teo commented about the great racial war called WW2.
I like teo's wry style and maybe unwittingly he got it right. After the WWII, the question of what to do with the German people was debated. Roosevelt considered de-industrializing Germany and reducing it to a peaceful Ruritania; about the debate in Russia we know little but East Germany was effectively dismantled. There were more extreme proposals too, for sure, but the Germans did little harm to AngloSaxon peoples so they did not develope the amount of fear and hate required to condone their obliteration. Moreover, the AngloSaxons re-industrialized and re-armed Germany and had them ready to re-launch the war against Russia if Russia ever became a nuisance.
Germans tried to wipe out the slavs. Got completly crushed. Being a rather generous and gentle man Iosif Djugasvili, the destroyer of the nazi beast, decided not to reply in kind and closed the subject. He said : "Hitlers come and go, but Germany and the German people remain." Jewish commnunity was almost obliterated.
The roots of PC antiracism can be found in this great racial war and it is written in the founding documents of the United Nations. But in seventy years anti-racism has turned to something unrecognizable and deals mostly with Africans. African people are insignificant from every point of view and the discrimination they are supposed to be suffering is ridiculous in terms of what "real" racism is. Who cares that there are proportionally few African rocket scientists? I dont. We should spend no time obsessing on that kind of "racism".
46 comments:
Viktor Suvorov (aka Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun) gives us a different theory of the Great Patriotic War in his two books Icebreaker and The Chief Culprit. Suvorov challenges the conventional historical narrative that Germany conducted a surprise attack on Russia in 1941. He says Stalin was planning to attack Germany, and Hitler launched a preemptive attack first. I haven't read Icebreaker, but I working my way through The Chief Culprit, which is well documented. I don't necessarily accept Suvorov's theory, but I've always thought we don't have the straight story on WWII. If Britain went to war with Germany over Poland, then why didn't it declare war on Russia? After all Germany and Russia were allies and both attacked Poland at about the same time. Both were aggressors, but Russia got a pass. How come?
There are many other funny things about the standard history of WWII that I find suspicious. The race war theory is one of them.
I have read the Icebreaker. It is very convincing, yet I cant digest conspiracy theories.
Racial war is not a conspiracy theory, it is just human nature in action.
He says Stalin was planning to attack Germany,
Russian army was disorganized and not capable of attacking Germany.
How was the European war a race war? Russia and Germany are both white nations. On the other hand, the Pacific War was a race war, and it was predicted by Theodore Lothrop Stoddard in his 1920 book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy. As a demographer, Stoddard was able to extrapolate trends into the far future. He saw that the high population growth manifest by the end of the 19th Century in the non-white world would lead to the Pacific war and to massive immigration into Europe and America from the Third World (to use modern terminology). History has verified his vision. In 1950 white people were a third of the world's population while Africans were less than 10%. Now demographic predictions tell us that by 2060 Africans will be a third, and white people will shrink to single digits. In other words, the two races exchange demographic places. This is absolutely amazing because Africans are a largely dysfunctional race who must suck in resources from other races to survive in their current numbers.
Thus we have had two race wars. The whites won the Pacific war, but are losing the second war, which is a drawn out affair fought with high fertility and propaganda.
To look at Germans and Slavs as two different races, we have to accept the idea that the Nordics (Germans) are racially distinct from Indo-Europeans. Even the Nazis didn't wholly believe that. They considered Poles and Northern Russians as sufficiently Nordic to be worthy of Germanisation.
WWII (an extension of WWI) in the European theater, was a war within the white race-- a kind of very nasty family feud.
J is using a more traditional definition of the word 'race'.
"But in seventy years anti-racism has turned to something unrecognizable and deals mostly with Africans. African people are insignificant from every point of view and the discrimination they are supposed to be suffering is ridiculous in terms of what "real" racism is. Who cares that there are proportionally few African rocket scientists?"
It is quite interesting that anything society does degenerates into completly different and unexpected directions. One of the main reasons for this I think is identified in the : Iron Law of Bureaucracy - Jerry Pournelle.
"Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions."
Fighting racism seems to be one of the practical examples. A bureaucracy which continued to evolve and grow long after it lost any reason for existence. And why not, it provides a good living for many middle class educated people - educated hmmmm as in having diplomas whatever that means, I didn't have a better way of defining their status, pls advice if you can - , gives something to talk about for the chattering class and its real cost is very very small.
What is amazing about this story is how efficient is the african strategy of survival. One continent is over 80% african. Two others are partially colonised - north and south america. One is in the process of being colonised - Europe. The great african migration wave is now just begining. O great population collapse is in full motion in Europe and a huge demographic tsunami is also in motion in Africa. Of course society and history are not liniar and anything can happen.
But the story of the african colonisation of the Americas was very similar. Not enough people to do a lot of menial work. So african bio-robots were brought. Due to this similarity I think that african colonisation of europe in a brazilian way is a very distinct possibility. Any visit to large western european economic active areas - now cities, in colonial brazil rural areas - can atest that the process has already begun.
God's ways are pretty complicated and maybe we sometimes understand very little of what is important. Sometimes what we are educated to consider as strength is weakness.
I intentionatelly mentioned a colonisation in brazilian style, because is not a replacement of the native population by the yoruba and zulus whatever. Its a change in the genome of the european population through mixing, we are talking about birmingham and marseille here, not the racist south carolina in the 19th century.
By the way the colonisation vanguard is already checking eastern asia. A large population collapse is happening there - can't be seen with naked eye due to population momentum, but is very very close.
Didn't say any of this will happen like this, peak oil, ww3, etc can change everything of course.
How can a largely dysfunctional population colonize an advanced, well organized area like Europe? It cannot. They are being brought in. In Brazil, Africans did not replace Whites, they added to their numbers. The infusion of African blood will increase European population growth to replacement level and much more.
According to the CIA Factbook, as of 2011, Brazil is 57.3% white, 38.5% mulatto, and 6.2% black. Yet they are barely at replacement level in terms of fertility (TFR= 2.18). Evidently importing Africans into Brazil barely compensated for the fall off in white fertility. If white fertility has fallen off there.
If you go to Wikipedia, you can find a list of countries by TFR. In the CIA table, the 42 highest TFRs are all African countries with the exception of Afghanistan. So we see that the great increase in the world's black population will occur in Africa, not in the countries that import Africans. If the Europeans think they can maintain their economies with immigration, they are in for a surprise. At some point they will realize that more immigrants from the Third World means more welfare costs, and a decreasing GDP per capita. Then the immigration will stop. But by then the whole nature of European society will have changed. You won't recognize the place, and you won't want to go there.
This is what's happening right now in California (where I live). Mexican immigration both legal and illegal, has changed life in California. Whole cities in the southern part of the state (I live in the north) have become extensions of Mexico. For example Maywood CA is now 97.4% Hispanic-- city council meetings are held in Spanish. Bell CA is 93.1% Hispanic. Not surprisingly Mexican corruption has also been imported. Recently Bell gained notoriety when the Mayor, the city manager, and five city council members were arrested for misappropriation of public funds. Los Angeles, the second most populous city in America, is now only 29.4% non-Hispanic white. Our white California politicians cheer the Mexicanization of California. Of course they live in gated communities and send their children to private schools.
J. I think you need to think about the consequences of mass immigration into Europe and America.
They are colonising an area rich in nutrients and very favorable for reproduction - no epidemics, clean water, warm dry accomodations easy to find and keep etc.
You looked from a sociological point of view - "How can a largely dysfunctional population colonize an advanced, well organized area like Europe? It cannot."
Above is a strictly geophysical view.
We know that Britain, France and Spain colonised the Carabian archipelago. But hmmmm strangely if you look at that area you'll find small africas. Not little englands or castiles.
Being intelectuals we can talk about how and why, but reality remains unchanged. We can even discuss that african didn't hmmm colonise that small piece of paradise on Earth. But somehow you don't find british there, you find igbos and yorubas.
Animals colonising galapagos used external carriers also - floating wood. The fact that british appear in history books does not change the fact that africa extended over the ocean. British used boats. Africans used british.
"In Brazil, Africans did not replace Whites, they added to their numbers."
It's a little more complicated in Brazil, they mixed in strange ways for someone new to genetics. Great analysis here - http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/02/brazilians-more-european-than-not/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GeneExpressionBlog+%28Gene+Expression%29
You can interpret of course completly in reverse - they were used as biorobots by the portuguese. Females were used as artificial hmmm wombs - " A process of “whitening” of the original mulatto and mestizo population of the colony probably occurred with each successive generation of male immigrants, who married into the hybrid communities and shifted the total genome content, though not the maternal background. "
That's how a person can be 90% white and yet have maternal origins 100% african.
Both of the above interpretations are correct from my point of view, who colonised what.
"The infusion of African blood will increase European population growth to replacement level and much more."
Well not necessarily. Cuba Brazil etc are below replacement. Cuba had european fertility for some decades already. From the 80s if I remember correctly.
What I think is the most important issue to consider - the only one maybe - when trying to understand who did what is to look at genetics. The ones who populate the land with their descendants are the colonisers. If a continent 100% european becomes 30 or 40 or whatever % african then it means africans were colonisers.
"That's how a person can be 90% white and yet have maternal origins 100% african."
100& African mother means they are 50% black, not 90%.
"Evidently importing Africans into Brazil barely compensated for the fall off in white fertility."
African Americans are below replacement.
"That's how a person can be 90% white and yet have maternal origins 100% african."
"100& African mother means they are 50% black, not 90%."
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) descends in a straight maternal line, i.e. one has the same mtDNA as one's mother's mother's mother's ... except for a few mutations. One's mother's father's mother, for instance, won't show up at all in one's mtDNA. They will, however, contribute to autosomal DNA. At the individual level, Y-chromosomes and mtDNA tell an individual almost nothing about the vast bulk of their ancestry. Their benefit to genealogy lies in their traceability. Autosomal DNA studies tell individuals much more about total ancestry content, but due to genetic recombination, it's not trivially easy to make that information genealogically useful (requires complex computer algorithms such as 23andMe's relative finder.
It is our right not to be replaced by any other people, African, South Asian, or anyone else.
The crime is that this replacement strategy has been pushed on us, and we have to suffer it involuntarily.
Personally, I'd rather our population crashed; in due course, we would deal with it. Now we have to deal with many additional problems which border on the insoluble.
I cannot believe in Israel you feel any differently. Every time I go there, I do not detect any enthusiasm for being replaced.
Anon.
Africans used british floatsam to colonize the Caribbean islands. I think Haiti is a better example: there they used the French to create a not-so-little Africa.
All that happened 200 years ago, much before the current weakening of the White peoples's reproductive power.
The same could be said about South Africa. Europeans developed the country and made it habitable and colonizable by Bantus. From an objetive point of view, Africans used Europeans. History books - nice way of saying it - are full of Dutch and English but at field level you find 90% Bantu. hmmm
Maybe the African model is more robust than the European one.
Africa without Europeans is always at risk of a population crash from the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
Anon.
"Maybe the African model is more robust than the European one."
It was the Europeans that caused the rapid population growth in Africa and other places, by reducing the death rate. In doing so they upset the historical balance between the birth and deaths. I suspect that without European support, the African death rate would climb and restore the original balance. There's nothing robust about the African situation. It's all about female fertility. White women are fussy, and don't like having children as compared to other races. Look at Table 1 in National Vital Statistics. White non-Hispanic TFR is 1.791 for 2010 down from 2009. Black TFR is 1.971, but blacks have a tremendous number of abortions, largely paid for by whites. Black population growth in the U.S. essentially zero. But Hispanic population growth is another matter; TFR= 2.352. Recent Mexican immigrants to California have a TFR= 3, which is much greater than Mexican TFR= 2.3.
Lesson learned. Black and Hispanic demographics are very strongly influenced by white support or lack thereof.
Black and Hispanic demographics are very strongly influenced by white support or lack thereof.
Time to pull our support...
zarkov01
Is the reproduction of American minorities regulated by the Government? Only in a very diffuse and confused way. No consistent policy can be formulated because the accusation of racism and genocydical intention (or conspiracy) is always in the background.
Maybe population policies can be agreed by silent consensus and carried out without anyone writing down anything and without saying a word. (Out of context: Goldreich in "Hitler's Willling..." says that the Holocaust was done this way).
"Maybe the African model is more robust than the European one."
Well partially I think.
We go through cycles. More complete definition - "In ecology, r/K selection theory relates to the selection of combinations of traits in an organism that trade off between quantity or quality of offspring. The focus upon either increased quantity of offspring at the expense of individual parental investment, or reduced quantity of offspring with a corresponding increased parental investment, is varied to promote success in particular environments. "
Sometimes R strategy is better. In different conditions K is more efficient.
Modern society created o sort of super tropical enviroment. Food is everywhere , just have to pop out kids and food is there. No need for great parental investments.
In an enviroment quasi tropical the tropical reproductive strategy is "more robust".
If you try to go even deeper its a function of energy resources.
Lot of Sun - energy - means lots of food, tropical strategy is efficient. Our days lots of easy to obtain energy - conventional oil and gas - means lot of food, same tropical strategy is efficient.
Life after peak oil will look more like a northern enviroment. Liniar projections mean nothing. Africans will not replace the other races, just like europeans didn't before them. Cycles.
What is amazing is to see that in todays industrial urban complex enviroment europeans and east asians are the ones unadapted. Chinese and germans make great peasants but they are just not made to be city dwellers. The city is toxic for them. Exactly the reverse fo what we generally take as granted. Africans make lousy farmers, but are perfectly adapted to modern urban enviroment.
The bible talks about having eyes but not being able to see.That is why we see great cimiteries like Tokio, london or Seoul. And think blondes and eastern asians are great city dwellers. But they just built black holes through which their etnical groups goes into oblivion.
teo, Few think in poetic allegories so necessarily I wonder who are you? Anyway, you are right. Except that the ice era is near and once more, all the animals adapted to the Tropics will retire to the jungle. There is no energy scarcity now and none in the horizon. After all the oil and the coal is consumed (many centuries in the future), nuclear energy will continue to produce cheap electricity, and then fusion will be necessary and accessible. Humanity has solved the energy problem like it solved the freshwater problem here in Israel.
We are now in a transition, passing through a narrow bridge. In this bridge high IQ peoples are in disadvantage and outreproduced by tropical varieties. We may not reach the point where we have retaken control of our destiny. Using Mangan's parable, once 51% of the voters are living from a democratic State, they will vote for governments transferring evermore resources to them. Till the whole state collapses (e.g. Greece, 2012).
Africans are certainly not insignificant demographically. Nor are they insignificant culturally here in the United States. Much of our pop culture is black dominated.
I don't know that recent Mexican immigrants really do average 3 children each. TFR is a snapshot based on one year's behavior; it can drastically over- and underestimate the number of children a woman ultimately has. And recent immigrants have a habit of waiting until they make it to the U.S. to have children.
Sorry for the absolutely horrendous syntax. Two kids and one wife had different conflicted requests from me. All of them in the same time.
"We are now in a transition, passing through a narrow bridge. In this bridge high IQ peoples are in disadvantage and outreproduced by tropical varieties." I absolutely agree. Not so with the rest.
Citizenship apeared like in the ancient world when inferior social classes became military important. First serfs became soldiers. And in the next 150-200 years they became citizens and got hmmmm the right to vote.
Not we are no longer uselfull for military purposes, profesional mercenaries took the stage once more.
So step by step we are loosing our status. There is no need for the upper class to gain and keep our loyalty.
About democracy I don't know. Its clear the american political system goes absolutely against the wishes of the largest majority of the former citizens, future serfs . Now is a transitory stage I think.
No issues are involved in the entire electoral spectacle. No real debate on any real problems.
Medical complex apropriates 16 % of GDP. And the results are well weaker then those of the cuban medical system.
Life expectancy is one of the factors World Health Organization (WHO) took into consideration. Even that is lower in US then in a tropical island - lots of epidemiologic problems - inhabited by a population of largely african origin.
No political figure in US even mentioned the issue in this parameters. That a huge theft is taking place right now.
It's clear that if you take thousands of billions of dollars and deliver a bag of goods smaller then the one received for peanuts in Santiago de Cuba then ... well ... it means you stole the money.
I think the theft in health care is much larger then the one from finance and MIC.
And yet we see absolutely no oposition, no political force trying to get any votes out of stopping the robbery.
The people didn't get any transfer. What they got was just a modern form of " Panem et Circenses" - bread and circus. Plebes from the metropolitan area , the imperial center got some food stamps. it costs little and political movements in the central province are potentially disruptive. Of course in case of need they are going to be solved through very brutal means, like the Gracchus brothers found out. Being part of the emperial original ethnical group does not help you much if you go against the material interests
of the oligarchy.
I'd say that in Greece it's a little more complicated.
Sweden for example has hmmmm 1000!!! billion dollars in foreign debt. And Germany .... 5000 billions. What is happening now is a financial war.
I have long thought about why germany is trying to throw Greece out of EU. Is willing to go at any length to do it.
I don't base my suspicion/assumption on any hard data. Absolutely none.
The only explanation rational I got was that crushing Greece and forcing it out of EU will destroy NATOs south- eastern flank. Will create an Armenia. And germans are the not the only ones participating at this, they are just more visible. Germans are just a tool, like prussia was centuries ago the tool of the Russian empire in europe.
This unfortunately leads us back to energy and I have a divergent opinion from yours. That is why we interpret differently the current events.
The amount of data is enormous, just bits:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6912
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/7001
etc etc etc
Sorry for the absolutely horrendous syntax. Two kids and one wife had different conflicted requests from me. All of them in the same time.
"We are now in a transition, passing through a narrow bridge. In this bridge high IQ peoples are in disadvantage and outreproduced by tropical varieties." I absolutely agree. Not so with the rest.
Citizenship apeared like in the ancient world when inferior social classes became military important. First serfs became soldiers. And in the next 150-200 years they became citizens and got hmmmm the right to vote.
Not we are no longer uselfull for military purposes, profesional mercenaries took the stage once more.
So step by step we are loosing our status. There is no need for the upper class to gain and keep our loyalty.
About democracy I don't know. Its clear the american political system goes absolutely against the wishes of the largest majority of the former citizens, future serfs . Now is a transitory stage I think.
No issues are involved in the entire electoral spectacle. No real debate on any real problems.
Medical complex apropriates 16 % of GDP. And the results are well weaker then those of the cuban medical system.
Life expectancy is one of the factors World Health Organization (WHO) took into consideration. Even that is lower in US then in a tropical island - lots of epidemiologic problems - inhabited by a population of largely african origin.
No political figure in US even mentioned the issue in this parameters. That a huge theft is taking place right now.
It's clear that if you take thousands of billions of dollars and deliver a bag of goods smaller then the one received for peanuts in Santiago de Cuba then ... well ... it means you stole the money.
I think the theft in health care is much larger then the one from finance and MIC.
And yet we see absolutely no oposition, no political force trying to get any votes out of stopping the robbery.
The people didn't get any transfer. What they got was just a modern form of " Panem et Circenses" - bread and circus. Plebes from the metropolitan area , the imperial center got some food stamps. it costs little and political movements in the central province are potentially disruptive. Of course in case of need they are going to be solved through very brutal means, like the Gracchus brothers found out. Being part of the emperial original ethnical group does not help you much if you go against the material interests
of the oligarchy.
I'd say that in Greece it's a little more complicated.
Sweden for example has hmmmm 1000!!! billion dollars in foreign debt. And Germany .... 5000 billions. What is happening now is a financial war.
I have long thought about why germany is trying to throw Greece out of EU. Is willing to go at any length to do it.
I don't base my suspicion/assumption on any hard data. Absolutely none.
The only explanation rational I got was that crushing Greece and forcing it out of EU will destroy NATOs south- eastern flank. Will create an Armenia. And germans are the not the only ones participating at this, they are just more visible. Germans are just a tool, like prussia was centuries ago the tool of the Russian empire in europe.
This unfortunately leads us back to energy and I have a divergent opinion from yours. That is why we interpret differently the current events.
The amount of data is enormous, just bits:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6912
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/7001
etc etc etc
As I said above I don't base this theory about Greece on any hard data.
Talking about hard data :
Germany is weak, the weakest part is its financial sector. Huge leverage factor, huge debts. from the financial point of view Germany is a basket case, worse then Greece.
German energy sector is completly dependent on imports of gas from Holland, Norway - british , Russia - well russians, oil from middle est - british and from russia and electricity from France.
It's in demographic collapse, no human reosuces to do anything ans especially not able for a come back in case of crisis. Number of babies reached 650 000 per year. One third of them has immigrant background. So the number of germans produced by the 65-66 million germans - estimate, probably even lower - is ... well around 400-450 000.
So due to the above what is absolutely clear is why I think that Germany is not in the lead. Who why, well that is not so clear.
I was in a hurry.
" In this bridge high IQ peoples are in disadvantage and outreproduced by tropical varieties."
Something else might be added.
We are going through an evolutionary bottle neck. In absolute numbers it appears that we are as a group not adapted. Just that absolute numbers hide that not all of us are. We are right now changing completly. The ones who absolutely desire children are selected. Its darwinism in action.
Northern people are going very fast through an adaptation process. In order to have children in modern enviroment - more than one - you need to absolutely desire them before they are born.
Not something like boy meets girl , etc and baby shows up. Now you have to clearly want to breed without having any hormonal attachment to the tiny droplet of life. We are reducing in absolute numbers, but the ones of us remaining are becoming resilient like rats.
We are loosing on the way the weak ones, the ones who don't cling to life strong enough - no connection to individual self preservation instinct.
We are becoming stronger.
Agree about German baby production being around 400,000 per annum. It makes for an overall population of 40 million. Yet the fact is that Germany's population is GROWING. The same in Hungary. There is a gradual aging of the autoctonous population, with young immigrants making up the deficit. German industry is prospering and the economy is not all that bad. The process is very gradual and I presume that in 2040 Germany will have about 40 million autoctonous German population and 60 or 70 million German speaking well integrated immigrants - Turks, Greeks, Spaniards, Romanians, Hungarians, etc. The economy will prosper as never before. So the prospect is not so terrible if you are a middle class German.
I think Germans have not forgotten their double defeat. Back in their minds they may be saying to themselves that they are waiting for the right moment. They are positioning themselves to be a 100 million strong coherent state in 2040, with a loyal and disciplined Europe at their orders. I think they will be pro-Israeli so I dont fear their re-emergence. maybe Britain should.
US life expectancy is slightly better than Cuba, but not my much (keep in mind that Communist statistics are not really trustworthy). However, there are a number of factors in the US which counterbalance our (clearly superior if overpriced) health care system:
Diet and exercise - Cubans don't get enough to eat - don't have to worry about obesity. Lots of opportunities to walk and do manual labor.
Lifestyle - Many Americans succumb to drugs and violence. In rigidly controlled Cuba, this is less of a problem.
Auto accidents - another important cause of death in US - not many Cubans get to ride in a car.
In short, the health care system is not the only determinant of life expectancy. And life expectancy says nothing about quality of life - in a place like Cuba you could spend the last decades of your life in agonizing pain because you could not get a knee or hip replacement, etc.
K
"US life expectancy is slightly better than Cuba, but not my much (keep in mind that Communist statistics are not really trustworthy)."
Not only that, the life expectancy number is strongly influenced by infant mortality. But comparing U.S. numbers to other countries is difficult because we try to save new borns that other countries classify as still births. The still births don't make into the statistics, but the high risk group that U.S. hospitals use heroic measures on does. That pumps up the U.S. infant mortality rate.
The right metric to use to compare life expectancy among countries is the force of mortality curve (called the hazard rate in reliability engineering). One curve for each country. Otherwise one can draw erroneous inferences from using just one number.
Eliminate the racial underclass, adjust for the infant mortality distortion and use force of mortality and you will see the U.S. does pretty well. Nevertheless medical care determines about 10% of longevity. The rest is generics and lifestyle.
The disposition of the Soviet forces at the eve of Barbarossa shows that Stalin was preparing to attack first. Otherwise how does one account for the massive concentration of Soviet forces along the border without adequate reserves in the hinterlands? Stalin followed an anti-imperialist strategy in hoping that that Germans and the French would fight to a standstill, leaving the Soviets to pick up the pieces. How was he to know that the storied French Army with all of its 120 divisions, would be defeated in a few weeks? He was one lucky bugger. Under the Tsars he would have been shot for astounding negligence; instead Molotov went to him crying, begging him to stay on as the Vodzh. In all of history, I do not think there is a career that matches Stalin's. I am convinced that the Devil himself was his copilot.
Ivan
About health care and the comparison I made. The points mentioned by zarkov and anonymous are correct from my point of view. But there is more to it.
Comparing the entire US with Cuba is a little bit erroneous.
The ethnical/racial composition of Cuba is pretty similar today with Detroit. So you have hmmmm a tropical detroit which has better medical results then the entire continental US. And then it becomes pretty clear something is pretty rotten in Denmark( US).
Of course it's pretty hard to notice if you are immersed in corporate media. Medical industry is sucking over 2000 billion dollars per year. Everyone has a piece of it. So it's a great system, but for everyone who counts, not for society or the american people - whatever that is, pretty unclear issue now.
Medical industry is more a financial one. They are in the business of making money, health care comes a very distant second anyway. That is why as a business is number one worldwide, and as a medical system is 38th place.
Because it's a financial system masquerading a health care one.
In order for a small ethnical group to be able to organize and lead a large array of peoples is pretty hard. We can see that persians excel at this.
Germans absolutely suck at leadership. The manufacturing guilds are very good. An eastern mark - Prussia - created a military caste which was good, but now neither prussia nor its military caste exist any more.
The fact that german ethnical group became very numerous was a historical moment, due to the very late modernisation of the area. They bred for a longer period of time and now things are correcting thmeselves. Same happened to Japan. Now we see everyone going back to normal.
Germans are in the process of becoming a second level power in Europe. Persians are recreating the empire, Japan goes back to being a small poor archipelago, etc
Last year a tectonic event in world economics happened. Was not accorded the importance it deserved.
Japan got its first commercial deficit. It was going to happen anyway - this for the ones who want to mention Fukushima.
The level of consumption is extremly low, there is no slack they can cut. The country is unsustainable in a world system with high energy/food prices. Its a North Korea in the making.
Germany worked fine as long as energy was cheap and competition was small. Managed to cheat faith for the time being, great feat, japan or italy couldn't. But in does not work in the long term.
The problem was identified by german political economy school before 40s.
I have read their analysis and they are pretty sound, we can see all their projections from demography to industrial evolutions happening exactly as they were modeled.
If you look from this angle german attempts to change through extreme violence the future of the continent became rational. Beastly immoral whatever but rational.
The country went through a very brief moment of being populous and strong. But in their position it was not going to last.
Wanted to use their brief window of opportunity - there wasn't any but they tried anyway - in order to create a new demographic and political reality.
In order to do a persian scenario you need to be smart with people. Germans are the definition of the opposite. Absolutely nobody likes them in leadership role.
France, Britain and Russia are much stronger then Germany right now. But somebody has to take the heat for whatever unpleasant things are/will happen. Somebody has to be hated and spitted on.
It's like : Yo Hans, come here we got a job for you. Go in front and take whatever spits or bricks are coming this way. We'll just stay nice and comfy in the back. Of course we'll keep the money and influence for ourselves, but hey it's your moment. Now go!
Britain and France are enormously wealthy and powerfull but they keep a rather low profile. Of course are the first if it's about taking money, but lamenting all the time.
Russians would very much enjoy to do the same, but those lousy british keep the spotlights on them all the time.
Hans is just the scapegoat I believe. On this planet going in front and beating your chest is a bad bad strategy. It works at gorrillas it seems, but human society is a little bit more complex.
Like in the american health care system case, there are things we know because well they are known. A sort of circular logic.
The country with the most wealthy people - amount of wealth per capita - is France. 250 000 dollars per capita. But it's something quite unexpected, we just know it's economy is sclerotic and pretty weak.
How the flag carrier of globalisation - by results - managed to obfuscate this is pretty amazing. They are exceptionally smart.
Just small examples:
GDF Suez S.A.( Gas du france) is a French multinational energy company which operates in the fields of electricity generation and distribution, natural gas and renewable energy. The world's largest utility company from 2008.
Why from 2008? Hmmmm well because before if was EDF - Electrite du france - number one. GDF has a larger portofolio so they managed to sneak to no 1.
BNP Paribas S.A. is a global banking group, headquartered in Paris,[2] with its second global headquarters in London.[3] In October 2010, BNP Paribas was ranked by Bloomberg and Forbes as the largest bank and largest company in the world by assets with over $3.1 trillion.
The L'Oréal Group is the world's largest cosmetics and beauty company.[2] With its registered office in Paris and head office in the Paris suburb of Clichy, Hauts-de-Seine, France,[3] it has developed activities in the field of cosmetics.
LVMH Moët Hennessy • Louis Vuitton S.A., better known as LVMH, is a French multinational luxury goods conglomerate headquartered in Paris, France. - They pretty much own the luxury market. Of the planet.
Groupe Danone is a food-products multinational corporation based in the 9th arrondissement of Paris. It claims world leadership in fresh dairy products,[2] marketed under the corporate name, and also in bottled water. In 2007 it swapped its world number 2 position as producer of cereals and biscuits[2] for the same position in baby foods, having sold the biscuits division to Kraft Foods[3] and acquired Numico.
Danone owns many water brands worldwide. In Asia, it has acquired Yili, Aqua (Indonesia) and Robust (92%) and has a 51% holding in China's Wahaha Joint Venture Company, giving it a total market share of 20% and making it the leading vendor of packaged water in Asia.
Lafarge is a French industrial company specialising in four major products: cement, construction aggregates, concrete and gypsum wallboard. In 2010 the company was the world's second-largest cement manufacturer by mass shipped behind Holcim.
I can continue for very long. Just check the CAC 40 companies and a pretty amazing and completly different image from the one generally taken as granted emerges.
We all know for example about the anglo oil supermajors. Total somehow manages to go under the public radar with all its 160 billion dollars revenue. Just like the rest. We all know about Bechtel and the gang, but Vinci goes under the radar.
Vinci being : " Vinci is a French concessions and construction company, formerly called Société Générale d'Enterprises. It employs over 179,000 people and is the largest construction company in the world by revenue."
Sorry for the long post but I had to demonstrate something which goes against what is generally accepted as known truth.
Sorry about Total , the number was in euros. In dollars it's over 200 billion.
"Under the Tsars he would have been shot for astounding negligence."
Stalin WAS the Tsar.
K
Whatever people skills the Persians once possessed ( I really didn't know they were noted for those) are long gone - Ahmadinejad is anything but a charmer.
K
Teo-do you have a blog?
I pointed out that current Western population numbers are not indicative of the future as the population of the West is bottlenecking a while ago. The Sex and the City types and those who desire many children and are indifferent to designer handbags and exotic vacations are lumped into the same category for now-zero children and four children average out to two. In a few generations, everyone in the cognitive elite of the West will be descended from those who love and value family above glitter bullshit, and are resilient to the dysgenic effects of wealth. These people will keep having four, five, six or more kids in perpetuity, and since those kids will be bright and productive, they will make life better for everyone.
B:
About darwinian winner making a better world... depends on what you consider a better life. I'd rather believe we would not like it.
"In a few generations, everyone in the cognitive elite of the West will be descended from those who love and value family above glitter bullshit, and are resilient to the dysgenic effects of wealth."
Even more. Due to a lot of social factors, women who can have children at pretty old ages - old from a fertility angle. Women who are able to conceive al high ages are selected for.
So we have powerful evolutionary forces working in favour of people who desire babies and are willing to sacrifice constiously personal confort for this, and also the fertility window is growing. We are witnesses of te birth of a super fertile sub-specie.
No I don't have a blog. But I am thinking about making one for it would offer the posibility to reach interesting people like you and J. And exchange opinions.
You ought to start one.
I've found that I tend to prefer the kind of people who have a bunch of kids out of conviction and preference for family over luxury (as opposed to the ones who just keep cranking out kids because fucking feels good and is state-subsidized, as well as the ones who see their luxuries as more important than reproduction.) That subspecies will make the world a great place to live.
Selection for older fertility among women is probably a minor phenomenon. Most of the women who hold off on having kids until they're cougars only have one, maybe two. Many of those kids have all kinds of defects that keep them from passing on their genes.
Well after 30 and after having kids of my own I also prefer the ones you opted for family. The others are OK for parties, but that is all.
In rest you don't speak the same language any more. And I am talking about people you know from childhood. Somehow the pro family group and the hedonistic one diverge so much we are like different species. Work together fine is we have common tasks, but don't communicate any more.
Was not talking about cougars, but they are also a component. In order to keep up with social standards is very hard to have 3-4 kids in large european cities. Even 2 is quite heroic.
So a lot of people have to wait until late 30s to have the second or third child. Not every female can conceive any more. So the next generation is also selected for a long window of fertility.
I takes time but the general direction is obvious. Our hedonistic times are very pleasant to live. I am not sure the future is going to be so nice. I am sorry we are ruining this marvelous society created by our ancestors , but humans can not do anything about it. we defied the laws of God and nature and we will be punished for it.
It happened before and it will happen again - quotation.
>In order to keep up with social standards is very hard to have 3-4 kids in large european cities. Even 2 is quite heroic.
Look at Haredim cranking them out, though.
The social standards are, in fact, quite evil and dysgenic. The selection pressure is for those who follow a different set of social standards.
I sort of look forward to an ugly future. A lot of people could use an awakening as to the nature of this world. Maybe said awakening will cut down on the amount of socially-induced stupid behavior we all see around us every day.
In the ugly future that is coming for us, B, ifnormation technology and automation will replace both working class jobs and many middle class jobs. That means fewer opportunities to make a living for all of these kids being pumped out by your favored zealots. By creating so many future unemployed people, the pot of available future jobs/wealth will be less for each of them, ensuring greater misery for them all.
Yes, thank you, Doctor Malthus.
You are aware that most jobs today are fundamentally unproductive, right? And that there is a digital fabrication revolution slowly taking off?
Digital fabrication won't be able to employ everyone, and a Talmud-only curriculum won't position the zealots' children well to be able to take advantage of it. But by all means, be overly optimistic. You're the one who will have to watch your large brood of children or grandchildren suffer knowing that you helped bring that about. I don't really want to see anyone suffer unnecessarily, so I prefer a more conservative, risk-averse approach.
I have seen a sort of conservative, risk-averse approach at work in Transilvanya.
German community prized material possesions above all else. Why have children if you can invest time and resources into making houses like castels? And amass wealth.
Well now in those very well build mausoleums dwells a very nice and fertile roma community.
For seculars it's quite hard to sacrifice for the future.
I am personally extremly secular but that does not make me unable to asses the impact of secularism and hedonism on society.
I suppose the fact that the majoriy of children in german cities for example are of iimigrant origin makes Germany a better place. Because breeding makes well I don;t know children poor or something. I don't talk about subsaharan african fertility for generations. Just about not collapsing too fast and being replaced by others.
What has happened in Transylvannia is now at work in german cities in the Bundesrepublik.
What is pretty amazing is they are behaving in the same way. They build the same type of resilient and durable constructions. Take care to mount reliable instalations. I mean it's ok to do this if you care about your grandchildren. But there won't be your grandchildren living there.
Why would you be so very interested to live good inheritance to anatolians is hard to understand. I have absolutely nothing against turks, worked with them and I am very sympathetic towards them.
But I wouldn't sacrifice anything in order to leave them nice housing and infrastructure. And it would have been schyzofrenic for them to ask me to abort my own children in order to be able to amass wealth for theirs.
As irrational as it seems what I wrote above is exactly what is happening right now in the example chosen - Germany. You need a german mind to do something like this. I mean what would happen if you leave them the city with class B housing? Are they going to take your bones out of the grave and do evl magic on them or what? Or better hmmmm if you leave the house to your daughter or son?
I found a comment by J. He's much better then me at explaining something.
"J said...
"...what's so bad about population decrease?"
Let me count the ways. You and your folk are not living in an island by yourself but in an island peopled by many different and competing tribes. You disoccupy one square mile for a second and next it is fully peopled by the neighbor. If not by another tribe, by another species, say rats.
If you become a minority in a diverse society, your fate is sealed: you will be sent to the reservations. Ultimately, your kind will disappear, with your culture and your songs.
There is nothing bad in dying off, except the bad feeling that our enemies will rejoice with our demise. I read somewhere that in Dachau concentration camp the immates were hanging themselves in the lavatory and each morning their corpses had to be identified and so on. The Germans put up a noticeboard in the lavatory specifying the procedure of orderly suicide: You had leave your shoes and uniform in a certain neat way, you had to write your name and number in a carton and hang it on your hand to easy identification, and so on. German Jews read and followed the orders, while the jackals were laughing. I would try to survive if only to defeat the beasts. "
Contex differed by anyway the idea is that you have just as much right to live like any other being on the planet, be it human from a different tribe or belonging to another specie.
That some people decide to renounce at this in order to enjoy life it's ok. It lives more space for the ones who prefer to take over through their children. That's how it works at humans or rats.
It depends how you define yourself as a living being.
One interpretation is that we are genetic vectors. Carrying information through time.
Well sometimes some particular data is not worth being carried anymore. By being unable to replicate it is clear that particular information is somehow damaged or outdated. Nature/God erases it imediatly in order to create space for good and adapted genes.
And it goes on and on, up to the end of the world. Eon after eon.
The future belongs to those who show up. I prefer to let my hypothetical future progeny worry about their own sustenance. The main thing is showing up with the brainpower necessary. But, by all means, take a conservative, risk-averse approach; life is suffering, as the Buddha pointed out, and avoiding suffering is key as per progressivism, so...
Post a Comment