Muck’s Minute #19

Migration resulting in demographic shifts in culture and race have been occurring since time immemorial and if not kept in check will definitely be the decisive factor in the which direction future political wind blows..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS5eDwYePiQ

“Ice Age Columbus”. More and more evidence from tools, human remains, DNA and even from examining American Indian folk tales, show that Europeans were the first original native people of America and the only ones to exclusively inhabit the “New World” for 1000’s of years.

We’ve been told that all human life came out of Africa, but in the below article we’re told that this 5300 year old man had no contact with African human . which raises the question of what species , if not human was he?

Iceman’s Gut Holds Clues to Humans’ Spread into Europe
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/150107-otzi-iceman-stomach-microbes-science/

This means the major influx of northeast Africans must have taken place after the Iceman died. But the bit of a mix shows that—consistent with other archaeological and genetic evidence—the Europe of 5,000 years ago was a bustling, complex hub of human movement.
Picture of sample being taken from the Iceman in November 2010

Instead of sticking an endoscope down the Iceman’s throat, researchers obtained samples of his stomach contents through “Austrian windows,” large incisions made by the Austrian team that initially examined him.

As economic turmoil worldwide becomes increasingly apparent, I have been receiving messages from readers expressing some concerns on the public “perception” of collapse. That is to say, there are questions on the average person’s concept of collapse versus the reality of collapse. This is a vital issue that I have discussed briefly in the past, but it deserves a more in-depth analysis.

What is collapse? How do we define it? And, are some of the notions of collapse in the public consciousness completely wrong?

It’s funny, because skeptics opposed to the idea of a U.S. collapse in particular will most often retort with a question they think I cannot or will not answer – “So, Mr. Smith, when specifically is this supposed collapse going to take place? What day and time?”

My response has always been – “We’re in the middle of a collapse right now; you really can’t see it right in front of your sneering face?”
http://alt-market.com/articles/2791-how-do-you-know-when-your-society-is-in-the-midst-of-collapse

EC, in the space of a blog post , the author even if so inclined , could hardly cover all the nuances of ancient cultures leading to the rise of some and the fall of others on into modern times.

The article was chiefly about assimilation…

Did Rome assimilate with the Indo/ European Greeks.Did the Germanic tribes assimilate with the Romans?

Did Europeans assimilate with the tribes of the Americas?

Have Mexicans, Africans, Indians Chinese , Middle Easterners assimilated with white Americans?

For my part , this isn’t about who the superior intellect is,albeit the influence of Christian Europeans on Western democracy is undeniably rock solid. The immigration issue for me is about demographically displacing American culture , tradition and Christian family values with third world culture collectively attuned to a different belief system not being conducive to the traditional Christian based American value system.

One culture, as history has shown will dominate the other .This is not conjecture , but fact. Once the population numbers shift in favor of the invaders, it will be the Americans who are forced to assimilate or seek refuge elsewhere…Remember the Alamo.

The Alamo was a battle over the immigrant Americanos failure to assimilate into the Mexican culture. They then went on to declare independence from Mexico. I guess that proves your whole point.

VegasBob’s friend:

‘I learned years ago that if I said something that offended someone then I am offensive. I did not wish to ever be offensive so I changed my behaviors and speech.’

I find it offensive that you’re SUCH A PUSSY!!! So quit bein’ offensive; change your behaviors and speech and MAN UP!!!

Here I thought it was because the Manifest Destiny needed white folk to come in and displace Indians while populating the American west in the name of Uncle Sam.

Your argument that America must stay pure white because it was founded by pure whites is specious and awfully convenient to your agenda. I would say it is almost as legitimate as the black argument that modern-day blacks deserve reparations for what their predecessors suffered under slavery.

I wouldn’t even call the slaves their ancestors any more than I will call the founding daddies your ancestors unless you have a certificate of revolutionary blood.

Otherwise, I figure you just got off the banana boat and are screaming for a native-born Hispanic to give you your own place in our good land.

What do you say, immigrant? Do you have proof of residency going back to 1776 or are you a fucking recent invader?

In Chapter 75 of Tragedy and Hope Carroll Quigley explores the reasons behind the demise of Middle America, which is to say the standard bearer of Western Christian tradition and the causes thereof..

https://archive.org/stream/TragedyAndHope_501/CarrollQuigley-TragedyAndHope_djvu.txt

Chapter 75 — The United States and the Middle-Class Crisis

The destruction of the middle classes by the destruction of the middle-class outlook
was brought about to a much greater degree by internal than by external forces. And the
most significant of these influences have been operating within the middle-class family.
One of the most obvious of these has been the growing affluence of American society,
which removed the pressure of want from the childbearing process. The child who grows
up in affluence is more difficult to instill with the frustrations and drives that were so
basic in the middle-class outlook. For generations, even in fairly rich families, this
indoctrination had continued because of continued emphasis on thrift and restraints on
consumption. By 1937 the world depression showed that the basic economic problems
were not saving and investment, but distribution and consumption. Thus there appeared a
growing readiness to consume, spurred on by new sales techniques, installment selling,
and the extension of credit from the productive side to the consumption side of the
economic process. As a result, an entirely new phenomenon appeared in middle-class
families, the practice of living up to, or even beyond, their incomes — an unthinkable
scandal in any nineteenth-century bourgeois family. One incentive in this direction was
the increased emphasis, within the middle-class ideology, upon the elements of status and
ostentatious display of wealth as status symbols rather than on the elements of frugality
and prudence. Thus affluence weakened both future preference and self-denying self-
discipline training.

Somewhat related to this was the influence of the depression of 1929-1933. The
generation that was entering manhood at that time (having been born in the period 1905-
1915) felt that their efforts to fulfill their middle-class ambitions had involved them in
intensive hardships and suffering, such as working while going to college, doing without
leisure, cultural expansion, and travel, and by the 1950’s these were determined that their
children must never have it as hard as they had had it. They rarely saw that their efforts to
make things easy for their children in the 1950’s as a reaction against the hardships they
had suffered themselves in the 1930’s were removing from their children’s training
process the difficulties that had helped to make them achieving men and successful
middle-class persons and that their efforts to do this were weakening the moral fiber of
their children.

Another element in this process was a change in the educational philosophy of
America and a somewhat similar change in the country’s ideas on the whole process of
child training. Early generations had continued to cling to the vestiges of the Puritan
outlook to the degree that they insisted that children must be trained under strict
discipline, including corporal punishment. This seventeenth-century idea, by 1920, was
being replaced in American family ideology by an idea of the nineteenth century that
child maturation is an innate process not subject to modification by outside training. In
educational theory this erroneous idea went back to the Emile of Jean-Jacques Rousseau
(1762), which idealized the state of nature as equivalent to the Garden of Eden, and
believed that education must consist in leaving a youth completely free so that his innate
goodness could emerge and reveal itself. This idea was developed, intensified, and given
a pseudoscientific foundation by advances in biology and genetics in the late nineteenth
century. By 1910 or so, child-rearing and educational theories had accepted the idea that
man was a biological organism, like any animal, that his personality was a consequence
of hereditary traits, and that each child had within him a rigid assortment of inherited
talents and a natural rate of maturation in the development of these talents. These ideas
were incorporated in a series of slogans of which two were: ‘Every child is different,”
and “He’ll do it when he’s ready.”

From all this came a wholesale ending of discipline, both in the home and in school,
and the advent of “permissive education,” with all that it entailed. Children were
encouraged to have opinions and to speak out on matters of which they were totally
ignorant; acquisition of information and intellectual training were shoved into the
background; and restrictions of time, place, and movement in schools and homes were
reduced to a minimum. Every emphasis was placed on “spontaneity”; and fixed schedules
of time periods or subject matter to be covered were belittled. All this greatly weakened
the disciplinary influence of the educational process, leaving the new generation much
less disciplined, less organized, and less aware of time than their parents. Naturally this
disintegrative process was less evident among the children of the petty bourgeois than in
the middle class itself. These influences in themselves would have contributed much to
the weakening of the middle-class outlook among the rising generation, but other, much
more profound, influences w ere also operating. To examine these we must look inside
the middle-class family structure..

Closely related to this confusion, or even reversal, of the social roles of the sexes was
decreasing sexual differentiation in child-rearing practices. As recently as the 1920’s girl
babies were reared differently from boys. They were dressed differently, treated
differently, permitted to do different things, and admonished about different dangers. By
1960, children, regardless of sex, were all being brought up the same. Indeed, with short
cropped hair and play-suits on both, it became impossible to be sure which was which.
This led to a decrease in the personality differences of men and women, with males
becoming more submissive and females more aggressive.

The other great weakness of the younger generation is their lack of self-discipline.
They are as episodic in their interests and ambitions as they are in their actions. They can
almost kill themselves with overwork for something that catches their fancy, usually
something associated with their group or with “caring” and “helping,” but in general they
have little tenacity of application or self-discipline in action.

They lack imagination also, an almost inevitable consequence of an outlook that
concentrates on experiences without context. Their experiences are necessarily limited
and personal and are never fitted into a larger picture or linked with the past or the future.
As a result they find it almost impossible to picture anything different from what it is, or
even to see what it is from any long-range perspective. This means that their outlooks, in
spite of their wide exposure to different situations through the mass media or by personal
travel, are very narrow. They lack the desire to obtain experience vicariously from
reading, and the vicarious experiences that they get from talk (usually with their fellows)
are rarely much different from their own experiences. As a result, their lives, while
erratic, are strangely dull and homogeneous. Even their sexual experiences are routine,
and any efforts to escape this by experimenting with homosexuality, alcohol, drugs,

extra-racial partners, or other unnecessary fringe accessories generally leave it dull and
routine.

Efforts by middle-class parents to prevent their children from developing along these
non-middle-class lines are generally futile. An effort to use parental discipline to enforce
conformity to middle-class values or behavior means that the child will quote all the
many cases in the neighborhood where the children are not being disciplined. He is
encouraged in his resistance to parental discipline by its large-scale failure all around
him. Moreover, if his parents insist on conformity, he has an invincible weapon to use
against them: academic failure. This weapon is used by boys rather than by girls, partly
because it is a weapon for the weak, and involves doing nothing rather than doing
something, but also because the school seems to most middle-class boys an alien place
and an essential element in their general adolescent feeling of homelessness. Girls who
are pressured by their parents to conform resist by sexual delinquencies more often than
boys, and in extreme cases get pregnant or have sexual experiences with Negro boys.
From this whole context of adolescent resistance to parental pressures to conform to
middle-class behavior flows a major portion of middle-class adolescent delinquency,
which is quite distinct in its origin from the delinquency of the lowest, outcast class in the
slums. It involves all kinds of activities from earliest efforts to smoke or drink, through
speeding, car stealing, and vandalism of property, to major crimes and perversions. It is
quite different in origin and usually in character from the delinquencies of the uprooted,
which are either crimes for personal benefits (such as thievery and mugging) or crimes of
social resentment (such as slashing tires and convertible tops or smashing school
windows). Some activities, of course, such as automobile stealing, appear among both.

The steady increase in the percentage of women teachers in the lower grades
worked in the same direction, since women teachers favored girls and praised those
attitudes and techniques that were more natural to girls. New methods, such as the whole-
word method of teaching reading or the use of true-and-false or multiple-choice
examinations, were also better adapted to female than to masculine talents. Less and less
emphasis was placed on critical judgment, while more and more was placed on intuitive
or subjective decisions. In this environment girls did better, and boys felt inferior or
decided that school was a place for girls and not for boys. The growing aggressiveness of
girls pushed these hesitant boys aside and intensified the problem. As consequences of
this, boys had twice as many “non-readers” as girls, several times as many stutterers, and
many times as many teen-age bed-wetters.

While the outside world was decreasing its differential treatment of children on a
sexual basis by treating boys and girls more and more alike (and that treatment was better
adapted to girls than to boys) within the middle-class home, the growing emotional
frustrations of the mother were leading to an increasing distinction on a sexual basis in
her emotional treatment of her children.

But there is widespread tolerance and endless discussion of all these issues. This
discussion, like most of the adolescents’ endless talk, never reaches any decisions but
leaves the question open or decides that “it all depends on how you look at it.” As part of
such discussions, there is complete casual frankness as to who has had or is having sexual
experiences with whom. Widely permeated with an existentialist outlook, the adolescent
society regards each sexual experience as an isolated, context-less act, with no necessary
cause or consequence, except the momentary merging of two lonelinesses in an act of
togetherness. Among middle-class youth it is accompanied by an atmosphere of
compassion or pity rather than of passion or even love (the way Holden Caulfield might
experience sex). Among lower-class persons it is much more likely to be physiologically
inspired and associated with passion or roughness. This often attracts middle-class girls
who become dissatisfied with the weakness and under- sexuality of middle-class boys.
But petty-bourgeois youth, as befits the final defenders of middle-class conventionality
and hypocrisy, still tend to approach sex with secrecy and even guilt.

Because of the breakdown of communication between the generations of middle-class
families, parents know little of this side of teen-age culture, at least so far as their own
children are concerned. They usually know much more about the behavior of their
friends’ children, because they are more likely to catch glimpses of the behavior of the
latter in unguarded moments. On the whole, middle-class parents today are surprisingly
(and secretly) tolerant about the behavior of their daughters so long as they do not create
a public scandal by “getting into trouble.” Mothers usually feel that their sons are too
young and should wait for sexual experience, while fathers sometimes secretly think it
might do their son’s immaturity some good. When middle-class children get into trouble,
or any kind of a scrape, their only large anxiety is to prevent their parents from finding
out. Petty-bourgeois parents, as the last defense of middle-class conventionality,
generally disapprove of any illicit sexual experiences by any of their children. Naturally
there are great variations in all these things, with religion as the chief varying factor and
variety of local customs in secondary significance. However even in religious circles, the
behavior of the young is not at all what their adults expect or believe. For example, the
number of Roman Catholic young people who have premarital, or even casual, sexual
experiences is much larger than the number who are willing to eat meat on Friday..

One reason for the spreading of these relaxed ideas on behavior is the devastating
honesty of the younger generation, especially about themselves. This seems to be based
on their gregarious garrulity. An earlier generation had its share of illicit actions of
various kinds, but they kept these a secret and regarded each as an aberrant action that
was psychologically excluded from their accepted social patterns and would not,
therefore, be repeated. This view continued, no matter how often it was repeated. But the
younger generation of today has accepted the existentialist idea, “I am what I do.” The

adolescent tells his group what he did, and they usually agree that this is the way he is,
however surprising it is. Their whole attitude is pragmatic, almost experimental: “This is
what happened. This is the way things are. This is the way I am.” They are engaged in a
search for themselves as individuals, something they were called upon to do in the early
grades of school, thanks to the misconceptions of John Dewey, and they are quite alien to
any theory that the self is a creature of trained patterns and is not a creature of discovered
secrets. Now, in the 1960’s, this opinion of man’s nature is changing and, as a
consequence of George Orwell, mishmash conceptions of brainwashing, and the revival
of Pavlovian psychology through the work of men like Professor B. F. Skinner of
Harvard, the idea of personality as something trained under discipline to a desired pattern
is being revived. With this revival of a basically Puritanical idea of human nature
reappears the usual Puritan errors on the nature of evil and acceptance of the theory of the
evil of human nature (as preached in William Golding’s Lord of the Flies).

The new outlook emerging from all this is complex, tentative, and full of
inconsistencies, but it will surely play an increasing role in our history as the younger
generation grows older, abandoning many of the ideas they now hold, with increasing
responsibility; but at the same time the new outlook will force very great modifications in
the American point of view as a whole.

This new outlook of the rising generation of the middle class has a negative and a
positive side. Its negative side can be seen in its large-scale unconcern for the basic
values of the middle-class outlook, its rejection of self-discipline, of future preference, of
infinitely expandable material living standards, and of material symbols of middle-class
status. In general this negative attitude appears in many of the activities we have
described and above all in a profound rejection of abstractions, slogans, cliches, and
conventions. These are treated with tolerant irony tinged with contempt. The targets of
these attitudes are the general values of the petty bourgeoisie and of middle-class parents:
position in society, “what people think,” “self-respect,” “keeping up with the Joneses,”
“the American Way of Life,” “virtue,” “making money,” “destroying our country’s
enemies,” virginity, respect for established organizations (including their elders, the
clergy, political leaders, or big businessmen), and such.

The shift from a destructive or negative to a positive view of the new American
outlook is, to some extent, chronological; it may be seen in the former popularity of Elvis
Presley and the newer enthusiasm for Joan Baez (or folk singers generally). There is also
a social distinction here to some extent, as Elvis remains, to a fair degree, popular with
the lower classes, while Joan is a middle-class (or even college-level) favorite. But the
contrast in outlook between the two is what is significant. Joan is gentle, compassionate,
unemphatic, totally honest, concerned about people as individuals, free of pretenses
(singing quietly in a simple dress and bare feet), full of love and fundamental human
decency, and committed to these.

Something else to think on concerning generational attitudes toward tradition , conformity to modern social norms and what is to be expected..

How the 1968ers betrayed Generation X
http://www.amerika.org/science/how-the-1968ers-betrayed-generation-x/

Millennials on the other hand have only grown up in a liberal-controlled world. 1968 values were taught to them by children’s television, children’s books, their elementary school textbooks, the words of celebrities, the movies from Hollywood and by liberal politicians in Hollywood. For them, there is only a liberal-dominated world, moving slowly toward “Progress” by destroying all who dissent.

As a result, Millennials are the most obedient and conformist generation ever. Like Baby Boomers, who took the WWII-era values of their parents and turned up the intensity, Millennials take PC to the next level with “social justice worrier” style rhetoric. For them, society has always been stable, without want or fear, and all that we need to do is give away enough free stuff that everyone is happy and pacifistic.

he 1968ers betrayed Generation X. In the name of altruism, they betrayed their own families. In the name of egalitarianism, they betrayed and subverted their own children, leaving them cowering like PTSD victims. And because they had popularity on their side, the Me Generation could not be opposed. And yet, opposition rose.

The world has yet to see what Generation X will do. A sensible guess is that they are waiting for a cataclysm so they can finally point out where their parents were wrong, where Millennials are wrong, and thus the necessity of dispossessing such zombies and seizing control in the name of common sense. We all await that day for deliverance from the successful lie and private Hell of post-1968er society.

MA, Tragedy and Hope delves so deep in the the world history of socioeconomic and culture, that I feel I need to read it several more times to fully understand all that Quigley is saying.
It’s a great read…enjoy.

Rand is disqualified because of his stand on “women’s issues?”
Can’t imagine a country where we don’t let all the whores murder their unborn children?
I imagine you are too dim to understand that is a big part of what has dragged us to the edge of the shithole in the first place.

Are we there yet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5exbO-Ros2Q

“…We are nearing the end. I think the world economy is plunging into an unprecedented deflation recession period of shrinkage that will bring down all the markets around the world that have been vastly overvalued as a result of this massive money printing and liquidity flow into Wall Street and other financial markets…”

[img?w=500&h=481[/img]

https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2016/02/03/as-men-go-so-goes-the-future/?singlepage=true