|
|
|
Civilization Takedown: Obsoleting the Campsite Start watching at 15 minutes and 10 seconds into this video: You will see something that matters. Neocon Zionists starting WW III by inciting the US to attack Syria thence Iran doesn’t matter. This does. National Instruments is a company that every scientist and technologist in the world knows and respects. In that video the president of National Instruments is, in the most highly visible role he takes, essentially accusing the physics establishment of institutional incompetence. The physics establishment has been, since WW II, the most politically powerful aspect of the entire scientific establishment. That is noteworthy in itself. That it is over a matter of suppression of clean energy technology is even more noteworthy, but it doesn’t, in itself, hold a “candle” so to speak, to the threat of nuclear Armageddon posed by the neocon Zionists. So what’s the big deal? I mean, if solving civilization’s energy problems isn’t such a big deal, why does this really matter? Here’s why… My nemesis, as some may have come to recognize from my recent emphasis on his book, “The Social Conquest of Earth” is E. O. Wilson. This is not because he is, in these the last years of his life, doing an about-face and attacking kin selection and inclusive fitness—a major theme not only of MajorityRights.com but of the entire New Right. I happen to agree with much of what he has to say about phony “altruism” being, in actuality, simply various forms of parasitic castration (although he doesn’t come out and use that phrase because of his intellectual handicaps as a parasitic castrati of sorts). I don’t consider the areas of significant disagreement with him over kin selection and inclusive fitness to be important enough to go into here. It is because he makes the strongest possible case for eusociality—an inevitable consequence of group selection—being an essential aspect of the human condition. My position is that, on the contrary, while it is true eusociality is an aspect of the human condition and may have been crucial in the development of what is essential in Man, it is now an encumbrance that endangers that development and indeed, all life. So now you might see what can hold a candle to nuclear Armageddon; and not because nuclear Armageddon would endanger what is essential in Man nor would endanger all life (it would do neither). It is precisely because nuclear Armageddon would do neither that anything that strikes at the roots of the eusocial condition of humanity would so overshadow nuclear Armageddon in its import. Here’s what E. O. Wilson has to say about a key aspect of the evolution of human eusociality:
“The Social Conquest of Earth”, chapter “Threading the Evolutionary Maze” by E. O Wilson, p47-48 So here’s the big deal: The kind of cold fusion being demonstrated at National Instruments’ exposition is based on a ubiquitous metal: Nickel. The devices are small in scale—potentially and quite probably even small enough to carry as one might a sword. The metallurgy of producing nickel from country rock can be mastered by anyone worthy of the category “Man” by the age of procreation. This energy source has the potential to obsolete not only centralized forms of industrial energy, but even of centralized forms of warmth as ancient as the campfire. Disintermediation can extend to the very root of pre-human eusociality: the campfire. PS: In case anyone wants to get the truth about the cold fusion episode, I recommend they listen to this lecture given at MIT by Charles Beaudette, author of the book “Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed”. One particularly pithy quip appears at 40:50 into the lecture: “If Pons and Fleischmann would be so cooperative today as to conveniently die, tomorrow, I suspect, the most prominent critics would say, ‘Well, maybe its time now to give the field a second look.’” Fleischmann died a few days ago. Comments:2
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 09 Aug 2012 06:48 | #
Chimps, unlike man, don’t barter, trade or exchange goods. No animal does except man. Exchange produces a division of labour and inventiveness arises from that specialization. Adam Smith:
Ditto chimps. Contracts arise from reason and language. Reason arises from language. And language, singularly, divides man from the other animals. 3
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:18 | # Desmond Jones: “Contracts arise from reason and language. Reason arises from language. And language, singularly, divides man from the other animals.” The ability to reach agreements through a “meeting of the minds” is an inevitable consequence of being Man. The use to which that ability may be put is as wide-ranging as the functions, or, more generally, relations, that can be represented by a language powerful enough to expose Gödel‘s Incompleteness Theorem. The key axiom of such powerful formal languages is called “the axiom of choice”. I don’t know how deep the irony goes here if irony it be. 4
Posted by Roger on Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:24 | # If I understand you correctly, nuclear armageddon alone wouldn’t be enough to destroy civilization because even after a nuclear armageddon campsites would still be possible. There’d be lots of fire after a nuclear armageddon and lots of destroyed material to burn. The surviving people would naturally congregate around fires and develop campsites and start the eusocial process all over again. Nickel based cold fusion, however, would allow individual men to defeat packs of men from campsites and thus stop the eusocial process. 5
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:14 | # Roger, it will always be the case that a gang can defeat an individual, equally equipped as the members of the gang. Only by Men agreeing with each other that there is something more valuable than power can the gang be defeated by individuals forming a temporary group organism to overpower the eusocial group organism. This is, in fact, the central challenge facing Euroman since the myth of the dragon slayer first arose. While it is true that an individual empowered by independent energy of industrial scale, may eventually express extended phenotypes that threaten the Earth’s biosphere as eusocial humans do now; long before that time arises those extended phenotypes will give rise to what I have previously called the Heliocentric Individual, leaving Earth’s biosphere as, perhaps, a place to return to recreate if not mate. 6
Posted by daniel on Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:06 | # . It is because he (Wilson) makes the strongest possible case for eusociality—an inevitable consequence of group selection—being an essential aspect of the human condition. My position is that, on the contrary, while it is true eusociality is an aspect of the human condition and may have been crucial in the development of what is essential in Man, it is now an encumbrance that endangers that development and indeed, all life. Daniel: Yes, But although Wilson is guilty of precipitating panmixia too, he does at least distinguish paradigmatic difference over and against Hamilton’s view, which was still worse, as it was a more universalistic concept of sociobiology: where species parts were rather interchangeable as opposed to their being of incommensurate bio-paradigms. Posted by Roger on August 09, 2012, 05:24 AM | # Nickel based cold fusion, however, would allow individual men to defeat packs of men from campsites and thus stop the eusocial process. Jim Daniel: Yes, agreed Jim The ability to reach agreements through a “meeting of the minds” is an inevitable consequence of being Man. The use to which that ability may be put is as wide-ranging as the functions, or, more generally, relations, that can be represented by a language powerful enough to expose Gödel‘s Incompleteness Theorem. Daniel: Yes That is to say, once we integrate the notions of our greater flexibility of human coordination along with the notion of incommensurability over and against modernity, eusociality may turn out to be more the upshot of modernity’s quest for universal foundations – a natural quest indeed, but of a less human nature, where at its best. Universal competition and its narcissistic comparisons would be blind to differences that make a difference between species and the potential ecological symbioses afforded by those differences. The onward and upward competition of modernity would have no limit and therefore eusocial slavery just a “natural consequence.” Thus, strict group differentiation might allow for the disruption of this consequence. If you think of “civilization” in terms of modernity and its universalizing as opposed to post modernist civilization, with its discreet group systems, then you’d have an additional option against eusociality – that is, a group would have the option of setting up rule structures against eusociality, favoring instead rotating responsibilities for protection against out groups and for the harvesting/cultivating of basic requirements for the entire group. Rather than strict divisions of labor, there would be rotating or flexibly shifting (even momentarily) concerns of labor: Hence, cold fusion’s liberation from centralized heat sourcing would only increase this flexibility and allow all Whites to become more completely human, recognizing all of their features: socialization, being, selfhood, actualization. I guess it is time for that talk which distinguishes White post modernism from Foucault, Derrida and other Jewish obfuscations of what would be the correct post modern project.. 7
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 09 Aug 2012 20:59 | #
What do you get when you combine misanthropy with eccentricity? If I wasn’t laughing so hard I might be able to properly answer that question. Later, maybe. 8
Posted by Hoyt on Thu, 09 Aug 2012 21:10 | #
Both Bowery and Wilson seem to suggest that civilization is fundamentally eusocial going back to the early campsites, not a consequence of modernity and universalism. 9
Posted by Hoyt on Thu, 09 Aug 2012 21:12 | # Re cold fusion, does this mean the peak oil doomers are wrong? 10
Posted by Ricardo d on Thu, 09 Aug 2012 23:52 | #
Yes. And if “abiotic petroleum” is in fact continually producing oil below earth’s crust - they were never correct. More importantly the advent of cold fusion collapses destructive eusocialism in the form of power mongering cliques. It is inexpensive enough and easy enough to manufacture for it to quickly obviate fossil and fission energy sources. It’s growth for individuals will follow the model of home refrigeration. Once a home could produce their own ice, the ice man and ice house were abandoned. Indeed in developing nations a cold fusion stove/heater/electric source will end harvesting forests for campfires and cooking. Low, low cost electricity will make desalination of oceans and distribution of fresh water practical. Conversion of desert to productive farm land will abound. As for “heliocentric man…” why would spatially mobile intelligence restrict itself to a single solar system?? E.O. Wilson is a brilliant gent. Remember he is an entomologist by trade. 11
Posted by daniel on Fri, 10 Aug 2012 03:19 | # Both Bowery and Wilson seem to suggest that civilization is fundamentally eusocial going back to the early campsites, not a consequence of modernity and universalism. Whereas I’m not suggesting civilization is an offshoot of modernity but rather suggesting that they might both fruitfully substitute the term modernity for civilization - that it, modernity, is a ramification of some aspects of civilization’s development which outstrip benign yet practical aspects of civilization as legitimately defined. As such, it might be shown that eusociality has more in common with modernity’s mechanism, its theoria and techne, than with civilization as prhronesis and praxis. 12
Posted by daniel on Fri, 10 Aug 2012 03:55 | # As an added benefit, there would be no loss of integrity nor utility to Bowery’s efforts thus far - in fact, it would focus his project more accurately in pursuit of the take-down of modernity (modernity take-down) while fostering those humanly ameliorative aspects of civilization on behalf of Whites, as it were. 13
Posted by Sonar on Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:49 | # daniel, You sound like you’re for eusociality but don’t want to say it outright because you don’t want to go against James Bowery or something. 14
Posted by daniel on Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:19 | # . daniel, You sound like you’re for eusociality but don’t want to say it outright because you don’t want to go against James Bowery or something. No, I’m not for eusociality, but I do probably favor a more cooperative and social outlook than Jim tends to - he probably favors a more independent individualism. I believe there are corporal and autobiographical aspects of (individual) self, but they are more or less social in their source. To try to divorce individuals from the social is, of course, absurd. However, to favor a more individual and less cooperative society is possible. I imagine these differing preferences, a more individual or more cooperative way of life, can be handled according to assorted communities. But so far as I understand eusociality, it means that some members are mere functionaries - they do not reproduce but are subserviant to others. No, I am not in favor of that. Not at all. Though it is valid to argue that what we need is more individualism and fragmentation in order for the system to collapse and the “dead wood” to fall off, I do believe that concerning the survival of native Europeans (wherever they are), our well being and justice being served, that taking a more socially cooperative outlook is more of what we need. However, I hasten to distinguish social cooperation from eusociality. 15
Posted by daniel on Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:26 | # ...or in the case of more primitive “civilizations”, where eusociality would be practiced, they might be called monocultural: such that anybody not fitting the world view of its participants would be looked upon as less than human and worthy only for eusocial slavery or the communal stew pot. Given that example, I might concede the word civilization, so long as it is divided between monocultural, traditional, modern and post modern. In that case, I would be suggesting that the complaint may be more with mono and modern civilization than with civilization per se - which would have humane recourse as post modern properly understood. 16
Posted by daniel on Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:33 | # . “In any case, the New Right certainly did not take its rejection of modernism from the Christian or conservative right but from the movement known as “post-modernism,” associated with Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, et al., a movement usually involved not with the right of any sort but with the extreme left. The logical implications of post-modernism are radically relativistic and skeptical, even nihilistic, and affirm little of anything.” Francis continues: Jews reconstructing leftist classification for themselves and other non-Whites, while doing their best to prohibit classificatory reconstruction for Whites - which would be the true post modern project: Wherein Whites would tend to reconstruct their traditional cultures while allowing for modernist inquiry to make changes only where it advanced their interests. This is not an issue requiring anything so simultaneous, paradoxic or cynical as irony, but of reconstructing the benefit of inherited ways for the most part, while measuring the changes that would be helpful - e.g., cold fusion. 17
Posted by daniel on Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:32 | # In fact, it is never clear in O’Meara’s account why anyone who embraces post-modernism, whether on the left or the right, would retain any logical grounds for affirming any social fabric or philosophical commitment whatsoever. Despite O’Meara’s somewhat tortured account of how the New Right tries to eat the post-modernist cake while at the same time salvaging traditional identities “that post-modernism rejects”, the New Right’s position appears inherently arbitrary and contradictory. “Based on a recuperation of postmodernism’s anti-liberal core,” O’Meara says And he says That post modernism would reject traditional (White) identities and that those identities would be quite so ungrounded would be a Jewish or liberal-capitalist mis-defintion of post modernism. The inheritance of our evolution, its ways and indeed, even our capacity for advance, are not nearly so arbitrary as this portrayal. The reconstruction of our particular ways of life against which we gauge progress or alternative ways is eminently meaningful, a project grounded in 41,000 years of evolution and culture. Beyond our particular post modern project, the measure against out-groups and the entire world might be considered one of pervasive ecology – while that offers no foundation, it is a universally valid criteria, backed by the millennia of evolution. Post Modernism as conceived by Foucault and Derrida maybe nihilistic given that its radical skepticism (more to do with modernity’s enlightenment project) in fact led to nihilism in its upshot - a yin yang between objectivism and hyper relativism - but White Post Modernism, while not precluding modernistic innovation, would lean toward reconstructing traditions where they have worked well, leaning toward them because they are not merely relative, they are most relevant - meanwhile, the overall framework is not arbitrary and nihilistic at all - neither is it Darwinistic. It is ecology, Pervasive ecology. By non-of this do I imply pacifism, non-destruction or non-violence: rather this is meant as our moral ground - as opposed to the nihilism that has been proposed as daunting White post modernism. 18
Posted by daniel on Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:00 | # No particular argument necessary against this part below other than the rubrical terms: Change New Right for White Left and White post modernism - it can be identical. “Unlike the anti-capitalists of the far Left,” O’Meara writes, New Rightists do not oppose free enterprise per se, only a dog-eat-dog capitalism “unaccountable to anything other than the bottom line.” As Benoist writes, “I would like to see a society with a market, but not a market society.” Against both the liberal creed of laissez-faire and the left’s statist concept, New Rightists favor an organic economic system in which market activity is geared to the general welfare. For this reason they advocate a “recontextualization” of the economy within “life, society, politics, and ethics” in order to make it a means rather than simply an ends. (p. 68) In contrast to both the classical liberal and modern libertarian (and Marxist) view of an autonomous Economic Man divorced from social and cultural reality, driven solely by rationalistic and individualistic profit motives, and indifferent to race, culture, nation, and tradition, the New Right seeks to construct an economic vision that sees human beings as social creatures with both motivations and obligations derived from their social and historical context. In rejecting both the principle and the intent of liberal individualism, New Rightists assume that the individual is never sufficient unto himself, but an expression of larger affiliations, of which he is not the constituent element, only the function. The whole, as Aristotle, says in reference to the human community, is necessarily anterior to its parts. Failing to recognize the individual as a bearer of such larger attachments, liberal individualism is wont to rebuff those traditional or substantive values associated with family, ethnos, nation, and hence those identities constituent of social cohesion and the capacity to make history. (p. 63) Moreover, the New Right views modern capitalism as the logical descendant of the early modern bourgeoisie’s adoption of Cartesian rationalism as an ideological buttress of their economic aspirations. “Rationalism’s triumph, then, implied not merely a victory of quantity over quality in the realm of science, but of reason and money over culture and tradition.” (p. 60) The current incarnation of Cartesian Economic Man is the hegemony of what Catholic counter-revolutionary Thomas Molnar has called the “monoclass” of “déclassé administrators . . . charged with implementing the liberal managerial principles of the American conquerors” Well fine, but is that right wing? The essay goes on to provide some answer to that, citing more biological grounding than the Jewish left would acknowledge, but that would not necessarily be true of the White Left… 19
Posted by daniel on Fri, 10 Aug 2012 18:02 | # .. Ok [W]hile subjecting feminism to their anti-liberal critique, New Rightists by no means hypostatize existing sexual roles. They fully accept that these may change over time and differ from culture to culture. They do, however, argue that sex-specific roles complementing the innate biological differences between male and female are inherently healthy. In fact, such designated differences have always existed, because they express differences found in nature. As Benoist puts it, sexual roles are “a feature of culture grafted onto a feature of nature.” That men are aggressive, competitive, inclined to abstraction, and enterprising and that women are nurturing, seducing, patient, and receptive is not, he insists, the result of a repressive patriarchal imposition or a misguided process of socialization, but of an evolutionary process that balances and compliments the difference between each sex, for without the feminine, a masculine society would be one-sided and dysfunctional, just as the opposite would be true. (p. 73) Contrary to a long tradition of rationalist thought (the anthropological structuralism of Claude Lévi-Strauss being the foremost recent example), there are no “natural men.” Free of culture, man would be a cretin, unable even to speak. Given the inescapable character of his culture, Gehlen argues that man is best described as a biocultural being: for although culture and nature are two distinct things, in him they form an indivisible unity. (p. 47) Gehlen’s view of the necessity of human cultural endowments and his rejection of the concept of a pre-social “natural man” outside society and culture resemble the Aristotelian view of human nature as inherently sociable, man as the “creature of the polis” or political society (a concept that lies at the root of philosophical conservatism), rather than the “state of nature” fictions of such thinkers as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Like Aristotelian anthropology, Gehlen’s view rejects the individualism that underlies classical liberalism as well as the social determinism pushed by Franz Boas and his school. However, this following bit, no: For its essence lies neither in rationalist nor objectivist criteria, but in the conditioned behaviors and beliefs constituting the interrelated patterns and categories specific to it. As a consequence, there is no specific Culture, only different cultures, specific to the different peoples who engender them . . . There can, it follows, never be a world culture, a single primary consciousness, a single mode or distillation of life common to all men. For the heritage of choices that goes into making a culture and giving it its defining forms is distinct in each organic formation in those cycles of growth and vitality distinct to it. (pp. 47-48) Pervasive Ecology, particularly inasmuch as it accounts for incommensuraton, may function as the overall framework. We ought move beyond Jewish definitions of Post Modernism and Leftism then: Along with its nifty organizational capacities as previously stated, there is another distinguishing reason to refer to ourselves The White Left. If we call ourselves the White Right, even the New Right, there is every reason for us to be muddled with all that has gone before in White Rightist reaction and non-accountability, all its mistakes and perfidities, whereas the White Left clearly demarcates us as something calling for a second take, invoking a consciousness raising to recalibrate thought about our identity and its active pursuit – its ongoing process, rigorous in dealing with the facts, vigilant in protecting our people, confident of our protracted expanse, its creative meanderings.. The White….Left, that we are The White Left, clearly distinguished from what was Left before. 20
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 10 Aug 2012 19:31 | # There neither is nor ever will be a White Left, at least in the USA. The American Left is predominantly defined by its commitment to anti-racism and ‘diversity’ (only feminism trumps race-treason, and that will change as white liberals continue their demographic decline). The American Right is defined by its commitment to the Rule of Law, properly understood to require a minimalist, capitalist, and in the USA specifically, obviously, Constitutionalist government. Increasingly, the American Right also overlaps with the Christian Right, those for whom a commitment to bedrock Christian public morality is all-important. Antiracism goes along well, psychologically, with socialism; racism and capitalism, contrary to what some at MR seem to fantasize, also mix well. How many vicious antiracists (really, “self-hating whites”) are also strong rule of law capitalists? Basically, none. How many anti-immigrationists are also strong supporters of private property rights and private business? Pretty much everyone I know. America is duopolistic both politically and ideologically. Yes, there are some white supremacist socialists, as well as antiracist/pro-immigration libertarians. But true believers in both groups are infinitesimal as a percentage of the overall population. The real task and opportunity is exactly as I’ve been preaching at MR for a long time (and elsewhere before that). Christian conservatives, and libertarian Constitutionalists, must be convinced of the need to end immigration, as well as acknowledge biological race differences, and the public policies growing out of such acknowledgement (which would allow for and lead to at least some level of resegregation, for those like us wanting it). The Right has a constrained, non-utopian understanding of man which fits in well with race realism. The Left is infatuated with the idiotic notion that changing social environments will obviate permanent human problems. Racial utopianism is simply another aspect of this general Leftist utopianism. A White Left is going nowhere. 21
Posted by daniel on Fri, 10 Aug 2012 19:45 | # I disagree. Although this was a straw man argument as you did not represent White Leftism. 22
Posted by daniel on Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:07 | # Lets put it this way, if one would allow for any taxation on anything whatsoever, national parks, public libraries, museums, public schools..if one would admit any of these things, they are into a modicum of socialism - which is all I am necessarily talking about: that much which would place the White race and its habitat as preeminent over capitalism…which you have already said that you do… The safety net can be fairly minimal as far as I am concerned; but I am skeptical that market trends are necessarily a just arbiter of all significant social contributions, or that they do not over value others. I don’t care so very much that the term leftism is used - especially where so called rightism basically amounts to the same thing - I just find it easier to organize and distinguish that organizing difference of Whites with the term White Left. Nevertheless, my main thrust here has been to clarify the matter of (White) post modernism. 23
Posted by Silver on Fri, 10 Aug 2012 22:49 | # For once I can agree wholeheartedly and unreservedly with something Leon Haller has said. That’s so obviously true it’s incredible anyone would even think to disagree. Yet so strong is the element of fantasism (racialist utopianism) among WNs that many disagree nonetheless.
Unfortunately for you, Haller, this falls far short of what “WN” has traditionally represented (I mean, WN as an ideology, not merely “traditional” practical measures and common sense, like segregation and acknowledging that America is a white country). So it seems to me that your position is rather akin to mine: that the facts of racial reality could be accepted by and made central to the American right, only that there will simply have to be some sort of compromise based on the existing facts on the ground. Honestly, it surprises me that you find it so difficult to get along with someone like me who agrees with you on these basics, considering that you’ll probably require a hell of a lot of people like me to agree with you and publicly support you if you’re to ever get anywhere. I can’t help but ascribe this to the traditional animosity people like you have felt towards people like me—sure, it’s fine to have us on board in the abstract, but goddamn it pisses you off almightily to have to actually cooperate with us in the real world.
24
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 01:02 | # The line about having a society with markets in it but not a market society is a key one – and also one that could be written but any communitarian old or modern – for example Michael Sandel’s latest book is about this very topic. Aristotle, Heidegger et al., are right in that they maintain the profoundly and irreducibly social nature of the individual – yes individuals do have a biological inheritance but we are also ‘thrown’ into a complex web of social and cultural phenomena that deeply shapes what and who we are. Bio-cultural man is a good phrase, and happens to be true. The ontological premise of all modern liberal theory is the pre-social ‘Robinson Crusoe’ fiction – the mythology of fully formed subjects that exist in some asocial vacuum. It’s fucking bullshit. The whole or the social are ontological prior to the part or the individual – or at least of equal importance (we can have a discussion about downward causality another time). No serious liberal can or will acknowledge this. Not Locke, not Hobbes, not Hayek - not any of them. So when I hear calls for even more forms of ‘individualism’ as a ‘solution’ to the profoundly dangerous problems on the horizon within our global, liberal, ‘free-market’ ever more cosmopolitan world-order it makes me want to scream with the banality and stupidity of the suggestion. And since when was Aristotle some sort of utopian socialist? A bizarre characterisation indeed, but he was a communitarian. Social-capital, social-cohesion and social-solidarity are themselves rather plastic phenomenon that can take many possible forms. Some healthy and sustainable, others more toxic and less healthy. What is a nation unless it’s a collective imaginative community that exists over space and time? But people can’t actually live on mere ideas alone. It’s extremely deflationary to always have to cover the same ground. “Oh my God some mentioned a ‘bad’ c-word like community or even mentioned the collective word” instead let’s have more of the good c-word – unfettered, maximally globalist, maximally ‘free’ capitalism – yes that will really ‘solve’ all of our problems. Only the most ideologically deluded, brain-dead dullard could possible hold such a simple-minded fairy tale to be true (unless it the ‘Conservative’ in “I deserve all my stuff so don’t dare take any of it” mode – that is another Lockean liberal without any conception of pleonexia or indeed his indebtedness to the whole). Radical fungibility in all things (including people) is not the basis of any community that hopes to last for any serious length of time. The roots of the looming crisis and slow-motion suicide of Homo Europa under the condition of hyper-liberal super-modernity (I dislike the term post-modern for various reasons) is a deeper and more tortuous story than some silly nonsense about the gold standard or marginal tax rates (or even lizards from a different planet), but one does not need to be a fully fledged Marxist to basically acknowledge that modern capitalism is a revolutionary phenomena. It’s again a multifactorial, multifaceted story as to why the radical homogenisation of the world is taking place, but three key elements are interconnected as the main drivers of this process (in the longer historical perspective of modernity as such) – the rise of modern science, modern political philosophy and social thought, and modern capitalism. These ways of thinking and conduct in the world of course share common roots in a particular model of rationality – sometimes with enormous benefits but by no means unproblematic or without negatives (and the worse being an ever more narrow conception of the world and being in the world). The task is to offer some putative alternative model of rationality – a deeper and more rounded view of what modernity can be – it’s in a sense hedonism versus eudaimonia. P.S. America is not a ‘white’ country anymore - take a visit to Texas if anyone is in any doubt on this matter. Yes it’s true that London is the most ‘diverse’ city in the world according to the UN (the English have a very tricky problem in that regard) but Scotland is approximately 98% Euro - that is a ‘white’ nation, not the melting-pot of the contemporary USA. Or as another example the Czech Republic isn’t a nation with a proportion of Europeans in the mid 60%. What does America offer Europe other than a terrible example? 25
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 01:46 | # And it’s quite a day when “Captainchaos” appears to be on the sensible side of a debate. Heliocentric man. For fuck’s sake what is this sub Arthur C. Clarke shit? Time for the ‘Dungeons and Dragons’ and the ‘Cyberpunk 2020’ games to be put to one side. As for the interpretation of eusociality (and altruism as ‘parasitic castration’) in the Wilson/Bowery world-view - it’s basically conceptual crap. Wilson hasn’t ‘debunked’ inclusive-fitness theory for one second. Nor do human beings generally have sterile caste(s) that give up their own direct reproductive efforts for the benefit of the reproductive effort of another human. Not systematically anyway - I’m sure just about any social arrangement that can be imagined has been perform by someone or another in some specific but limited example - but outliers are some just that; unrepresentative outliers. Yes we as a species do have a division of labour - and so do ants and termites. Wow really? But then functional differentiation is part of all of life. Even within an organism there is some functional division of ‘labours’ - the feathers of a bird and the eyes of the bird are performing somewhat different tasks (even if they are parts of an overall system). Even quite ‘simple’ bacteria have quite a few functionally different parts. Is multicellularity ‘eusocial’? If such a term as eusocial is stretched beyond any sensible definition it becomes effectively useless. Witness Glenn Beck’s or Sarah Palin’s thoughts on ‘socialism’ and the ‘socialist hellhole’ of say a Denmark, for another example of a term decanted of any explanatory rigor or power. What about the liberal hellhole of the USA in which the ‘realistic right’ of Mr. Haller’s imagination happen to sign massive amnesties for millions of illegal aliens! After all America - a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere - is utterly devote of any utopian impulses. Dr. Pangloss is indeed a stranger to to those in the land of the free! There’s nothing a bit more solid individualism can’t solve. Now where is my copy of ‘Atlas Shrugged’? I need a good laugh. 26
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 01:54 | # I quote the 1st comment on the thread: “The New Right is big on “Traditionalism”, hierarchy, monarchy, etc. It isn’t exactly anti-eusocial. In his book about his vision for the future, Archaeofuturism, Guillaume Faye even talks about cloning, genetic manipulation and developing man-animal hybrids and bio-animal robots for various purposes, resulting in extreme classes in society.” Perhaps that might be a good reason not to waste a valuable and a limited resource like one’s time on planet Earth reading anyone that could suggest bio-animal ‘robots’ is a politically valuable idea or suggestion. I have not read anything of Faye’s nor indeed do I have any desire do to so. Life really is too short for such buffoonery. 27
Posted by Kent on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 04:20 | #
Man already is heliocentric, just indirectly. He is on a giant rock - a spaceship called planet Earth, if you will - revolving around the sun. The question is whether he will evolve eugenically so that an individual man will be able to be directly heliocentric and harvest solar energy directly, and not be limited to a rock or a mere component of a biosphere.
I don’t think Bowery is against kin selection and inclusive fitness. I think he regards altruism beyond kin altruism to be parasitic castration. 28
Posted by Kent on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 04:26 | #
You could view multi-cellular organisms as groups of genetically related cells that cooperate to advance their collective genetic future. Cells in your skin readily sacrifice themselves to daily wear and tear so that cells inside your body aren’t exposed so readily to poisons or infections. Multi-cellular organisms are just groups of cooperating cells. The individual multi-cellular organism that is selected for could be considered a group. 29
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 09:15 | # Graham Lister, If the genetic survival of Northern Europeans depended on your personally adopting National Socialism, would you whole heartedly adopt National Socialism? In other words, are you a race traitor? 30
Posted by daniel on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:14 | # . “The Right has a constrained, non-utopian understanding of man which fits in well with race realism.” It has some scientific idea that as biological creatures, our concerns and capacities are more or less limited. It has a religious idea of original sin but is far more a hindrance than a help in providing ameliorative paths. “The Left’ is infatuated with the idiotic notion that changing social environments will obviate permanent human problems. Racial utopianism is simply another aspect of this general Leftist utopianism.” Rather, The White Left would distinguish utopia from a framework orienting us in a better direction. After all, are we to aim for the pejorative? Therefore, that framework for White separatism is ideal: The fourteen words and sacrosanct separatism are ideal and a vision of perfection toward which we strive; a transcendent vision which girds us not only as foreigners assail as haplessly as waves crashing upon the rocks of our shores, but transcending also the disappointments of our own traitors and the less than exemplary among Whites - which are the majority overall, and all of us from time to time. Still, it is not the White Left which ignores the necessity to deal with these matters in social responsibility. Rather, it is utopian to ignore social involvement of Whites. The throne of god, the utopian promise of heaven and the threat of hell are not always effective in protecting our race, in garnering accountability. Where they are, so be it - let there be Christian states envisioned as well. Christian conservatives, and libertarian Constitutionalists, must be convinced of the need to end immigration, as well as acknowledge biological race differences, and the public policies growing out of such acknowledgement (which would allow for and lead to at least some level of resegregation, for those like us wanting it) Good luck with that. You might have to deal with some of that libertarian and Christian utopianism: In remedy of the errant Christians, Chuck Carlson gave a darn good interview discussing his mission to deprogram Christian Zionsists http://reasonradionetwork.com/20120131/the-sunic-journal-interview-with-charles-carlson This may provide some insight as to what you are up against or at least analogies as to how you might try to convert Christians to concern about the biology of race and the border issue. Good luck. I believe the ambiguity of the Christian texts are an inevitable hazard to our people, but I think you might have some success. As for libertarians, how to sell them on the idea of “paradigmatic conservatism”, I’m not exactly sure: but it is a cool sounding term and describes exactly conservative borders and a significant range of individual autonomy within those borders. 31
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:24 | # Bowery concedes that Man is essentially “eusocial”. What non-eccentric, non-misanthropic individuals would construe by Wilson’s writing, and by dint of their own experience (as if they needed Wilson at all to aid them in this) is that man is essentially “social”. It is purely subjective, and “in a pig’s eye”, as is said, that Man is to be labeled “eusocial” instead of “social”. But let us jettison immediately this needless semantic debate. Our better focus should be on how we each can individually build a one-man rocket ship to carry ourselves to the cosmos to escape the hell that it other people with a mind toward returning occasionally to our lamentable terrestrial home for some tight pussy and maybe an occasional knife fight. LOL 32
Posted by daniel on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:28 | # Kent, you have acquitted yourself rather well: the ability for an individual evolved to harvest solar energy of his own accord does suggest and infinite possibility - but still not alone. 33
Posted by Captainkraut on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:49 | # I see that Desmond has commented in this thread. He is reputed to be some kind of acadumbic, er, academic (I take it he will excuse my off the cuff and purely reactive disrespect for his reputed profession). I wonder if Desmond would much appreciate a student of his challenging him to single deadly combat for the latter’s perception of an unmerited shitty grade on a term paper. 34
Posted by daniel on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:59 | # . The onward and upward competition of modernity would have no limit and therefore eusocial slavery just a “natural consequence.” Thus, strict group differentiation might allow for the disruption of this consequence. If you think of “civilization” in terms of modernity and its universalizing as opposed to post modernist civilization Both Bowery and Wilson seem to suggest that civilization is fundamentally eusocial going back to the early campsites, not a consequence of modernity and universalism. Hoyt, yes you are right, it is not strictly modernity that Bowery should be railing against, but the narcissism of seeing all peoples and cultures as being practically the same which is a part of modernity, but also (primitive) monoculture - and interestingly, we are largely concerned to prevent a return to monoculturalism. That is a key feature to post modern project
In the case of more primitive “civilizations”, where eusociality would be practiced, they might be called monocultural: everybody would be seen as more or less the same, such that anybody not fitting the world view of its participants would be looked upon as less than human and worthy only for eusocial slavery or the communal stew pot. Given that example, I might concede the word civilization as a negative issue, but only so long as it is divided between monocultural, traditional, modern and post modern. In that case, I would be suggesting that the complaint would be more with mono and modern civilization than with civilization per se - which would have humane recourse (for Whites) as post modern properly understood. 35
Posted by singularly doltish combat on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:10 | #
According to Heartiste at least a touch of that “Dark Triade” shit (sociopathy, narcissism and machiavellianism) to one’s personality is key to being “alpha”. 36
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:37 | # Civilization is agriculturally-based group selection—group selection in which the “campsite” grows in scale to the “city”. My assertion really is simply that group selection, where the individuals of the group are sexual beings, is a denial of the prior triumph of multicellular specialization. Rather than building what Wilson calls “a more advanced level of biological organization”, group selection destroys sexual being. In its extreme form called civilization, group selection is represented by the myth of Sodom and Gomorrah—or the manifest evil of New York City, Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles. There may be a place for cities but they must be viewed as we do an encachement of biological weapons. I might have a disagreement with Daniel on the proper constitution of such weapons. He sees a combination of young men and old men being a proper source of human mass for these entities. My opinion is that “The Hundred” (the extreme form of which would be these mass organisms which sacrifice the sexuality of their parts) should be limited to those who have had children and raised them to the age of procreation—understanding that means men and women who are approximately 35 years of age or older. They are the “first responders” and are most expedible—buying time for the heart and soul of Man, young lovers—to respond with full force. 37
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:01 | # Interesting stuff as always. I think there are two final forms of eusociality both foreseen by futuristic fiction. 1) The insect hive mind form where a small caste at the top control a mass of slave drones at the bottom - parasitic castration. This is the aim of YKW - immigration as biological warfare to reduce competitor groups one by one to the level of slave-animals. 2) The other kind of eusocial end-game you see a lot of in sci fi where all the members of some (always highly advanced) group are telepathic. If you ignore the telepathy as an actual thing and see it as a symbol i think you can get the idea. I think the tendency to eusociality is inherent in human evolution so the choice then is which kind. I’d prefer the (rationally) egalitarian and individualistic kind symbolized by the telepaths.
I think this is the most likely outcome. I think they’re going to miss their goal and the inevitable pulse of anti-semitism that occurs after each failed attempt to get their kind of eusociality (initially just in its banking form, widening thereafter) will be global this time because this attempt was global. I think their reaction will be “if we can’t have our form of eusociality then you can’t have your kind either” and blow up the world. (When i say most likely i don’t mean 50%+ i mean the largest of a list of percentages. I’d give it 30%.)
They’re right as long as the current malign elite are in charge because they’ll continue to block the technology *and* as long the technology doesn’t slip outside the control of the current malign elite. However their plan for Germany after WWII http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan was extended to the west as a whole. The de-industrializing of the West through offshoring is part of that and the global warming hoax and energy panics are part of the mood manipulation driving the de-industrializing process. However that same process of de-industrialization has also meant the transfer of the western technology lead all over the planet greatly increasing the chance of any suppressed technologies slipping out.
The Marxist version of the left was a version of their desired type of eusociality in a political form. An alternative form would be designed towards the opposite goal imo.
38
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:09 | # I forgot to mention - as the de-industrializing of the West has been helped by the various energy based panics then the suppression of technology that undermined those panics would suit that agenda. 39
Posted by daniel on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:53 | # I might have a disagreement with Daniel on the proper constitution of such weapons. He sees a combination of young men and old men being a proper source of human mass for these entities. My opinion is that “The Hundred” (the extreme form of which would be these mass organisms which sacrifice the sexuality of their parts) should be limited to those who have had children and raised them to the age of procreation—understanding that means men and women who are approximately 35 years of age or older. They are the “first responders” and are most expedible—buying time for the heart and soul of Man, young lovers—to respond with full force.
But I did not conceive of these camps as being only for men (that would be a eusocial thing). They should have women too. But the young men and women would have ancillary, less dangerous roles.
40
Posted by daniel on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 15:02 | # White Left The Marxist version of the left was a version of their desired type of eusociality in a political form. An alternative form would be designed towards the opposite goal imo. Well no, because we’d be defining White Left in our terms, to serve our interests and sensibilities (undoubtedly more humane) not in reaction and mirror image of Jewish Leftism 41
Posted by daniel on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:09 | # . The thing is, traditional, ethnocentric civilizations, had something of a circuit breaker to runaway exploits such as eusociality, in that they recognized out-groups an in-groups, thereby recognizing a certain concern for their own as a complete system - placing at least some value upon members. Of course they still had slavery and other eusocial exploitation, so it can be improved upon - that is why we do not want to go back to mere tradition. Neither would returning to monocultural civilization provide a solution to eusociality, as you’ve observed. However, unlike monculturalism and modernity, ethnocentric cultures were not narcissistic in that they recognized outside groups, people who have different ways of life entirely. Thus, reconstructing some of the positive aspects of traditional White societies, absent the traditional right wing hubris (and integrating modernist innovation) would be part of a White post modern project. 42
Posted by daniel on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:54 | # . 43
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 19:59 | # For anyone reading who doesn’t like the current level of abstraction a good example of the hive form of eusociality is the central banking system where a small nest of queens control the economic welfare of the vast majority of drones through their control of the money supply. An example of the other kind of eusociality would be the more mutualised model like the building societies in the UK and the savings and loan / small town banks in the US, both of which came under systematic attack from the central banking system in the 1980s. 44
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:48 | # I repost something from a fight I’m having on another (mainstream, non-WN) blog, which is starting to seem relevant here:
45
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:31 | #
You flatter me sir. Dumb prick maybe, but hardly an academic. There is no group selection. Value to the group accumulates incidentally. Here is your academic dear Captain.
This is the weakness of JB’s GOD hypothesis, as pointed out by n/a. 46
Posted by Ex-ProWhiteActivist on Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:57 | #
No. He accused them of being theologians rather than scientists. He said only the pro- or open minded cold fusion researchers took up his offer for Lab View. The con side didn’t bother to get the software or, presumably, do any experimental lab work. This wiki article on cold fusion reinforces this idea of a new religious orthodoxy masquerading as “science”, and complete with official Inquisitors:
We can be sure these wiki articles are closely policed by well-pedigreed establishment physics academics. Such is the degenerate condition of multi-culti ‘science’ that it can be boldly stated that results which contradict pre-existing theory must be ignored, or even persecuted. The older white idea was that theory followed fact. The overlaying Jewish principle is that facts which don’t conform to predetermined theology must be suppressed. Other ‘physicists’ concerned with propagating the Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax are behaving identically.
It would become a form of modern ‘campfire’ favoring small clans once again. The reason this matters is because of the potential of real cold fusion to destroy the hyper-centralized Federal Reserve System. During the 19th & 20th Centuries this entity and its correspondent central banks rose to eminence by long distance trade arbitrage using centralized steamship lines, railroads, food, fuels, energy and products production and distribution as the vehicles for arbitrage. And there has only been one example of a successful political counteroffensive that captured ‘national’ control of this kind of hyper centralized economic structure away from the (primarily Jewish) internationalist creators. Therefore Perfidious Albion and his correspondent kikes demonize it at every opportunity. There are numerous other technologies besides Cold Fusion (if it can be consistently harnessed) that tend to destroy the centralized Federal Reserve economy. But no one will develop them while distracted by a fruitless search for a fabled Philosopher’s Stone of magic word incantations that will supposedly cause all members of a predefined European national group to suddenly acquire a common consciousness and act of one unspoken accord. 47
Posted by daniel on Sun, 12 Aug 2012 02:02 | # There are numerous other technologies besides Cold Fusion (if it can be consistently harnessed) that tend to destroy the centralized Federal Reserve economy. But no one will develop them while distracted by a fruitless search for a fabled Philosopher’s Stone of magic word incantations that will supposedly cause all members of a predefined European national group to suddenly acquire a common consciousness and act of one unspoken accord. Why will they not search for them? As if decentralization of the money supply is mutually exclusive to “causing people” to understand their particular relational interests? Why would you be telling us this if common understanding of our mutual concerns were unimportant? It seems rather that you’d be encouraging particular laboratories to focus on such energy independence exactly. However, it is not an especially arcane concern: the numbers of Whites mourning things like Tessla’s underused contributions (?), lamenting energy efficient car technologies produced in prototype but shelved from mass production, chafing at the bit to pursue green, perpetual energy supplies to be developed overall, are legion. That your special contributions may be undervalued is a social injustice in essence (similar as a great artist being screwed because the market does not appreciate his contribution), indeed. Hence, on the contrary, the answer to that, injustice to scientific invention, would be a delimited social consciousness to manage the real value of contributions. Finally, when one is as articulate as Ex Pro White Advocate, I don’t know why he would wholly denigrate the value of words - as if scientists don’t necessarily engage in arguments (quaint). 48
Posted by Moore on Sun, 12 Aug 2012 07:03 | # Wilson defines eusociality as division of labor, communities with 2 or more generations, and altruism, with members ready to sacrifice at least some of their personal interests to that of the group. Different eusocial species fulfill these conditions differently, but Wilson argues that all eusocial species initially achieve eusociality by building nests which they defend from enemies: anthills, beehives, and for humans, campfires around which they gather and call home i.e. campsites. Wilson’s argument is that we are eusocial apes and that what makes us “human” is eusociality. The first humans became “human” by descending from the trees, becoming bipedal, and building campsites. Their, our, primate ancestors were at the threshold of eusociality; they were social but did not build nests that they defended. Our closest primate relatives today - chimps, bonobos, etc. - are at this threshold as well. 49
Posted by Moore on Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:40 | # Ex-ProWhiteActivist makes a good point. Wouldn’t cold fusion simply recreate the ancient campfire? Cold fusion is often compared to fire and called “the greatest invention since fire”. Wilson talks about the “pre-adaptations” to eusociality. The pre-adaptations bring an animal to the threshold of eusociality. Territoriality is one such pre-adaptation. Territoriality alone didn’t make humans eusocial. It coupled with fire resulted in campfires which became campsites that were defended as nests. With cold fusion, eusociality and the pre-adaptations to it would still be there. Cold fusion would just be a more sophisticated form of “fire” and allow for more elaborate campsites i.e. nests. 50
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:14 | # I quote: “There is no group selection. Value to the group accumulates incidentally.” Please do try to read the following: Frank - Foundations of Social Evolution Google it I think Frank has it as a PDF for anyone that wants it. and Hamilton - Narrow Roads of Gene Land: Volume 1: Evolution of Social Behaviour - see in particular the essay/paper “Innate social aptitudes of man: an approach from evolutionary genetics” if I remember correctly. Multilevel selection (or hierarchical selection if one prefers) is ‘bog’ standard Darwinism and indeed arises from the neo-Darwinian synthesis - it’s just taken quite a bit of time to be fully recognised and acknowledged (historically in fact some of the roots of the debate are hinted at in Sewall-Wright’s work). One reason why it was ‘difficult’ to spot might actually be related to Simpson’s paradox. Dawkins et al., make a living form endless disputes over the interpretation of certain words in the debate, but not the substance. In fact the people writing popular books aren’t generally the ones doing the real science. Desmond, for example do you know who Stuart West is? He’s a rather important evolutionary biologist at Oxford that works on social evolution. He too has lots of papers you can look at if you wish. But he doesn’t write dumbed-down popular books. The Price-covariance theorem beats Dawkins’ very popular, but very introductory, accounts of the subject. But why even bother attempting to start to explain any of the subtle aspects of the debate to internet lowlifes and buffoons or those that manage to combine arrogance (off the scale) with almost complete ignorance and a doctrinaire “I know it all” attitude when it’s patiently obvious those self-same persons do not? Next will be Ex-Pro or who ever telling me that developmental and phenotypic plasticity “do not exist” or are “leftist”. 51
Posted by cladrastis on Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:47 | # If the trend is toward increasing eusociality, then one would expect the development of a “queen bee” caste, right? Large females with huge sexual appetites who produce lots of children, often with multiple males. Hmmm, sounds like the stereotypical Wal-Mart mum. All that is lacking is social dominance. Bowery, if you are going to convince male WN that eusociality is objectionable, you might want to start with the idea that the long-term result is social (and even physical) dominance by females. In all primates females are submissive to every male within the group (assuming there is a group), so this shadowy spectre will not be difficult to conjure. 52
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:55 | # Off topic but what the hell… I see one Paul Ryan is on the Romney ticket as his VP candidate. Hmm looks like a solid ‘conservative’... Like many libertarians, Ryan’s path to becoming an evangelist of radical individualism began when he encountered the novels of Ayn Rand in high school. His views appear not to have changed much since. Thus rendering him, ipso facto, morally, philosophically and intellectually moribund. A deeply shallow non-thinker, but his critics are less kind! Ryan Lizza at The New Yorker on Paul Ryan: His father’s death also provoked the kind of existential soul-searching that most kids don’t undertake until college. “I was, like, ‘What is the meaning?’ ” he said. “I just did lots of reading, lots of introspection. I read everything I could get my hands on.” Like many conservatives, he claims to have been profoundly affected by Ayn Rand. After reading “Atlas Shrugged,” he told me, “I said, ‘Wow, I’ve got to check out this economics thing.’ What I liked about her novels was their devastating indictment of the fatal conceit of socialism, of too much government.” He dived into Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman. In a 2005 speech to a group of Rand devotees called the Atlas Society, Ryan said that Rand was required reading for his office staff and interns. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” he told the group. “The fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.” Wow and people whine like little babies when I point out the Republicans are fundamentally a party of Hayekian liberalism for Hayekian liberals. Perhaps out own Hayekian liberal, Mr. Haller would like to tell us about the conservative wonders of Mr. Paul Ryan? Collectivism is bad m’kay, individualism is good m’kay…now the next lesson is four legs good, two legs bad, four legs good, two legs bad, four legs good, two legs bad, four legs good, two legs bad - if you say it long enough it becomes true! 53
Posted by Ex-ProWhiteActivist on Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:35 | #
If a small power source such as Cold Fusion can be harnessed the next question will be the size of the practical campfire. The present civilization maintains campfires of such enormous size the resulting camps resemble the Children of Israel gathered at Mt Sinai. Think of the Bonneville and Hoover Dams and the Palo Verde nuclear plant. These are essential infrastructure for the hell on earth being produced by “Southern California”. A 5 Kw size household ‘fire’ may prove too small. Maybe the optimum size will be 100 Kw or 1 MW. Effectively free and unlimited electricity would have essentially unlimited revolutionary economic effects. A trivial example is the price and availability of aluminum metal. Six percent of the Earth’s crust is Al. It’s actually slightly more abundant than iron. But aluminum is so chemically reactive it naturally occurs mainly as aluminum oxide (Al2O3). The price of aluminum metal is almost entirely the cost of the electricity required to separate it from the oxygen to which it is bound. With effectively free electricity Alcoa will swiftly follow Consolidated Edison into bankruptcy. This is because scale of production will no longer confer enough advantage to offset the diseconomies of scale. Charles Hall conducted his initial Al production out back in the family woodshed. The centralized container ship, railroad and truck lines used to move their products and parts around the globe will swiftly follow. And then the Federal Reserve itself has no remaining function. Its main constructive purpose is financial intermediation of these Fed size industries. And it takes these massive economic structures to produce Soros scale Jews. The choices for dealing with the Beast are clear. Either one can attempt to tame and harness it ala 20th Century German National Socialism or one can identify and use enough strong acids to reduce it into a mass of dissociated atoms. I have seen no progress towards this taming goal since 1945. And this is irregardless of one’s position on swastikas, Zyklon B canisters or the daily capacity of coal fired crematory ovens lined with refractory firebricks. If we cannot tame the beast then it needs to be eliminated. But the only way to eliminate it is to displace it since it presently performs some vital functions. The idea advanced by Mr. Bowery of Disintermediation is critical.
54
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 12 Aug 2012 21:01 | # Lister@53 See my comment @44. Incidentally, from what I know about Paul Ryan, I think he’s a huge phony, though at least he is serious, albeit in a moderate way, about the raw math of our terrible fiscal imbalances. His infamous budget solution to the USA’s very real entitlement crisis is risible from an authentic libertarian standpoint, as real libertarians (amongst whom I am not) have been quick to point out. Obama has run, by any metric one chooses, the worst budget deficits in American history outside of WW2. Ryan’s ‘solution’ is to put us on a path to deficit elimination by - I do not lie or jest - sometime in the 2020s! Well, this is better than the economic illiterates leading the Democratic Party, who literally have put forth no plan at all for ever eliminating the deficit. (Note, even if Obama were to receive all of his desired cuts in military spending, along with all favored tax increases, his own projected deficits would not even be reduced by a third: quite apart from race issues, this buffoon of a president is breathtakingly irresponsible, as is the entire American Left - and UK Labour, and French Socialists, and pretty much the Left throughout the Occident.) But this is not remotely libertarian, however much Ryan professes his love for the shallow and embarrassing Ayn Rand (though her atheism might have appeal in these parts). Ron Paul, a genuine libertarian, whom I nevertheless recall your liking, had a real plan to eliminate the deficit in 4 years, all through spending cuts and privatization; his son, Sen Rand Paul (R-KY), has offered a plan entailing an immediate $600 billion in spending cuts, followed by more in future years. I myself would eliminate the deficit even sooner. Ryan’s much-hyped plan is a joke by any free market standard. Note also that Ryan voted for the Iraq War - something ALL true men of the Right, Christian conservatives and WNs as well as libertarians, vituperatively opposed - and, even more objectionably, supports the egregious Employee Non-Discrimination Act, which would add flagrant sodomites to the list of ‘protected classes’ under our socialistic ‘civil rights’ (anti-discrimination) laws. That is neither libertarian nor conservative. Paul Ryan is nothing more than a standard neoconservative (read: “neoliberal”) Republican, though unlike most politicians, he does actually seem to care about instantiating his ideology, and is not merely in it for power or money. He would be horrified at the ideological views of a conservative like me (see my comment above: the true American conservative supports a “Limited Government, Strong State”). That said, for the first time ever, I will be voting for the GOP Presidential ticket (not that my CA vote really matters; Obama has CA locked up, thanks to decades of nonwhite immigration - but let’s bitch about the Jews, people, that’s the real issue!). I’ve never voted GOP because the nominees were always too left-wing (I have voted in the primaries, for such persons as Gen Alexander Haig, Pat Buchanan, and Rep. Ron Paul). But this time the very economic survival of the country depends upon getting rid of Obama. He is ruining the economic, investment and life prospects of tens of millions of middle-aged and middle and upper income whites, and another term with this alien socialist will only further sink America into permanent economic decline. And this is quite beyond the fact that Obama will get 1 to as many as 3 new Supreme Court picks, which will mean new Constitutional outrages on a scale far worse than that of the Warren Court. I can envision a whole new category of economic welfare ‘rights’ being suddenly ‘discovered’, not to mention intensifying racial outrages. My prediction has always been that Obama will win in a squeaker. I hope I’m proved wrong. Any MR reader living in a swing state must hold his nose, and vote Romney/Ryan. 55
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 12 Aug 2012 23:17 | # The ‘real’ scientist speaks…
LOLing. Group selection is as plausible as Master Lister’s ‘Celtic’ ancestry. 56
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 12 Aug 2012 23:42 | # Ex-ProWhiteActivist writes: “A 5 Kw size household ‘fire’ may prove too small. Maybe the optimum size will be 100 Kw or 1 MW.” Some of this has, also, to do with power density hence temperature grade. If you have 5kW at plasma temperature it is a very different technological ballgame than 5kW at pump-and-dump heat-pump temperatures. The higher power densities allow not only for higher conversion efficiency, but also a wider range of applications. My expectation is that as this technology matures, we may see power densities of on the order of 1kW/cm^3. 5cm^3 is less than a cubic inch. If the surface area were that of a cubic inch, it would be 6 square inches putting out 5kW or nearly a kW per square inch. You can do a LOT with that kind of power density/temperature gradient. Indeed, when I talk about something like a “sword”, I am really envisioning a kind of life-support system (food, water and warmth production) sized for an individual that can be fabricated by an individual reaching the age of procreation if properly reared and endowed with genes we may, with a good deal of reflection, say are essential to Man’s being. Moreover, with appropriate micromanufacturing/micromachines I see reason that this life-support system can support a life that is quite a bit more rewarding than are the “comforts” of civilization. Arthur C. Clark has failed to imagine anything like this, so clearly it must be even more ridiculous than science fiction. 57
Posted by Vox on Mon, 13 Aug 2012 07:09 | #
Campfires were the products of fire making techniques which can be mobile or spread around and wood fuel which is ubiquitous. Cold fusion as well presumably involves techniques which can be mobile or spread around and a fuel, nickel, which is ubiquitous. If campfires became centralized, I don’t see why cold fusion wouldn’t lead to cold fusion powered centralized sites. 58
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 14 Aug 2012 09:11 | #
The initial campfires couldn’t be centralized. When technology created much more efficient but much larger and more complex versions like the Hoover Dam those replacement campfires required centralization however replacing the replacements with something like cold fusion only provides the possibility for that process to be reversed and allow the scale to go back down to the town, neighborhood or maybe even individual level. It wouldn’t guarantee it. The TPTB could for example regulate its use by law and control the scale that way. If cold fusion is viable - and this is the first i’ve heard of it since the stories in the media some years ago saying it wasn’t - then TPTB could potentially set things up so the drones couldn’t use it (legally) while the hive-queens could. In theory it might even be better for them as it could lead to individual factories and fortified gated communities of hive-queens having their own independent power source making them more independent of the level of infrastructure in the surrounding state. However on balance i think they’d probably see it as opening Pandora’s box - too risky - even if potentially it meant they no longer needed even a minimally functioning state - with all the attendent hassle of buying politicians etc - to provide infrastructure.
59
Posted by Vox on Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:57 | # “Centralized” is being used by the author of the original post to describe ancient campfires surrounded by a few numbers of people. If that qualifies as “centralized”, then I don’t see why cold fusion wouldn’t lead to cold fusion powered campsites that are “centralized”, surrounded by people on a scale at least that of the ancient campfires, and likely more due to its greater energy. 60
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 14 Aug 2012 20:01 | #
I was mostly agreeing with you. The distinction is that the original campfires couldn’t provide heat and power for a whole city while the various replacements for campfires up till now couldn’t be scaled down to the level of an individual or small community. Cold fusion (apparently) has the potential to do both but as you say that doesn’t neccessarily mean it would do both. 61
Posted by Vox on Tue, 14 Aug 2012 20:31 | # Well I basically agree with you. I think the author of the original post is a bit off base. 62
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:56 | # I think judaized civilization has turned Wandrin and Vox into such big pussies that they refuse to embrace single deadly combat as the primary tenet of social organization. Our Nordic Aryan Superman Blond Beast ancestors would surely spit on them in contempt. P.S. Vox, are you Vox Day? 63
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:43 | #
I wouldn’t mind that system now my kids are old enough - although not before. I don’t knock the idea myself as if you believe human evolution under civilization leads to an inevitable hive-queen future unless you make that future impossible then i can see the point. Although i do think the hive-queen model of the eusocial endgame is more likely - especially at the moment - i think there is another model of eusociality which is analogous to parallel processing in computing so parallel processing vs one big hive mainframe. I think the parallel processing model is more efficient and is in the interests of the majority except they don’t know it whereas the hive-queen model is only in the interests of a minority but they do know it. On the other hand any form of increasing eusociality will impact on individual freedom - the hive-queen model will certainly be actively hostile to it but the parallel processing model might be as well - as it would be most efficient in a society of clones - just in a different way. However i believe a certain amount of freedom is neccessary to prevent both stagnation and unneccessary internal stresses and if that’s true any *conscious* movement towards that parallel processing model ought to pick that up and build it in - even if it’s the private vices, public virtues kind of freedom.
65
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:56 | # Assuming the technology permits individual-level “civilization” via micro-technologies in power, manufacturing and agriculture, the aggregate direction becomes largely a matter of genetic predisposition. Clearly, all but a few peoples the world, perhaps even only a portion of Euroman (if the “Aryan” predisposition is toward castes), have demonstrated a genetic predisposition far-enough removed from great ape eusociality to offer much hope of recovering the deeper heritage of cellular specialization’s triumph of sexuality. To my knowledge, only Euroman has achieved the essence of Man to the point that, given this monumental choice, he would freely choose to conform to and hence participate in the manifest long-range direction of Creation—as is the sine qua non of Man. This, of course, creates a potential conflict between the eusocial Beast/Dragon/Serpent and Man. I’m not at all certain how that conflict will play out—whether it be that billions will die and we will win—or that some sort of mutual accommodation can be reached, as has occurred between eusocial insects and other species. Clearly, as desirable as such a mutual accommodation might be for a variety of reasons, it is going to be practical only if civilization’s ecological footprint on the biosphere is contained. Equally clear is the fact that the vast majority of those who most loudly proclaim the moral high ground in leading such sustainable containment are the least technically capable of achieving it and are the most prone toward base hypocrisy in service of their will to power. The best hope we have is that their hypocrisy is sufficiently genetic that they are not conscious of the fact that they are lying, as that gap in consciousness may permit the admission of real technical solutions for their proclaimed ideals. Such solutions will violate their will to power just as necessarily as did sexuality sacrifice the will to power of the asexual cell reproducing by mitosis. 66
Posted by Moore on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 19:29 | #
There’s no real evidence of people living outside Wilson’s definition of eusociality as division of labor, communities with 2 or more generations, and altruism, with members ready to sacrifice at least some of their personal interests to that of the group. History shows Aryans establishing civilizations and castes. Ted Kaczynski would work jobs and hang out in the local library near his cabin. Mountain men who are viable and reproduce end up establishing family homesteads, villages, eusocial colonies like the Hutterites, etc.
67
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 21:25 | # Moore asserts: “There’s no real evidence of people living outside Wilson’s definition of eusociality” Aside from there being gradations in eusociality and the fact that by almost every measure of individualism Western societies rank highly—which renders your statement less than to the point—the notion of “evidence” is problematic, and extremely so when qualified by words like “real” and “no”. It is clear that northern Europeans fought civilizing influences from the Mediterranean and that they had long awareness of the existence, hence the “advantages” of civilization. Moreover, there is not only “real” evidence that it was a capital offense to aspire to “kingship” among some peoples, but that refusal of challenge to natural duel was considered a disqualification for any kind of respect, hence authority. Aryans may have established civilizations and been predisposed toward the associated castes but then Aryans must not be taken as representative. You simply cannot establish caste systems let alone civilizations where cowardice disqualifies one from authority. Taking the settlement of the New World as an indication of genetic predispositions when provided with relative freedom, there is also clear evidence that the tendency, at least among founding stock Americans, was toward single-generation households. That tendency has only recently been reversed among founding stock Americans as economic hardship imposes household structures not to their liking. This is “evidence” and it is “real”. Proof? There is no such thing in the natural sciences. 68
Posted by Moore on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:14 | #
The ancient Germans and Celts lived in tribes, clans, villages, and had divisions of labor and practiced altruism. There were hierarchies and differences in weregild and serfs.
The Pilgrims were a community of 2 or more generations, had divisions of labor, and practiced altruism. The settlement of the West often involved families and groups of families that had divisions of labor and practiced altruism. The settlers and pioneers had high birth rates partly due to the incentive of using their kids as labor on the homestead. The Mormons of course were descended from founding stock Americans and were a community of 2 or more generations that had divisions of labor and practiced altruism. They even took the beehive and bees as symbols of themselves: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Beehive_Symbol
I agree. I am trying to look at the weight of the evidence.
69
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:14 | # When I talk about founding stock Americans expressing genetic predispositions toward individualism, I am talking about the equivalent of them going feral. Clearly the religious communities to which you point as part of your “weight of the evidence” cannot be considered examples of going feral. The Hutterites didn’t even show up until after the Civil War when the frontier was all but closed. However, these exemplars of eusocial social behavior do point to something very important: Individual integrity can provide an excellent foundation for eusociality—indeed a better foundation than can genetically evolved eusociality which is under the conflicting selective pressures of individual vs group selection. This is why any explicit “whiteness” is considered by the current theocracy to be the moral equivalent of Satanism. Once people of individual integrity come to a meeting of the minds regarding the value of their individualistic genetic heritage, they can form temporary eusocial organisms of such integrity that they leave the more genetically evolved eusocial organisms in the dust. That, above all else, is what the genes of the eusocial Beast fears most: Man conscious of his spiritual war against the Beast. The Hutterites are perhaps the best designed of all non-military eusocial organisms founded on explicit principles (as principled behavior requires individual integrity for which northern European oaths were famous throughout history). Their emulation of the meiotic lottery in the division of their colonies reflects a deep wisdom formalized in the Price equation that was previously achieved by multicellular life in the creation of sexual reproduction. It is the way they managed to overcome W. D. Hamilton’s closing statement in “Innate Social Aptitudes of Man”:
However all of these JudeoChristian superorganisms are hardly a reflection of the innate social aptitudes of northern Europeans as they had evolved prior to the imposition of theocracy. As for the nuclear families that used child labor on the homesteads, these were hardly good examples of the kind of multigenerational household giving rise to eusociality. The work was clearly educational and preparation for striking out and forming a new homestead, independent of the parents so long as land was available. Yes, the fertility rates during this period were astounding but to attribute that to the kind of multigenerational extraction of labor that gives rise to, say, Chinese killing infant daughters is stretching your point to breaking. 70
Posted by Moore on Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:58 | # Well you’ve conceded these examples of eusociality. Regarding the ancient northern Europeans, there are examples of eusociality among the ancient Germans and Celts as I’ve pointed out, and recent research shows that ancient Germany was more urbanized, and urbanized far earlier, than previously believed: 71
Posted by Moore on Thu, 16 Aug 2012 00:17 | #
Wilson talks about “supercolonies” which form when ants silence their preference for their own colonies and come together with unrelated ants. We could think of these ants as having “individual integrity”. 72
Posted by Moore on Thu, 16 Aug 2012 00:52 | # Wilson rejects kin selection and argues that genetic similarity is not necessary for eusociality and is not the cause of it. He argues that the cause is simply the advantages of a defensible nest. Unrelated bees behave eusocially when forced to live together in the lab. These bees could be thought of as having “individual integrity”. 73
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:53 | # While your other arguments are sophistic word games at best (worker ants having “individual integrity” in fidelity to a eusocial oath is downright silly—although the manipulation of words to elicit such oaths may be seen as parasitic castration hence analogous in that way*) building a case for pre-JudeoChristian civilization in Germania is a reasonable approach to attacking my position. The anthropological data on the pre-JudeoChristian northern Europeans is so scant that any data is welcome. Thanks for that link. The Ptolemic map, however, doesn’t add much to the archaeological record. It indicates that trade route bottlenecks (portages and the like) existed that were interpreted as “cities” but if the substantiating physical artifacts are limited to isolated and scattered houses or burial tombs, you would be better off looking back to the Linearbandkeramik Culture where the largest freestanding structures in the world at that time were their longhouses in groups of up to 30. Those compounds could be viewed as extended family “nests” that were organized in that manner so as to be “defensible”. Now _that_ would be an interesting discussion since we don’t have direct evidence (as we do with the histories of Tacitus and Julius Caesar) that the LBK germanics practiced natural duel as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing. *Parasitic castration does not, of course hold for high fertility groups like the Mormons or Hutterites (nor even for the Pilgrims). As with much of JudeoChristianity, there is an element of immunity to civilization’s parasites that renders it viable—immunity previously developed in Rome and introduced by the Butcher of Tarsus when he laid down the law governing the organization of churches including—critically—a suppression of female power to counterbalance the suppression of male right to natural duel. The drop-off of fertility, first among Pilgrims, then, centuries later among Mormons of the last generation and now starting in on the Hutterites is directly related to the discarding of suppression of female power. 74
Posted by Moore on Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:15 | # It’s not sophistry. It’s not different from what you say here: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/cricket_infected_with_gordian_worm_committing_suicide
If Wilson is correct, then these “supercolonies” of ants and unrelated bees behaving eusocially and other such behaviors would seem to be analogous to various human behaviors, from universalisms, to unrelated people forming corporations, etc. 75
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:56 | # Certainly, if you want to talk about the various extended phenotypic degradations of Man expressing to varying degrees everywhere throughout human history—particularly as agriculture increased population density and mixing—we are in agreement. I do go to some lengths to point out the exceptional susceptibility of northern Europeans to those degradations. While I haven’t thought about it all that much it is plausible that the susceptibility to extended phenotypic degradation added cultural impetus to individuation—particularly as agriculture set in motion catastrophic evolutionary dynamics. That’s one reason I find the LBK culture so interesting: It may represent a transition point from paleolithic sexual selection to neolithic sexual selection that triggered cultural formalization of natural duel as a primary dispute processing mode. If that is the case, then we should expect to see some evidence of a drop-off in civil artifacts such as artisanal wares from a peak during the LBK (about 7000 years before present)—with resurgence of those artifacts as civilization became more adapted at penetrating the individuating cultural shields leading finally to the JudeoChristianization era (2000 years before present). Indeed, there is some evidence of that. If we want to talk about relatively unpathological JudeoChristian eusociality such as Hutterites and Mormons (or the very early church set up by the Butcher of Tarsus), then we are in metaphorical terms talking about kinepox (cowpox) rather than smallpox, conferring some immunity. 76
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:39 | #
However the advantages of a defensible nest are greatly magnified if the nest is made up of kin. The advantage for an individual among unrelated individuals is their individual advantage. The genetic advantage of a defensible nest among kin is the advantage gained by the individual himself plus the advantage his actions give to his brothers, cousins etc. Kin selection may not be a neccessary condition for eusociality - armies put a lot of effort into recreating the kin model among people who aren’t close kin and it works to an extent - but armies generally require a lot of discipline to make it work which is where non-kin eusociality imposed from above inevitably leads imo. Secondly kin-groups have a much better defense against free riding as free riding among kin has higher costs i.e. an individual free riding among kin is harming themselves to an extent at the same time, for example an individual gaining a 10% fitness benefit from free riding which reduces multiple brother’s and cousin’s fitness by 10% each isn’t gaining anything genetically speaking. Free-riding is much better suited to a smaller kin-based group within a larger kin-based group so the smaller group can drain fitness from the larger group and transfer it to themselves. (This feeds back into the inevitable perils of civilization. If you have a homogenous ethnic group and the ruling class ends up marrying mostly among themselves then they will eventually reach a point where they are more related to each other than the rest of the population i.e. they effectively become a separate ethnic group with more loyalty to themselves than to the rest of the population i.e. they gradually tend towards hive-queens. The Jewish thing is just a specific case of this general problem. You avoid the perils of civilization - ruling class defection - the most and gain the most free riding protection the higher the level of relatedness of the total population and the lower the variance in relatedness among the total population i.e. why non hive-queen eusociality would reach peak efficiency with clones.) So basically any argument you can make for the advantages of eusociality applies *much more* among kin groups. Jewish - or any other defected ruling class - campaigns against the national, ethnic and cultural cohesion of other nations or groups makes perfect sense for them but the objectives of those campaigns are the opposite of what is good for everyone else.
77
Posted by Jawake on Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:20 | # The Physicists may be skeptical, but the U.S. Navy is not! ____________________________________________________ Chief among the findings was new evidence presented by U.S. Navy researchers of high-energy neutrons in a now-standard cold fusion experimental setup—electrodes connected to a power source, immersed in a solution containing both palladium and ”heavy water.” If confirmed, the result would add support to the idea that reactions like the nuclear fire that lights up the sun might somehow be tamed for the tabletop. But even cold fusion’s proponents admit that they have no clear explanation why their nuclear infernos are so weak as to be scarcely noticeable in a beaker. The newest experiment, conducted by researchers at the U.S. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, in San Diego, required running current through the apparatus for two to three weeks. Beneath the palladium- and deuterium-coated cathode was a piece of plastic—CR-39, the stuff that eyeglasses are typically made from. Physicists use CR-39 as a simple nuclear particle detector. After the experiment, the group analyzed the CR-39 and found microscopic blossoms of ”triple tracks.” Such tracks happen when a high-energy neutron has struck a carbon atom in the plastic, causing the atom to decay into three helium nuclei (alpha particles). The alpha particles don’t travel more than a few microns, though, before they plow into other atoms in the CR-39. The result is a distinctive three-leaf clover that, to physicists, points to the by-product of a nuclear reaction. ”Taking all the data together, we have compelling evidence that nuclear reactions [are happening in the experiment],” says physicist Pamela Mosier-Boss of the Navy group. Reached by e-mail, Frank Close, a particle physicist at Oxford University, says he’s still skeptical. ”There are many sources of neutrons in the natural environment, including…cosmic-ray sources,” he says. He adds that some of the earliest cold fusion experiments in 1989 confused cosmic-ray signals for cold fusion evidence. In fact, 20 years to the day before Monday’s press briefing, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann of the University of Utah announced the very first cold fusion experiment. Their apparatus, they said, was somehow producing 1.75 watts more heat than the electric power they sent in. Their results, however, were not reliably reproducible. Experimental errors couldn’t be ruled out. And, like present-day proponents, Pons and Fleischmann couldn’t explain how or why nuclear physics fit anywhere into what they were observing. So for most of the scientific community, cold fusion was largely discredited and discarded before the 1990s had even begun. Yet as the ACS panelists stressed on Monday, scores of scientists followed up on Pons and Fleischmann’s experiments despite the ”crackpot” label that soon dogged cold fusion research. Along the way, cold fusion was rebranded as ”low-energy nuclear reactions,” or LENR. And, the panelists said, although rarely reported in the mass media, hundreds of LENR experiments over the past two decades have been published in peer-reviewed science journals. According to Edmund Storms, retired nuclear scientist from Los Alamos National Laboratory and author of The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (World Scientific, 2007), experiments confirming Pons and Fleischmann’s finding of excess heat have now been published in 150 different papers in journals and conference proceedings around the world. The reported excess heat, he says, ranges from milliwatts up to 180 watts. Steve Krivit, editor of the online LENR newsletter New Energy Times , says experiments have dominated the field to date. In contrast, LENR theory is lacking. The primary problem, the same one that has marginalized LENR for two decades, is that before two positively charged hydrogen nuclei can move close enough to each other to fuse into helium, they first must overcome their nearly overwhelming electric repulsion. The only known and widely accepted way to do that is based on what stars and multibillion-dollar ”hot fusion” reactors do: squeeze the nuclei into as small a space as possible and kick the temperature up to tens of millions of degrees. ”Some people have accused the [LENR] field of wishful thinking, and it’s unfortunate, because the experimental evidence is, in my opinion after eight years, unambiguous,” says Krivit, who is also coeditor of the Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook (Oxford University Press, 2008). Ludwik Kowalski, formerly a physics professor at New Jersey’s Montclair State University, now retired, says that throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s, he was as skeptical as anyone about cold fusion. But in 2007, he conducted his own CR-39 experiment, as described in an earlier paper by the U.S. Navy group. ”I got the same result they got, exactly,” Kowalski says, noting that the CR-39 tracks he saw traced the outline of the cathode wire and were highly suggestive of nuclear activity. ”Now I think there are serious indications that there is something behind this.” 78
Posted by uh on Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:17 | # Definitely one of the more fruitful discussions here in a long time. 79
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 17 Aug 2012 21:16 | # This discussion is fundamentally misconceived. It’s true that the “blank slate” model of twentieth century social science is no longer persuasive (if it ever was), but its rejection does not remotely establish the intellectual hegemony of biologistic analogies. Such analogies are rarely directly relevant to human communal situations and problems. Sociobiological insights at the group level can help us understand that societies based on higher levels of genetic relatedness will probably, on average, be more harmonious, and certainly more enduring, than more genetically diverse ones. But history and sociology teach us the same thing, without doing theoretical violence to the human subject. Trying to understand the complexity of freely chosen human behavior in light of the programmed instincts of termite colonies or baboon troops is ridiculous, an attempt to spuriously cover sectarian political agendas (of which I happen to approve) with the authority of science. 80
Posted by Moore on Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:24 | # Here’s a “biologistic analogy” for you, Haller. The human economies and markets you fetishize (whether “free” or otherwise) are eusocial structures organized by money serving as the “pheromones” that operate on the phenotypic plasticity of humans to establish divisions of labor. 81
Posted by uh on Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:42 | # “Sociobiological insights at the group level can help us understand that societies based on higher levels of genetic relatedness will probably, on average, be more harmonious, and certainly more enduring, than more genetically diverse ones.” You’ve already concede the point. Violence to the human subject comes with assumptions of rationality and freedom, not with comparisons to other animals. This is where your Christianity rules you out from faithful dialectic, my friend. Jesus — how can someone still speak of “freely chosen human behavior” in 2012? 82
Posted by Silver on Sat, 18 Aug 2012 01:12 | #
So may I ask what you have taken away from it?
83
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 18 Aug 2012 01:58 | # Smith argues it is “logos—reason or speech—that allows them [humans] to persuade one another to cooperate for common ends, which makes exchange and the division of labor possible.”
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Thus a reproductive differential will accrue to the individual and any benefit to the group will be incidental. Is the appeal to the butcher’s self-interest rather his benevolence a “freely chosen human behavior”? 84
Posted by cladrastis on Sat, 18 Aug 2012 03:32 | # Human nest recently uncovered in Kazan, Russia; discovery warrants grant, further study by Wilson and colleagues. 85
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 18 Aug 2012 15:30 | #
And a greater reproductive differential will accrue to the individual if the group getting the benefit are kin. The same will be true in every example.
86
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:15 | # cladrastis, since Russian reaction against the nest has largely destroyed the nest’s integrity, it is a little late to study the nest itself. What may be about as interesting, however, is the study of the Russian reaction against the nest as an example of competing levels of selection. It is one thing for an individual to take off and live like Randy Weaver, with his nuclear family. It is quite another for a group of sufficient size to form a consanguineous clan to take off and completely isolate its children from competing extended phenotypic degradation of their individual integrity. Once you get to that level of biological organization, you can be considered a competing asexual organism with unlimited will to power. 87
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Mon, 20 Aug 2012 04:46 | # You’ve already concede the point. Violence to the human subject comes with assumptions of rationality and freedom, not with comparisons to other animals. This is where your Christianity rules you out from faithful dialectic, my friend. Jesus — how can someone still speak of “freely chosen human behavior” in 2012? Christians (the intelligently bent sort) have been the most faithfully deterministic folks of all throughout most of modernity. You secular types ha’been waxing poetic about human “freedom” and “dignity” for the last four hundred years while we shored up the walls of what is essentially fatalism throughout this entire Endarkenment project of yours.
Not exactly ants, but we are admonished to go to such… It appears Leon has much to learn. God put the animals here for a reason. They were his first attempt at woman. 88
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:38 | # Catholics are not remotely “deterministic”, thank you very much. 89
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:02 | # I said intelligently be<u></u>nt Christians. Not pale imitations of pagans without the fatalist rigor of our ancestors. There is a tradition that goes back (and includes since Catholic thinkers like Maistre) a few hundred years that is realistic about mankind and that stresses our animality and sinful humanity. Leon, have you ever read the introduction to Calvin’s Institutes? 90
Posted by Daniel Constantin on Sun, 28 Oct 2012 15:04 | # I have to say that people who assign one paritcular trait to the entire New Right that they dislike and then dismiss the whole thing are being completely idiotic, to be frank about the matter. First of all, even if you don’t like certain things someone like Alain de Benoist says, that doesn’t mean that everyone in the New Right agrees with him on that nor does it mean you should dismiss Benoist as a worthless person whose entire body of works has no value (a very stupid decision). For example, I personally disagree with Benoist’s position on religion, but I can see that his work as a whole is very useful and valuable from an identitarian (or nationalist, if you prefer) perspective. Also, you should take into consideration the fact that there is a vast variety of opinions within the New Right. The New Right intellectuals oftentimes do not agree on matters of economics, politics, religion, stance towards foreigners, and many other things. Some New Right people are monarchists, others are democrats, some are Christians, others are Pagan, some are capitalists, some are socialists or want a mixed economy or something else, some are “pluralists,” others can be called nationalist or even “ethnocentric.” Just research the following people associated with the New Right and their ideas and you will see vast differences between them: (in France) Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye, Dominique Venner, Louis Rougier, Pierre Vial, (in Germany) Armin Mohler, Pierre Krebs, Karlheinz Weissmann, Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner, Gunter Rohrmoser, Caspar von Shrenck-Notzing, (in America or elsewhere) Tomislav Sunic, Michael O’Meara, Aleksandr Dugin, Troy Southgate, etc. As I said, only an idiot would just assign one trait to the New Right and dismiss the whole thing like it hasn’t produced anything useful. And I have seen far too many idiots, and it is downright repulsive. 91
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:05 | # Inadvertently you’ve put your finger exactly on the central problem with the New Right - their incapacity to organize: They are all over the place. 92
Posted by Daniel Constantin on Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:42 | #
Here’s another problem with the flawed understanding of the New Right people here have: the New Right is not a single organization! What the New Right is a very vague term that does not refer to a single group of people with identical beliefs; it is a set of groups of people and organizations across different countries, even continents, who usually work together or correspond in some manner in order to work towards changing the way of thinking of the masses. The New Right disagrees on many issues and ways of approaching them, as I discussed, but they all agree on one thing: Identitarianism. This is why two New Right figures of vastly different views, such as Benoist and O’Meara, actually engage in dialogue with each other. They don’t have “an incapacity to organize.” They can’t be part of the same organization or agree on every little issue because many people naturally have a different approach to things, but they can work together in some way. It is really not much different from the way other political/ideological groups are often composed of multiple organizations with different approaches. Too many Americans are just too thick to understand these things. If people are incorrigible fools who dismiss the entire New Right and its valuable work for reasons that don’t even have any reasonable or realistic basis, I can’t stop them. However, I have said my part, and I ask anyone who has the capacity for serious and reflective thought to learn from the works of New Right intellectuals - who have spent decades researching and studying the works of philosophers like Schmitt, Spengler, and hundreds of others and have produced a new, up-to-date attempt at an intellectual revolution from the Right. It is hardly worth going round and round in a discussion with people who are too thick or unreflective to see the value in this.
93
Posted by daniels. on Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:52 | # The common pattern of the Right, the New Right, is a quest for objective basis and the upshot is a proliferation of relativism that you perhaps wish to promote as strength. This variety is strength for a book vendor (or a university wishing to sell talk, “multiculturalism” and “diversity”), not for a genuine advocate of European peoples. These books and authors that you site are worthwhile to read, to be sure. But in terms of organizing, the Right, New Right has been and will continue to be a failure. One of the reasons why it will continue to fail is because it does not have sufficient compassion for those White people marginalized, who are being pushed outside of the class or most affected by incursions. They would have greatest incentive to join forces with the class and fight on behalf of Whites; but are shunned as inferiors while the potential union of Whites continues to disintegrate. With that, another reason that the Right will continue to fail is, as I have noted, because its objectivist pursuits will have the continued reflexive effect of proliferating hyper-relativism and internal conflict. By contrast, The White Left will not permit of a religion or ideology that will transcend our people nor a relativism open to scabs who would transform our people into something noncontiguous with our 41,000 years of native European evolution. The White Left is a union of native European peoples which will not be confused with The Jewish Left or Marxism. Non-native Europeans cannot be members of The White Class. The White Left allows for free enterprise, private property, different kinds of economic systems, strongly differentiated communities, belief systems and nations; it pursues science and values its findings but is not blind to the foibles of scientism; it allows for differing individual ways: all provided they do not rupture the patterns of the people, habitats and nations of The White Class - That is, the White Left is cognizant of and accountable to our 41,000 years of European evolution. 94
Posted by Daniel Constantin on Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:57 | #
Have you even looked into all the people I mentioned in my list? How do the works of Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner, Karlheinz Weissmann, or Dominique Venner promote “relativism”? You probably don’t know a single thing about those two German writers (part of the Neue Rechte). You fall into the same trap I just described earlier; ascribing a single attitude to the entire New Right while failing to realize the variety of opinions within it. To the list of positions I mentioned in my first post, maybe I should have added: some are “relativist,” others are not. Even the term “Right” can be misleading, because many “New Right” people can actually be more accurately called “Left-wing” nationalists or identitarians. Once more I see a failure to properly understand the New Right. Well, at least you acknowledged their works are worth learning from. 95
Posted by daniels. on Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:22 | # How do the works of Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner, Karlheinz Weissmann, or Dominique Venner promote “relativism”How do the works of Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner, Karlheinz Weissmann, or Dominique Venner promote “relativism” I’m sure they don’t promote relativism. You don’t seem to grasp what I am saying. forget it.
14/41 96
Posted by Business Plan Writing on Fri, 31 May 2013 04:03 | # Whilst browsing for BUSINESS PLAN WRITING pointers and standards to read on. I notice majorityrights posted on your site; and it really was very outstanding. Click here and read through it, you’ll have fun in reading it also. 97
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 18 May 2021 00:48 | # Posted by Ex-ProWhiteActivist on Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:35 | #
See this 250kW(thermal) steam boiler based on a physical theory behind the engineering of one of the earliest and (according to Beaudette) most reproducible excess heat nickel cells (referred to in the original post). Moreover, as I earlier-responded to Ex-ProWhiteActivist:
The heart of the aforelinked boiler purports a power density far in excess of that which I had anticipated. The thing that makes this particular device less than optimal as the new individuating form of fire making is the requirement for gallium metal. There is, however, reason to believe a device based on molten copper may prove practical. I also see reason why aluminum might ultimately be made to work since the main requirement of the molten metal is that it exhibit high electrical conductivity.
98
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 16:40 | # I had written:
The latest embodiment uses the far-more-available and workable metal, tin:
This does more than get us back to Bronze Age levels of population structure because what can be considered “tin ore” depends on the energy available for its refinement into tin metal. Moreover a site on sustainable mining says:
That site shows the distribution of tin ore but it does not show variations in ore grade that might provide more insight into the impact of a very cheap form of decentralized electricity. My expectation is that the metal is no longer the bottleneck. World tin resources are sufficient to provide on the order of 100TW electricity in 100kW units. The US electrical generating capacity is less than 1TW and that will probably remain true even with conversion to electrical vehicles. The bottleneck is probably either the window material or the thermal photovoltaics manufacture. While GW may be forgiven aversion to thinking about this technology due to its pariah status, it is certainly worthwhile investing a few brain cycles considering what a strongly decentralizing energy source would mean for his philosophical project—particularly given the prominent role the British Isles played in the Bronze Age as a source of tin.
99
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 23 Jan 2022 15:09 | # According to this timeline (as of January 2022) the political disruption will commence in 2025 as the “Moderate Production” of the earliest commercial product (250kW steam generator) means the number of deployed units will be too large to be explained as “a fool and his money”. 100
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 23 Jan 2022 23:49 | # snake oil NOUN informal NORTH AMERICAN - a product, policy, etc. of little real worth or value that is promoted as the solution to a problem. caveat emptor 101
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 24 Jan 2022 01:01 | # snake oil: 50< Years of The United States Fusion Energy’s Tokamak Program NotThorn: “Yeah, but Brilliant Light Power has been promoting their snake oil ever since the early 90s! And besides, you’re a kook.” BrLP 2022-1992 = 30 years vs Tokamak 2022-1970 = 50 years NotThorn: “Yeah, but Brilliant Light Power has bilked their fool investors out of $100 MILLION dollars for their snakeoil! And besides, you’re a kook.” Tokamak: $30B NotThorn: “Yeah, but Brilliant Light Power is denounced by Obama’s Secretary of the Department of Energy! And besides, you’re a kook.” The Tokamak program is denounced a co-founder of that program as a fraud from its inception. He confessed. If you’d read the link above you would have seen that. NotThorn: “Yeah, but that’s a link to your blog, and you’re a kook. And, if everyone around here hasn’t noticed, I’ve called you a kook a bunch of times and you haven’t even denied it!” Hmmm… you’ve not denied that the article at my blog is true, so are we to take it that you accept that Bussard sent that confession to all of the relevant Congressional committees? NotThorn: “So what if he did? But if he worked with a kook like you on drafting legislative language to reform the US fusion energy program and sent that legislation around, HE must have been a kook too!” Well, then, I suppose one could also argue that Elon Musk is a kook too for fulfilling the policy that my coalition put on the law books to commercialize space launch services. NotThorn: “You’re a kook.” .... NotThorn: “I got the last word!” 102
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 24 Jan 2022 01:29 | # Re. Brilliant Light Power Again, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Light_Power#Criticism and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Light_Power#Peer-reviewed_criticisms But chin-up old chap. Given your SunCell contraption is being trashed by the experts (they deem it a “fraud”) thus destined to be a failed endeavor you always have your Sortocracy “ideas” to fall back on. You can reconfigure Sortocracy into a board game targeted at the age group (8-11 years). Pitch it to Hasbo. Have them mass market it and who knows, you may make billions. BILLIONS!! lol 103
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 24 Jan 2022 02:36 | # NotThorn: “I’ve posted a link to Wikipedia’s criticisms of Brilliant Light Power not once, but TWICE and yet you continue to suggest that people invest in Brilliant Light Power which government experts deem a “fraud”! Apparently you can’t read.” Couldn’t you read “We still have 3 years to “invest a few brain cycles” in preparation for this possibility even if we discount it as a probability.”? NotThorn: “Of course I could read that. “ “few” means about 3. That’s 3 brain cycles over 3 years which, through the miracle of division is about 1 brain cycle per year. NotThorn: “How am I supposed to have brain cycles left over to read Wikipedia?” I didn’t mean to bait your limited resources into a Pascal’s Scam. I didn’t know you so impoverished but, in retrospect, I should have. NotThorn: “lol” 104
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 24 Jan 2022 03:01 | #
So how many dollars have you invested in Brilliant Light Power? Or to ask it another way, how much money did BLP fool you out of?
That’s quite a prediction, Jim. I can’t imagine anyone thinking there is anything “kooky” about it. It sounds perfectly rational. /sarc 105
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 24 Jan 2022 04:12 | # NotThorn: “You’ve obviously invested WAAYYYY too much of your resources in BrLP’s Pascal’s Scam since you are advising me to divert 100% of my one brain cycle per year away from Wikipedia and I’m not even you!” In terms of my money invested in BrLP? $0, which isn’t to say I wouldn’t have invested if I were a billionaire and could afford the time to do the due diligence. NotThorn: “I said resources but then you changed the subject to “$” just because that asshole doppleganger of mine calling himself ‘Thorn’ said ‘dollars’. What about your brain cycles that could have been invested more wisely reading Wikipedia?” I invested far more in getting NASA out of competition with commercial launch services companies in terms of brain cycles and I even invested some money flying around doing politics for that. The result is a civilizational-level shift of investment that, although resisted by government funded institutions, is panning out. You, of course, being far wiser, would have listened to the government “scientists” at NASA who called me “the enemy”. /sarc NotThorn: “Damn straight I would have! What good did all that public-spirited sacrifice buy you? Nada, zip, zilch, bupkis. Oh, but it is *I* who am supposed to be the fool here! /sarc” I’m not going to argue with you on either your serious point nor on your mockery of my foolishness in attempting to provide my people a route of escape from people like you. It may have been a mistaken investment on my part. But what I got out of it was an intimate understanding of just how much damage government funding does to science and technology—especially Pascal’s Scams like the fusion energy program, which is why I went on to write the reform legislation that the fusion program founder promoted. NotThorn: “See? You agree you are a fool! And then you go on to predict Brilliant Light Power’s technology will have all these Black Swan consequences as though such a prediction is perfectly rational. Now here I can agree with my doppleganger!” Since you are invested so heavily in reading Wikipedia articles, you should probably invest this year’s brain cycle in reading the Wikipedia article on Conditional Probability. Don’t waste that precious brain cycle on any “What if…” thinking about anything. You can’t afford it obviously. NotThorn: “Ha Ha… but I made you waste a bunch of time spelling things out for the midwits. Oh but you’re perfectly rational in your investment of time. /sarc” touché
106
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 24 Jan 2022 11:23 | # Big Brain Jim writes:
I never heard of the term “brain cycle” so I looked it up. Here is the explanation: “What is the brain cycle? The brain cycles each stage of sleep at multiple times in the night, and spends a different amount of time in each of them. Each cycle lasts 90 minutes on average, while some cycles can be as short as 50 minutes and as long as 100 minutes or more.” So, Big Brain Jim, from your own words you would have us believe
WOW, just WOW! However, all that revolutionary change is dependent on the success of an invention physics experts insist is unworkable. Even patent office workers rejected BLP’s applications for patents citing the “lack of clarity on how the process worked’ thus refused to grant the patents they applied for. But you use weasel words like “in preparation for this possibility even if we discount it as a probability.” Which denotes even you have your doubts. So, given that, why bother to post about an invention that’s based on flawed science in the first place? Why waste time? At any rate, I admit I’ve been foolish for wasting my time prattling on with a (fill in the blank) c____pot. Bye, Felicia. 107
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 24 Jan 2022 21:18 | # https://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2011/07/institutional-incompetence-conspiracy.html 108
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 17 Feb 2022 18:19 | #
BrLP is putting their new window technology through spectrum quantification to provide specs for the concentrated thermal photovoltaics which, when coupled with a reflective coating, can recycle suboptimal spectra back to the reaction chamber so that effective conversion efficiency approaches 80%. The reason you never hear of photovoltaic efficiencies that high is due to the fact that if you reflect unused spectra back to the Sun, it doesn’t matter.
Despite the fact that the SunCell purportedly produces on the order of 100x the energy per hydrogen mass that burning hydrogen does, conversion efficiency is make-or-break for early versions of the electrical (as opposed to thermal) SunCell where the _sustained_ Coefficient of Performance (energy out to energy in ratio) may be as low as 4. Even though _peak_ COP is far higher—approaching infinity (ignoring fuel cost) it is for unsustainable periods due to instabilities. Further engineering is likely to dramatically increase the COP (likely to around 10) but the initial commercial electric generation systems, in order to be competitive with existing electric generation, must have conversion efficiency better than 1/4 or 25% since at that level all electrical energy is being consumed by the SunCell itself—rendering it merely a thermal system (albiet one that _might_ provide steam turbines with power to generate electricity but that dramatically raises the capital cost). By achieving 80% efficiency you have 80%-25% = 55% of the thermal power converted to electricity. The end result is a _cost_ (not price) of electricity below 1 cent/kWh. BrLP will be charging a lot more than that initially in part to pay their investors and in part because manufacturing capacity will not be able to ramp up fast enough to meet the demand at lower elex prices. An unnamed major engineering firm is being contracted for the manufacture of the cTPV system. That’s who needs the specs. Post a comment:
Next entry: Beyond Leo Strauss and Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by dale on Thu, 09 Aug 2012 05:36 | #
The New Right is big on “Traditionalism”, hierarchy, monarchy, etc. It isn’t exactly anti-eusocial. In his book about his vision for the future, Archaeofuturism, Guillaume Faye even talks about cloning, genetic manipulation and developing man-animal hybrids and bio-animal robots for various purposes, resulting in extreme classes in society.