up your Twitter and LinkedIn accounts to be twitter.com/firstnamelastname (instead of, say, .com/partyguy44) for the same reason.

3. Use the internet to establish your credibility on the topics that matter most to the job search you are actively (or passively!) pursuing. Participate in the online forums and digital communities that matter most to your specialties. You don't have to be the forum's most active participant. But over time, periodic, thoughtful contributions will confirm your reputation — in the eyes of both humans and machines scouring the community — for thought leadership in the field.

4. Don't rely on privacy settings in social media to "segregate" facts about your life. We've seen over and over that privacy settings either fail to work altogether, or fail to protect your personal data from third-party data brokers who compile profiles about you behind the scenes. In the same way that you are careful about what you put in email, even in "private" emails, you now have to assume that anything you publish "behind a privacy setting firewall" will leak.

5. Take charge of your photos. Just a couple of years ago, we thought that leaving compromising photos "untagged" would prevent third parties from finding them and identifying the people in them by name. Facial recognition technologies have changed that. Now you have to anticipate that any photo your friends or kids post of you — however hilarious it seems at first — will carry your name and could be found by anyone.

6. Don't make the mistake of assuming that because you live a righteous life offline, you will appear righteous online. Unless you are famous, your reputation online and offline will not naturally converge. (Well, some famous people have wacky online reputations, but at least they are discussed enough to have a real shot at getting the "true picture" out on the web over time.) Left on its own, your online reputation will be hugely incomplete or obsolete. Moreover — much more so than in your offline life — your online reputation can be heavily influenced by the digital contributions of just one other person. Whether that person is a current friend, a former colleague, a former spouse, or just someone who shares your name, his or her stray or intentional remarks about you will usually dominate your online reputation unless you prevent them from doing so.

It's time to adapt to the permanent job search. Use the steps above to get to know and dominate your digital reputation. And make sure that you — and your potential future employers — like what you see.

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/04/your_future_employer_is_watchi.html

Starka känslor upplysas

Vem är hjärntvättad?

Av Simon Lindberg

Ett ganska vanligt argument från de som är emot vår sak, de s.k. antirasisterna eller antivita, är att vi som är nationellt sinnade skulle vara hjärntvättade. Man påstår att vi inte har några egna åsikter; att vi inte kan tänka kritiskt och att vi sväljer allt som serveras oss.

Jag tycker det är lika ironiskt var gång jag hör argumentet. Har de ens själva tänkt igenom vad de faktiskt yttrar sig om, har de tänkt ett steg längre och hur tusan har de i så fall tänkt? Jag personligen har inte fått någon nationell uppfostran och jag känner till väldigt få fall där så har skett. När man pratar med ideologiska kamrater är det faktiskt istället inte alls ovanligt att det varit precis tvärtom, att föräldrarna varit starkt fientliga till nationalsocialismen och deras barns engagemang för saken. Vi kan alltså inte ha blivit hjärntvättade till att bli nationalsocialister från våra föräldrar.


Däremot är familjerna åtskilliga där barnen hjärntvättas från föräldrarnas sida om allas lika värde och det rådande systemets förträfflighet. Så kan det möjligtvis vara så att de som anklagar oss för att vara hjärntvättade faktiskt är de som är indoktrinerade? Skolan av idag, som vi alla tvingas gå i då vi har skolplikt i Sverige, är otroligt starkt emot nationella yttringar. Att propagera för att det bara finns en ras, att nazister är onda och att homosexualitet är fullkomligt normalt och naturligt ingår till och med i läroplanen och är därför något som vi alltså alla är garanterade att matas med i minst tio års tid från lärare, rektorer, föreläsare och skolböcker.

Det är alltså knappast i skolan vi skulle kunna ha hjärntvättats till att bli nationalsocialister. Tvärtom är som sagt hjärntvätten åt andra hållet mycket intensiv under skoltiden, som för övrigt också sägs vara den viktigaste tiden i en människas liv när det gäller att forma dennes åsikter. Så kan det möjligtvis vara så att de som anklagar oss för att vara hjärntvättade faktiskt är de som är indoktrinerade? Vänskapskretsen kan absolut påverka ens val och åsikter här i livet. Jag kan inte tala för alla, men mig själv när jag säger att jag vaknade helt på egen hand. Jag hade inga kompisar som var nationalsocialister som försökte övertala mig till något, utan hittade problem och sökte sanningen självmant.

Även i fall där det faktiskt är vänner som knuffat en i rätt riktning så kan det knappast räknas som hjärntvätt i jämförelse med den tidigare nämnda indoktrineringen från skolan. Framförallt så måste ju i vilket fall någon i kompisgänget från början ha öppnat ögonen själv, precis som jag gjorde. Vi är alltså inte engagerade i kampen för att våra vänner hjärntvättat oss. Däremot är det mycket vanligt med påtryckning från ”kompisar” att man bör tona ner sina åsikter. Ett aktivt försök till hjärntvätt från ens omgivning om att inte vara nationell är alltså förekommande. Så kan det möjligtvis vara så att de som anklagar oss för att vara hjärntvättade faktiskt är de som är indoktrinerade?

Vidare kan vi se att det inte finns någon Hollywood- eller SF-film som är pronationell. Det finns heller inget etablerat tv-program, ingen radiokanal eller någon lättillgänglig tidning som är sympatiskt inställd till de saker vi står för. Däremot är det ibland svårt att hitta någon media som inte är aktivt antisvensk. Att media skulle hjärntvätta oss till att bli nationalsocialister är en definitiv omöjlighet. Att media däremot tar varenda möjlighet de får, om det så handlar om en rapport från en fotbollsmatch, ett matlagningsprogram eller nyheterna i Ekot, att prata sig varma om mångkulturen och mot alla nationella tendenser, är ett faktum. Så kan det möjligtvis vara så att de som anklagar oss för att vara hjärntvättade faktiskt är de som är indoktrinerade?

Vad blir då kontentan av allt det här? Jo att det är de antivita, massinvandringsivrarna och de politisk korrekta idioterna som ofta inte har en enda åsikt de kommit fram till själva. Istället brölar de stolta ut, som en papegoja, precis allt de fått lära sig från barnsben, i skolan, framför tv:n och i tidningarna. Multikulti är fantastiskt– Nazisterna är onda!

Om du som läser detta tycker att massinvandringen är det bästa som hänt Sverige någonsin och att patrioter är de mest elaka människorna på planeten och du samtidigt någon endaste gång tänkt tanken att ”nazister är hjärntvättade” så uppmuntrar jag dig att här i kommentarsfältet berätta vad du menar. Av vem är vi hjärntvättade och hur? Jag väntar med spänning på era svar. Fram tills ni gett mig en rimlig förklaring så hävdar jag med definitiv övertygelse att det är ni som är hjärntvättade.

http://www.nordfront.se/vem-ar-hjarntvattad.smr

Världen behöver inga vita barn

Av Paulina Forslund

Jag talade för en tid sedan med en ytterst politiskt korrekt granne som till råga på allt är en högst inbiten sosse. Kvinnan menade att det redan finns så många icke-vita barn på jorden att ta hand om, så att skaffa egna vore således helt egoistiskt och onödigt. Hon drog det till och med så långt att hon utan att blinka fällde detta chockerande uttalande: ”Världen behöver inga vita barn.” Därefter sa hon med stolthet i rösten att hon medvetet valt att inte skaffa biologiska barn på grund av sin övertygelse.

Det har kokat i mig allt sedan detta samtal och jag kan inte släppa det. Hur kan någon vara så fullkomligt hjärntvättad att de inbillar sig att världen skulle bli bättre om det inte föddes vita barn? Uttalandet är även djupt kränkande gentemot vår ras som sådan, och vet man vilket kritiskt läge vi faktiskt befinner sig i blir det än värre. Min granne är tyvärr inte ensam om de här antivita-åsikterna. Då multikulti-Loreen vann Melodifestivalen passade hon på att uttala sig i vissa politiska frågor. En av de saker hon valde att ta upp var den om biologiska barn. Hon menade, precis som min socialdemokratiska granne, att världen inte behövde svenska/vita barn utan att det var bättre att rasblanda eller adoptera.


Frågan jag inte kan låta bli att ställa mig är vad de tror skulle hända om inga vita längre skaffade vita barn? Om de vita inte längre existerar – vilket ju i det långa loppet blir resultatet av att de inte skaffar barn – vilka skulle då ta hand om alla de länder som är helt beroende av bistånd ifrån oss? Jag skäms inte över att säga det: De som verkligen skulle behöva bli uppmanade att inte skaffa fler barn är i första hand de redan överbefolkade icke-vita länderna!

Något sådant uttalande skulle vi knappast få höra från de politiskt korrekta. Nej, de anser att vi vita ska offra oss själva för de andra, öppna upp våra gränser och låta dessa härja fritt på vår bekostnad. Det komiska i det hela är att samma människor aldrig skulle ifrågasätta varför icke-vita föder många barn. Jag har stött på fenomenet åtskilliga gånger. Som vit svensk mamma med sex barn sticker jag verkligen ut. Jag kan inte längre räkna gångerna jag fått frågan varför jag har så många barn. Jag brukar svara att, ”ja det är väl tur att det inte bara är araber och svarta som förökar sig?”

Sanningen är den att vad världen behöver är just vita barn. En stark vit generation som med rätt sorts mod och styrka kan bana in på rätt väg igen. Jag ser många svenskar som mer eller mindre går på linjen att det inte behövs fler människor på jorden. De menar att vi är överbefolkade. Jag ger dem rätt i detta. Vi är överbefolkade. Men vi är inte överbefolkade av människor av vår ras. Jag är övertygad om att vi behöver återskapa en balans där även vita föder fler än de genomsnittliga 1,8 barn/kvinna. Då kan vårt folk bli fler än de få procent vi i dagsläget utgör av jordens befolkning.

Det groende hatet mot vår ras som hela tiden återspeglas i överallt i samhället är skrämmande. De menar att vår tid är över och att tiderna förändras. Ja, tiderna förändras, men hur många skulle våga påstå att det ändrats till det bättre? Inte många. Den hjärntvätt som riktas mot oss är massiv och bör tas på allvar. Vita kvinnor har i årtionden uppmanats att slå sig fria från de vita männen och att förakta allt som har med familjeliv och barn att göra. Resultatet av det ser vi idag. Vita kvinnor skaffar inte på långa vägar så många barn som de äldre generationerna gjorde. Under framförallt det senaste årtiondet har vita kvinnor även uppmuntrats att rasblanda. Aldrig förr har så många blandade barn fötts som nu.

Det är inte en slump att fienden uppmanar till detta. I århundraden har våldtäkter av kvinnor varit en del av en biologisk krigföring och samtidigt en metod för att demoralisera fienden. Nu för tiden görs det på ett mer ”sofistikerat” vis, men målet är detsamma: att förgöra ett folkslag. Så att vita kvinnor föder barn är i själva verket inget problem enligt dessa. Dilemmat uppstår först då vita kvinnor skaffar vita barn. Allt snack om att vi inte behöver bli fler gäller endast om vi blir fler vita, inte annars.

Det är på tiden att vi inser vikten av att fler vita män och kvinnor faktiskt väljer att, inom stabila familjer, skaffa många barn. Jag vill avrunda med ett meddelande till min svenskhatande granne: Tack för inspirationen. Nu ska jag fundera över om det är dags för en nummer sju!

http://www.nordfront.se/varlden-behover-inga-vita-barn.smr

Something.......presidential

Role models - interview with Grace Kelly

Eastern - Western cultures and philosophies

Drapelul Europei este folosit atât de Uniunea Europeană cât si de Consiliul Europei. Este format dintr-un cerc din 12 stele (galbene) pe un fundal albastru. Albastrul reprezintă vestul, numărul de stele reprezintă perfectiunea iar faptul că sunt în cerc reprezintă unitatea. Stelele nu variază în functie de numărul statelor membre a nici uneia dintre organizații pentru că reprezintă oamenii din Europa, inclusiv cei dinafara Uniunii.

http://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/crosscuttings/cultures_east-west-phylosophy.html
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumea_occidental%C4%83

Throughout history, some societies have grown rich while others fail. The West rules for now - but for how much longer?

By Ian Morris, Professor Of Classics And History At Stanford University
           I grew up in a golden age – I just didn’t know it. Things didn’t always feel golden in the  Midlands during the Sixties.

And yet the West – a handful of nations clustered around the North Atlantic, plus their colonists on other continents – bestrode the world like a colossus. Westerners, on average, earned ten times as much as Asians or Africans and lived 25 years longer.

‘You’ve never had it so good,’ Prime Minister Harold Macmillan told us in 1957, and we hadn’t.

Westerners had televisions, cars and clean drinking water; unlike most of the rest of the world. European and American armed forces dominated the land, sea, and sky; Americans had even walked on the Moon. The West’s wealth and global domination had no parallels in history.

My oldest family Christmas photos, taken by my dad with a little Instamatic at our home in Stoke-on-Trent in the early Sixties, are crowded with this bounty – overflowing with toys, Cadbury’s selection boxes and bicycles.

But behind the beaming boy and the plastic Daleks, a shadow was already falling. Each passing year, more and more of the things we bought came not from the West but from the factories of the East.

First came Japan, which made the toys I loved; and as Japan, with bewildering speed, moved up the ladder to transistor radios and cars, new Asian manufacturers – South Korea, Taiwan and then China – filled the rungs it vacated. Japan’s economy outgrew Britain’s in 1963, and by 1967 was second only to America. Japan stayed in that spot until this summer, when China displaced it.

How did things change so much?

There is no shortage of theories. Some think self-serving fat cats have failed the West by outsourcing jobs to China and India; others claim the West has lost its moral compass and its residents have grown lazy and decadent. Some even argue that China’s growth is unsustainable, and it will soon go the way of Japan or even the Soviet Union.

If only things were so simple. The reality is the West’s dominance has been slipping for 50 years, and some of the answers can be found by looking at history. As Winston Churchill famously pronounced: ‘The farther backward you can look, the farther forwards you are likely to see.’

We need to know two things: first, how the West originally achieved global domination; and second, why the methods the West used aren’t working any more.

One of the most popular theories about the West’s lengthy dominance is that Westerners are simply better than everyone else. However, if we look back far enough we see that this cannot be correct.

Archaeologists and geneticists have shown that our kind, Homo sapiens, evolved in Africa between 200,000 and 70,000 years ago. We spread across the world, and by 10,000 years ago, a single kind of human had colonised virtually every niche on the planet. Wherever we go, people are biologically much the same.

Another widely shared idea is that the West has been blessed with better leaders, but that does not hold up to historical scrutiny. A century ago, the humourist Ambrose Bierce defined history in his Devil’s Dictionary as ‘an account, mostly false, of events, mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers, mostly knaves, and soldiers, mostly fools’.

An overstatement, for sure; there have been blameless rulers and clever soldiers, and non-royal, non-military women and men have done plenty of important things.

But when we run through the history of the world, we see strikingly similar mixes of knaves and fools, saints and sinners, great men and bungling idiots in every part of the planet.

For every mass murderer such as Mao Tse-Tung in the East, the West had a Hitler; for every sage such as Socrates in the West, the East had a Confucius. As we would expect if people really are all much the same, no part of the world has a monopoly on virtue or vice.

When I was a boy, when Western dominance seemed so secure, another theory received plenty of play: that since the time of the Greeks and Romans, Western culture had been the best. By the time I was a student, though, this idea was in retreat as well. Indeed, Western culture seems to be just one example of a broader pattern of human development.

For most of our 200,000-year history, humans lived in small hunter-gatherer bands. After the Ice Age, some hunter-gatherers settled down in villages where they domesticated plants and animals and produced sophisticated art.

Some villages grew into cities, sprouting ruling elites, high-living aristocrats, and complicated poetry. Some cities became states and then empires, building great temples and paying philosophers to think deeply. No band of hunter-gatherers ever produced a Plato; but every rich, literate empire created classics such as Homer’s Odyssey.

In the past 20 years, though, as Chinese goods have flooded Western shops and Western self-confidence has wobbled, yet another story has bubbled up.

Instead of looking for some timeless reason why the West is the best, the new theory’s champions claim Western domination was an accident. Given a few different decisions, they say, things could have gone very differently, and some other part of the world would now rule the roost.

But this theory too falls apart when we look backwards, because we quickly see that Western wealth and power are no short-term flukes. For 90 per cent of the 15,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age, the West has been the most developed part of the world. Why?

To a great extent, the answer comes down to a single word: geography.

To make sense of this, we need to look at the full story. When the world warmed up at the end of the last Ice Age, climate and landscape conspired to provide a few areas (basically, a band of ‘Lucky Latitudes’ running from the Mediterranean to China) with species of plants and animals which could be domesticated – that is, tamed and genetically modified to meet human needs.

Within these Lucky Latitudes, the densest concentrations of domesticates (wheat, barley, sheep, cows, goats) were at the Western end, in the hills running through what are now the borderlands of Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Israel; and so, because people are all much the same and cultures all develop in much the same ways, it was here that foragers first turned into farmers (around 9500 BC). Fed by domesticated plants and animals, they settled in villages that turned into the world’s first cities (around 3500 BC) and empires (around 750 BC).

In other parts of the Lucky Latitudes, like China and India, the concentrations of domesticates were less dense, and so it took people longer to invent villages, cities, states and empires.

Outside the Lucky Latitudes, where there were almost no domesticates, villages, cities and states never developed at all – until conquerors from the Lucky Latitudes brought them. Australians, Siberians and Africans stayed with hunting and gathering not because they were lazier, less clever or better attuned to nature than people elsewhere; geography had simply given them fewer resources.

Geography meant it was likely that some part of the Lucky Latitudes would go on to dominate the globe, and likeliest of all that it would be some part from the Western end.

But geography is full of complicated paradoxes. It shapes the development of societies, but the development of societies simultaneously shapes what geography means. It does this in all kinds of ways. In ancient times, the rise of great empires set off migrations, spread plagues and triggered wars, and by 200 AD all the empires along the Lucky Latitudes were falling apart.

But while Germanic, Arabic and Turkish invaders fought over the ruins of Rome, a great new empire reunited China, and by 700 AD politics began changing what geography meant.

Political division left the war-torn West languishing for centuries in its Middle Ages, while political centralisation let China’s rulers bring together the wealth of East Asia.

This fuelled an extraordinary golden age of artistic, literary and scientific advances – only for these advances to shift the meanings of geography once again.

In the 12th and 13th Centuries, the Chinese came up with two astonishing inventions: ships that could cross oceans and guns that could shoot the people on the other side.

Such self-evidently fine tools leapt from one end of the Lucky Latitudes to the other. The magnetic compass, first mentioned in a Chinese document in 1119, was in the hands of Arab and European sailors by 1180.

The gun moved even faster. The first known true gun, with enough bang to shoot out a lead bullet, was a modest, 12in-long bronze tube made in Manchuria in 1288; by 1327 a manuscript illuminator in Oxford, at the far end of Eurasia, was portraying far superior versions.

For millennia, the lands bathed by the frigid waters of the North Atlantic had laboured under huge geographical disadvantages. They lay far from the real centres of action, in the Mediterranean, and their development lagged far behind.

But ships and guns changed that. Suddenly, sticking out into the Atlantic became a huge plus. A voyage of 3,000 miles would take a 15th Century West European sailor such as Christopher Columbus all the way across the Atlantic to the Americas, while the great 15th Century Chinese admiral Zheng He (a eunuch said to be 8ft tall and 6ft around the belly) would have needed to sail twice as far to get there across the Pacific.

Before seafaring ships existed, this was a trivial geographical detail, but now it was the most important fact in the world. Given time, East Asian sailors would surely have run into the Americas eventually, but it was Columbus rather than Zheng He who opened up this new world to colonisation and plunder.

Chinese sailors were just as daring as the Spaniards, its settlers just as intrepid as Britons; but the new meanings of geography stacked the deck in the West’s favour.

It was therefore the Europeans who went on to create a new kind of maritime market economy in the 17th Century. They swapped guns for slaves in Africa, sailed to the Caribbean and traded slaves for sugar, then headed home to sell the sugar and buy more guns – promptly setting out on their triangular trade route all over again, reaping profits at every point.

With so much money being made, European labourers flooded into new factories, and European thinkers saw what gains would come from explaining how winds and tides worked, measuring and counting in better ways and cracking the codes of physics, chemistry and biology.

Europeans, not Chinese, hurled themselves into these tasks, not because they were smarter but because geography was thrusting new questions on to the West. Europe, not China, had a Scientific Revolution, and Europeans, not Chinese, turned science’s insights back on to society itself.

Voltaire, the sharpest wit in this 18th Century Enlightenment, remained convinced to his dying day that Europe had more to learn from China than the reverse; but by then it was clear to everyone else that something very special was happening in the West.

Europe’s success was raising entirely new questions. In some countries, particularly Britain, the demand for factory workers was pushing wages up to levels that made exports uncompetitive. British entrepreneurs responded by bringing together science and the new market economy, unleashing the awesome power of fossil fuels.

In 1776, the same year that Adam Smith finished his masterpiece The Wealth Of Nations and America’s founding fathers signed the Declaration Of Independence, James Watt launched the first really effective steam engine.

By 1870, Britain’s steam engines would be generating four million horsepower, equivalent to the labour of 40 million men, who would have consumed more than three times our entire wheat output.

Between 1500 and 1900 wheat yields had roughly doubled in the Western core, thanks to better organised farming and more draft animals and manure.

But by the 1890s farmers were reaching the limits of ingenuity. Adding animals could only drive up productivity so far, and by 1900 a quarter of America’s farmland was being used to feed horses.

Thanks to the new meanings of geography, Britain was responsible for the world’s first Industrial Revolution and was the first nation to be able to project power globally. Britain’s population boomed, spreading across the planet in what the historian

Niall Ferguson has vividly called a ‘white plague’; and Britain, not China or Japan, carved out an empire on which the sun never set.

Unfortunately for Britain, however, geography did not stop changing its meanings. As the 19th Century wore on, the British-dominated global economy drew in the resources of North America, converting the United States from a rather backward periphery (like Britain had been half a millennium earlier) into a new global core.

Between 1850 and 1900, Americans felled 168 million acres of forest, more than ten times Britain’s total farmland, and put it under the plough. The U.S. economy was half the size of Britain’s in 1840. By 1904 it was twice as big. But the United States was no more able to stop the ancient interplay of geography and social development when it was on top than Britain had been.
In the 20th Century the American-dominated global economy drew in the resources of Asia just as Britain had once drawn in those of America.

Japan cashed in first, doubling its share of world production between 1960 and 1980. Next came the so-called Asian Tigers: the economies of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan.

And then, most spectacular of all, the People’s Republic of China. Its share of world production tripled in the 30 years after Mao’s death in 1976; rare indeed is the Westerner who does not now put on at least one piece of made-in-China clothing every morning.

Chinese industry has sucked 150 million countryfolk into cities – the biggest migration in history. According to Businessweek magazine, ‘the China price’ now represents ‘the three scariest words in the English language’.

So, whatever the analysts may think, the West’s global dominance and ongoing crisis have precious little to do with flukes, great men, or bungling idiots – and nothing at all to do with racial or cultural superiority.

Rather, they are the entirely predictable outcomes of the complicated interaction of geography and social development across the last 15,000 years – an interaction which, in just the past 200 years, has given the West unprecedented wealth and power. And which, within our own lifetimes, has begun tilting the playing field in China’s favour.
Things will never be the same again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323200/Western-society-rules-longer.html
                
 

From Zeitgeist (Dignity) to.....Houston, Texas, Your Majesty:)

"Crown Princess Mette-Marit and Crown Prince Haakon at the 2013 Annual OTC Dinner in Houston, Texas" - http://pinterest.com/hrhpam/royals-norway/

Miao People

pe flori de mucava:)

Miracle of Holy Fire - one of the gratest miracle of God

The miracle is not confined to what actually happens inside the little tomb, where the Patriarch prays. What may be even more significant, is that the blue light is reported to appear and be active outside the tomb. Every year many believers claim that this miraculous light ignites candles, which they hold in their hands, of its own initiative. All in the church wait with candles in the hope that they may ignite spontaneously. OOften unlit oil lamps catch light by themselves before the eyes of the pilgrims. The blue flame is seen to move in different places in the Church. A number of signed testimonies by pilgrims, whose candles lit spontaneously, attest to the validity of these ignitions. The person who experiences the miracle from close up by having the fire on the candle or seeing the blue light usually leaves Jerusalem changed, and for everyone having attended the ceremony, there is always a "before and after" the miracle of the Holy Fire in Jerusalem.

http://www.holyfire.org/eng/

Marketing strategies:)