Donnerstag, 18. November 2010
Das soll ein Reich sein?
Nicht mehr so viele, aber mit 328 eigenständigen Herrschaften im Jahr 1648 noch genügend viele Deutschländer.
Den Dreißigjährigen Krieg von 1618-1648, einen Fürstenkrieg, in dem sich vor allem Schweden und Franzosen in den Deutschländern tummelten, überlebte wahrscheinlich nur ein Drittel der Bevölkerung.
(Aus: Harms, Geschichtsatlas)
Aus einer Diskussion auf WUWT, Part II
Lipset called the US „The first new Nation“ – but are the US really a nation, are the Americans a people? Many of the Doleys family have gone to the US and have become Americans, distributing their asiatic genes on the „normal“ way – sex was established some hundreds of millions of years ago as a method to mix genes more frequently. Cultures operate contrasting: they exclude other individuals to preserve their cultural group. So the US-Chinese stick to their group, Latinas prefer Latin Lovers, Italians like Italians etc. There are genetic cross transfers, but only at the edges. Sam Huntington asked concerned: „Who are we?“
The most interesting answer gave Max Weber, the „Marx-Killer“, in his essays „The protestant sects and the spirit of capitalism“. The protestant sects came over from Europe and made the American wilderness overtake the wealthy Argentine (Latin „Silver Land“) within 150 Years (see David Landes, Poverty and Wealth of Nations).
So the Americans are the New Europeans, having the same pool of genes, but developing them in individualistic conditions, in an individual and pluralistic cultural framework allowing free enterprise and vitalizing sharp contrasts. This is not really a nation, it is a combination of apt individuals of very different origin in a nationlike frame.
This reminds somehow on the „Germanies“, les Allemagnes, as the French used to say, die Deutschländer, denn „Deutschland“, „Germany“ hat es nie im Singular gegeben, has never existed in a single land. Since 10.000 years all kinds of folks have crossed „Middle-Europe“, the Netherlands are kind of German as well as Austria. The early „Holy Roman German Realm“ consisted of 1789 (!) sub-realms – it was very loose and weak compared with France and England. „Germany“ actually is a late invention of nationalism in the 19th century stimulated and provoked by France and the UK. More provoked by the aggressive France, which attacked the Germanies since Louis XIV., and with Napoleon conquering all German lands till reaching Moscow.
It is a great misunderstanding to construct any connection of sadism and socialism, because of the fact, that the marxist fraction exercised terror to reach their aims. Socialism and marxism are branches of christianity, see Th. Morus, Utopia / Savonarola, „De simplicitate Christianae vita" / Campanella, Civitas solis, Der Sonnenstaat. But these christian authors are influenced by the POLITEIA of Platon, the archetypus of idealism, rationalism and a sort of communism. That is a line of tradition which has some merits, it can be and it should be contrasted with other ideas and it can be criticised, off course, but it should be considered as serious thinking. It is the true tragedy of thinking, that it can depart from good will and end in mass murder. Consider Robespierre. Consider Robespierre a genuine heir of Rousseau.
I see e.g. Obama in this line of caring Christians, but I personally don’t like caring very much. The same applies to the climate phantasies. Thinking often is entirely wrong. Hayek called it the PRETENSION OF KNOWLEDGE.