“Demographics is destiny” a fundamental truth of Economics and Population Dynamics.
So over on Tallblokes, Gail Combs posted an interesting link. The site is, er, a bit inflammatory in many ways, so I can’t endorse it on the basis of just one or two videos. Yet the demographics in the video are accurate.
The basic thesis is that the influx of a huge load of young men from non-German countries will demographically swamp the roughly equal sized young german male demographic. The implication is “the end of Germany”, as a country and a culture and a genetic group.
Is there reality in it?
IF present trends continue, yes. But “all things being equal” is rarely kept equal…
On that site, I ran into another video. It is even more disturbing. Both for the ideas it puts forth, and for the fact that they cite a respected body of literature in their conclusions. Yes, the cite of culture as derivative from sexually repressed cultures is from old grey beards like Frued and J.D. Unwin (1895-1936), so could be criticized as musty and out of date (and perhaps a cherry pick to match the video thesis…)
Yet it does cause a fair amount of thought, matches what I know of the biological basis of sexual behaviours and “in group” vs “out group” preferences, and echos the thesis about genes driving one type of person to Progressive and another to Conservative.
I can’t particularly endorse it, OTOH, once past the gratuitous inflammatory hype sellers puff, I can’t point at any given thing in it and say “Well, that’s quite wrong”. Mostly it makes me think. I like things that make me think. ( I don’t have to agree with the content or conclusions to like thinking about something… )
At any rate, hopefully it will lead you to think a bit too. Like it or not ;-)
Musings from the Chiefio 
Unintended consequences?
Or purposeful blending of the human herd?
Gail Combs is a keen observer of humans and their invisible tyrannical rulers.
Standing back to look at the big picture is pretty unnerving, so I’m concentrating on trying to get a majority in the UK to vote to leave the European Union on June 23rd.
One small step for man.
One of the ‘steps’ of The Frankfurt School was to flood the ‘west’ with immigrants to destroy the national identities. Looks like the name of the school was prescient.
As Roger would have you all do, spend an hour with BREXIT the Movie – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0 – a useful primer on the EU, what it does and how it does it and how the UK is getting the soggy end.
Stefan Molyneux, has another video up on muslims, Germany, women and the r/K selection theory.
What is left out is the manipulation puting these factors into play. Never forget that the USA founders royally P.O.ed some very powerful people and they have been out to destroy the USA ever since. For example the Civil War was supposed to leave the USA vulnerable to take over by France and England but the Russian Czar stepped in and said if the USA was a ttacked he would attack from the rear. Funny how his entire family was later wiped out by the Communists the International bankers sicced on Russia. (My wild A$$$ guess about Karl Marx HERE )
Stefan Molyneux points out women got the vote in the 1930s and that is when welfare came into play. What he does not mention is the International Bankers and the US FED intentionally caused the 1929 stock market crash nor does he mention that an European Union like super state has been the goal since the 1930s according to Pascal Lammy. (www(DOT)globalgovernancewatch.org/spotlight_on_sovereignty/lamy-calls-for-europeaninspired-global-governance )
“and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty” means getting rid of that pesky US Constitution.
The reason the USA MUST be destroyed is because it is based on the principle of God given INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and individuals ALLOW the government to make laws on their behalf. Other governments are based on the principle that the Government grants individuals ‘privileges’ that it can remove at any time and the needs of the community as a whole (read the government leaders) trump the rights of an individual. (‘God given rights’ is the reason for the present attack on Christianity. BTW)
You can see this creeping change in the underlying principle of the USA in the recent Supreme Court decision to allow corporations the right to confiscate an individual’s land if the community (read local government tax) was affected in a positive manner. The fact is that our rights to our own property (wealth) and what we can do with it have been eroded via zoning regs and the EPA not to mention the use of fiat funny money mortgages and Rockefeller’s “Green Revolution” US farmers were persuaded by the USDA extension service to mortgage their land to buy ‘Modern Improvements,’ and we have been stuck with mortgages ever since. (www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html ) India’s Farmer Suicide is a present day example of the same maneuver. (wwwDOTcommondreams.org/headline/2010/01/06-0 )
What many do not realize is the British Monarch OWNS all the land in the UK, Canada and Australia. (wwwDOTbusinessinsider.com/worlds-biggest-landowners-2011-3?op=1 ) (Notice the article does not mention banks own a heck of a lot of the rest of the world’s land via mortgages.)
Back to Lamy.
He says…
Also remember a couple other things.
As Tim Ball pointed out in a WUWT article the elite think there are WAY too many people. The Fabians have made it clear they have no problem getting rid of the Useless eaters.
Straight from Fabian co-founder George Bernard Shaw
This idea is implemented in the UK via the Liverpool Care Pathway where the old, very sick children and birth defect babies are deliberately starved to death.
Maurice Strong made it clear that CHINA with its intellegent but cowed population was to be the next super power.
In preparation the EU and the USA is being stripped of assets. Then a you and he fight is set up so many many are killed off as tensions explode and the UN in the form of China can come in and restore order or bomb the place back to the stone age.
Middle East oil and US resources are then available WITHOUT the pesky muslims and Americans.
One thing I try to remember about the theories of scientist is that the ends are often sifted into the
research.
The civilization… video does provide some thought games that have interesting ties.
It has been said that woman are the civilizing force. According to the video it was the feminine adherence to religious morals that cemented society. Religion=successful society and thus repressed societies = success. Blaming women for for a society’s not wanting to be repressed is misleading.
It would appear that religion needs to be redefined to a belief without the supreme being (as culturally, belief in a supreme being is evolving out of existence). Or, some way of restraining the free market to the point sex doesn’t sell.
I wonder if I have navigated politically correctly through a foggy, muddled paragraph?
Elitests always forget, when things get really bad They are the ones that are eliminated.
We don’t need them…pg
I like Gail. I am glad to see that she’s still her though provoking self.
cdquarles,
Thank you. I found the censors of the internet do NOT like me. I got tossed off American Thinker, Breitbart and than DISQUIS banned my account so I can not comment on several sites.
I moved to commenting at Conservative Treehouse at which point I found my IP address has been banned so I can not even comment there. Several others at Conservative Treehouse reported they have been banned by DISQUIS also.
Interesting that as soon as I started commenting on Cruz and his Sach-Goldman wife I got taken off DISQUIS and when I linked My comment on the Karl Marx I immediately had my IP address banned so WordPress doesn’t even send my comments to moderation at Conservative Treehouse.
Seems I just might be over the target.
p.g.sharrow says:
“Elitests always forget, when things get really bad They are the ones that are eliminated.”
……
I agree. I also think the real Elite have figured that out and therefore use political puppets to hide behind. I certainly would.
Miles Mathis came to a similar conclusion as I, that Karl Marx and ‘Communism’ was a monsterous con job but he thinks the aristocracy and not the middle class was the target. This is where I disagree. It is the middle class that are the dangerous wildcard threatening the elite and not the aristocracy who sanctioned Fractional Reserve Banking and borrow from the international bankers. Both the politicians and the bankers profit from the system and it is uninformed Main Street that gets fleeced.
The international bankers (Rothschilds and Rockefellers) are hand in glove with the British and Dutch Royals in their co-ownership of Shell Oil. This group also founded and control the World Wildlife Fund. It is no coincidence that Ged Davis, VP of Shell Oil wrote Scenario B1 (Agenda 21) for the IPCC, that the Rockefellers, Shell and BP provided the funds for starting East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, and the IPCC uses a lot of WWF gray lit.
Nathan Rothschild allegedly made the statement: “I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls the British money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.”
Whether or not it is true, the idea that the Puppet Masters stay in the shadows so the Angry peasants string up the politiians and Aristocracy makes good sense.
The paper The network of global corporate control (anticorruptionsociety(DOT)files.wordpress.com/2015/09/swiss-study-the-network-of-global-corporate-control-2.pdf) by Stefania Vitali , James B. Glattfelder, and Stefano Battiston, shows the strings attached from the financial sector to the corporations. And by now, thanks to Trump everyone should be aware of the money strings on our politicians. One point the paper does not mentioned is mutual funds, trusts and pension plans.
If you invest in a mutual fund you are buying shares in the mutual fund (that you can not vote) and the Mutual Fund then uses YOUR money to buy stock shares which it owns and controls. This allows much more consolidation of control. For example Edward C Johnson 3rd, chairman of the Fidelity Group votes the stock in Monsanto owned by several pension and mutual funds like FMR LLC, FIDELITY MAGELLAN FUND INC, FIDELITY GROWTH COMPANY FUND, and Pyramis Global Advisors. The vanguard Group, aka John C. Bogle, owns another healthy chunk of Monsanto. In this way even more power is concentrated in the hands of a few. This explains the point made in the paper that the amount of power is greater than the amount of wealth can account for.
So facts like “85% of Monsanto is held by mutual funds and Institutional (financial) Holders” while true in that the money originated from pensioners and other little people does not tell the whole story. Yet it is trumpeted by those who want to confuse those trying to follow the money and power trails and misdirect us into thinking the stock is held and voted by pensioners – a complete and utter falsehood.
The article Financial Core of the Transnational Corporate Class lists the top companies AND the officers running these corporations.
Perhaps P.G. should copy that list…..
The “overpopulation” lie was the first one I checked out having read some many years ago “The Population Bomb” by Paul E. Ends up so-called overpopulation reduces to crowding, poor municipal government, and age-demographics.
And pursuant to this discussion, the age-demographics of Europe specifically. Google “Jungle of Calais” and any of the other assorted videos and reports of protests and riots going on in Europe over their self-induced immigration crises. Interesting to note the almost total silence from MSM. Protests / riots have been enormous. In Poland, 100,000 people took to the streets in the largest demonstration in that country’s history – largest according to those publicizing it. I looked at some video of that demonstration; it was large.
And then Google birthrates. For instance Poland’s is a catastrophically low 1.3 considering 2.2 is just about replacement birthrate. And European countries are aging demographically. Low birthrate; high average / mean age. So they can protest and riot all they want. Their governments understand the implications of having an aged retired population with no tax-paying workers.
Is there precedent for this phenomena? One would logically conclude that the culture at least, is on the way out.
Oh, and it’s nice to hear from you Gail!
bruce says:
“…It has been said that woman are the civilizing force….”
Another one of my ‘SWAGs’ is it was women who started farming. One of my college courses covered paleo-indians of the midwest. It was found that seeds of a plant no longer eaten were much larger in the past probably because women of hunter-gatherer tribes intentionally planted the best seeds for harvest the next year.
I am not sure about other herbevoires but I do know horses travel a circular route over the year moving over the same ground during the same season year to year. Indians following herds would also be returning yearly to the same camping spots so intentionally planting the best seeds makes a lot of sense.
The chances are that our herds of sheep, goats and cattle came from a hunter bringing home a newborn lamb, kid, calf to his mate who had lost her baby. Here is a modern example from India of women raising deer along with their own children. In many subsistance cultures it is women who farm and children who mind the herds of sheep and goats while the men hunt and raid. Think of young David and Goliath in the bible.
We also know that both the paleo-indians and the Australian aborigines used fire to promote grasslands for the herds to graze.
@Gail:
Per “IP bans”: One can use Starbucks just to stir the pot… as they then ban various Starbucks IPs (or other free wifi spots…) lots of folks get their dander up at the site ;-) FWIW, many places have free WiFi, I just use Starbucks as the obvious. Kaiser Hospital has it, Publics grocery store has it, even the local library has it… Any tool used against you becomes a tool for your own use… (A fundamental principal of Aikido… “Join with your adversary’s energy, flow with it, and return it to him…” ) Were I ever IP banned, I’d start a very methodical program of showing up again under many public IP addresses…each one until banned, then rotate to the next… Oh, and you can likely just leave your home router down for a long weekend away from home, and on power up later it ought to DHCP a new address. Typical time out intervals are 24 to 48 hours… a few 3 days. I have 2 portable wifi hotspots I use when on the road (about $40? and then about $20 for a chunk of time at Walmart or your telco) and they, too, would have “variety IP addresses” over time… Just sayin’ ;-)
You can also get a VPN account pretty darned cheap.
Per women and farming:
I’m pretty sure you are exactly right. Men were the hunters, always moving to new ground for new game (so we have a strong “sense of direction” but don’t look at landmarks as much) while women tended to workover the same gather patches (and have a great navigation via landmarks and canonical route, but do less well with ‘go thataway about a day and turn left’…) Women returning to the same patch, year after year, would be motivated to “help it along” by things like weeding and seed planting. Small step from that to full on farming.
BTW, the navigation differences are well attested and I’ve found that giving directions to the spouse or daughter work better with lots of landmarks and route detail.
Per herding: It is well known that if you act like a browser, other browsers and grazers will accept you. Women bent over and plucking things from the ground will look like browsers. So would be able to ‘integrate’ with the other critters. Over time, they would tend to form awareness and bonds of familiarity. When one “little one” then shows up sans mama, you end up with the start of herding. Ditto the “camp dogs” that likely started from pups of the local wolves trying to survive after loss of a parent hanging out at the trash heaps…
Now if we can just show that women made the first beer, we’ll have the whole package wrapped up! We know that sedentary farming and the start of civilization happened just as beer was made from grains… It’s my thesis that beer is the foundation of civilization as there wasn’t really any other reason to abandon hunter /gatherer life style… But who made the first beer? Men out running over the hills with spears and bows? Or women cooking some gathered grain that then had ‘left overs” sit a bit too long? Hmmm? Many “primitive” societies have some kind of fermented drink, often made by the women… I suspect “Party at Urusla’s, with Grog!” was the start of settled “civilization”… and once Ursula had the guys showing up in bunches, well, you know the other ladies just had to find out how to make that grog stuff… ;-)
Note the picture of an ancient Egyptian sculpture showing women making beer:
http://all-that-is-interesting.com/history-of-beer/2
I’ve seen that particular artifact and taken photos of it at the local museum…
http://schools-wikipedia.org/images/1391/139139.jpg.htm
gregole “overpopulation” is certainly a lie. Modern civilization reduces the number of children because children are no longer an asset to the family (cheap farm labor) but a large financial drain. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that a middle-income family may spend $226,920 to raise a child born in 2010 to the age of 18″ Also with modern medicine, good food, clean water, and decent shelter children do not die. In my parents generation usually there was at least one dead sib before they reached age 20.
The USA is lucky because we have been hanging around replacement. Last time I checked it was just about 2.0 Interesting that the CIA now reports it at 1.87 and the Wall Street Journal says it rose slightly, to 1.862 children after being very depressed during Obama years.
E.M.
Do not forget ciders and wines. Apples that drop off trees will ferment in the skin. You do not need anything to get apple juice made from fresh picked apples to turn into cider except a cool dark place.
A drunk Moose!
Interesting premise and definitely a thought piece. The over all situation is far more complex than posited by the videos but I certainly see some valid points. It is hard to explain why so many women repeatedly pick tough guy losers if there was not some basis to those arguments. Likewise a good many women pick successful “breadwinner” dominant types and then abandon them as soon as the money dries up or their children get past their teen years. The patterns are too pervasive to be chance.
I also find validity in the assertion that religion which stigmatizes multiple partners and encourages monogamy is likely the social glue that turns those instinctive drives into stable social systems. Sure some men and women cat about even with strong moral codes in the society and even legal repercussions to infidelity but it still limits and constrains that sort of thing.
It is interesting to contrast his view about sexuality and the primal drives which would make women as a population more likely not to be tied to national or tribal allegience, with the conclusions of the book “Territorial Imperative” by Robert Audry. The basis of the book (and several follow up books) was that almost all animals in nature the dominant gender defends territory and the submissive gender sees possession of territory as a signal of suitability to mate with that individuality.
The Bull elk is not defending his Harem he is defending a territory and tries to keep the cows within his territory so he has primary breeding rights. He is not particularly concerned with any specific cow, but he is concerned about the number of cows he can accumulate and corral on his territory.
The mating ratio 40% of men mate with 80% of women fits in well with that model of all of the natural kingdom where a few males mate with most females. It just is — it is not a value judgement but an almost universal rule in all animal species. Successful species have some mechanism to enforce that sort of ratio to drive positive selection of the most fit individuals.
As mentioned the selective pressures of women living in an environment where submissive females had to gravitate to the strong in order to survive would necessarily result in much of the behavior he mentions. If being head strong and independent got you killed when a new alpha male showed up and burned your village, your genes don’t get passed on.
This definitely is a part of the puzzle and deserves some think time.
(Yes Gail I always enjoy your insights and interesting ideas and references you bring up!)
Larry, remember the biblical verse “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Exodus 22:18
It is sort of stuck in the middle of several laws, many dealing with women and marriage.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2022&version=KJV
The popular interpertation is a witch = sold soul to the devil.
However for tribes that MUST raid or buy wives to prevent inbreeding, the witch is actually the wisewoman from another tribe who is NOT the person you want around if you just killed off the men folk and captured the women and children. She is going to be the person with status and knowledge and therefore the last person you want to leave behind when you go off raiding or hunting. Kill her and the rest of the women will give you no trouble.
In the USA the paleo tribes more or less split the work and the power. At least in the North Eastern tribes, the women ran the village and the men ran the hunting and raiding parties. However in North Africa and the Middle East, the climate gradually went from similar to the the USA (forest and savanna) to desert pushing people on top of each other along the Nile. This would make for different dynamics wher killing off rival tribes became more necessary. This would also mean killing off the rival tribes became a necessity and that would include the strong knowledgeable and dominant women. Islam takes this to an extreme where ALL women are considered the ‘ENEMY’ and they have a habit of marrying cousins.
Stone-Age graveyard reveals life in a “green Sahara”
When I was in high school our public speaking instructor gave us a very interesting assignment. At the time I was also on the debate team and our topic that season had to do with whether or not military assistance programs to allies and “frenemies” was desirable.
For my topic I chose “the benefits of warfare”. This was of course during the early years of Vietnam when all my friends were going bonkers over the war, so it was particularly obnoxious to them.
I approached it from a very simple thesis. If warfare was not net beneficial to human development/society, it would have been bred out of our society a hundred thousand years ago.
There had to be some net positive value to warfare or it would not exist. If you removed all the ethical and moral considerations and just look at it as a generic process which had positive and negative outcomes for both individuals and societies you get an interesting picture.
First of all warfare is not as dangerous as the general public believes in a pure statistical or actuarial sense. In WWI which almost everyone agrees was a meat grinder conflict with huge casualties, the actual death rate of mobilized forces was about 12.1%. Certainly a bad outcome for that 12.1% significant, but not catastrophic to a large population group. In Vietnam American deaths in combat only accounted for 0.5% of all the troops mobilized, another 0.12% were non-combat casualties out of a total mobilization of 8.744 million. In short you had significantly less than a 1% chance of dying from any cause if you were called up or volunteered for service in Vietnam. Approximately 99.35% of those called up came home. From an actuarial point of view that is an insignificant cost for the population group. That is about 10x the death toll in the general population due to traffic accidents each year, which has been stable between 10 and 12 / 100,000 per year over the last few years here in the US.
Warfare on the other hand drives progress in technology and adaption like no other process because of the imperative of survival. During every war you see huge jumps in technologies which are appropriate for that conflict. In that sense it is very significant net gain. Two world wars about 20 years apart took our aircraft designs from wood,string and fabric kites who could barely get off the ground to jet airplanes.
We seldom look at large scale processes which impact culture and populations from a purely statistical point of view, which is what our genes see and care about. We almost always impose moral and social judgements on them. Heredity and changes in the gene pool don’t care about morals only the statistics. Demographics (death rates being an important part of demographics) have significant impacts on our culture and our genetic heritage. It is silly not to expect large scale social forces like changes in social structure driven by food sources or conflict with neighbors or in this case the forces which have pushed adaption and coping skills to very high importance for women who wished to survive. In the same token the forces and responsibilities of men in different cultural environments pushed them to a different form of adaption in the form or dominance over competitors for their primary needs which were food and sex. The two genders must have evolved different skill sets and approaches to problem solving if they were to survive in those different environments.
I think modern feel good views, blind people to the fact that like all creatures, humans are still a product of millions of years of genetic programming, and like it or not we do things for reasons only our lizard brain understands. Social constructs are a relatively weak overlay that can only modify those tendencies to limited degrees. Break the social constraints and you upset that delicate balance and pure statistical forces like fecundity and death rate dominate outcomes in the long term. Those who breed and survive will pass on their genetic programming and those traits which are most useful when things go to hell in a hand basket are the most dominant programming and will take over all other drives in time of trouble.
The only way men can survive in combat is to have tribal and group loyalty, and occasionally the willingness for one to give his life so others might fight again another day. In the same sense as a group women’s highest allegiance are to her genes and their survival through her off spring, not necessarily to some arbitrary group to survive genetically she must adapt to the demands of the dominate power in her group to survive and breed. Statistical genetic survival would make her primary allegiance to the current most powerful protector for her and her off spring she could find.
Last weeks tribe is irrelevant, the only tribe that matters at any given time is the tribe who has control over her and her off spring.
In that sense I see sound logic in some of the points in the video. The real question is where do those genetic legacy behaviors leave off and give way to social programming and cultural norms?
I think social programming and cultural norms are not nearly as powerful as many would like to think and at an unconscious level that deep genetic programming almost always wins. It may be tempered or modified slightly but the basic mission is almost always accomplished.
This view is very politically incorrect, but from an objective genetic forces point of view, makes perfect sense to me. There are other forces at work though, for example all primates engage in political alliances and temporary subgroups to accomplish their objectives. All the political games we see in humans show up in only slightly modified form in other animals who have similar tribal, clan social structures (monkeys, wolves etc.) so the genetic forces he points to in the video in my view cannot be a singular explanation. Like all simple explanations it is almost certainly wrong or at least incomplete.
Larry L.
Certainly makes sense to me. War is and always has been about gaining MORE resources/benefits than are expended no matter what the scale it is waged on. (At least the leaders have to see a gain, the serfs not so much.)
One of the major downfalls of Socialism/Communism is human nature. First we are predators and second we are territorial with our families (genes going forward) at the top of the list then the clan, the community and finally our nation. Generousity is only possible because of excess. (Although some few humans will rise above the crowd.) Therefore all the diversity and PC crap goes directly against human nature and only the loud shouting down of disenters by the vocal minority in the media and acadamia has allowed it to flourish. Trump with his complete distain for PC has loosed that pent up human nature the Progressive crowd has been stiffling for a decade and it scares the heck out of the Elite.
One of the people on Jo Nova’s mentioned living with the Australian aborigines for a time. He was struck by just how little effort was expended. Like most large preditors most of the time was spent lazing about. Add to that protecting YOUR genes (wife and children) and William Bradford’s discription of the Plymouth Plantation colonists makes sense. He describes them as lazy thieves who went hungry for years because they refused to work in the field. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.” And these were RELIGIOUS Christians not the pampered spoiled bernie worshipers we have been raising lately.
Too bad this actual history lesson is never taught in school.
Strange how that lesson needs to be taught over and over again. It is like we have a poor grasp of history or something. I have an idea let’s introduce a class in schools that teaches civics and history and a bit of economics. If we teach this stuff to kids in say the 9th grade or something maybe they would be less prone to being total morons about how the world really works!
Didn’t Rush just publish a book on that story?
Yes, Rush did. Also let us not forget that as recently as 120 years ago ‘child labor’ was not illegal. Family, friends and the Church taught civics and history. Work taught economics, within the family work and outside work. Fussing about international bankers is a form of a distraction. That some of these sold their soul to the Devil does not mean that we should target them and not target the Progressive Premises that infected society from the government academic complex of the time.
How Iran religious leaders view “peaceful Islam”.
http://counterjihad.com/iranian-ayatollah-decries-peaceful-islam-american-islam
“you don’t control people through politics, you control them through religion”. ~Constantine
Dr. Bill Warner holds a PhD in physics and math from NC State University (1968). Dr. Warner uses his training in scientific theory and mathematics to analyze Islamic doctrine. He has been reading old books on history/Islam and translating large thick books into something ordinary people can read.
I ran across this video of his that is a real eye opener. In his vid he mentions there has been a lot more information obtained recently that wipes out what we were taught in school. (Most of the history taught is out right propaganda as I indicated above.)
Good video, his materials are worth reading. A good companion to really understand what Islam is and its doctrine demands if fully implemented is the book “Catastrophic Failure” by Stephen Coughlin
A belated video reference that fits here.