Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 27 Mar 2010 02:10 | #

No.  I judge the medium-term prognosis for those environmental and malthusian crises underlying your question is not sufficiently bleak to bump me out of the inner circle of my ethnic genetic interests into the outer circle of a genetic interest in Mankind generally.  Later it might be, but not now.

And the thing is, saving my European people was not actualised if I press that button.  On the contrary, a cornucopian paradise with European dissolution is wholly undesirable.  So, the better policy is to allow the general declension to proceed and give Inevitablism the maximum opportunity to work on our great European sleep.

Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 27 Mar 2010 06:56 | #

It’s a little difficult to visualise the Deus ex Machina that stands behinds James’ curtain but it does seem awfully much to resemble the classic solution in search of a problem.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 27 Mar 2010 07:18 | #

I will admit that there is a significant contingent of the opinion that coal plants aren’t really a problem and/or electric power is not really a problem and/or protein supply is not really a problem and/or unemployment is not really a problem and/or natural habitat destruction by agriculture is not really a problem.  Indeed, there are those who, like GW, consider these things to be a kind of bitter tonic for what ails Euroman!  So, from GW’s perspective, it is more like a syringe of heroin on the bed-stand of a recovering addict who is suffering from withdrawal:  a problem in search of a solution.

Posted by Eddie Booth on Sat, 27 Mar 2010 11:07 | #

No. - It means more muds breeding and therefore more muds.

Posted by Engineer on Sat, 27 Mar 2010 18:25 | #

Well I would want to know about the downside first. The law of unintended consequences usually messes with the best laid plans.

But I would be tempted to press the button.

My priority is the best interests of the British, and we still have significant coal reserves. More importantly we could significantly reduce our dependance on oil, and anything that puts the arab states on skid row is good for the western world. I’d want to know more about the points you make as follows:

1. Would it work on a wide spectrum of grades of coal?

2. Slinging free food around the world is not always a good thing. Especially in those parts of the world where the only people doing any actual work are farming the land.

3. OK, so long as it is privately financed.

4. Quite a lot of the countryside we know and love is only maintained because of agriculture, forestry, etc. What happens to it when the traditional market is undercut by your protein product?

Of course, you do know the greenies would go bloody berserk with rage if your idea turned out to be feasible? They aren’t in the business of greening or feeding the world, but of beggaring the west.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 28 Mar 2010 07:00 | #

1) Sure.  Let’s assume it works for wet lignite.

2) The places where the only people doing any work are farming the land are the places that have the highest reproduction rates due to the manual labor and retirement value of offspring.

3) If it were government financed then a global catastrophe would be the likely outcome.

4) Ever since the lowland clearances rural folk have been forced into cities by agribusiness.  I look across Iowa and all I see are huge stretches of crop land dotted here and there by machines where once there was at least something akin to a human culture; crippled as it was.  The Shire it ain’t.  (And while we’re at it, what the heck, let’s say we put an end to logging.)

It is certainly the case that it would be divisive, and most interestingly so, among “the greenies”.

Posted by Gorboduc on Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:07 | #

Prophets and futurologists: try this new book, “Peoplequake”
What’s “inevitablism”, GW?
Is it a process or thing like “embolism"or “organism”, or is it a theory, like “Marxism”?
What’s with the great protein production? Are we all to eat nothing but soya beans?
What about water?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:52 | #

Gorb,

Inevitablism is, if you like, the overcoming nature of the life energy as it manifests in political struggle.  In our age and in our racial context it is bound up with the tendency of the adversity we face to provoke the will to survive, and to shape a political means of survival.  Adversity drives us, as a people, not apart but together.  Our comprehension of that adversity does not fail or fade but intensifies and flows into populism.  Seeming barriers to unity are overcome and agreement is forged, and the impossible becomes possible.  The result, if it is not too dramatic for me to say so, and given that our national symbol is the sea, is that we become the skiff in the storm that sets its prow to the rolling waves and drives indomitably upward towards each crest.  And, after all, it is inevitable.  No skiff ever voted to sink.

Of course, skiffs do sink.  Storms do overcome them.  The overcoming nature of the life energy is not an absolute guarantee.  So the question becomes what more is required, what additional buoyancy and motive power, to deliver us from our imperilment.  And the answer to that lies, imo, with our intellectuals.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 28 Mar 2010 14:36 | #

Gorboduc, the the primary consumers of vegetable protein are not people, but the animals they eat.  The primary land use of agriculture is feeding the animals.  There is an explosion world-wide in the number of people demanding increasing amounts of animal meat.

As for water, agricultural land is the primary sink for fresh water and we’re positing a 90% reduction in agricultural land.

Posted by Gorboduc on Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:41 | #

OK, so much less animal feed = less animals.
So do we live on lettuce and tomatoes AND have a population cull of 80-90% of the world’s population?

GW, I asked what inevitablism was.
I am still totally unclear as to what it is, esp. as you seem to be asking me to supply part of the definition for you (“If you like…).
“Catastrophism” is a theory. You may believe it explains satisfactorily certain features of geological history, or you may not: your adherence to it may win you a readership in The History of Science at Brigham Young University, and if so, it’s fair for the Daily Blah to say “Catastrophism wins GW academic post”, or a bit later, “Catastrophism wins converts”. But what it can never ever do (except in the restricted sense of its believers’ setting off subterranean charges to cause Etna or Stromboli to erupt) is take any part in the geological process.
I have said this before, you seem to represent a theory to which you subscribe as not being just an influence on your actions, or a possible sidelight on metaphysics, but as an actual cosmic force.
I should like to see some pics of you agri-geo-nutritional-genetico-politicians in your muddy green wellies on yopur allotments or selling some of that nice healthy green veg from your farm at the local Farmers’ Market before I join in any more of these fruitless (and I mean that literally) speculations.
I like reading John Wyndham SF novels as much as you do, and I always enjoy the bits about post-disaster reconstruction, which have been a feature of certain strains of Fantasy and SF since, well, Richard Jefferies. Fun, but armchair stuff.
Now I’m off to put the coffee grounds and tea-leaves into my wormery.
Since when is our national symbol the sea? The sea only represents itself!
Britain may have risen from out the Azure Main at Heav’n's Command, and older Jingos may remember this Victorian bit of braggadocio, handed down in family tradition (Along with “Soldiers of the Queen”) to enrich my boyhood:

Sons of the Sea,
All British born,
Sailing ev’ry ocean,
Laughing foes to scorn:
They may build their ships, my lads,
And think they know the game,
But they can’t beat the lads of the Bulldog Breed
That made old England’s fame.

All the same, the sea is a damned odd symbol for the land . . .

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:53 | #

Gorboduc, I’m not sure how you get vegetables and population cull out of 7 billion kilograms of protein per day, but let me try to spell it out to you: 

1kg protein is eaten by meat animals and that produces a minimum of .1kg or 3.5oz of meat per day per person in the world. About 90% of the world’s agricultural land use is redundant.  The main (technical) problems are distribution and clearing the manure lagoons before they runoff.

Posted by Gorboduc on Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:41 | #

James, I just wasn’t sure how the conditions outlined in your original post were to be met. Yes, you do have to spell it out. GW has to sit down patiently with me sometimes and help me get my little second-grade reader open.
It’s a bit like “If I had three wishes…”
Where is the cost of scrubbing out the SO2 and C met from?
What about"nuculer” as G.W.B. has it?
When GW has answered the little questions I put to him, like what exactly it is that he’s talking about, and what the sea has to do with it, I’m sure that all the maths, distribution problems etc will have clarified themselves for me.
Oh, and GW, don’t forget the verb “to scuttle”. As in Graf Spee, and at Scapa Flow.
So the US is feeding everyone?
I think there’s a passage in Thoreau’s Walden about how we should all eat like cattle - I’ll look it up sometime.

Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:29 | #

If there is a ‘green’ problem to be solved in the United States, its origin may be derived from the following number series.

125 .. 52 .. 41 .. 37 .. 31 ..

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:44 | #

DD: Been taking lessons from Søren, I see.

Gorboduc, well I don’t want to further confuse you by “spelling it out”:  I’m not making any claims about what must happen with all that 7e9kg/day of protein—just what _could_ happen as an alternative to your “we’re all eating soy beans” scenario.  Likewise, I’m not predicating this on any particular technology to clean up emissions (and other environmental effects) while keeping down costs.  That’s all for Your Big Green Button to worry about.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:50 | #

“They may build their ships, my lads,
And think they know the game,
But they can’t beat the lads of the Bulldog Breed
That made old England’s fame.” 

(—Gorbo)

There it is right there, the argument against race-replacement as sound as anything out of modern genetics:  having Pakis come over to take the place of Englishmen, populating the land partly with the Paki breed instead of the English, doesn’t make additional Englishmen:  English-speaking Pakis aren’t the same breed.  Neither are English-speaking Poles.  And let’s not even talk about English-speaking Sub-Saharans.  English-speaking anything isn’t the same breed unless it’s Englishmen and then it’s the breed no matter what it speaks, Chinese, Swahili, or Pig-Latin:  it’ll behave the same in its aggregate.  “But aren’t the others all God’s children?  Didn’t God make them all?”  For sure He made them all.  But he didn’t make them all Englishmen.  That’s the point.  He didn’t make any of them Englishmen.  Not one.  And the Jews shipping them to London and Birmingham and teaching them to speak English isn’t going to change that one jot.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:56 | #

Gorb,

you seem to represent a theory to which you subscribe as not being just an influence on your actions, or a possible sidelight on metaphysics, but as an actual cosmic force.

Newton subscribed to that theory, Gorb.

When GW has answered the little questions I put to him, like what exactly it is that he’s talking about, and what the sea has to do with it, I’m sure that all the maths, distribution problems etc will have clarified themselves for me.

Note for future: no dramatic licence in correspondence with Gorb.

I rather like the sea, btw.  Once thought deeply about giving the car thing a rest and trying a power boat.  Lasted about fifteen minutes before I decided it was good to stay dry.

Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:21 | #

GW: I see you regard inevitablism not as a subjective doctrine or explanation but as an inexorable force, something objective, something “out there” like the sun.

The theory of gravity exists as a mental concept/construct in books etc: Gravity as a force, power, group of physical properties, something that can be measured etc., is NOT the same thing at all and the meanings of the two terms cannot just be interchanged at will!
And I’m afraid that just mentioning the name of the wierd eschatological and millenarian theologian and crackpot alchemist Newton is hardly enough to cow me into a respectful silence: I do not agree with many of the interpretations in this article but there are some materials in it that should, if you are at all fair-minded, give you cause to think. What next? Trying to knock me over with a mere mention of Freud, Einstein?

Well any sane man loves the sea.
But I am so plonkingly literal-minded that I have to say that it sounds like you tried out the power-boat on the autobahn. Or did you drive the car into the sea? Not bad for a scientian.

No, no dramatic license at all! We’re not writing plays.

Oh, hold on, I’ve cracked it - inevitablism is a BEHAVIOUR!

Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:26 | #

This article doesn’t work, above sorry, try this:

http://www.alcazar.net/newton.pdf

and all will be light.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:48 | #

Gorb,

I see you regard inevitablism not as a subjective doctrine or explanation but as an inexorable force, something objective, something “out there” like the sun.

It is a product of human nature, if that is what you mean, and not simply a theory.

I sometimes use another phrase - which is borrowed, I admit - and that’s “Isostatic Recovery”.  Now I’ve talked about this in the American context as follows:

If the causes of the malaise are removed, the theory goes, everything will slowly and inevitably return to a point of societal balance and health.  Resolve Jewish power, kick the race-traitors out of their positions of influence, and the process of recovery will commence automatically and proceed unguided.

This theory is predicated on faith in the foundational instruments of the Republic, and on the enduring, indeed, eternal goodness and conservatism of White America.  It denies agency to the America of the past in the creation of the America of the present - since, of course, everything creatively bad rests with Jews and the race-traitors.  It eschews complications like the hyper-moralism and consumerism of modern America, which have their antecedents in Puritanism and the myth of progress, and which tend to far from balanced and healthy outcomes.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_birdman_and_the_washington_question/

So that’s what a normally prospective theory looks like.  Should it turn out to run as predicted, like evolutionary theory, it enters upon a new life as a working hypothesis, and so onward towards the exalted realm of uncontested fact.  But for now it is an untested theory.

But Inevitablism is not really a theory, anymore than human nature and the chain of cause and effect are theories.  All three belong to varying degrees in the other realm.

You actually read a 40-page essay on Newton?

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:36 | #

GW writes: So, the better policy is to allow the general declension to proceed and give Inevitablism the maximum opportunity to work on our great European sleep.

Over what period of time (in units other than “the medium-term”) do you judge the inevitable to accomplish its work?  How long till the waves, even with the best of captains, swamp the skiff?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:19 | #

James,

I see the range of possible action as twofold.  First comes exhaustion of the potency of control mechanisms on our natural survival instincts.  The exhaustion, of course, is ours.  How much contempt would be visited today upon a politician telling a crowd of one-time Californians to “celebrate our diversity”.  That goose is already shot, and it happened rather quickly - when this blog started it was still obligatory for Cal pols to mouth that particular diversitarian piety at every opportunity.

I would like to be able to say that the mid-way point in the exhaustion process has been reached, but the effects haven’t yet made themselves felt.  But then we got Obamania in 08, which suggested to the usual suspects that whites in America had actually chosen the ethno-suicide such suspects long for, and certainly demanded an explanation from us.

The explanation, I guess, is that white America is being polarised between natural instinct and all the forces of social engineering.  But even that is progress.  If we accept that we are talking about a general awakening of a majority of whites in America, I would say the process is something of the order of 15 to 20 years, and might be dated from 2005.  Pure finger-in-the-air guesswork, though.

The second line of action is more positive in character and is political, growing out of the vacuum of non-representation that people who have made the switch naturally begin to feel.  A3P’s appearance could suggest a time-lag of a very few years between ideological freedom and political expression.  But one can’t say much about it because we don’t know what the real political goal of A3P is (accepting, of course, that it is the real deal, and will grow into something).

Is it just to propagandise and awaken whites?  Is it to put pressure on the Establishment parties?  Is it to begin a national conversation?  Is it to institute a process leading to the ethno-state?  Without knowing the real goal how can one discuss the possible timescales of realisation?

One thing I know - if ideological freedom is not accompanied by political expression and political progress, the “inevitable” consequence will be civil conflict.  I’m on record as saying that we have until, maybe, 2030 to achieve the former.  Otherwise all bets are off.

What do the straws in the wind tell you, James?

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:44 | #

The US government has, for the first time, paid out more in benefits to the population than it took in in taxes.  I reiterate Machiavelli’s rule from The Discourses:

CHAPTER XXXII

A REPUBLIC OR A PRINCE OUGHT NOT TO DEFER BENEFITING MEN IN THEIR NECESSITY

Although the Romans succeeded happily in being liberal to people, yet when danger came upon them from Porsenna coming to assault Rome in order to restore thy Tarquins, the Senate apprehensive of the plebs who might want to accept the Kings than to sustain a war, in order to assure themselves (of the plebs), relieved them of the salt gabelle and all other taxes, saying that the poor did much for the public benefit if they reared their children, and that because of this benefice that people should submit itself to endure siege, famine, and war: let no one who trusts in this example defer in gaming the people over to himself until the time of danger, for it will not succeed for him as it succeeded for the Romans; for the people in general will judge not to have gotten that benefit from you, but from your adversaries, and becoming afraid that once the necessity is past, you would take back from them that which by force you gave them, they will have no obligation to you. And the reason why this proceeding turned out well for the Romans was because the State was new, and not yet firm, and that the people had seen that other laws had been made before for their benefit, such as that of the appeal to the Plebs: so that they could persuade themselves that that good which was done, was not caused so much by the coming of the enemy as much as the disposition of the Senate to benefit them: In addition to this the memory of the Kings, by whom they had been ill-used and injured in many ways, was fresh. And as similar occasions rarely occur, so it rarely occurs that similar remedies do good. Therefore Republics as well as Princes ought to think ahead what adversities may befall them, and of which men in adverse times they may have need of, and then act toward them as they might judge necessary ((supposing some case)) to live. And he who governs himself otherwise, whether Prince or Republic, and especially a Prince, and then on this fact believes that if danger comes upon him, he may regain the people for himself by benefits, deceives himself, because he not only does not assure himself, but accelerates his ruin.

The strategy of finding scapegoats (“extremists”, “racists”, “terrorists”, “vigilantes”, “hate”, “intolerance”, etc…) with which to draw away the wrath of the populus during “time of danger” has already backfired.  Any _real_ improvement in the situation will tend to be credited by the populus to the scapegoats.  The only option for political stability is to increase dependence on the particular, rather than general, favor of government.  If there is general, nondiscriminatory favor by the government, as in a (non-means-tested) citizen’s dividend, it removes power from the government to the Plebs.

Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:15 | #

@GW: Talking about “inevitablism” (a term which, I hold, remains unsatisfactorily explained by you), you said:

Newton subscribed to that theory, Gorb.

This leaves it open as to whether Newton’s support should redound to that theory’s credit or discredit.

I know nothing in the orthodox literature on Newton that could be adduced to support or deny your claim: and while trying to find out if it was remotely feasible that Newton had considered the concept, when he wasn’t busy chasing the star-regulus of antimony or catching coiners and clippers, I found that Google recorded an earlier usage of “inevitablist” that came from your pen:

I’m no inevitablist

 
[GW on Sept. 30, 2008: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_case_for_inevitablism/

Sheesh, and there’s me thinking that you were one, whatever it is.

This guy knows the term, but doesn’t think much of it, as it’s ambiguous AND played-out: the article is worth reading:

http://bachlab.balbach.net/coolreading/WWI_NewYorker.txt

He mentions Barbara Tuchman: it’s not in the indexes to TMOF or TGOA.

AND, GW, you seem surprised that I should read 40pp. about Newton, even though the article’s a bit weird:

You actually read a 40-page essay on Newton?

Why not? I seem to have read 40-odd pages by you recently.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:07 | #

Gorb,

I wrote in this thread:

the question becomes what more is required, what additional buoyancy and motive power, to deliver us from our imperilment.  And the answer to that lies, imo, with our intellectuals.

That’s my position.  Sit tight and watch.

Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:29 | #

And the intellectuals are. . . ?

So, no actions then. MORE ideas . . .

And inevitablism will sweep the board.

Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:36 | #

It’s unclear why Gorbo is affecting the “Gor blimey guv, I are ‘alf dense but wot’s a Hinevitabalist when it’s at home?” pose while twiddling the peak of his cloth cap.

Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:33 | #

DD: It’s not so much what an inevitablist might be, but what inevitabilism is, how it functions, and whether or not it can be relied on to produce reasonably correct predictions, or whether we need bother about it at all.
I have ruminated upon the problem drunk and I have considered it sober, but my multi-angled approach has led to the same cul-de-sac.
I have been urbane and polite, then rude, heavy-handed and downright ill-bred. I have been solemn, then frivolous: I have played the haughty aristocrat in a coronet, and the base mechanical in a flat cap, but all my approaches have met with the same obliquity. 
So far I am none the wiser, nor am I much better informed.
Can any precise meaning be attached to the term at all?
Can you, as one of the intellectuals, help me, DD?
Imho, an event may only be said to be inevitable when it’s occurred.
As far as that event is concerned, an unbroken line of cause-and-effect relationships has led up to it.
Nothing can alter it. When it has happened, THEN only can we see it was always in the future: but not until then, when:

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

“

- Omar Khayyam, The Rubaiyat, Stanza LI, after Edward Fitzgerald (1859)

Posted by Rollory on Sat, 03 Apr 2010 03:38 | #

This thread is an excellent example of why I stopped reading MR.  I can’t make sense of any part of this discussion.