Archives for posts with tag: western civilization

The Taíno are extinct – dienekes asks, “How timorous has the modern scientific culture become…?” heh.

Orangutans develop different cultures like humans

Conservatives ARE more squeamish than liberals: Study finds right-wingers are more easily disgusted“[P]eople like to imagine their political views are rational, rather than physical. But they [the researchers] pointed out that it’s far more likely that the disgust response could influence a person’s politics than the other way round.”

Bringing reproductive maturity into line with the age of marriage – @evoandproud.

Childhood poverty leaves its mark on adult genetics“Genes can be reset during early life in profoundly different ways depending on whether children grow up in privileged or deprived households, a landmark study has shown.”

Porn is Addictive — from dennis mangan.

Few Chinese Americans Hold Non-Mortgage Debt? — from parapundit.

Local Knowledge — from greg cochran.

bonus: Ricardo Duchesne’s Intellectual Defense of the West – from kevin macdonald.

bonus bonus: Study Finds Every Style Of Parenting Produces Disturbed, Miserable Adults

…but a great story anyway [pg. 14]:

“The time is World War I and militant ladies are roaming the streets of Oxford giving out white feathers of cowardice to young men of fighting age who are not at the front. (Yes, they did that.) They invade a college quad where a young don in cap and gown is walking across the lawn reading Virgil. Thrusting the white feathers at him, one of the ladies demands: ‘Young man, why are you not out there fighting for civilization?” Without hesitation and with devastatingly correct grammar he replies: “Madam, I am the civilization for which they are out there fighting.”

heh. (^_^)

in “Kinship and marriage among the Visigoths,” giorgio ausenda writes [pgs. 147-48]:

Langobardic [Lombardian] laws concerning forbidden marriages also became stricter over time. Liutprand 33 [8th century] forbade marriage with the widow of a cousin, but no further prohibitions were reflected in the laws. We know, however, that more extended prohibitions were made compulsory by the Church….

This shows that both Church and State were interested in forbidding close kin marriages. Their common concern becomes clear when one bears in mind the recognized difficulty the Church had, from the fourth century onwards, in expanding into the countryside….

“In conclusion, the strenuous effort [by the Church] to penetrate the countryside entailed a long-drawn battle against traditional religion, whose vehicle was the kin group, and substituting the authority of the elders of the kin group with that of a religious elder, the presbyteros. At the same time the king’s rule was undermined by revolts on the part of the most powerful kin groups, clans or sections, whose conspiracies and murders menaced the power of the state. Thus Church and State became allies in trying to do aways with the political power of extended kin groups utilizing all manners of impositions. One of the most effective among them was to destroy their cohesiveness by prohibition of close kin marriage.

so, it was not just the early medieval church that wanted to reduce the cohesiveness of clans and tribes, it was also very much the political powers-that-be of the day. kings and princes wanted to reduce the power of these extended-family groups because that would enable the transfer of more power to themselves. divide and conquer.

that was then. this is now:

How Become a Good Single Parent
Equality for all parents, straight or gay
Accept gay marriage

(you don’t really have to read any of those. you know the sort of things they have to say.)

tptb today also want to grab as much power for themselves, but there aren’t any clans or tribes left to dismantle (at least not in the west). so, how to divide the population? well, one way is via mass immigration, which they’re obviously doing as i type. the other is to divide the family even further, even though it seems like that shouldn’t be possible. i mean, what the h*ck is smaller than the nuclear family? well, i guess single-parent families….

the character of europe was radically altered by the changes in mating patterns in medieval europe — which were imposed from outside by both the church and the state. we, living today, might say that those changes were for the better, but the members of the clans and tribes that disappeared wouldn’t say that. they would probably say that their extended families were destroyed — just as families are being destroyed today.

i’m very socially liberal by nature (live and let live, say i) and not religious at all, so i don’t find it immoral if people have children out of wedlock, nor do i think that gay marriage is morally wrong. i really don’t care what people do in their own home (altho i am kinda sick and tired of all-gay-all-the-time wherever i turn — can’t you just be gay and quiet about it for a change?). but i do care about the breakdown of western society, prolly mostly just because i have a conservative personality, but also ’cause i think that western civilization has been pretty darn wonderful, so why fix what’s not broken? i mean, what are we going to wind up with if we do away with the stable family entirely: african family structures and, therefore, african-like societies and ideologies?

i’m against too much welfare for single-moms and no-fault divorces and gay marriage not because of any moral revulsion i have about these things. i’m against them because i think they’re being used by the elite as weapons against the ordinary folk and the ordinary family. they’re changes in mating patterns being imposed, largely, from outside with the intent of breaking down family bonds.

divide et impera. sub sole nihil novi est.

(note: comments do not require an email. or a knowledge of latin.)

larry auster doesn’t like the germans. i mean, he really doesn’t like the germans. he thinks they are out to destroy western civilization as we know it (or what’s left of it):

German chancellor criminally charged for expressing delight over bin Laden’s demise

“[T]he German-championed transnational opposite of the Nazi nationalism which sought to destroy the nations of Europe, is also destroying the nations of Europe. One way or another, whether in their Nazi form or in their hyper-liberal form, the Germans pose a determined threat to the nations and peoples of the West. To paraphrase Churchill’s famous remark about the Germans, they need to be kept at our feet, or else they will go for our throat.

“I am not being extreme or ‘anti-German’ when I say that. The Germans agree with me. They see themselves as a threat to others. That’s why they say that the EU is necessary, to keep them, the ever-threatening Germans, in check. The problem is that the German-led EU which in the German mind is aimed at suppressing the German nation, must suppress all other European nations as well. This is why, just as German nationalism could not be allowed to rule Europe, German anti-nationalism also cannot be allowed to rule Europe. Germany must not rule, period….”

a little extreme, but — fair enough. the man’s entitled to his opinion.

but, as a german blogger points out, you wouldn’t be able to utter those words — “the Germans pose a determined threat to the nations and peoples of the West” — about any other group of people without practically being strung up for it!

larry does have a point, tho (edit: with regard to the “nazi nationalism” [isn't that redundant?] part). the germans (or germanic peoples) do often seem to be in search of a little lebensraum, to the detriment of their neighbors: first the romans, then the gauls, the britons got shoved aside, not to mention the poles, and the french again — and again!, and — oh, i dunno — a bunch of slavic peoples, iirc (which i don’t). h*ll — a bunch of them even came to this country! oh, wait. even the founders, being anglo-saxony brits, were germanic. eek! they’re everywhere!

but you can’t blame the germans for wanting to expand their territory. EVERYbody wants to expand their territories! and many have. for instance: the bantus in africa, the han chinese, the russians, the french, the spanish, the arabs, modern humans…. seems a little unfair to pick on the germans when almost every human group (prolly every human group) has tried to expand its territory — including many other european populations!

and, if he were paying attention, larry would know that this is just basic biology. ALL species expand into new territories whenever they can. THAT’s the whole point! a few examples: uh … bears, chimps, ants, KILLER BEES! you get the idea.

sure. the people(s) who are at the receiving end of some other group’s expansion are bound to be p*ssed off. i can understand that. however, i think auster might have a different, more personal reason for hating germans. and that’s understandable, too.

me? i like germans! what’s not to like about germans?!:

(note: comments do not require an email.)

our interest in it peaked somewhere around 1940 (ed.: or 1962 depending on your capitalization preference [thnx, jl!]) and it’s been downhill ever since:

click for a larger view.

previously: it’s been all about the sistahs… and men on the rebound?

(note: comments do not require an email.)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 311 other followers