06 August 2017

Why the US Wastes So Much Food

We already know why Europe wastes so much food. We've all heard of the butter mountains and wine lakes. The EU's socialistic Common Agricultural Policy demands that farmers produce hundreds of millions of Euros worth of surpluss goods, that the government buys with confiscated taxpayer money, in order to keep the paper lantern economy afloat. But the United States is different. Except with corn production, which is wasted to make horribly inefficient E85 gasoline, the US does not have anywhere the same level of central planning when it comes to agriculture as the EU (thank God). So why does the US waste enough food to feed an extra billion people? It turns out that capitalism (or crapitalism when it fails like this) can be just as destructive as socialism.

27 July 2017

Pascal Rewagered and the God of Smart People

Blaise Pascal formulated his famous "wager" in his notes and never published them in his lifetime. The wager says basically that we cannot know whether God exists or not, so we should act as if God does exist because the promised reward for living a moral life is infinitely beneficial and the punishment for living an immoral life is infinitely harmful. If God does exist and we live a moral life then we get infinite reward. If God does not exist and we live a moral life we sacrifice nothing because life would be equally meaningless no matter how one chooses to live.

As Clavius states in the movie Risen what his greatest fear is: "Being wrong, and wagering eternity on it."

The main objections most people have to Pascal's wager never seemed to cut it for me.

The first objection, which Pascal himself simply laughed at as a word game, is that there are multiple religions with different gods and to follow one religion faithfully would mean violating the tenants of other religions, all of which have infinite consequences. This objection is false, and obviously so, because there really are only two religions with infinite consequences – Christianity and Islam – and the two are mirror opposites of one another. And if you need help figuring out which is which then you're hopeless and shouldn't be pursuing philosophy.

The second objection argues that God would never accept someone who is persuaded by the wager because such a person is being moral for selfish reasons. This objection, too, has been transformed into a joke by the anti-Christians, because the only people opposing Pascal very rarely talk about other religions, which always seemed suspicious to me, as if their primary objective was just anti-Christian. They are not atheists because none of them seem to oppose the infusion of paganism into modern society, like all the days of the week and the months being named after pagan deities (and yes, there are many thousands of people who profess belief in Odin and nature spirits and all of that, so the argument that these are dead religions falls flat). And very few of them ever dare criticise Islam, and most actively praise it. Let's face it, if the money said "In Thor We Trust" or "In Allah We Trust" none of these so-called atheists would complain. Their only problem is with Christianity because it gives them the out to be edgelords.

Atheists seem to be saying that God, or at least the Christian God, would endow humans with the faculties of reason and intelligence and then demand that we never use them. The God of the objectors wants humans to be stupid, based on the false notion that faith means "belief without evidence", when, in actuality, faith in the Biblical context means something closer to trust, and is arrived at through reason and evidence.

Stupid people, overwhelmingly it seems, are not moral. Certainly not more moral than smart people. Stupid people kill albinos because they believe albinos practice sorcery. Stupid people kill others for sorcery, full stop. Stupid people have sex with their cousins and produce inbred children who are even stupider. Stupid people cut open the heads of bald men believing treasure to be inside. Stupid people are less moral because stupid people have lesser ability to defer gratification, which makes them more violent, and stupid people are also less empathetic, meaning less able to take on the perspectives of others. This means that the God of the Anti-Pascalites wants humans to be immoral. If God wants people to be immoral then God is not God but is instead the Devil. The Anti-Pascalites are confusing the Devil for God and are crafting an erroneous argument out of their own confusion.

But God is not the Devil, and God wants people to be moral, because God is moral. If God wants people to be moral then God wants people to be smart. Smart people come to trust God through reason and evidence, and can apply that reason to see that it is better to be moral and believe in God than to be immoral and disbelieve in God. An intelligent person can appreciate Pascal's wager, because morality within a Western context is inextricably linked to Christianity.

This isn't to say that God exists. Pascal was not arguing for the existence of God with his wager, although he did present arguments for the existence of God in the same unpublished book. Pascal was merely saying that it is better to act as if God exists, meaning that it is better to act morally than to not act morally, because the consequences otherwise are too horrific to contemplate.

And we've seen those consequences. We've seen the hundreds of millions dead as a result of societies that have tried to kill God. The consequences go above and beyond survival after death, they impact the world of the here and now. The only thing that can replace God is the absolutist state, and the problem with the absolutist state is that it does not recognise any authority outside of itself. The absolutist state has no room for forgiveness, where as God's mercy is very great indeed. We've seen this with the gulags and the killing fields, and more recently with cultural Marxism and how the left has begun to eat its own. In the great oppression olympics, the left has sought to crucify its own members who are not extreme enough. There is only one place behaviour like this ends, and that's a mass grave.

Whether we want to think of the metaphysical implications or not, the pragmatic implications of cultural Christianity more than justify the continuation and strengthening of Christian culture within Western society.

Atheist Richard Dawkins identifies as culturally Christian.

26 July 2017

25 July 2017

The Battle for Western Civilisation

Technological advances mean that it is possible to communicate all over the world instantaneously, and to travel anywhere in hours (and secret ramjet spacecraft can travel anywhere on the planet in 30 minutes!). Anyone can be tracked anywhere, at all times. Technology holds the potential to free us from a million years of struggle.

At the same time that technology can be used by the elite to enslave humanity permanently. As Alex Jones says in the introduction to the film Endgame:
In the near future, Earth is dominated by a powerful world government. Once free nations are slaves to the will of a tiny elite. The dawn of a new dark age is upon mankind. Countries are a thing of the past. Every form of independence is under attack, with the family, and even the individual itself nearing extinction. Close to 80% of the Earth's population has been eliminated. The remnants of a once free humanity are forced to live within highly controled, compact, prison-like cities. Travel is highly restricted. Super highways connect the megacities and keep the population from entering into unauthorised zones. No human activity is private. AI supercomputers chronicle and categorise every action. A prison planet dominated by a ruthless gang of control freaks whose power can never be challenged. This is the vision of the global elite. Their goal: a program of total dehumanisation, where the science of tyranny is law. A world-wide control grid designed to ensure the overlord's monopoly of power forever. Our species will be condemned to this nightmare future unless the masses are awakened to the New World Order master plan and mobilised to defeat it.
This is the moment we either fight back against the globalists or Western civilisation vanishes forever into the police state.

23 June 2017

The Long, Slow Decline: Are Galactic Civilizations Possible?

Matt O'Dowd from the web series PBS Space Time gives a 30 minute presentation on the possibility of escaping the Long, Slow Decline and building a galactic civilisation. The problems facing us are lack of drive, the energy cliff, and most importantly the ability to communicate.

His conclusion? If the speed of light is the absolute limit to communication then it should only be possible to sustain a civilisation over a few hundred light years before distances become too great and fragmentation occurs. The galaxy may be full of civilisation, but they are too far spread out to effectively communicate with one another.

22 June 2017

Was The Great War Inevitable? (Preview)

The First World War could have been avoided, in 1914.

Had Russia not rushed to the aid of Serbia the war would have ended by December in an embarrassing Austro-Hungarian defeat.

Had Germany not rushed to provide blanket support (the "blank cheque") of Austria-Hungary after Serbia was only 20 minutes late responding to the Austro-Hungarian list of demands the chickenhawks in Vienna would have been forced to sit on some ice, and then, in 1916 when the emperor died, the empire would have fallen apart on its own.

Had Britain not rushed to defend Belgian neutrality against the evils of the Hun (7,000 dead Belgians were worth more to the British than 10 million dead Congolese) the war would have ended in 1914 with a repeat of the Franco-Prussian War 40 years earlier.

The war could have been avoided in at least three different ways. The question is should the war have been avoided? If not 1914 would not another casus belli arisen eventually as two bloated and decrepit empires teetered on the verge of collapse and as Germany would inevitably sought its place in the sun? Was it better to preempt a potentially more disastrous future war by charging into war in 1914?

(Coming in July)

21 June 2017

The Long, Slow Decline: The Next American Revolution

Nicholas J. Fuentes, a very bright young man, speaks with Stefan Molyneux about what I've been talking about in The Long, Slow Decline and What is at Stake in the Next Election. The globalist welfare state has failed. There's more debt than money, endless, pointless wars, and the absolute destruction of Western culture. Science, religion, morality, and aesthetics have been abandoned. Young people are living lives with no meaning and no opportunities. The world really looks to be on the brink of total destruction and descent into pre-industrial chaos from which it will never recover. Just maybe there is a way out. Maybe enough young people will get it and rebel against the meaninglessness of postmodernism and globalism and we can hit all the right marks just in time to prevent the apocalypse.

One of the best hours you will spend on the Internet.

11 June 2017

The Long, Slow Decline: The Kessler Syndrome

The Kessler Syndrome, proposed by Donald Kessler in 1978, is a runaway destruction of satellites in orbit by space debris. As each satellite is destroyed it produces more debris that destroys more satellites until space becomes inaccessible from the Earth because the planet will be surrounded by an impenetrable barrier of shrapnel for decades. The more rockets that are sent up, and the more decommissioned satellites that remain in orbit, creates an increasing probability for a cascading failure of low earth orbit. Currently there are no extant methods of reducing the amount of garbage in space. This represents yet another technological hurdle that humanity will need to solve in order to avoid the decline and pursue a spacefaring future.

09 June 2017

The Alexandria Project

Has the body of Alexander the Great been discovered in an Egyptian monastery?

Stephan A. Schwartz has used remote viewing to locate many archaeological finds that were believed to have been lost. In one project in Alexandria, Egypt, Prof. Schwartz and his team may have made the discovery of the millennium, the location of the bones of Alexander the Great. He is working on getting permission from the Egyptian government to do DNA tests on the bones, located at the Monastery of Saint Macarius in Wadi El Natrun to see if the skeleton that was discovered using remote viewing is the body.

The Long, Slow Decline

How much computing power would be needed to simulate the Matrix? A whole lot more than every computer combined. Unless there's some quantum leap in computing it may even be impossible.

That's just like a realisation I had a few years back. I wrote a piece called "Dreams of Foreign Suns" (it was all the way back in 2013, was it?) and again in "A Future I Did Nazi Coming".

At least three factors seem to be working together against creating the science fiction future:

1. Declining rate of technological advancement.

We've already seen the decline in shrinking processors. Processor speed is able to increase because we're adding multiple cores to processors, but the miniaturisation of transistors will reach a hard limit very very soon due to the quantum effects on individual silicon atoms.

At the same time we're seeing decline in advancement in other technologies. It's been decades since new antibiotics have been developed, and with the disaster of antibiotic resistance, the age of wonder drugs will also reach a hard limit probably over the next generation. We'll once again return to the era where a papercut could be life threatening.

There's also a decline in new energy technologies. I did a study in 2004 for a landscaper about the cost effectiveness of solar power. Scanning the literature last year I discovered, to my dismay, that the efficiency of photovoltaics has not increased at all in 12 years. Not to mention the fact that to manufacture solar cells requires an input of more energy than the cells will produce in their entire lifetime and creates tons of toxic waste, the whole technology is a bust. Add to that the reality that acquiring energy basically means pumping water into low pressure gas wells to re-vitalise them, and the endless political hurdles facing thorium power, our future energy prospects seem grim.

We're also running out of key resources like phosphate and potable water. There's likely another two centuries of "fossil" fuels remaining, even at the current rate of consumption, but ground water will definitely be gone in the next 50 years (and probably sooner) unless some drastic change is made. Once water and phosphate are depleted the Earth's population drops from 8 billion to 1 billion, because that's how much food traditional agriculture can produce.

2. I'm going to call this the "Energy Cliff".

The amount of energy it takes to become a spacefaring civilisation is absolutely astronomical. It's possible, as I've pointed out before, we've known how to travel to at least the nearest stars within a single human lifetime using technology that is reasonably within our capability, it's just not very practical. We could use nuclear pulse propulsion, such as Orion, and even though the fallout would likely only kill three or four people, the EMPs produced by the 800 nuclear explosions needed just to reach orbit would destroy the technology that's keeping billions of people alive. To say nothing of the tens of thousands of new nuclear warheads that would have to be produced to fuel the rockets.

It doesn't seem likely that we'll find the power to keep China's endless construction of ghost cities afloat, let alone colonising say just the Moon and Mars. If we're going to do this in human time scales (one month to Mars instead of 14, 50 years to Alpha Centauri instead of 40,000) there is going to have to be a quantum leap in the ability to produce energy to get the damn rockets into space. Kerosene and liquid oxygen just won't cut it, and neither will setting off a ton of nukes.

3. Humans are becoming more anti-social.

Call it "affluenza", or vermin paradise*, or whatever you like. The more people move to cities the more anti-social they become. Anti-social humans are the perfect useful idiots for gigantic, bloated bureaucratic governments that either don't want to or are unable to tackle problems 1 and 2. The European Union passed a law regulating the acceptable degree of bend in bananas, thousands and thousands of tons of fish are caught and thrown away, lakes of wine and mountains of butter are destroyed to meet arbitrary quotas set by bureaucrats. And the rapefugees. Millions of rapefugees are imported to keep the criminal debt-based banking system solvent.

The more people move to cities the more they become anti-social and the more likely they are to vote for these kinds of obstructionist governments that, ironically, call themselves "progressive" while stonewalling any real technological, economic, scientific, or cultural progress. The more "progressive" human society becomes the less actual progress humans will make toward developing new energy, medicine, and aerospace technologies.

And there doesn't seem to be a way out.

By the way, I'm not suggesting going back to the 1950s. I'm not suggesting that radical "off the grid" "rugged individualism" or just becoming more like redneck 'muricans is the solution either. It's not. That's the problem that I've been trying to point out for several years now. Neither the "right" or the "left" has the solution to these problems. They both seem to be in a state of arrested development.

Drilling into Mt. Rushmore to get more oil won't solve any of these problems. Neither will driving gas-guzzling tanks just to piss off environmentalists, nor will wind turbines and solar panels.

The "free market" or anarcho-capitalism won't solve these problems.

Communism, socialism, or "social democratism" won't solve these problems.

Feminism, MIGTOW, transhumanism, AI, the "singularity", or any other utopian visionary bullshit won't solve these problems.

None of these positions will be able to solve these problems because they can't even see the problems. The very existence of these -isms is the heart of the problem.

A dramatic quantum leap in human psychosocial and technological evolution is required. And I don't think that's possible. I think humans are just too damn stupid. You can graph the ability of an animal to socialise by brain size, and even though human intelligence affords 10,000 times less interpersonal conflict than is seen in chimpanzees, it's just not enough. The upper limit on any totally cohesive human society is 5,000 individuals. Unless the fundamental limitations of the human brain are either transcended or global society itself is radically altered to accomidate those limitations, there can be no solution.

And that's very depressing if you think about it.

*There was an experiment with rats or hamsters or something (vermin) where their every need was instantly met. The population exploded until a certain population density was reached, then the rats became anti-social, stopped breeding, and they all died out.