Moral guilt is holding Europe back

Moral guilt is holding Europe back

War always has its costs. Europe has been waging expensive wars against itself and the world for centuries. Many say we lost countless lives of brave, important men. We did, but we lost more. Instead of expanding land and teaching natives about Shakespeare, we became a morally introvert civilization. Here is how we and our children of Europe pay this cost, every day.

Pointing at the British, French or German empires on the world map used to instill honor in Europeans. We were pretty merciless at times, but with the knowledge that we took wastelands and turned them into full-blown civilizations. Would the world championship in football be held in South Africa this summer if we hadn’t been down there and developed agriculture and economy? Where would India be? America as we know it wouldn’t even exist without the British.

Today we blame ourselves for our imperialist past. While it’s important to recognize where we killed for killing alone and where we erased culture by projecting our own as superior, it’s equally important to note the good things that came out of our imperialism. If we’d been morally confident about our contributions to the world in terms of governance, law and morality, we wouldn’t be threatening our children today in schools with post-colonial theory and Marxist analyses of apartheid history.

Every following crisis in Europe ever since has received a response of moral guilty. When America’s economic melt down began and later spread to Europe, leading political leaders suddenly began blaming capitalism itself instead of the fiscal irresponsibility enacted by banks and economic advisors. This led to a deacreasing belief in the economic system as a whole, slowing down consumption and killing off vital industry. Banks freaked out and then did the only thing they know how to do well: lowering interests rates. Consumption picked up, but inflation rose, which led to a slow devaluation of the currency. This is still going on and the economy’s hurting. Self-destructive moral guilt plays a big role in this downward spiral.

Europe has also become a center for environmentalist religion, placing irrational faith in climate models put forward by researchers with doubtful scientific methods. Since the West leads all industrial nations in the world, it is also causing most harm to the environment. But thanks to effective markets and impressive engineering, we are also leading the innovation fields where technology is becoming more effective and less damaging to the environment. This, coupled with global efforts to protect wild land and species, which quite frankly is totally off the agenda in most other parts of the world, means nothing to the moral elite who say we better worry like crazy over carbon emissions instead of developing better and slimmer industry.

Even more deadly is our cultural guilt that followed WWII. Europe could not find sufficient leadership for its turn to radical conservative ideologies and as a result collapsed inward into another world war. It cost us our cultural platform. With liberal Marxist culture infiltrating universities and government theorists at the time when the Cold War had just ended, Europe decided to use negative instead of positive logic: “Hitler/Mussolini/Franco was bad, but instead of building positive culture, we avoid all that may potentially become negative culture.” That was the beginning of multiculturalism and cultural relativism, or as Mark Steyn so truthfully put it, “our core values is that we have no core values.”

Moral guilt has taken ethnic culture hostage in its own natural habitat. Because Europe wanted to expel foreign cultures before WWII, it now pretends it is forced to “compensate” for this with mass immigration. No one really believes such a thing is possible or a rational thing to do, including most immigrants, who are often just looking for a better place to live in (who doesn’t?). Most people will also acknowledge that denying your own cultural heritage isn’t really a good way to meet and understand other cultural communities.

What these cultural memes in Europe do is that they force people to feel guilty over who they are, what they belong to culturally and how they wish to live their lives. That is a process that threatens to completely erode a civilization from within. Turning moral guilt into a national culture produces weaklings as citizens, robs people of their hope, and inflates cultural values. If you wonder why Europe seems to be hiding behind welfare, Islam and progressive morality, you now know the answer. We are paying a moral price for what people before us did in the past. But we don’t subscribe to the past any longer. We are increasingly, like American Tea Partiers, turning more and more conservative on the basis that any other system of politics erodes what we’ve accumulated over time. Time has tested us before and it will continue to do so. And we will still stand.

Captain! There are doubts…

by Cladrastis

There is an ongoing debate regarding how WE might regain the reigns of power – how we might take the captaincy of the vessel, so to speak. We all know the problem – the intoxicated captain (whose name is “He Who Wrestles with God” or Jacob) is steering us directly into an iceberg. Under Jacob’s captaincy, the ship has been neglected; our vessel is already taking on water, and the boilers are running out of steam (not to mention the problem of the exploding rat population). What good will it do us to usurp Jacob’s power if the ship is no longer seaworthy?

If we expect to win our struggle, we must maintain a competitive edge over the Enemy. If we assess our situation honestly (as Pentti Linkola has done), our interests would best be served, not by taking the heavily guarded captain’s deck, but instead by commandeering the life rafts – as those are the real sources of power on a sinking ship. Right now, the people are so oblivious to the crises taking place that the lifeboats are not being carefully monitored or observed. Our fellow passengers may have ominous feelings about the noises erupting on board the vessel, but their fears are easily allayed (or misdirected) by frequent announcements on the intercom system assuring them that all is well (and anyway, THIS ship is unsinkable). It may still be too early to risk lowering the rafts into the sea, but it is not too early to initiate a plan for taking them by force as panic inevitably spreads. It is also not too early to begin thinking about the moral implications of the behavior that will be required of us as we take the lifeboats. Chance favors the prepared mind.

Of course, we may not have all the information (or even accurate information) regarding our situation. It is possible that there is still time to repair the ship, or perhaps there are technologies or intelligences about which we are ignorant onboard. However, we must speak of the future in probabilistic terms, and in such terms, a deus ex machina appearing on the scene to save us is extremely unlikely (and virtually unknown in the historical record).

If one has time to prepare to take the lifeboats, he also has time to think about what (and whom) he will take with him. Luckily, our Titanic is a bazaar on which almost anything may be procured, for the right price. Perhaps there is even time to learn important skills that will be needed on the journey. Some in our number proclaim that indebtedness (a natural consequence of buying implements or schooling) makes us less competitive in the struggle for rising in rank to the captaincy, but such individuals are not addressing the reality of the crises at hand. Forget the captaincy, the ship is going down and with it, all the old notions of debt and money.

We may be adrift on the open ocean for months, and landfall will likely be on a deserted island. If we don’t plan well, we will be stuck on that island forever. Given our situation, it might be wise to prioritize what and who (and how to recruit them) will be needed for our journey, as well as to consider what might be an optimal decision-making strategy both in the future and in the interim. The Enemy may be concocting escape plans of his own; we don’t really know, although it is to our advantage to anticipate such preparations. To rout the Enemy, we must be psychologically prepared to be more brutal than He can imagine.

Moderate conservatism and radical conservatism are not the same things

“I want anarchy!” “Save the white race!” “Money is our enemy!” When you’ve lived long enough you begin to understand why most people, especially those who are sensible in most areas of life, surprisingly are moderate when it comes to politics. They’ve seen extremists and revolutionaries destroy whole societies like Russia and Cuba. But more cautiously, they’ve observed how the best of soft intentions often spawn tyranny, as in the case of Holland and Sweden. This is the story of why conservatism really is about conserving moderation.

Revolution attracts young people, because of its inherent idealism. Powerful people are fascinated by it, because it gives them an opportunity to continue to rule under a new fashion system of government. When the lower classes in France demanded a revolution, the nobility recognized the problems their privileges posed to the public, but chose to resist opposition. After the Second World War, in many parts of Europe, they slowly passed votes saying yes to public democracy. Conservatism was therefore born to stabilize society by slowing down revolutions through the implementation of slow changes to society as a whole.

The conservative principle is belief in slow change guided by tradition. This means it’s both futuristic and traditionalistic. Radical ideologies like socialism, feminism and anarchism fall outside of this scheme of thought, because they demand a radical transformation of society at fast speed, often with little or no consideration to historical reality. Put simply, radicalism takes no regard to human nature or history, but sees only ideas on paper. When they become reality, they often create dysfunctional cultures like Russia and North Korea.

Radical conservatism is therefore sort of an oxymoron. You’re not really conservative if you believe we should immediately overthrow our democratic leaders, replace the entire class system with birth-given meritocracy and send home millions of immigrants from wherever they came from. It would completely disrupt the entire society, even if its goals are based on historic conditions. If we look realistically at the world, we recognize we need a moderate change over a longer period of time to which people can adapt to. Think about some of these issues:

Feminism: Has caused us a lot of harm, but as it stands today, many women are capable in the work force and some of them are completely unsuitable as mothers. Forcing them all to revert back to pre-2000 gender roles would not work out, and would dig a hole in an already infected economy.

Democracy: Moderates some problems with direct tyranny, but historically seems to transform into some form of fascism over time, clouded with bureaucracy. What would we do if we killed it next year? We’d have to rewrite our entire constitutions, many of them spanning centuries of political wisdom. And after anarchy? Well…

Multiculturalism: Has not brought us much diversity, despite high promises. Yet most people today know that some immigrants have managed to integrate nicely and contribute to the host culture and society. It’s not been a picnic, but slowly we’ve found out that culture is much more dynamic than what we think and if it wants to survive, it cannot be isolated, it needs to adapt to worldly conditions in a global civilization.

Capitalism: Everyone’s favorite target these days, and indeed, the West’s hyper-effective economies have drained natural resources and made life boring and miserable for a lot of workers. The alternative though, as we can still see in socialist countries around the world, is not that appealing. Great minds have found that it’s possible to limit environmental and social problems by better understanding how a free market really works, given the input of sane values guiding it instead of raw money craze.

Americanism: When a dominant culture rules, all other cultures adapt to certain key conditions of that host culture. We saw it in central Europe during the rule of Rome and we see traces of it in Caucasus today. But what it means is not just that cultural diversity is relative to any master culture sustaining it, but most importantly that maybe, sometimes, we should be thankful there is a backing hand in a world increasingly left in the hands of unpredictable and dangerous dictatorships.

This realization may upset some people, especially young idealists. It means we may be thinking right when we orient ourselves around radical philosophy, but fail miserably when we try to apply these philosophies short-term. Therefore we choose not to directly advocate an uprise against democracy, death of feminism or destruction of globalism on this site. Radical conservatism, understood as a belief that life would be better if we returned to a pre-modern world, is appealing in theory, but is lethal in practice.

Instead we believe in a moderate conservatism where these over-arching goals influence the way we bring about slow change today. In terms of lifestyle, this means we may choose to lift weights instead of training with swords, letting our women repair the car one day instead of locking them up inside the kitchen, joining a local church community instead of declaring pagan gods our masters, or attending local Arab parties when we feel like having fun, instead of deciding that all immigrants are unwelcome guests. Some say this is pragmatism, but what it really is, is a recognition of the depth and value of history, and a willingness to let that history guide us safely but bravely into the future. Think wisely, think conservative–think Right.

Chimpanzee Gangs Kill for Land, New Study Shows

Web address:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/
100621121348.htm

Chimpanzee Gangs Kill for Land, New Study Shows

A 10-year study shows that bands of chimpanzees can violently kill individuals from neighboring groups in order to expand their own territory. (Credit: iStockphoto/Gary Wales)

ScienceDaily (June 22, 2010) — Bands of chimpanzees violently kill individuals from neighboring groups in order to expand their own territory, according to a 10-year study of a chimp community in Uganda that provides the first definitive evidence for this long-suspected function of this behavior.

University of Michigan primate behavioral ecologist John Mitani’s findings are published in the June 22 issue of Current Biology.

During a decade of study, the researchers witnessed 18 fatal attacks and found signs of three others perpetrated by members of a large community of about 150 chimps at Ngogo, Kibale National Park.

Then in the summer of 2009, the Ngogo chimpanzees began to use the area where two-thirds of these events occurred, expanding their territory by 22 percent. They traveled, socialized and fed on their favorite fruits in the new region.

“When they started to move into this area, it didn’t take much time to realize that they had killed a lot of other chimpanzees there,” Mitani said. “Our observations help to resolve long-standing questions about the function of lethal intergroup aggression in chimpanzees.”

Mitani is the James N. Spuhler Collegiate Professor in the Department of Anthropology. His co-authors are David Watts, an anthropology professor at Yale University, and Sylvia Amsler, a lecturer in anthropology at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Amsler worked on this project as a graduate student at U-M.

Chimpanzees (along with bonobos) are humans’ closest living relatives. Anthropologists have long known that they kill their neighbors, and they suspected that they did so to seize their land.

“Although some previous observations appear to support that hypothesis, until now, we have lacked clear-cut evidence,” Mitani said.

The bouts occurred when the primates were on routine, stealth “boundary patrols” into neighboring territory. Amsler, who conducted field work on this project described one of the attacks she witnessed far to the northwest of the Ngogo territory. She and a colleague were following 27 adult and adolescent males and one adult female.

“They had been on patrol outside of their territory for more than two hours when they surprised a small group of females from the community to the northwest,” Amsler said. “Almost immediately upon making contact, the adult males in the patrol party began attacking the unknown females, two of whom were carrying dependent infants.”

The Ngogo patrollers seized and killed one of the infants fairly quickly. They fought for 30 minutes to wrestle the other from its mother, but unsuccessfully. The Ngogo chimpanzees then rested for an hour, holding the female and her infant captive. Then they resumed their attack.

“Though they were never successful in grabbing the infant from its mother, the infant was obviously very badly injured, and we don’t believe it could have survived,” Amsler said.

In most of the attacks in this study, chimpanzee infants were killed. Mitani believes this might be because infants are easier targets than adult chimpanzees.

Scientists are still not sure if the chimpanzees’ ultimate motive is resources or mates. They haven’t ruled out the possibility that the attacks could attract new females to the Ngogo community.

Mitani says these findings disprove suggestions that the aggression is due to human intervention. Lethal attacks were first described by renowned primatologist Jane Goodall who, along with other human observers, used food to gain the chimps’ trust. Some researchers posited that feeding the animals might have affected their behavior. The Michigan researchers didn’t use food.

He cautions against drawing any connections to human warfare and suggests instead that the findings could speak to the origins of teamwork.

“Warfare in the human sense occurs for lots of different reasons,” Mitani said. “I’m just not convinced we’re talking about the same thing.

“What we’ve done at the end of our paper is to turn the issue on its head by suggesting our results might provide some insight into why we as a species are so unusually cooperative. The lethal intergroup aggression that we have witnessed is cooperative in nature, insofar as it involves coalitions of males attacking others. In the process, our chimpanzees have acquired more land and resources that are then redistributed to others in the group.”

The paper is titled “Lethal intergroup aggression leads to territorial expansion in wild chimpanzees.” The research is funded by the Detroit Zoological Institute, the Little Rock Zoo, the L.S.B. Leakey Foundation, the National Geographic Society, the National Science Foundation, the University of Michigan, the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, and Yale University.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 190 other followers