by Revilo P. Oliver

THE New Scientist for 20 January 1990 is especially interesting. It contains on one page the latest in a long series that describe the dire effects that the much-touted “greenhouse effect” will have on the world, unless the industrial production of carbon dioxide is halted, which, as no one states specifically, can be done only by the “One World” government for which Yahweh’s Yids have been agitating frantically since their victory in the war against our race in Europe. (1)

(1. This is not to deny that there are grave ecological problems, ranging from preservation of whales, dolphins, and other friendly species that have as much natural right to this planet as we do and which we should value much more than the species of anthropoids that are our active or potential enemies, to the preservation of the tropical rain forests that are being destroyed to accelerate the breeding of biological trash and the profits of the usurers who finance that destruction with loans that will eventually be paid by the American boobs.)

This article accompanies a map that shows what regions of the globe will be affected by the theoretical rise in the level of the ocean that is to be one of the theoretical consequences of the “greenhouse effect.” According to the theoretical projection, there will be minor effects in civilized countries, but the most drastic effects will occur in such places as Bangladesh, where there will be a great contraction of the area in which the wogs can breed, as they now do, at a rate which, if one takes into consideration the longer periods of gestation and infancy in our species, puts the guinea pig to shame.

There is, of course, the usual hint that this consequence of the projected “greenhouse effect” will call for taxing the “richer nations,” i.e., the Aryan boobs, and for importing into their countries more hordes of “refugees” to breed them out of their homes.

The same issue contains a really valuable and significant article, “Climate and History: the Westvikings’ Saga,” by John and Mary Gribbon. This reports the findings of the determination of climate in historical times by drilling deep into Arctic ice and extracting cores that show the prevailing climate’s fluctuations since c. 500 A.D. There are some very interesting speculations about the effect of presumably world-wide climate on the end of the Roman Empire, but the most positive and significant results explain the fate of the Vikings’ settlements in North America.

As late as the 1930s, the public schools in the United States provided some education for children instead of injecting “One World” pus to blight their racial instincts and befuddle their minds. In those days every schoolchild knew that North America was discovered near the end of the Tenth Century by a Viking from Iceland, Eric the Red, who attracted Norse settlers to the land he called Greenland, and that Leif Ericson led colonists further south around the year 1000. Settlements were certainly established in Newfoundland, and almost certainly on the mainland in what is now New England. (2)

(2. Archaeological evidence has proved there were Viking settlements in Newfoundland; it is highly probable that there were some on the coast of New England, but proof is lacking. For a non-technical account, see Westward to Vinland, by Helge Ingstad, translated by Erik J. Friis (London, Jonathan Cape, 1969).)

The new climatological data show that Eric the Red did reach a land that was then green and fertile and certainly a Greenland by contrast with the Iceland from which he had come. He arrived near the end of a warm period, called a “climatic optimum,” and his settlements would have prospered exceedingly, had not a following period of very cold winters imposed unexpected hardships on the colonists. The climate became warmer again, so colonists were again encouraged.

The two settlements in Greenland became so relatively prosperous that in 1125 a Catholic Bishop was installed in a cathedral, a fairly large church built of stone, of which the foundations are still visible at Gardar. Christianity flourished in the usual way. The authors remark that “Two hundred years later, when the colony was already a hundred years older than the U.S. is now, the church owned about two-thirds of the best grazing land on the island.” Although we may assume that the bishop hired servants to tend his herds, more or less inefficiently, the alienation of land that could have supported virile colonists and their families must have checked the expansion of the colony.

As the climate became increasingly colder after the end of the warmer phase around 1225, life in Greenland became ever more difficult. The last bishop died in 1378 and was never replaced, and intercourse between the colonists and the mother country gradually ceased; they had no surplus to export, and the Scandinavian countries were distracted by internal struggles for power and occasional wars.

The Norse settlers were essentially farmers, depending for their livelihood on cultivation of the soil and raising cattle. They could live through cold winters, but were doomed when, around 1500, the summers became too short to permit crops to mature and hence to provide fodder for livestock. The frozen body of the last Norseman in Greenland was found by a ship driven to the coast by a storm in 1540.

As the authors say, “In round terms, the Greenland colonies survived for 500 years, from 1000 to 15000, so they were far from being complete failures: the United States of America have been independent for less than half that time.”

The authors do not speculate about the fate of Norse colonies farther south. It is likely that they, having no firearms and only metal weapons that could not be replaced locally, were exterminated by the relatively multitudinous savages and by miscegenation. (Traces of White genes were found in Indian populations for centuries, even individuals who seemed to be White men but had degenerated to Indian customs. Compare the Guayakis of Paraguay.)

Now the fate of the members of our race who came so close to establishing civilization on this continent long before Columbus must be a subject of great interest and pathos to us, but the important point here is the climatic fluctuations from presumably global warming to global chilling that first permitted Norse settlements in Greenland and then made life there impossible for civilized men. (3)

(3. The authors, in tune with the times, suggest that the Norse could have survived in Greenland if they had gone native and imitated the Eskimos. That is supposed to read us a lesson about the need to “adapt” ourselves — adapt ourselves, I suppose, to Christian folly and the importation of hordes of barbarians and savages to take over our country. We can at least be proud that when the climate made life impossible in Greenland, the Norse died like men. The frozen corpse found in 1540 was dressed in European clothes.)

Now, as you have surely seen for yourself, if only there had been a World Government in the year 1000, Kind Solomon II, from his exalted throne in Jerusalem, would have stopped the industries that were then producing the “greenhouse effect,” thus either making settlements in Greenland impossible or assuring their perpetuity. If the latter, he would also have rushed shiploads of niggers to Greenland to teach the Norse about Civil Rights and thus exterminate that colony of the race his race has always hated above all.

If you want to worry about the future, that is the aspect of the “greenhouse effect” you should take to heart.

* * *

Source: Liberty Bell magazine, May 1990