Although I, personally, have been feverishly working to prevent the Malthusian reckoning for nearly 3 decades, I have to recognize that conditions are increasingly favoring Søren Renner’s prophecy “Billions will die, we will win.”  There are militarily sophisticated optimists, such as John Robb who, based on fourth generation warfare theory, are holding out for a newly decentralized global economy that bypasses massive organizations.  However, these optimists don’t seem to understand that once you accept group authority over individuals, you doom yourself to mass warfare as these groups are, in essence, asexually reproducing organisms that don’t die as do sexually reproducing species, but merely compete with other asexual organisms in their ecological niche, and without limit, for mitotic resources.  These organisms will doom the planet unless a dramatic expansion of carrying capacity and reduction of ecological footprint are achieved soon.  I continue to work toward this end but pragmatism increasingly dictates evaluating Malthusian options. 

Civilization Takedown is the only Malthusian option that retains the human species.

Civilization itself can avoid mass warfare only by uniting the world in one mass organism which is inherently intolerant of individuals.  In this, civilization’s end-point is to eliminate the human species as we know it—at best, breeding for a eusocial species.  Mass warfare between these asexual species will increasingly become warfare against individuals—indeed against human sexuality (except in perverted expression)—within the mass organisms. 

The Indo-Europeans understood this but were progressively bogged down in India by the Dravidians—expressing in the Hindu and Buddhist traditions, and in the Mideast thence Mediterranean by the Semites—expressing as Judeo-Christianity.  The last hold-outs of the culture of individual sovereignty were the Vikings.  Therefore, as the Malthusian crisis emerges, it becomes increasingly likely that some phenomenon like the Vikings will re-emerge.  A future post will provide a more viable Malthusian option, but for now I’ll settle for advising against the—ultimately unsuccessful—Viking strategy.  Below the fold is an incisive description of that era related in the chapter “The Revolt of the Vikings” of the book “Human History Viewed As Sovereign Individuals Versus Manipulated Masses” from the Valorian Society.

READ MORE...

Dear Have Your Say contributor,

Thank you for contributing to a Have Your Say debate. Unfortunately we’ve had to remove your content below.

Posts to the BBC website may be removed if they are considered abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, disablist, homophobic or racially offensive, or disruptive to discussion. For more information, please visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/moderation.shtml#house

You can read the House Rules in full here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/moderation.shtml#house

Please do not reply to this email. For information on appeals visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/moderation.shtml#canappeal

Please note that anyone who seriously or repeatedly breaks the House Rules may have action taken against their account.

Regards,

The BBC Moderation Team

URL of content (now removed):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/blog477/F19259040?thread=7849831&post=102491907#p102491907

Subject: Should schools teach pupils about the dangers of weapons?

Posting: If we cannot even be honest enough with ourselves to acknowledge on the BBC that gun and knife crime is substantially a pathology of black youths, how on earth can we do anything about it?

I must confess, I’m about to blow the bolts on GW’s project given the rapidly evolving situation in the field, but before doing so I must fulfill my promised contribution concerning Heidegger’s “as” structure.  I’ve had a few false starts on writing the related post so I’ve broken it up to get it rolling.  This first installment provides a sense of how fundamental that contribution was to Heidegger’s work as well as to a new paradigm for the philosophy of science.

READ MORE...

by PF

Starter

In a few weeks thousands of people will gather in New York to celebrate the passing of another year. Thousands of confused people, joining together to recognize the passing of 2010. In some way, it is still the end of a century. We wave goodbye to the 20th century and welcome in the 21st. When that sphere touches the pavement, it will signal to us the onset of a new era. We hope its an era where our peoples receive acknowledgement of what we have to do to remain what we are. Time will tell.

Kievsky’s blog had an article mentioning high-fructose corn-syrup, which as far as I can tell, seems to play a central role in modernity, particularly the large rolls of fat which envelop modern persons. They say that if you throw an average American into a large vat full of corn-syrup, that he will free himself by consuming all of it. Anecdotally, this is what happens even if the lid of the vat is low enough to allow escape.

People’s body shapes tend to change with the times. In the old days of classic 50s civilization, men had little pouches of fat on their stomaches. Perhaps these men were 10 pounds overweight or 20 pounds on average. The pouch was small enough to contain a 1 L jar of marbles. The pouch began to extend through the 70s until 1985, becoming too prominent to be sucked in anymore. The pouch had now become a proper belly, and signified about 30 pounds of excess weight. Going into the 90s the belly began to extend into other body-areas, subsuming what were previously separate structures. It used to be easy to tell, for example, where someone’s belly ended and their legs began. There was also a clear line of demarcation between ‘belly’ and ‘chest’.

Main

But as the 90s rolled on, it became more and more difficult to tell what was legs and what was belly. Because at a certain point the belly starts hanging and overtakes the groin area,  and in persons who are 50 pounds overweight, the belly, groin and upper legs fuse into a one big flabby region that is no longer clearly demarcated. The belly was on the move, and not only downwards. Its roundness began to take over what had previously been ‘chest’, to the point where it became difficult to tell where people’s abdomen’s would be. The ‘chest’ began to take on some of the bulk that was creeping up from beneath.

READ MORE...

Science’s capacity to explain the “what” but not the “why” has excelled itself again in a new study of population genetics reported under the title Genes predict village of origin in rural Europe.  It is published in the European Journal of Human Genetics.  Coordinated across ten European institutions, the study is, in fact, focussed on three different area of bucolic Europe, as the abstract explains:

The genetic structure of human populations is important in population genetics, forensics and medicine. Using genome-wide scans and individuals with all four grandparents born in the same settlement, we here demonstrate remarkable geographical structure across 8–30?km in three different parts of rural Europe. After excluding close kin and inbreeding, village of origin could still be predicted correctly on the basis of genetic data for 89–100% of individuals.

All four grandparents being born in the same settlement is probably about as tight as one could reasonably expect to frame an investigation into rural population structure.  The result - that up to 100% of study subjects could be gene-mapped to within 8km of their familial villages - reveals not merely an increasingly refined technical capacity on the part of the researchers, but a remarkable portrait of European blood and soil.

I don’t think I would be presuming too much upon the study’s methodology to say that the portrait endures because, while a certain number of individuals move away and the rural population as a whole is declining, others move into these areas far less frequently.  It is easy to fall into the trap of seeing a wider picture of conflict between the modernity, dynamism and cosmopolitanism of urban life - a life which is heterogeneous and destabilising in character - and their opposites among the fields of green and gold.  It is worth remembering that, irrespective of whether one is born to town or country, in a healthy, monist society everyone’s forefathers will have worked the land in all weathers with forks, graips, shovels, hedge knives and hoes, brewed the beer, baked the bread and butchered the livestock, or milled flour, made pottery, worked iron, and taken up arms alongside his brothers when bidden.  Timelessness underpins everything.  And while science cannot tell us why the genes of the people who did all this, and which we all carry today, should be preserved and not lost to Neo-Marxism, globalism, Christian universalism and Jewish millenarianism, yet we are them, we serve them, and in the turn to our selfhood they are no longer a mystery or a mere portrait.

by Alexander Baron

Here is a layman’s guide to the real reason for the forthcoming cuts in public spending. Before any of us were born – 1913 in the United States and a long time before that in the UK – the governments of the “Free World” allowed a cartel of bankers to hijack our financial system. Instead of the Treasury minting coin and printing notes, and creating credit for public works to spend into circulation debt-free, the cartel would create the credit and sell it to our respective governments at interest. When credit is created at interest it is by definition irredeemable, so our governments would periodically renew these loans by returning cap in hand to their masters. As long ago as September 1921 the following was directed at the Lloyd George Government: “Does he, and do his colleagues, realise that half a dozen men at the top of the five big banks could upset the whole fabric of Government finance by refraining from renewing Treasury bills?”

If Lloyd George did, Call Me Dave doesn’t, although the boys in the Treasury do. They have obviously pointed out to him that the British Government, and indeed the governments of every European nation are now restrained by law, for example:

Overdraft facilities or any other type of credit facility with the ECB or with the central banks of the Member States (hereinafter referred to as ‘national central banks’) in favour of Community institutions or bodies, central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of Member States shall be prohibited, as shall the purchase directly from them by the ECB or national central banks of debt instruments.

Article 104(1) of the Maastricht Treaty

... from financing their deficits by printing money or by creating credit. This latter is to be the privilege of the banks, and only of the banks.

One would have thought this monopoly of credit would have been sufficient to keep the bankers in clover, but give them a cent and they’ll take a dollar; after periodic depressions including the so-called Great Depression and Black Monday in the 1980s, there came the Credit Crunch/Meltdown or whatever you want to call it. This resulted from the banks selling what Max Keiser and others have called empty boxes. Trillions of dollars disappeared into the abyss, and as the Presidential election approached, all the players, including the so-called candidate of change, bowed to a plan to “save” the economy – or save the world in the case of Gordon Brown – by underwriting with real money the debts the banks had created with imaginary money.

In effect, our governments stole this money from us; it was done without any sort of mandate, without even any meaningful consultation; the banks simply told the governments of the “Free World” what to do, and they did it, including the United States – the world’s so-called remaining superpower.

Now, because the British Government in particular doesn’t understand that it has both the right and the duty to create credit both interest-free and debt-free, it has decided to reduce the so-called deficit by cutting public spending. The pretence is being continued that the government has to borrow money from foreign creditors, and it is these creditors who are being repaid, whereas it is the banks who are being not repaid, but paid again – in short they are being rewarded for their dishonesty and incompetence.

The truth is that the real credit of this nation, of any nation, is based on the goods and services its people can supply.

Because the British Government in particular refuses to face up to this unpleasant reality, we will see cuts in public services including and especially for children, the elderly and the vulnerable, and the scapegoating of other innocent parties such as those on benefit, the “rich” (ie, smaller business people and entrepreneurs) who have real money to invest and jobs to create, and indeed anyone except the real culprits.

Huerta de Soto at the LSE, Thursday 28th October 2010

READ MORE...

by PF

There is an interesting paradox involved in human responsibility. On the one hand, asking someone to be responsible is asking them to do something that is nearly impossible in our unconscious waking state. On the other hand, holding people to responsibility is what we do, and it is not entirely clear how an alternative mechanism could take the place of it.

When judging someone, it is very interesting which perspective set you choose to view them through. Take Hitler, for example. There are sympathetic perspectives from which to view every action taken by the Nazis in WWII. You could call to mind their awareness of the Soviet threat, the threat of Communism. You could note the various examples of British malfeasance and provocation - or rather those actions of the British which, you would then note, would necessarily have to be seen this way in the eyes of Germans. You could note the intense humiliation at Versailles and the high jinx of the Weimar governments, and get a good feel for why German man wanted to lash out in various directions at that time period.

Putting yourself into other peoples shoes isn’t a new game for me, so I am utterly underwhelmed when, after going on an Easter egg hunt for all the sympathetic perspectives that can be wielded to reflect favorably on Nazism, they turn out looking quite vindicated. Their position actually makes a great deal of sense, once you adjust your own view for how they were viewing it.

READ MORE...