Suppose we have two groups. Group A believes that women are human beings, just like men are, and that they should be equal partners in their society. Group B believes that women were created by the devil to tempt men, that they have no human rights, and that they must be used to have as many children as possible. If Group A and B live in different parts of the world, each region will develop in a way that reflects their different ways of life.
Group A will have highly productive workforces and individual freedom, high divorce rates and low birth rates. By contrast Group B will have high birth rates, no divorces, weak productivity and no freedom. Both groups enjoy the consequences of living in tune with their worldviews. For a while. But what happens when Group B begins to move its surplus population into the region of Group A?
The higher birth rate enjoyed by Group B will make it more aggressive, particularly since a society that devalues women will also cull baby girls and practice polygamy leading to a surplus of young male. But those same qualities will also help keep it backward, making it much less effective militarily against a modern productive and efficient society. Group B will therefore have a great deal of trouble successfully invading Group A's territory, unless Group A allows it to happen. That of course is the situation we're faced with today.
There are a number of approaches that would balance the demographic scales between Group A and punish Group B.
For example, Group A might refuse to share the advanced medical technology that its society develops with Group B, unless the latter agrees to enact certain reforms that will grant rights to women and help lower the birth rate. If it agrees Group B will have a more stable and less threatening society. If it refuses, its high birth retain will have to compete with a high death rate. However if Group A provides Group B with the benefits of its medical technology, without demanding social reforms as the price-- then Group B will pose even more of a threat, because its population boom will continue for ideological, rather than biological reasons, no longer to compensate for a high death rate, but on purely competitive grounds.
Group B will begin suffering from a population surplus, which it will try to export into the territory of Group A, by force or immigration, collectively or individually. Group A will now begin experiencing demographic competition on its own soil. If like so many empires throughout history, it sees them as a beneficial form of cheap labor that will help keep its own citizens prosperous by making the cost of goods and services cheaper, it will have eventually doomed itself through demographic suicide.
By reaping the benefits of Group A's social setup, without accommodating itself to those same parameters, Group B is engaging in social parasitism, partaking only of the advantages to themselves, while avoiding their natural consequences. Much the same as a welfare recipient benefits from a social safety not paid for by active workers, exploits a system without paying into it-- Group B exploits Group A's social setup that it cannot recreate on its own.
Alternatively Group A might prevent Group B from settling in its territory. This would force Group B to live with the consequences of its ideology. Group B would be allowed to fail, and have the chance to learn from that failure, and enact reforms for a more stable society. Forcibly attempting to invade Group A's territory, would show Group B its own impotence, and force it to contemplate the causes of that impotence. It will probably not draw the right conclusions, much as the Arabs in the aftermath of several lost wars, decided the solution was not a civilized society, but to replace Arab Socialism with Islamism. But they will have the time locked up in their own territory to contemplate and to change. They will have examples of what to become and what not to become.
So long as there is distance, both groups can live with the consequences of their social setups. However once Group B migrates into the territory of Group A, so long as Group A tolerates it-- it only needs to compete on demographics. And not on anything else. No matter what else Group A achieves, it will eventually be outnumbered by Group B. The resulting society will have the values and laws of Group B, unless Group A tries to maintain a tyranny. Even this will not avail it in the long run, as tyrannies must mimic the values of their subjects to be effective. If they fail, they will be toppled. So if Group A does nothing to change the terms of the competition, it is hopelessly doomed.
Group A's problem is that its sophistication causes it to have a wider definition of cooperative groups than Group B does. Where Group B's nexus of loyalty is blood kin, Group A compensates for the lesser role of the family by providing for multiple levels of social interdependency. Group B's families can exploit these systems for the benefit of their own families, while retaining their blood ties as the primary nexus of loyalty. Its second nexus of loyalty is an ideology that encompasses all members of Group B, but none of Group A. So while Group A's cooperation values lead it to try and cooperate with Group B, Group B has no such value system. When Group A looks at Group B it sees human beings, when Group B looks at Group A, it sees outsiders. So Group A will cooperate with Group B even at a loss for itself, but Group B will not cooperate with Group A unless there is a direct benefit to it, and sometimes not even then.
As a result Group A keeps trying to cooperate with Group B, which instead of cooperating takes but doesn't give, thereby destabilizing the social setup. If Group A continues to tolerate such behavior, members of Group A will try to begin joining Group B, to protect themselves or to gain advantages in the competition for resources. While members of Group A cannot be part of Group B's primary nexus of loyalty, they can become part of its secondary nexus of loyalty. Within Group B, people who are protected by the secondary nexus, but are not blood kin, have a second class status. But within Group A, those who are members of Group A already hold third class status, because they have obligations to Group B, which has none to them. Since ordinary Group A citizens have become third class, those who are even part of Group B's secondary nexus of loyalty are already a step ahead of them in the shifting landscape of the country.
Since Group A's society is cooperation based, it will try to accommodate Group B. However since Group B's society is authoritarian based, it will refuse to accommodate Group A. The less clearly Group A insists on reciprocity in its social contract, the less Group B will cooperate with it, since it does not cooperate without gain for its nexus of primary loyalty. Group B's rejection of interoperability cripples it socially, but not demographically. Group A's openness enhances its skills, creativity and knowledge; but dooms it in the demographic competition. While Group A thinks that the net result of their interaction will be Group AB, Group B thinks that the net result will be Group BB. And while Group B is not entirely right, Group is entirely wrong, because while Group B will be influenced by Group A, it will still absorb it.
Group A allows itself to be defeated by failing to meaningfully leverage its strengths, instead relying on a social and political model that is no longer relevant to the problem it faces. That is because like most societies and cultures, it has a blind spot when it comes to its own weaknesses, either refusing to recognize them, or insisting that they are actually strengths. Group B is doing the same thing, but by exploiting Group A, it has actually managed to take its greatest weakness and turn it into a limited strength. Group A has no one to exploit but itself. Its own system insures that its limited attempt to exploit Group B will cost it, more than it will cost Group B.
Group B's authoritarian nature, its willingness to use force and its birth rates insure its victory, unless Group A changes the terms of the conflict, not through denial, but through a realistic assessment of the situation. Group A can either choose to submit and become part of the secondary nexus of loyalty in Group B, or even accept a lower status than that, or resist the occupation of its territory and its culture by Group B. Which means working to reverse the facts on the ground created by the invasion, loosening the social and economic footholds of Group B, and removing as much of Group B's population from its territory as possible, while preventing further migrations.
Like many cultures, the self-images of Group A and Group B vacillate between omnipotence and impotence. In the omnipotent state of mind, the group believes that it is invulnerable and destined to succeed. In the impotent state, it believes that it is doomed and completely incapable of doing anything to change that. This cultural form of manic depressive thinking can actually lead from one to the other. Both however are misguided and dangerous. A culture which feels that it has hit bottom, may rebound with a sense of false omnipotence by seizing on an old or new idea to reinvigorate its identity. And a culture which is cloaked in its own sense of omnipotence may be unwilling and incapable of recognizing how bad things have gotten, only to sink into impotence when it does. In this scenario Group A is suffering from impotence, while Group B is experiencing omnipotence. And few in either group understand how quickly the tables can be turned. But a cultural rebound can be just as destructive, because desperate people will seize on anything that offers them hope, without thinking it through. And hope without reason can be a very dangerous thing.
The higher birth rate enjoyed by Group B will make it more aggressive, particularly since a society that devalues women will also cull baby girls and practice polygamy leading to a surplus of young male. But those same qualities will also help keep it backward, making it much less effective militarily against a modern productive and efficient society. Group B will therefore have a great deal of trouble successfully invading Group A's territory, unless Group A allows it to happen. That of course is the situation we're faced with today.
There are a number of approaches that would balance the demographic scales between Group A and punish Group B.
For example, Group A might refuse to share the advanced medical technology that its society develops with Group B, unless the latter agrees to enact certain reforms that will grant rights to women and help lower the birth rate. If it agrees Group B will have a more stable and less threatening society. If it refuses, its high birth retain will have to compete with a high death rate. However if Group A provides Group B with the benefits of its medical technology, without demanding social reforms as the price-- then Group B will pose even more of a threat, because its population boom will continue for ideological, rather than biological reasons, no longer to compensate for a high death rate, but on purely competitive grounds.
Group B will begin suffering from a population surplus, which it will try to export into the territory of Group A, by force or immigration, collectively or individually. Group A will now begin experiencing demographic competition on its own soil. If like so many empires throughout history, it sees them as a beneficial form of cheap labor that will help keep its own citizens prosperous by making the cost of goods and services cheaper, it will have eventually doomed itself through demographic suicide.
By reaping the benefits of Group A's social setup, without accommodating itself to those same parameters, Group B is engaging in social parasitism, partaking only of the advantages to themselves, while avoiding their natural consequences. Much the same as a welfare recipient benefits from a social safety not paid for by active workers, exploits a system without paying into it-- Group B exploits Group A's social setup that it cannot recreate on its own.
Alternatively Group A might prevent Group B from settling in its territory. This would force Group B to live with the consequences of its ideology. Group B would be allowed to fail, and have the chance to learn from that failure, and enact reforms for a more stable society. Forcibly attempting to invade Group A's territory, would show Group B its own impotence, and force it to contemplate the causes of that impotence. It will probably not draw the right conclusions, much as the Arabs in the aftermath of several lost wars, decided the solution was not a civilized society, but to replace Arab Socialism with Islamism. But they will have the time locked up in their own territory to contemplate and to change. They will have examples of what to become and what not to become.
So long as there is distance, both groups can live with the consequences of their social setups. However once Group B migrates into the territory of Group A, so long as Group A tolerates it-- it only needs to compete on demographics. And not on anything else. No matter what else Group A achieves, it will eventually be outnumbered by Group B. The resulting society will have the values and laws of Group B, unless Group A tries to maintain a tyranny. Even this will not avail it in the long run, as tyrannies must mimic the values of their subjects to be effective. If they fail, they will be toppled. So if Group A does nothing to change the terms of the competition, it is hopelessly doomed.
As a result Group A keeps trying to cooperate with Group B, which instead of cooperating takes but doesn't give, thereby destabilizing the social setup. If Group A continues to tolerate such behavior, members of Group A will try to begin joining Group B, to protect themselves or to gain advantages in the competition for resources. While members of Group A cannot be part of Group B's primary nexus of loyalty, they can become part of its secondary nexus of loyalty. Within Group B, people who are protected by the secondary nexus, but are not blood kin, have a second class status. But within Group A, those who are members of Group A already hold third class status, because they have obligations to Group B, which has none to them. Since ordinary Group A citizens have become third class, those who are even part of Group B's secondary nexus of loyalty are already a step ahead of them in the shifting landscape of the country.
Since Group A's society is cooperation based, it will try to accommodate Group B. However since Group B's society is authoritarian based, it will refuse to accommodate Group A. The less clearly Group A insists on reciprocity in its social contract, the less Group B will cooperate with it, since it does not cooperate without gain for its nexus of primary loyalty. Group B's rejection of interoperability cripples it socially, but not demographically. Group A's openness enhances its skills, creativity and knowledge; but dooms it in the demographic competition. While Group A thinks that the net result of their interaction will be Group AB, Group B thinks that the net result will be Group BB. And while Group B is not entirely right, Group is entirely wrong, because while Group B will be influenced by Group A, it will still absorb it.
Group A allows itself to be defeated by failing to meaningfully leverage its strengths, instead relying on a social and political model that is no longer relevant to the problem it faces. That is because like most societies and cultures, it has a blind spot when it comes to its own weaknesses, either refusing to recognize them, or insisting that they are actually strengths. Group B is doing the same thing, but by exploiting Group A, it has actually managed to take its greatest weakness and turn it into a limited strength. Group A has no one to exploit but itself. Its own system insures that its limited attempt to exploit Group B will cost it, more than it will cost Group B.
Like many cultures, the self-images of Group A and Group B vacillate between omnipotence and impotence. In the omnipotent state of mind, the group believes that it is invulnerable and destined to succeed. In the impotent state, it believes that it is doomed and completely incapable of doing anything to change that. This cultural form of manic depressive thinking can actually lead from one to the other. Both however are misguided and dangerous. A culture which feels that it has hit bottom, may rebound with a sense of false omnipotence by seizing on an old or new idea to reinvigorate its identity. And a culture which is cloaked in its own sense of omnipotence may be unwilling and incapable of recognizing how bad things have gotten, only to sink into impotence when it does. In this scenario Group A is suffering from impotence, while Group B is experiencing omnipotence. And few in either group understand how quickly the tables can be turned. But a cultural rebound can be just as destructive, because desperate people will seize on anything that offers them hope, without thinking it through. And hope without reason can be a very dangerous thing.
Comments
those black burqas look like shrouds for the walking dead, not outfits for the living.
ReplyDeleteI imagine those women do feel like the walking dead.
ReplyDeleteNeither Group A nor B are ideal to western values. It's scary to think this aggressive minority is transitioning itself into an aggressive majority.
All good, but there are other factors that temper the social engineering of Group B. All it really takes is for Group A to stand up and call Group B out and point out to its population what it really is and how little it counts as human at all.
ReplyDeleteThe human strategy of reproduction is quality over quantity. The strategy of reproduction for insects and rodents is quantity over quality.
I've never been sure if they were supposed to look dead or completely nonexistent, but with Popeye's invisible paint so hard to come by, that's probably the closest they can get to "not really there."
ReplyDeleteIs there any value is seeing how China and India deal with this?
ReplyDeleteThere appears to be a group C as well, the ultra wealthy elites of both group A and Group B whose culture revolves around preserving their elitism.
ReplyDeleteDemographically this is a tiny group which punches way above its demographic weight.....
Group C believes it is playing a 'divide and rule' game whilst not realizing that it too is protected only by Group A's benevolent accomodations (which are doomed in the long run). This makes it a sub-group of A!
paul, i could not agree with you more. unfortunately when no one in the media is doing their job which is to REPORT FACTS and not create news the only way to get the message across is through blogs such as this (God Bless you daniel greenfield, pamela geller and bob spencer for your work!). if one even DARES to point out the savagery, the duplicity and hypocrisy behind this ...so called religion of piss....the media will be all over the person blaming him/her as islamophobe, all the while giving free passes to tariq ramadan, buruma, CAIR etc etc etc
ReplyDeleteActually divorce is very common in Muslim communities. Studies into local communities have shown that the divorce rate is higher than amongst the local population in London.
ReplyDeleteWhich is another reason why there's a push on for the Islamization of Europe, for Muslims to be able to control their own women under Sharia law.
ReplyDeleteAccurate, but there are a few additional issues.
ReplyDelete1) Group A is not based on cooperation as much as competition and self-interest. It is when diverse self-interest groups reach a balance of sorts that we have prosperity and everybody benefits.
If the balance is broken - as it happened in the last few years with the destruction of our manufacuring base and the export of jobs to Asia, Mexico and other places - then society suffers and declines.
2) Our countries are not distinct units with basic common interests.
We have an elite that has taken over our governments and aims only at benefiting itself. They are the first PARASITES. They take and they don't give back - other than a few scraps. Mostly they take. Most recent example: the Wall Street mega-swindle.
3) Our governments are not sincere when they give immigration a positive spin. We are being lied to.
Key UK Labour government documents attesting to that were released through the Freedom of Information Act:
"UK immigration policy was intended specifically to alter the demographic and cultural pattern of the country ...(and it) would require the wholesale deconstruction of the country's sense of its own identity."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/janetdaley/7231568/Immigration-a-plan-to-alter-the-nations-soul.html
4) Our governments and major institutions are vulnerable to corruption.
Richard Fadden, Director of CSIS (Canadian spy agency) raised quite a controversy when he accused foreign contries (including China and the Middle East) of having influence on provincial and municipal politicians.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/what-richard-fadden-told-the-cbc/article1618765/
5) I don't see much of the "onmipotent state of mind". What I see is confusion and helplessness in the general population.
What sounds as "omnipotent" when coming from our leaders is nothing but outright deception.
Our leaders are lying and the rest of us are either in despair or in denial. Those in despair are also terribly afraid, not only for our countries but for what may happen to us personally in the future.
6) OUR FIRST ENEMIES are the elites and the politicians that serve them. They have to be tackled first.
The threat to our culture and way of life cannot be fought with ideas and reasoning alone. WE NEED TO APPEAL TO POLITICIANS' SELF INTEREST (including a threat to end their political careers, jail for those guilty of corruption, and so on), and do it aggressively.
We need to discard our illusions regarding human nature, such as the belief that we decide based on reason, logic and moral principles.
We are guided by emotions, by immediate needs, and by self-interest.
Politicians don't listen to reasonable and logical concepts. They serve the elite and their own personal interests - and do not care for the future of their countries or civilization.
In this part of the world we could implement an immigration moratorium. We could bolster our cultural values and defend them from threats of any kind. We could impose regulations to protect our institutions (media, universities) from Muslim money and influence.
It could be done but it would take courage and immunity from manipulative accusations of racism. Judging by the mood all around me, fat chance of that.
There will be no rebound in the West. Not enough white babies.
ReplyDeleteIf there is a rebound in Eastern Europe, it will be through pan-Slavic neofascism. C'est la vie. Better a brown plague than a green one. Europe can recover from a brown plague and still be Europe.
In response to Tracy W..."We are guided by emotions, by immediate needs, and by self-interest"...I agree that's true for a limited number of people in the West. Generally, our level of prosperity permits us to consider reason, logic, and moral principles in everything we do. Our civilization requires that we do. That some do not does not condemn the rest of us. I think that most of us really don't take into account that the level of civilization attained in the West allows us to go about our daily lives without needing to contemplate violating societal norms or laws to get anything we truly need, or even want. We possess a sense of right and wrong, and willingly go about getting whatever we need in accordance with that sense. We are far removed from the struggle for survival when compared to others, and when they come into our midst they don't behave quite the way we'd expect them to. Okay...they don't behave the way ignorant folks would expect them to. (A trip or two to somewhere other than N. America or Europe would fix that ignorance.) Survival is a much more serious subject to many in Moslem countries, and the people there have developed mechanisms to ensure survival. What we find repugnant they see as routine. Westerners, with their high level of respect for others and the expectation of respect from others, are facing a crowd which is indeed conditioned to operate on "immediate need and self-interest," and are not willing, or required, to give up that advantage. Either we change the ROE or the lights go out.
ReplyDeleteANONYMOUS, you make some good points. I agree that prosperity has softened our edges. It makes us more considerate and altruistic. It also makes us idealistic about our less fortunate brothers in other parts of the planet.
ReplyDeleteProsperous and peaceful surroundings don't change our nature, though. I'm not reassured by the veneer of civilization that surrounds me. Right underneath lies REAL HUMAN NATURE.
When pushed by emotions such as love, hatred or greed, nice people can do terrible things. And when properly manipulated, many people can believe and do anything. PR professionals know this and that's why we buy the things and ideas they sell us.
LIVING WITHOUT ILLUSIONS about human nature is a more serene and happy state of mind than holding a false belief in human rationality and goodness - and being jolted into reality every time we read the news, deal with a backstabbing coworker or a nasty mother-in-law. :-))
Without meaning to offend anyone, it's a fact that we share about 97% of our genes with other primates. Their behavior ranges from empathy, generosity and cooperation to vicious violence.
YES, we humans are different, but the primate and reptile brains are still with us. We never know which of those brains is talking to us when we are in the middle of an altercation - or even when we make simple decisions.
And it gets worse. Our link with primates is rather unfortunate because primates can act in sadistic and deranged ways, while other animals have a more decent nature. That's why we adore our cats and dogs.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Our western peace and prosperity is just A BLIP in history. Humans have been plagued by violence, oppression, fear, scarcity and terror. We in the West have been lulled into a false sense of security, not realizing that real life does not normally works this way. We are due for a rough awakening.
JEWS should be the wisest people on earth, having experienced so much REAL LIFE. But, here is where my theory is proven right: SOME Israelis do not appear to be acting in a logical manner. A brief glance at the news from Israel makes me want to scream or go there and start a REVOLUTION!!! (Just kidding.) :-)
Israel has the self-hating and self-destructive crowd, of course. Nothing rational about them!
It also has misleading politicians getting elected and re-elected, while too many citizens hold the unrealistic notion that in spite of all signs to the contrary, things will work out in the end.
This time Daniel, I finally get it. Breaking it down using A and B with your observation on each group has given me what I was looking for concerning this subject. Other writers along with the comments have sounded more like a bunch of blithering idiots then people wanting a solution. This has made it easier to see how the open borders and lack of protection by president after president was done by design and now this president following the lead of those before him. I know this is talking about one group, but it can be used the same for the other group from across the border. All done by design, by those elite that Tracy W mentions. They want to cull the population in a big way, so pitting A, B, C, and D against each other in the same land is part of their agenda done by design. NAFTA was the big move for those across the border to move off their land and work in the factories that were conveniently set up next to the border. When the jobs went to China, the US looked to good and easy not to take advantage of. All done by design.
ReplyDeletePost a Comment