Triumph of the parasite
05 01 11 - 06:52
Prozak's theorem of distributedness: nature expands in all directions simultaneously.If a predator wants prey, but doesn't want to be a predator, what do they become? A parasite. A passive-aggressive form of predator. It doesn't attack you; it lies in wait. It looks for your weakness, inches up toward it, and then attaches. But it never attacked.
The Armillaria ostoyae, popularly known as the honey mushroom, started from a single spore too small to see without a microscope. It has been spreading its black shoestring filaments, called rhizomorphs, through the forest for an estimated 2,400 years, killing trees as it grows. It now covers 2,200 acres (880 hectares) of the Malheur National Forest, in eastern Oregon.
The outline of the giant fungus stretches 3.5 miles (5.6 kilometres) across, and it extends an average of three feet (one metre) into the ground. It covers an area as big as 1,665 football fields. - The Independent
What if you became a parasite, but didn't want to be one?
Such is the plight of immigrants who are not from similar enough societies to immediately integrate into a population. The majority becomes the granter of favors, because nothing functions seamlessly as it did at home: finding housing, a job, even shopping, can be a mystery. So the new population arrives first as supplicants.
In any sane society they are immediately converted to labor, so that they have a place and can begin integrating. However, if the two societies are dissimilar enough, the integration doesn't happen, making this experience a lie. Values, abilities and tendencies clash. As a result, the minority gets tired of being the supplicant who gets paid a decent salary but one lower than the average among the majority, and they get tired of the "summer home" effect. Their house never feels like home. It's like a very, very extended vacation in a new strange world.
Greece has announced plans to build a 12km (eight-mile) fence along part of its border with Turkey to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing.
The area has become the main route into Greece for migrants from Africa and Asia with an average of 245 people crossing illegally every day in October 2010, according to Frontex, the EU's border agency.
In a statement, Mr Papoutsis said Greece could "no longer tolerate this".
"Greek society has exceeded its limit in its capacity to accommodate illegal immigrants," he said.
"This is the hard reality and we have an obligation to the Greek citizen to deal with it." - BBC
In the immigration drama, in which rich Western countries (remember those Western civilization textbooks?) admit third-world people who come seeking better salaries. Normally, the politically correct thing to say is that they come "seeking a better life." However, that's happy horseshit. They come seeking the cash and figure the rest will fall into line.
Unknown to both majority and minority, the situation is entirely unworkable. The minority will never fully be accepted, in part because they're in a menial labor role but in part because they're not of the majority, in language, customs, values, abilities, culture or heritage. The majority will always be resented by the minority, because the majority is the giver of things and the exploiter of labor. This means that anything given to the minority represents a control relationship, and the minority resents it.
Modern Western civilization (MWC) is in denial of this slaves-n-masters relationship because we find it socially and aesthetically appalling. "Us? Use people as wage slaves? Never!!!" they demand. But reality is what it is, and if you're enjoying having someone mow your lawn for $20, there's certainly a reason the labor is so cheap. Many economists seem to think this is OK, but the problem it creates is similar to socialism: the cheaper and easier you make labor, the less competitive your society becomes. If you subsidize everyone, soon no one excels. If you make everything cheap, it all gets reduced to the lowest common denominator and soon you're not making anything of note -- you're doing fancy stuff on a desk, and passing the raw labor to people who resent you.
When the majority strikes back, the minority does what all humans do when they are attacked: counterattack, and since they're in a recipient position, they attack the gift-givers on the premise that the gift was unfairly portioned.
The law bans classes that promote the overthrow of the United States government and resentment toward a race or class of people. Also outlawed are courses designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group and those that advocate ethnic solidarity rather than treat students as individuals.
Professor Rodriguez says itâs not the first time such programs have been singled out, but now âitâs being acted upon.â He views the stateâs ethnic studies and immigration laws as attacks on all Hispanics and as reasons why some people might refer to Arizona as âthe new south.â - CSM
Welcome to playing by the same rules that the majority white people have been playing by for decades, Professor Rodriguez. Do you think it's unfair? I agree, it is. But it's not the problem, it's the symptom. The real problem is that the majority-minority relationship forces one group into a role as parasite, and the other as oblivious victim, sewing the seeds for future discontent.
What happens when a forest wakes up to find that a mushroom colony has spread like a cancer among it, killing off trees by the thousand? Probably nothing. If those trees could walk, talk and shoot? That might be a much bigger mess indeed.
26 comments
Quit being racist please... Adrian - 05-01-’11 15:04
so I suppose it would be ok if he shot some immigrants? analogue - 05-01-’11 18:50
quite simplifying everything to a good vs evil duality if you want to have a halfway credible opinion... analogue - 05-01-’11 19:03
If people would be more open minded? How and when is this alternate Disney Movie reality supposed to take place? scourge (URL) - 05-01-’11 20:50
JEWS GentlemanOftheMorningAsses (Email ) - 05-01-’11 21:52
tl;dr, Nazi!
LOL! GO DETROIT! Adrinigger McHilde - 05-01-’11 22:06
What the hell are you talking about? Are you saying that it's false to suppose that these people are seeking a better life? They're seeking more cash precisely because they think it will allow them to live a better life, otherwise they wouldn't seek a higher wage than what they earn in their native country. Of course, they might value cash for its own sake, but then these swarthy immigrants would be quite different from any human being I've ever encountered. It's not "happy horseshit" to claim that immigrants are seeking a better life, nor does that claim imply that they're not seeking a higher wage. What a bizarre way for you to try to split hairs.
"the cheaper and easier you make labor, the less competitive your society becomes. If you subsidize everyone, soon no one excels."
Are you trying to make some connection between the price of labor and subsidization? How in the world is it the case that everyone gets subsidized just because some people come over and bid down the price of labor for certain lines of work? You say the weirdest stuff sometimes. Christopher (Email ) (URL) - 06-01-’11 01:23
Do you mean, literally, $0.00? I find that hard to believe. Did you mean 'very little' instead? Ok, but none of this in itself amounts to slavery. Merely working for "nothing" does not make one a slave. One has to be *compelled* by force to do so in order to be a slave. Otherwise one is merely a volunteer or a person who doesn't make very much money.
"or the country hands over some of its wealth to them which means that the citizens lose out."
What do you mean by 'hands over'? Are you referring to welfare transfers or are you referring to the fact that these people work and get paid for it. I suspect it's the latter since you contrast it with working for nothing. Well, paying somebody for doing work is not "handing over" wealth, nor does it amount to subsidizing them. Christopher (Email ) - 06-01-’11 22:21
And multiculturalism would work if people would be more blissfully unaware and self-defeatingâ¦something this site lacks most definitleyâ¦
There, fixed. Kapnobatai (Email ) - 07-01-’11 13:39
Well, there's all sorts of reasons you might. Some immigrants have particular skills needed in particular fields, etc.
But the more important point is that that's the wrong question. The question is "is there justification for preventing immigrants?". The burden of justification is always on those who want to forcibly prevent behavior, not on those who want to permit it.
And only slightly less importantly, "is it practically implementable to prevent immigration?" If not, than trying to prevent it will cause more harm than good even if the goals are desirable.
"Millions of motherfuckers with vastly different goals and directions with no one purpose or unity surely can only have a positive effect on a civilization!"
This depends on what your criterion is for "positive effect on a civilization". To me, a civilization is not the same as a business; it doesn't have a very specific purpose or goal. Its purpose is simply to facilitate just and safe interactions among its people, and to ensure as well as it can that the goals of its people aren't unjustly impeded.
Viewed that way, differences among goals and directions may be a problem if those people impede each others' goals; the role of the government is then to help prevent imposition of people on other people. However, for the government to try to engineer the country to only have people with one type of goal would be a gross miscarriage of its purpose; it would be imposing on the goals of a large number of its people. Dave (Email ) - 04-02-’11 15:44