Friday, January 8, 2016

A Quick Run Around the Web--January 8, 2016 (Updated)

Adolf Mosengel: Dorf in den Berner Alpen (c. 1885)
Germany's leaders have nothing of signifcance to say about the worst outbreak of sexual assaults in Germany since the Red Army moved out after World War II. Why won't they do anything? Answer: for the same reason that the Catholic Church insists that Islam is a religion of peace. The alternative--watching from a distance a civilizational collapse in real time with its attendant horrors--is too terrible for Angela Merkel or Pope Francis I to contemplate. They would rather take casualties than absorb the horror of the situation. The root of the problem is theological. The West is paralyzed by its own notion of the good.
I generally agree with Goldman, but I have to disagree here. What he is describing is not the reason for the silence from German leaders, generally, and certainly not the advanced secularists that inhabit the halls of power throughout the Western world. Perhaps it informs their psychology, to a certain extent; certainly it provides them a means of manipulating their populations. But there are other considerations. First, some pragmatic reasons. Germany's birth dearth presents it with the dilemma of either cutting back on government expenditures (including pensions), or import new tax payers. It, like most of the industrialized world, has chosen the latter option. Moreover, just as American companies have resorted to a new form of slavery (by using either low-cost illegal aliens or low-cost workers here on special work visas, such as the H1-B program) to lower production costs and increase profits, so too will European corporations where they are able. Finally, migrants make a reliable voting bloc for socialist leaders. Thus, importing workers is a win-win for both fiscal conservatives and social liberals. 
Second, as Oswald Spengler described (predicted?) nearly 100 years ago, Western civilization is now in an age of Imperialism. Daniel Greenfield described the implications of this in his essay: "The Two Empires We Must Defeat." Greenfield notes that nationalism is antithetical to imperialism:
Empires may be expansionist, but they're also tolerant and multicultural. They have to be, since out of their initial phase they have to enlist the cooperation and services of subjects from a variety of cultures and religions. An empire may initially be fueled by the talents and skills of a core nation, but as it reaches its next phase, it begins sacrificing their interests to the larger structure of empire.
Greenfield goes on to describe two types of imperialists: those of international law (essentially what Spengler would have referred to as the cult of money) and ideology, represented by socialism in its various flavors. He writes:
These two types of imperialists are incapable of representing native workers or communities because they are transnationalists. Their vision is cosmopolitan, rather than representative. They are entranced with a byzantine international arrangement and uninterested in the lives of the people they are ruining. 
Britain and France have long experience with being international, cosmopolitan empires. Germany and the rest of Europe, less so. It is not surprising that real resistance to immigration would first arise in these latter nations.
    In the early stage of a K-shift, while threat and harshness are still avoidable and deniable, there will be a period where splintering will occur among the right. As a result, some rightward individuals will cling to aspects of r which give them comfort, while trying to maneuver politically and for social reasons in directions other than the K-strategy, as the Cuckservatives of the US do. Other groups with amygdalae only partly trained to react to a single deviation from one aspect of the K-strategy will focus on one aspect of K, from family values and social conservatism, to nationalism, to demands for freedom from government oppression, each to the exclusion of the rest of the K-strategy. They may attempt to compromise, or reduce conflict stimuli on other aspects of K as a strategic move, driven by their amygdala’s obsessed focus.
      As the apocalypse goes down, there will be a reversal of the splintering, leading the right to fuse, but this will only occur as violence and threat become undeniable and a necessity that must be addressed. If real violence and threat were actually present in everyone’s world now, the similar aspects of right-leaning ideologues would unite them as allies against the threat, overwhelming their amygdalae’s present drive to avoid conflict. It would be something which would be actively driven by a cognitive desire of the amygdala to alleviate more thoroughly the massive anxiety produced by the threat. As they say, there is nothing like common enemies.
        People are always asking me about pre-attack indicators. How do you know when you're about to be attacked? How do you tell the difference between  threat displays and pre-assault indicators? What do your look for?
           Here is the #1 pre-attack indicator: YOU'RE BEING AN A[**]HOLE!
            Scientists believe that there were originally two distinct strains of H.pylori - an African and an Asian strain - which merged to form the modern strain which infects people in Europe today.
              But when they analysed the DNA of Ӧtzi's H.pylori, the team made an intriguing discovery. 
                Rather than being infected with the same strain as Europeans today, the iceman had a strain more closely related to bacteria found in modern Central and South Asia.
                  It had been assumed that Stone Age people were already infected with the European strain of the bacteria before they settled down, giving up the nomadic life for farming, before Ӧtzi's time in the Copper Age.
                    But the findings from Ӧtzi turn this theory on its head, indicating that the movements of early Europeans may have been much more complicated than previously believed. 
                      'The recombination of the two types of Helicobacter may have only occurred at some point after Ötzi's era and this shows that the history of settlements in Europe is much more complex than previously assumed,' explained Dr Frank Maixner, a microbiologist at EURAC.
                        He added: ‘We actually don’t know what kind of people brought this African H.pylori into Europe.
                          'What we do know is that the signal for this second population, which has come into Europe is strongest in North East Africa. 
                            ‘What more than likely happened…is that the North East signal, found in modern day Europeans, had not evolved by the time we left Africa 65,000 years ago.'
                              The 'Out of Africa' theory holds that the main migration from Africa occurred around 65,000 years ago.

                              No comments:

                              Post a Comment

                              Ukraine War Update (May 13, 2022)

                               You may have already read this since the Institute for the Study of War seems to be one of the major go-to sites for information on the war...