In a fascinating TED talk, designer Thomas Thwaites explains how he tried to build a toaster from scratch, using only preindustrial tools and methods. Even though a toaster is one of the simplest industrial products available, of course such a project is doomed to fail, because it takes an entire civilization to make a toaster. Thwaites even cheated quite a lot, using a leaf blower and microwave oven and many other tools that he couldn't possibly have made himself, and electricity was just assumed, yet he could only produce a crude imitation of a toaster. Amazingly, his homemade toaster actually worked for five seconds, but that was it.
When you consider how many things we take for granted and depend on that would go away without the operational fabric of industrial civilization, it becomes clear that it is supremely important to preserve this system if we would like to go on living comfortably or at all. We can't even make a pencil without industrial civilization. Unfortunately, peak oil is the elephant in the room which threatens the very fabric of our civilization along with our ability to make toasters and pencils and just about everything else, yet public awareness treats peak oil as a complete non-issue, or at most like just another factor in the economy which might slow down growth a little bit. Even the most pessimistic economists in the mainstream talk about temporarily slower growth and never anything worse. It is downright surreal.
Everyone understands that if you want civilization, then elementary schools and hospitals need to exist even if they can't make a profit. Energy is even more basic to our civilization, and crude oil is our most critically important energy source, yet strangely everyone (in Norway, at least) expects oil companies to be profitable or go out of business. So why is the oil industry simply allowed to collapse? I find it very strange that the market is assumed to sort things out and meet our needs in the face of rising costs and declining wages. Somehow, the law of supply and demand is supposed to solve all energy and commodity problems, and we don't need to take any action whatsoever to produce these goods ourselves if we can't make a profit on them. Demand is always assumed to materialize at any price needed to produce the things we need, even though the opposite is happening before our eyes. This model is outdated and it clearly doesn't work anymore, because the oil industry is no longer profitable. I believe mankind is losing its ability to afford the necessities of life, at least not by means of the market economy, which is in the grips of deflationary forces.
So here is what I would do in response to the current oil price crash. The Norwegian government should guarantee the price of oil from the Norwegian continental shelf at, say, $80 per barrel and back it up with our Petroleum Fund. This way we have over 800 billion dollars to throw at it, and I can't imagine a better way to use this wealth because it will be obliterated by peak oil in any event. The price guarantee would encourage petroleum companies to keep investing in the North Sea, and the sustained activity would also benefit the entire Norwegian economy as we have been accustomed to. If the price of oil goes back up above $80, nothing happens, and if it stays below, the government will pay the difference or buy the oil for $80 and put it in strategic storage or whatever. Instead of expecting profits, projects should be evaluated based on EROEI, and all projects with a sensible EROEI (at least 5, perhaps?) should be approved for this price guarantee.
The time has come to stop expecting profits from the oil industry, but rather subsidize it to the hilt. I realize Norway is one of very few countries in the world able to do this, and we only represent 2.8% of global oil production. I suppose OPEC is in a sense already doing it, since they insist on selling all they can at any price. Most oil exporters would collapse without the profits and they are in no position to subsidize oil exports for long. But we should do what we can. This remedy will not solve the problem of peak oil, but it might buy us a little more time, in which we can try to come up with more sustainable strategies. If our politicians understood the gravity of the situation, they would do it.
Saturday, December 27, 2014
Wednesday, December 03, 2014
Deflationary collapse is underway
As a reader of Gail Tverberg's blog Our Finite World, I am privy to the fact that our world is soon collapsing. This is an open secret expounded in broad daylight and even in a friendly commercial-free environment, yet most people will never grasp it. The masses will starve to death or otherwise perish in the collapse thinking it is a political problem, and if only we had voted a different party into power who would have made some better decisions, things would have worked out. That is nonsense because we are facing a physical and ecological problem, to which there is no political solution. While I would love to be proven wrong, I have almost as much confidence in Gail's prediction of imminent collapse as the Second Law of thermodynamics, to which it is closely related. People who think sustainability is possible or renewables can save us have basically no knowledge of these issues. Likewise for people who obsess over climate change, which is rather like preparing to fight World War II before World War I. Read Gail's posts and comments, check her references and especially pay attention to the way she replies to all comments and convincingly debunks any kind of optimism, and it shall be intuitive to you too that we are collapsing.
I don't expect anyone to believe this simply because I say so. The impossibility of continuing our industrial civilization cannot be expressed in a single indicator or a few sentences. Declining EROEI comes close, but as Gail often points out, EROEI is not the whole story. You have to be willing to look at the whole picture and the various ways we are running into diminishing returns, which is something very few people can be bothered with. You have to understand concepts such as Liebig's law of the minimum, White's law, Jevon's paradox, the Constructal law, the concept of dissipative structures, the Maximum Power Principle and the Seneca cliff. You have to understand that life is in the business of entropy maximization, and now doing such a fabulously good job at it that the party will inevitably be over soon.
The meaning of life (at the level of physics, which rules biology) is to produce entropy. We are dissipative structures who came into being because entropy is created faster by our existence, considering the whole system. Dissipative structures arise in response to energy differentials. Our economy is also a dissipative system, whose function is to create entropy out of fossil hydrocarbons, which represent the greatest energy differential known to man. That is the only thing our economy knows how to do at this point, and when it fails to grow anymore it will collapse. Once again, you have to learn more about all these concepts to understand why it MUST collapse. Then you will understand that we need to preserve the whole industrial system to have any of it, which requires exponential growth since the whole thing is built on debt. Growth is no longer possible due to diminishing returns, so our economy must collapse. In time, other dissipative structures will emerge, but they will not be as grand or complex because the energy available to them is much too diffuse to produce anything like our industrial civilization. And all this glory was brought down by low oil prices, which is the proximate limit that we cannot defeat. Peak oil precipitated by low oil prices is exactly what Gail predicted (in December 2013 she explained why “oil prices don’t rise high enough” is the real limit), and it is happening now!
And not just oil, but all major commodities are now subject to deflation. Coal is also critically important, of course, and it is becoming unprofitable to extract as well. Deflationary collapse is thus already underway. The oil price will not go back up to the needed level of $100 or more per barrel. Instead, it will continue to decline until we are dead. If the oil price does go back up, it will only be a brief and useless spike because the world economy can no longer sustain such high prices. This is not a matter of OPEC limiting production, because that would have been futile anyway. The financial system is the operating system that the hardware of our civilization runs on, and it is totally dependent on growth to function at all. At some point within the next few years this system will seize up, leading to broken industrial supply lines, and there will be a forced localization of our economy. Since we can produce almost nothing locally in a world dependent on globalization, there will be immense suffering and a huge die-off. Any survivors will be limited to Stone Age technology or at best manual agriculture. The number of survivors could be as low as 100 million or probably no more than 10% at best.
There is nothing we can do to save industrial civilization or the bulk of humanity. Any attempt to prepare at a societal level will run afoul of the reflexivity trap and accelerate the problem by engendering fear and desperation. Any individual coping strategy is so fraught with risks as to be meaningless. You can prepare in various ways if you feel like it, but there is no guarantee it will do you any good the day business as usual (the legendary "BAU") ends. The end of BAU also means the end of all social movements, so our work as antifeminists will be done. Peak oil will destroy our enemies as surely as it will destroys us.
The best thing we can do now is to enjoy what we have until it is gone. Be thankful for the wonderful wealth we have. Marvel at the amenities of industrial civilization and the power of your hundreds of personal energy slaves. That is arguably not a bad thing to do even if I am wrong. Most people think of civilization as a permanent state that they simply take for granted. They think they will have access to things like hot showers, dentistry, pharmaceuticals, security and plenty of food as long as they live. The Olduvai theory tells us the lifespan of industrial civilization is more like 100 years, and even if it drags out a bit longer it will have been a mere blip. We shall soon find out if this turns out to be right. I think 2015 will be the year of the peak. This prediction will fail if commodity prices go back up and stay there, but that isn't happening, is it?
I don't expect anyone to believe this simply because I say so. The impossibility of continuing our industrial civilization cannot be expressed in a single indicator or a few sentences. Declining EROEI comes close, but as Gail often points out, EROEI is not the whole story. You have to be willing to look at the whole picture and the various ways we are running into diminishing returns, which is something very few people can be bothered with. You have to understand concepts such as Liebig's law of the minimum, White's law, Jevon's paradox, the Constructal law, the concept of dissipative structures, the Maximum Power Principle and the Seneca cliff. You have to understand that life is in the business of entropy maximization, and now doing such a fabulously good job at it that the party will inevitably be over soon.
The meaning of life (at the level of physics, which rules biology) is to produce entropy. We are dissipative structures who came into being because entropy is created faster by our existence, considering the whole system. Dissipative structures arise in response to energy differentials. Our economy is also a dissipative system, whose function is to create entropy out of fossil hydrocarbons, which represent the greatest energy differential known to man. That is the only thing our economy knows how to do at this point, and when it fails to grow anymore it will collapse. Once again, you have to learn more about all these concepts to understand why it MUST collapse. Then you will understand that we need to preserve the whole industrial system to have any of it, which requires exponential growth since the whole thing is built on debt. Growth is no longer possible due to diminishing returns, so our economy must collapse. In time, other dissipative structures will emerge, but they will not be as grand or complex because the energy available to them is much too diffuse to produce anything like our industrial civilization. And all this glory was brought down by low oil prices, which is the proximate limit that we cannot defeat. Peak oil precipitated by low oil prices is exactly what Gail predicted (in December 2013 she explained why “oil prices don’t rise high enough” is the real limit), and it is happening now!
And not just oil, but all major commodities are now subject to deflation. Coal is also critically important, of course, and it is becoming unprofitable to extract as well. Deflationary collapse is thus already underway. The oil price will not go back up to the needed level of $100 or more per barrel. Instead, it will continue to decline until we are dead. If the oil price does go back up, it will only be a brief and useless spike because the world economy can no longer sustain such high prices. This is not a matter of OPEC limiting production, because that would have been futile anyway. The financial system is the operating system that the hardware of our civilization runs on, and it is totally dependent on growth to function at all. At some point within the next few years this system will seize up, leading to broken industrial supply lines, and there will be a forced localization of our economy. Since we can produce almost nothing locally in a world dependent on globalization, there will be immense suffering and a huge die-off. Any survivors will be limited to Stone Age technology or at best manual agriculture. The number of survivors could be as low as 100 million or probably no more than 10% at best.
There is nothing we can do to save industrial civilization or the bulk of humanity. Any attempt to prepare at a societal level will run afoul of the reflexivity trap and accelerate the problem by engendering fear and desperation. Any individual coping strategy is so fraught with risks as to be meaningless. You can prepare in various ways if you feel like it, but there is no guarantee it will do you any good the day business as usual (the legendary "BAU") ends. The end of BAU also means the end of all social movements, so our work as antifeminists will be done. Peak oil will destroy our enemies as surely as it will destroys us.
The best thing we can do now is to enjoy what we have until it is gone. Be thankful for the wonderful wealth we have. Marvel at the amenities of industrial civilization and the power of your hundreds of personal energy slaves. That is arguably not a bad thing to do even if I am wrong. Most people think of civilization as a permanent state that they simply take for granted. They think they will have access to things like hot showers, dentistry, pharmaceuticals, security and plenty of food as long as they live. The Olduvai theory tells us the lifespan of industrial civilization is more like 100 years, and even if it drags out a bit longer it will have been a mere blip. We shall soon find out if this turns out to be right. I think 2015 will be the year of the peak. This prediction will fail if commodity prices go back up and stay there, but that isn't happening, is it?
Sunday, November 09, 2014
I'll Take My Stand
 |
| My compensation case is going to trial. |
My published opinions are perfectly sincere and I was certainly guilty as charged as far as all the facts go, but there was one problem with the prosecution's case: None of this is against the law. While I am not exactly concerned with respecting the law in a moral sense (quite the opposite; in fact my entire blog is about resisting the normative power of laws and turn back the tide of feminist legislation), I know intuitively what freedom of speech is, and as a practical matter I made sure not to cross the line into criminal speech as defined by the Norwegian penal code. Thus I never wrote a sentence without carefully crafting it to conform to freedom of speech. Considerable restraint was required as I was fuming with hatred, but I always made sure to obey the law.
The police are the ones who disregard the law. They abused their power and arrested me without any legal basis, as confirmed by the Norwegian Supreme Court, who ruled that I had done nothing illegal and ordered my release. Having already been cleared of all criminal charges but denied compensation, now I have filed a civil suit against the state seeking to be compensated for wrongful prosecution and imprisonment. My allegedly criminal utterances (or the supposedly most egregious of them, anyway, that were also most widely quoted out of context in the media at the time) were part of a philosophical discussion, far into the comment section under this post pertaining to the Breivik trial titled "Thoughts on the trial." Old and new readers can judge for themselves, as every word that triggered my arrest still appears exactly as it did the day I was arrested. Having read through that old thread again now, I see that my comments in the discussion are actually a fairly comprehensive and quite persuasive description of why I came to be radicalized into an antifeminist. Those statements will now receive renewed publicity in connection with my compensation trial, to my benefit and the detriment of the scumbags in law enforcement, which goes to show how futile it is to suppress speech by means of cops and prisons. I fully admit to glorifying crime, which is legal, but my rhetoric did not cross the threshold of section 140 in the criminal code (or §147c for that matter, which would actually be a closer fit), whether it was "public" or not (I won't rehash the technicality of whether the Internet is "public" here except to say it is irrelevant; see my posts on Lex Berge if you want more background on that non-issue).
I did not make the decision to become a militant political dissident lightly. I realize that openly and avowedly advocating the murder of police officers is the sort of behavior that is likely to get you killed or tortured or imprisoned for decades, so I was lucky to only be imprisoned for 22 days. Nevertheless, I did nothing illegal, and now I am suing for compensation. Just like communists can say they support a revolution (which incidentally would have to involve killing many more cops than I ever contemplated), and Muslims can legally say they support beheadings of infidels or whatever terrorist acts the Islamic State is up to, as affirmed by a recent ruling, I can legally say I support killing cops for antifeminist reasons. Islamists and I share the same enemy and we are both equally sincere and serious about our ideology, which can also be expressed with equal legality. I am proud of what I have done and make no apology for it. But at the same time, I realize it wasn't necessarily wise. To beat the cops at their own game -- violence -- is not for amateurs. It also doesn't matter much as far as risk goes that my alleged incitement was and is legal, because as evinced by their baseless prosecution of me, cops and prosecutors do not respect the law. As John Michael Greer said in a slightly different context of peak oil:
Violence against the system. It’s probably necessary to say a few words about that here. Effective violence of any kind is a skill, a difficult and demanding one, and effective political violence against an established government is among the most difficult and demanding kinds. I’m sorry if this offends anybody’s sense of entitlement, but it’s not simply a matter of throwing a tantrum so loud that Daddy has to listen to you, you know. To force a government to do your bidding by means of violence, you have to be more competent at violence than the government is, and the notion that the middle-class intellectuals who do most of the talking in the peak oil scene can outdo the US government in the use of violence would be hilarious if the likely consequences of that delusion weren’t so ghastly. This is not a game for dabblers; people get thrown into prison for decades, dumped into unmarked graves, or vaporized by missiles launched from drones for trying to do what the people in these discussions were chattering about so blandly.
For that matter, I have to wonder how many of the people who were so free with their online talk about violence against the system stopped to remember that every word of those conversations is now in an NSA data file, along with the names and identifying details of everybody involved. The radicals I knew in my younger days had a catchphrase that’s apposite here: “The only people that go around publicly advocating political violence are idiots and agents provocateurs. Which one are you?”These are points well taken. I have played a deadly game, and I was aware of the risks. Those were calculated risks, of a kind I was more willing to take in my younger days. I have toned down my rhetoric since I got out of prison, just to be on the safe side, though I continue to express forthright hatred against cops and I still glorify violence against them because this sort of speech is so unequivocally legal. Now I will also have my day in court to promote my cause and seek compensation for wrongful imprisonment. My lawyer and I have started preparing the case. All my readers are welcome on November 24th at 9 AM in the courthouse. I would especially like to extend a cordial invitation to all Islamists and sympathizers of ISIS (as noted in a previous post, the Men's Movement ought to join forces with jihadists since we share a common enemy), who are also often maliciously prosecuted for bogus speech crimes. If you hate cops for any reason or just support freedom of speech, now is a good time to show up and exhibit your contempt towards the police state. Let us jam-pack the Bergen courthouse to prove that the Men's Rights Movement is a force to be reckoned with, promote brotherhood against feminism among men of all ethnicities and religions, and help legitimize hateful public rhetoric against the scumbags who enforce the feminist sex laws.
Thursday, November 06, 2014
The Tverberg Estimate of Future Energy Production
Sunday, October 05, 2014
Freedom of speech is reaffirmed in Norway
When the scumbags in law enforcement try to have you criminally prosecuted and you are acquitted in a court of law despite proudly taking full responsibility for the acts you are accused of, prosecutors end up sending the opposite message than what they intended: Such acts are legal and can be committed with impunity and utter contempt for the police. Indeed, it would be a better deterrent against offensive speech to refrain from prosecuting baseless cases and leave us wondering if we are breaking the law. Now Arslan Ubaydullah Maroof Hussain has been acquitted of inciting terrorism, while arrogantly standing by all his statements. Read the full verdict here (in Norwegian), which also includes the quotes he was on trial for -- a useful template for what we can certainly say legally.
I love court cases where the accused proudly admits to all facts and disdainfully proceeds to attack the law itself or its application, and still wins. It is a glorious situation similar to what happened to me two years ago, and now it has happened again in Norway. Supporting and celebrating terrorist acts is now certified legal. The cops acted in bad faith, much to their embarrassment. Their bluff is called, and the slimeball prosecutors are the object of public derision even among politically correct commentators who normally support fascism. I can declare with increased conviction that I hate the guts of cops and wish them the worst, and Islamists now know for sure that they can celebrate the atrocities of ISIS such as beheadings and the like with legal protection.
While I was accused under the general incitement law which covers all crimes (§140), Hussain was accused of inciting terrorism specifically under §147c, but his statements are very similar to mine (in fact I was surprised at the time that I was never charged under §147c myself, since the spirit of this law is the best match for what men's rights activism means). Both statutes also similarly state that you have to call for action (the crucial word is "iverksettelse"; read the verdict for a good discussion) before the law applies. Merely supporting or celebrating criminal acts is not against the law. Neither Hussain nor I told anyone to actually carry out specific acts of violent activism -- we merely stated that such acts comport with our values and we glorified them in various ways. The cops tried to stretch this too far, as if we can "indirectly" incite terrorism criminally by celebrating it. Prosecutors must have known that their line of reasoning flies in the face of the principle of legality, which basically means that laws can't be applied so vaguely, and now they have egg on their faces. The court has ruled that only your explicit statements count as far as criminal incitement law is concerned, rather than the interpreted spirit of your message, even if it most assuredly is the correct interpretation. So both Hussain and I are confidently within freedom of speech as it legally exists in Norway. I already knew that, of course, but it's good to have it reaffirmed. This verdict makes it perfectly clear that we are free to opine publicly that certain crimes are morally right and even wish and pray for them to come to fruition, which is all we have done.
On a side note, it is a little bit funny that when I was cleared of all criminal charges, pundits were quick to denounce me nearly unanimously based on pure politics and call for more draconian laws (confer Lex Berge) without even giving my supposedly illegal statements due consideration, but now the same pundits support Hussain and call his acquittal an obviously correct decision after evaluating the legal aspects dispassionately (and look at this). Go figure. The media pundits must love Muslims much more than ethnic Norwegians. And perhaps they understand that the Men's Movement, if it gains traction, can be more insidious because we are an enemy emerging from within the feminist state with its hateful sex laws that these manginas will defend at any cost. We don't look like Muslim militants. Which reminds me: Should the Men's Movement support the Islamic war effort as well, at least morally? There is at least one powerful argument in favor: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Insofar as the Muslims can hurt the feminist state, they have my support. But otherwise I have very little in common with Muslims, so I don't know how fruitful any cooperation would be. Choosing between feminism or Islamism looks rather like a pest or cholera situation. What do other MRAs think?
I love court cases where the accused proudly admits to all facts and disdainfully proceeds to attack the law itself or its application, and still wins. It is a glorious situation similar to what happened to me two years ago, and now it has happened again in Norway. Supporting and celebrating terrorist acts is now certified legal. The cops acted in bad faith, much to their embarrassment. Their bluff is called, and the slimeball prosecutors are the object of public derision even among politically correct commentators who normally support fascism. I can declare with increased conviction that I hate the guts of cops and wish them the worst, and Islamists now know for sure that they can celebrate the atrocities of ISIS such as beheadings and the like with legal protection.
While I was accused under the general incitement law which covers all crimes (§140), Hussain was accused of inciting terrorism specifically under §147c, but his statements are very similar to mine (in fact I was surprised at the time that I was never charged under §147c myself, since the spirit of this law is the best match for what men's rights activism means). Both statutes also similarly state that you have to call for action (the crucial word is "iverksettelse"; read the verdict for a good discussion) before the law applies. Merely supporting or celebrating criminal acts is not against the law. Neither Hussain nor I told anyone to actually carry out specific acts of violent activism -- we merely stated that such acts comport with our values and we glorified them in various ways. The cops tried to stretch this too far, as if we can "indirectly" incite terrorism criminally by celebrating it. Prosecutors must have known that their line of reasoning flies in the face of the principle of legality, which basically means that laws can't be applied so vaguely, and now they have egg on their faces. The court has ruled that only your explicit statements count as far as criminal incitement law is concerned, rather than the interpreted spirit of your message, even if it most assuredly is the correct interpretation. So both Hussain and I are confidently within freedom of speech as it legally exists in Norway. I already knew that, of course, but it's good to have it reaffirmed. This verdict makes it perfectly clear that we are free to opine publicly that certain crimes are morally right and even wish and pray for them to come to fruition, which is all we have done.
On a side note, it is a little bit funny that when I was cleared of all criminal charges, pundits were quick to denounce me nearly unanimously based on pure politics and call for more draconian laws (confer Lex Berge) without even giving my supposedly illegal statements due consideration, but now the same pundits support Hussain and call his acquittal an obviously correct decision after evaluating the legal aspects dispassionately (and look at this). Go figure. The media pundits must love Muslims much more than ethnic Norwegians. And perhaps they understand that the Men's Movement, if it gains traction, can be more insidious because we are an enemy emerging from within the feminist state with its hateful sex laws that these manginas will defend at any cost. We don't look like Muslim militants. Which reminds me: Should the Men's Movement support the Islamic war effort as well, at least morally? There is at least one powerful argument in favor: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Insofar as the Muslims can hurt the feminist state, they have my support. But otherwise I have very little in common with Muslims, so I don't know how fruitful any cooperation would be. Choosing between feminism or Islamism looks rather like a pest or cholera situation. What do other MRAs think?
Sunday, September 28, 2014
The problem with low oil prices
As a former techno-optimist, up until a few years ago I believed peak oil was nothing to worry about and I saw no reason why we shouldn't be able to carry on civilization on renewable energy in any case. Now I see how spectacularly ignorant I was, and what decisively convinced me was the problem of too low oil prices. Try to wrap your mind around what low oil prices really mean, and therein lies the frightful realization that the future cannot be anything like we commonly imagine. Low oil and other commodity prices are much more problematic than they appear at first glance, because it takes an increasing amount of real resources to produce these commodities, and if the market is unable to afford at least this cost, then eventually the commodities cannot be had at all. As an analogy, consider space tourism. We know it is technically possible to go to the moon, yet it is impossible to book a cruise to the moon at any price, even if you are a billionaire, because the entire potential market is too poor to support the infrastructure investments needed to produce a moon tourism industry in the first place. So space travel cannot be had at any price, despite technical feasibility. And that is the fate of the oil industry as well, and all other advanced technological industries. Everything we value and depend on, including enough food to sustain anything close to the current population, will be gone within our lifetimes or shortly thereafter.
If oil prices could rise arbitrarily high, then there would be no insurmountable problem, and substitution would also be possible. But reality doesn't work that way, because there is a limit to how much the market can pay (in fact, wages seem to have hit the ceiling already for most people), and the universe is under no obligation to provide us with resources we can't afford even if we desperately need them. When oil is getting too expensive to extract, it obviously also does not work to substitute with something even more expensive. Unfortunately, all conceivable alternatives to fossil fuels are more expensive, and the much hyped "green" alternatives may in fact be counterproductive and hasten our collapse. We are therefore surely doomed, and there is nothing science or technology or wealth can do about it.
If oil prices could rise arbitrarily high, then there would be no insurmountable problem, and substitution would also be possible. But reality doesn't work that way, because there is a limit to how much the market can pay (in fact, wages seem to have hit the ceiling already for most people), and the universe is under no obligation to provide us with resources we can't afford even if we desperately need them. When oil is getting too expensive to extract, it obviously also does not work to substitute with something even more expensive. Unfortunately, all conceivable alternatives to fossil fuels are more expensive, and the much hyped "green" alternatives may in fact be counterproductive and hasten our collapse. We are therefore surely doomed, and there is nothing science or technology or wealth can do about it.
It is intuitive to me at this point that industrial civilization cannot operate on renewable energy such as solar and wind and biofuels, because these energy sources are too diffuse. While not intuitive, I also tend to accept the conclusion that nuclear energy will not work either (too low EROEI, all things considered, which is manifested in lack of profitability and the need for subsidies), based on the analysis of smarter people than I. Our civilization is all over but the crying, and the only question left to be decided is the time scale and details of the collapse. At one extreme, you have people like Gail Tverberg and David Korowicz, who say collapse will be nearly instantaneous, and on the other hand you have John Michael Greer, who says our descent into the next dark ages will take a century or more. I am still trying to figure out who is right, but I have no doubt that growth is over, it will be all downhill from here, and the end result will not even be worth living in by our standards for the few who manage to survive the bottleneck. On the plus side this also means victory over feminism is assured, because the feminist police state with enforcement of its hateful sex laws cannot be sustained without fossil fuels, but it is a Pyrrhic victory.
Gail is the world's biggest pessimist indeed. She does not think humans can do anything. But she is right -- absent the global economy with all its long and interdependent supply lines that make up the operational fabric of our civilization, there is very little humans can do. It does not matter how smart you are -- alone you are limited to Stone Age technology, and this is even true for isolated countries and regions. If you don't believe this, go and try to dig up some oil or coal yourself with your bare hands, and you understand how dependent we are on the entire networked economy, which is precisely what is on the cusp of breaking down.
These days the news is full of reports on layoffs in the Norwegian oil sector due to decreasing profitability and diminishing investments in new projects. This is happening because the cost of extracting oil in the North Sea has quintupled over the last decade! It is surreal to read Norwegian newspapers which present peak oil as a local problem and pretend we can be fine doing something else and perhaps even thrive by investing in green energy. They do not explain that the fundamental problem is diminishing returns, which affects all resource extraction globally. That article actually admits that there is no profit in renewables, yet they are presented as a solution, and how renewables can be perpetuated without subsidies from fossil fuels is based on nothing but wishful thinking. Exactly what Gail predicted is happening, yet most people are unable to put two and two together and contemplate the full implications. Everyone should read her latest post, because she explains the problem with low commodity prices better than I. Or perhaps it is best not to, if you would prefer to remain blissfully ignorant as long as possible.
Gail is the world's biggest pessimist indeed. She does not think humans can do anything. But she is right -- absent the global economy with all its long and interdependent supply lines that make up the operational fabric of our civilization, there is very little humans can do. It does not matter how smart you are -- alone you are limited to Stone Age technology, and this is even true for isolated countries and regions. If you don't believe this, go and try to dig up some oil or coal yourself with your bare hands, and you understand how dependent we are on the entire networked economy, which is precisely what is on the cusp of breaking down.
These days the news is full of reports on layoffs in the Norwegian oil sector due to decreasing profitability and diminishing investments in new projects. This is happening because the cost of extracting oil in the North Sea has quintupled over the last decade! It is surreal to read Norwegian newspapers which present peak oil as a local problem and pretend we can be fine doing something else and perhaps even thrive by investing in green energy. They do not explain that the fundamental problem is diminishing returns, which affects all resource extraction globally. That article actually admits that there is no profit in renewables, yet they are presented as a solution, and how renewables can be perpetuated without subsidies from fossil fuels is based on nothing but wishful thinking. Exactly what Gail predicted is happening, yet most people are unable to put two and two together and contemplate the full implications. Everyone should read her latest post, because she explains the problem with low commodity prices better than I. Or perhaps it is best not to, if you would prefer to remain blissfully ignorant as long as possible.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
A good read
Elliot Rodger's manifesto is absolutely amazing. It reads like an expertly crafted and professionally edited novel. In fact, it is so well written that it almost makes me suspect the whole thing is a hoax. It is hard to believe that a sophomore from a community college who keeps dropping his classes can produce such a captivating and immaculate book. With the director father and all, could this be something other than it seems? Some sort of viral marketing campaign, perhaps? Propaganda against the NRA? But no, with all this deadly serious news coverage, I guess we have to conclude it is real.
This isn't insanity, either. Rodger is mentally stable throughout his life, but virginity naturally becomes increasingly frustrating as time goes by. He has poor social skills, which despite counseling will never improve, but he's not schizophrenic and does not slip into psychosis or anything like that. At worst he might be a high-functioning autistic, but even that is unclear. Maybe he is just suffering from social anxiety. The most insane part of the book is when he thinks he will win the lottery and dabbles in the law of attraction, but he gets over that and there are no magical beliefs guiding him on his way to revenge. He is rational and calculating and meticulous, even planning his suicide well in order to avoid capture and imprisonment (use two handguns with a spare in case one jams). There is absolutely no doubt that the rampage is caused by sexual deprivation, and up until the end he holds out some hope that he will get laid after all and cancel the whole retribution thing. As long as he can't have sex, he is determined to destroy some of the happy sexually active people around him. Girls who pick other men and the lucky men who get laid are targeted equally, and he even plans to kill his housemates and brother and step-mother.
You either have to experience celibacy yourself or read this manifesto to comprehend how dangerous this sort of man is. While reading, I was struck with the realization that he is at least as smart as you, and he is going to use that intelligence to kill you. This means he has a good chance of succeeding, which he did. There is no "treatment" for this condition (besides getting sex), because the incel is just as smart as the psychiatrists or cops or whoever tries to intervene, and so he will anticipate their moves and thwart them. The close shave with the cops when they almost search his room is chilling, but here he demonstrates that he is indeed sane and from then on he sleeps with a loaded gun nearby to ensure he will get in at least some kills if they come back.
This isn't insanity, either. Rodger is mentally stable throughout his life, but virginity naturally becomes increasingly frustrating as time goes by. He has poor social skills, which despite counseling will never improve, but he's not schizophrenic and does not slip into psychosis or anything like that. At worst he might be a high-functioning autistic, but even that is unclear. Maybe he is just suffering from social anxiety. The most insane part of the book is when he thinks he will win the lottery and dabbles in the law of attraction, but he gets over that and there are no magical beliefs guiding him on his way to revenge. He is rational and calculating and meticulous, even planning his suicide well in order to avoid capture and imprisonment (use two handguns with a spare in case one jams). There is absolutely no doubt that the rampage is caused by sexual deprivation, and up until the end he holds out some hope that he will get laid after all and cancel the whole retribution thing. As long as he can't have sex, he is determined to destroy some of the happy sexually active people around him. Girls who pick other men and the lucky men who get laid are targeted equally, and he even plans to kill his housemates and brother and step-mother.
You either have to experience celibacy yourself or read this manifesto to comprehend how dangerous this sort of man is. While reading, I was struck with the realization that he is at least as smart as you, and he is going to use that intelligence to kill you. This means he has a good chance of succeeding, which he did. There is no "treatment" for this condition (besides getting sex), because the incel is just as smart as the psychiatrists or cops or whoever tries to intervene, and so he will anticipate their moves and thwart them. The close shave with the cops when they almost search his room is chilling, but here he demonstrates that he is indeed sane and from then on he sleeps with a loaded gun nearby to ensure he will get in at least some kills if they come back.
The monster virgin is a true product of our sex-hostile feminist society, which denies that involuntary celibacy can ever be a problem and is more concerned with constructing the bizarre lie that women can be rapists than acknowledging the basic needs of men. You reap as you sow.
Friday, April 25, 2014
Right-wing feminism is equally odious in Norway
Last year in Norway, the ruling leftist coalition lost the election and their government was replaced by a coalition of so-called right-wing parties. I didn't vote for them, or at all, because I knew they would merely replace socialism with fascism. In past elections I always voted for the Progress Party (Frp) in the belief that they would be a lesser evil, but now I understand there is no such thing. Their authoritarian, police-loving, man-hating views simply cannot be excused even if their economic policy is slightly less oppressive, and now the results of their hateful ideology are starting to manifest themselves. While the new government did decrease the income tax by one percentage point and repealed the death tax, on men's rights they are in fact worse than the old socialists.
The scumbags in the Norwegian legislature, fully supported by the new government, have abolished the statute of limitations on sex crimes, even victimless sex crimes like consensual sex with young teenagers, setting the stage for witch-hunts on old men just like the Savile hysteria in Britain. They didn't yet make it retroactive, so it will take a while for this to bear fruit, but it certainly proves that the Progress Party consists of even more odious feminist scumbags than the Labor Party, and I hate their guts equally profoundly. If anything, minister of justice Anders Anundsen from the Progress Party is a more despicable person than any of his predecessors.
And they are working on expanding the definition of rape once more, inheriting the proposed changes I blogged about earlier from the previous administration.
Thus the march of misandry continues, regardless of which party is voted into power. All political parties in Norway, without exception, represent hatred against men. None of them deserve our vote, and all of them deserve our utmost contempt.
So much for partisan politics, but there is one voice of reason amid all the misandry. Synnøve Brattlie is a psychiatrist making surprisingly lucid statements about rape law. She points out that women are not served well by a dishonestly expansive definition of rape with escalating punishments. She believes that when every woman who has her regrets after sex is defined as a rape victim and the hateful machinery of the state is maximally supportive in having the man convicted and locked up for many years even though the woman shares equal blame for the sexual encounter, then this may do more harm than good to women. Or to honest women, at any rate. In her clinical experience, the dishonest and hateful nature of rape investigations and trials on the part of the feminist state also messes with women's psychology, because the entire point of the proceedings is to perpetuate a lie. In the current system, there is no such thing as bad or regretted sex, or men simply acting like jerks -- everything is rape if the woman has any negative feelings about it whatsoever, so women are not allowed to be honest about their sexual experiences. This realization is progress and very similar to what I have been saying for ten years now, except as usual in public discourse, only the woman's point of view is taken into account. We have now reached the point where in the opinion of at least one psychiatrist, rape law is hurting women because it is too expansive and draconian, so feminist rape law reforms should be reversed to help women. I doubt our hateful legislators will listen to this point of view either, however.
The scumbags in the Norwegian legislature, fully supported by the new government, have abolished the statute of limitations on sex crimes, even victimless sex crimes like consensual sex with young teenagers, setting the stage for witch-hunts on old men just like the Savile hysteria in Britain. They didn't yet make it retroactive, so it will take a while for this to bear fruit, but it certainly proves that the Progress Party consists of even more odious feminist scumbags than the Labor Party, and I hate their guts equally profoundly. If anything, minister of justice Anders Anundsen from the Progress Party is a more despicable person than any of his predecessors.
And they are working on expanding the definition of rape once more, inheriting the proposed changes I blogged about earlier from the previous administration.
Thus the march of misandry continues, regardless of which party is voted into power. All political parties in Norway, without exception, represent hatred against men. None of them deserve our vote, and all of them deserve our utmost contempt.
So much for partisan politics, but there is one voice of reason amid all the misandry. Synnøve Brattlie is a psychiatrist making surprisingly lucid statements about rape law. She points out that women are not served well by a dishonestly expansive definition of rape with escalating punishments. She believes that when every woman who has her regrets after sex is defined as a rape victim and the hateful machinery of the state is maximally supportive in having the man convicted and locked up for many years even though the woman shares equal blame for the sexual encounter, then this may do more harm than good to women. Or to honest women, at any rate. In her clinical experience, the dishonest and hateful nature of rape investigations and trials on the part of the feminist state also messes with women's psychology, because the entire point of the proceedings is to perpetuate a lie. In the current system, there is no such thing as bad or regretted sex, or men simply acting like jerks -- everything is rape if the woman has any negative feelings about it whatsoever, so women are not allowed to be honest about their sexual experiences. This realization is progress and very similar to what I have been saying for ten years now, except as usual in public discourse, only the woman's point of view is taken into account. We have now reached the point where in the opinion of at least one psychiatrist, rape law is hurting women because it is too expansive and draconian, so feminist rape law reforms should be reversed to help women. I doubt our hateful legislators will listen to this point of view either, however.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Oversocialization explains the female sex-offender charade
The bizarre behavior exhibited by the manginas in the Men's Human Rights Movement (MHRM), found at A Voice for Men (AVfM), whereby they embrace the most absurd and hateful feminist ideals regarding sex, and even more bizarrely, apply these standards to women as well, is puzzling in the extreme. After thinking long and hard about what might possess these nincompoops to behave in such a deranged manner, and rereading the Unabomber Manifesto, I think I have figured it out. I thought for a long time that they must be some kinds of autistic freaks or something like that, but the explanation may be found in the far more pervasive concept of oversocialization. The buffoons at AVfM fancy themselves as rebels against feminism, but of course they are nothing of the sort. They are feminists of the most extreme kind. I hate feminists, but most of them have the decency to at least back off the most absurd manifestations of their odious worldview in practice -- for example if you were to apply their sex-hostility literally to women as well as men. The buffoons in the MHRM have no such barriers. They are loose cannons among radical feminists, who will cling desperately to feminist tenets no matter how absurd it gets in the real world.
Here is yet another example of their idiocy: Boys raped more often than girls.
Any person just a few short decades ago would laugh his ass off if you told him women can "rape" boys. An honest biologist would still laugh his ass off at such an imbecile notion, as would any halfway rational or commonsensical person. Biologists know perfectly well that because the sexual superiority of women is the prime fact of life for deep evolutionary reasons, women committing "rape" or "sexual abuse" is not a meaningful natural concept but a legal fiction you have to be oversocialized to take seriously. But the manginas in the MHRM do take it seriously, because they have been oversocialized into feminist ideology.
Ted Kaczynski explains how it works in his Manifesto:
9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we
call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of
inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while
oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of
modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.
[...]
24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the
process by which children are trained to think and act as society
demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and
obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning
part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists
are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel.
Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such
rebels as they seem.
25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can
think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not
supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some
time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are
so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally
imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt,
they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives
and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality
have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe
such people. [2]
26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of
powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means
by which our society socializes children is by making them feel
ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's
expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is
especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of
HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized
person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of
the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a
significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty
thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate
someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick
to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do
these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of
shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even
experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to
the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And
socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to
confirm to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading
of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological
leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down
for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of
constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest
that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human
beings inflict on one another.
27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the
modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of
great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism.
Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or
members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university
intellectuals (3) constitute the most highly socialized segment of our
society and also the most left-wing segment.
28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his
psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually
he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of
society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in
conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes
an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses
mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial
equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed
to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to
animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve
society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All
these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of
its middle and upper classes (4) for a long time. These values are
explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the
material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and
the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the
oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but
justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of
truth) that society is not living up to these principles.
Thus the manginas at AVfM attempt to oversocialize their natural attraction to teenage girls away (whatever age of consent local feminist legislators decree, the manginas will unquestioningly accept and internalize in the most servile fashion), since their feminist ideology will not permit them to think any "unclean thoughts." This would merely be laughable if these clowns didn't take their bizarre oversocialization one step further and insist that underage boys who get lucky with women are actually victims. And of course they also support all the hateful feminist sex laws and abuse-industry nonsense applied to men and women alike, so they are frankly as pure evil as the scumbags in law enforcement who put feminism into practice, and must be exposed as such. There is simply no nice way to put it; they are feminist scum.
I suppose the Unabomber has correctly identified this as a leftist phenomenon. A leftist is above all else a conformist. The leftist does not think for himself; he merely absorbs the political correctness of his times, and if these ideals conflict with human nature, then human nature be damned. And in this day and age, the pinnacle of political correctness is the ideology of ubiquitous sexual "abuse" (or usually and increasingly just called "rape" regardless of the details). The more socialized you are, the more you see "rape" or "sexual abuse" everywhere, until "abuse" encapsulates all of human sexuality (and beyond -- as even an image of a baby breastfeeding can qualify). With sufficient oversocialization, it is even possible to insist on the existence of female sexual abusers with a straight face. This is the pathogenesis of the female sex-offender charade, which has caused me so much headache. Never mind that common sense, natural science and experience all tell us it is preposterous to hold women culpable for sex crimes. The oversocialized leftist mangina will insist on his internalized politically correct hogwash even if all his senses and reason as well as science contradict him. Thanks to the Unabomber for identifying the word for it. I know my ranting against the female sex-offender charade for the umpteenth time probably won't sway any of the manginas, but at least now we know what to call the phenomenon that rots their brains.
The Unabomber is brilliant in some ways, foolish in others. One way he was wrong was thinking he had to kill people in order to get his message out. With writing skills like his, there is no need for violence, at least not in the Internet age. Rather than wasting away in a supermax prison, he could have had a popular blog now if he had only waited for the rise of the Internet. It is also completely unnecessary to use violence to bring down industrial civilization, since peak oil will take care of that beautifully. Soon there will be no occasion for what the Unabomber derides as "surrogate activities," as any survivors of the imminent Malthusian catastrophe will have no choice but to struggle to stay alive by the sweat of our brows, rather than leisurely sit by as fossil fuel slaves do the work. My attitude now that I am aware of peak oil is that unless you are already incarcerated, then insurrection against the feminist establishment is largely superfluous.
As I have said before, the Men's Rights Movement has not grown. There are only 3 sex-positive MRA sites that I know of beside myself: The Anti-Feminist, Human Stupidity and Angry Harry. The rest is merely feminist oversocialization, although I suppose The Spearhead should get an honorable mention for lately at least somewhat acknowledging the insanity of feminist sex-hostility as codified in law, as well as the foolishness, if not the biological absurdity, of men trying to assume the role of victims of rape by women (Price has, however, written some embarrassingly naive articles on the female sex-offender charade in the past where he has parroted the feminist narrative in much the same way as AVfM). I have no hope that there will ever be an effective Men's Rights Movement, but we don't need it anyway, because with peak oil comes peak feminism. If the feminists and manginas want to do something enduring for their cause, they might get busy trying to figure out how to keep up mass incarceration in a low-energy world. Rather than dreaming up ways to identify more sex offenders, they ought to be seriously worried about how to even keep the sex offenders they got incarcerated long enough to serve out their sentences. John Michael Greer has got a post up about seven sustainable technologies that may be practiced in our low-energy future, and the industrial prison system is not among them. I don't see how anything like the feminist sex abuse industry can possibly exist without the abundant energy flows provided by fossil fuels. Look back to the prison population in the era before fossil fuels, and you get an idea of how many people a low-energy society is capable of imprisoning. It is no accident that mass incarceration was unheard of before the Industrial Revolution, and for most of history, incarceration wasn't even recognized as a standard punishment. (Slavery did exist, and can in theory arise again if most of the prisoners are coerced into manual agriculture, but there will be insufficient energy available to make the transition to sustainable slavery in our coming dark ages, not least because the feminists don't even realize that time is running out for reorganizing their infrastructure if that were to be accomplished). Since the prison is a cornerstone of feminist society, there is reason to rejoice even as all the things we care about and depend on are about to disintegrate. Technology has been convenient and fun, but we also see what kind of sex-hostile dystopia it leads to, which gets worse for every passing year. So perhaps peak oil is a good thing even with the extreme hardship and die-off it necessarily entails, because the alternative for men is surely prison unless you put on the charade of an oversocialized mangina.
Here is yet another example of their idiocy: Boys raped more often than girls.
Any person just a few short decades ago would laugh his ass off if you told him women can "rape" boys. An honest biologist would still laugh his ass off at such an imbecile notion, as would any halfway rational or commonsensical person. Biologists know perfectly well that because the sexual superiority of women is the prime fact of life for deep evolutionary reasons, women committing "rape" or "sexual abuse" is not a meaningful natural concept but a legal fiction you have to be oversocialized to take seriously. But the manginas in the MHRM do take it seriously, because they have been oversocialized into feminist ideology.
Ted Kaczynski explains how it works in his Manifesto:
9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we
call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of
inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while
oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of
modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.
[...]
24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the
process by which children are trained to think and act as society
demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and
obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning
part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists
are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel.
Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such
rebels as they seem.
25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can
think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not
supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some
time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are
so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally
imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt,
they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives
and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality
have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe
such people. [2]
26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of
powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means
by which our society socializes children is by making them feel
ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's
expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is
especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of
HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized
person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of
the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a
significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty
thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate
someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick
to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do
these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of
shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even
experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to
the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And
socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to
confirm to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading
of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological
leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down
for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of
constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest
that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human
beings inflict on one another.
27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the
modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of
great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism.
Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or
members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university
intellectuals (3) constitute the most highly socialized segment of our
society and also the most left-wing segment.
28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his
psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually
he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of
society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in
conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes
an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses
mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial
equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed
to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to
animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve
society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All
these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of
its middle and upper classes (4) for a long time. These values are
explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the
material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and
the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the
oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but
justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of
truth) that society is not living up to these principles.
Thus the manginas at AVfM attempt to oversocialize their natural attraction to teenage girls away (whatever age of consent local feminist legislators decree, the manginas will unquestioningly accept and internalize in the most servile fashion), since their feminist ideology will not permit them to think any "unclean thoughts." This would merely be laughable if these clowns didn't take their bizarre oversocialization one step further and insist that underage boys who get lucky with women are actually victims. And of course they also support all the hateful feminist sex laws and abuse-industry nonsense applied to men and women alike, so they are frankly as pure evil as the scumbags in law enforcement who put feminism into practice, and must be exposed as such. There is simply no nice way to put it; they are feminist scum.
I suppose the Unabomber has correctly identified this as a leftist phenomenon. A leftist is above all else a conformist. The leftist does not think for himself; he merely absorbs the political correctness of his times, and if these ideals conflict with human nature, then human nature be damned. And in this day and age, the pinnacle of political correctness is the ideology of ubiquitous sexual "abuse" (or usually and increasingly just called "rape" regardless of the details). The more socialized you are, the more you see "rape" or "sexual abuse" everywhere, until "abuse" encapsulates all of human sexuality (and beyond -- as even an image of a baby breastfeeding can qualify). With sufficient oversocialization, it is even possible to insist on the existence of female sexual abusers with a straight face. This is the pathogenesis of the female sex-offender charade, which has caused me so much headache. Never mind that common sense, natural science and experience all tell us it is preposterous to hold women culpable for sex crimes. The oversocialized leftist mangina will insist on his internalized politically correct hogwash even if all his senses and reason as well as science contradict him. Thanks to the Unabomber for identifying the word for it. I know my ranting against the female sex-offender charade for the umpteenth time probably won't sway any of the manginas, but at least now we know what to call the phenomenon that rots their brains.
The Unabomber is brilliant in some ways, foolish in others. One way he was wrong was thinking he had to kill people in order to get his message out. With writing skills like his, there is no need for violence, at least not in the Internet age. Rather than wasting away in a supermax prison, he could have had a popular blog now if he had only waited for the rise of the Internet. It is also completely unnecessary to use violence to bring down industrial civilization, since peak oil will take care of that beautifully. Soon there will be no occasion for what the Unabomber derides as "surrogate activities," as any survivors of the imminent Malthusian catastrophe will have no choice but to struggle to stay alive by the sweat of our brows, rather than leisurely sit by as fossil fuel slaves do the work. My attitude now that I am aware of peak oil is that unless you are already incarcerated, then insurrection against the feminist establishment is largely superfluous.
As I have said before, the Men's Rights Movement has not grown. There are only 3 sex-positive MRA sites that I know of beside myself: The Anti-Feminist, Human Stupidity and Angry Harry. The rest is merely feminist oversocialization, although I suppose The Spearhead should get an honorable mention for lately at least somewhat acknowledging the insanity of feminist sex-hostility as codified in law, as well as the foolishness, if not the biological absurdity, of men trying to assume the role of victims of rape by women (Price has, however, written some embarrassingly naive articles on the female sex-offender charade in the past where he has parroted the feminist narrative in much the same way as AVfM). I have no hope that there will ever be an effective Men's Rights Movement, but we don't need it anyway, because with peak oil comes peak feminism. If the feminists and manginas want to do something enduring for their cause, they might get busy trying to figure out how to keep up mass incarceration in a low-energy world. Rather than dreaming up ways to identify more sex offenders, they ought to be seriously worried about how to even keep the sex offenders they got incarcerated long enough to serve out their sentences. John Michael Greer has got a post up about seven sustainable technologies that may be practiced in our low-energy future, and the industrial prison system is not among them. I don't see how anything like the feminist sex abuse industry can possibly exist without the abundant energy flows provided by fossil fuels. Look back to the prison population in the era before fossil fuels, and you get an idea of how many people a low-energy society is capable of imprisoning. It is no accident that mass incarceration was unheard of before the Industrial Revolution, and for most of history, incarceration wasn't even recognized as a standard punishment. (Slavery did exist, and can in theory arise again if most of the prisoners are coerced into manual agriculture, but there will be insufficient energy available to make the transition to sustainable slavery in our coming dark ages, not least because the feminists don't even realize that time is running out for reorganizing their infrastructure if that were to be accomplished). Since the prison is a cornerstone of feminist society, there is reason to rejoice even as all the things we care about and depend on are about to disintegrate. Technology has been convenient and fun, but we also see what kind of sex-hostile dystopia it leads to, which gets worse for every passing year. So perhaps peak oil is a good thing even with the extreme hardship and die-off it necessarily entails, because the alternative for men is surely prison unless you put on the charade of an oversocialized mangina.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
For the children
After reading through this thread,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=412846.80
I am convinced that Gavin Andresen is an evil man. It is much worse than I thought. He literally wants the Bitcoin Foundation to be an extension of the feminist sex abuse industry. In fact this is even worse than what the feminists are currently doing. He thinks it might be a good idea if the Bitcoin Foundation offered a bounty paid in bitcoin for anyone who can successfully accuse someone of a sex crime against children. This is so sick and absurd, he comes across as a caricature of the kind of dimwitted scumbag who will blindly favor any kind of persecution as long as it is claimed to be "for the children." These are his words: "For example, maybe offering mostly-anonymous bounties to reward anybody who gives information that leads to the arrest and conviction of people abusing children for profit or pleasure is a good idea. Maybe those bounties could be paid in Bitcoin."
Ok, let me follow his example. I hereby offer a bounty of 1 BTC to anyone who successfully accuses Gavin Andresen of a sex crime. If anyone can put him in prison for at least a decade and on the sex offender registry for life, then I shall send the informer one bitcoin. How do you like to live in a world where any idiot could get paid to make up accusations against you, Gavin? Or perhaps send you some child porn and call the cops? What if others chip in and make the bounty 1000 BTC, do you still only feel warm and fuzzy about "protecting the children" then, Gavin? And what makes you think creating these kinds of perverse incentives is the job of the Bitcoin Foundation?
We seriously need to support some new developers, because not even the central bankers could come up with this shit...
Anyone who wants to contribute to the bounty on successfully accusing Gavin Andresen of a sex crime can send BTC to 1Ay8PaesNqgu1QDP7VD9tNKuYKhsneHqSD, and I will hold it for that purpose.
And just to clarify, I am not trying to incite false accusations here. I am just giving him *exactly* what he asked for...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=412846.80
I am convinced that Gavin Andresen is an evil man. It is much worse than I thought. He literally wants the Bitcoin Foundation to be an extension of the feminist sex abuse industry. In fact this is even worse than what the feminists are currently doing. He thinks it might be a good idea if the Bitcoin Foundation offered a bounty paid in bitcoin for anyone who can successfully accuse someone of a sex crime against children. This is so sick and absurd, he comes across as a caricature of the kind of dimwitted scumbag who will blindly favor any kind of persecution as long as it is claimed to be "for the children." These are his words: "For example, maybe offering mostly-anonymous bounties to reward anybody who gives information that leads to the arrest and conviction of people abusing children for profit or pleasure is a good idea. Maybe those bounties could be paid in Bitcoin."
Ok, let me follow his example. I hereby offer a bounty of 1 BTC to anyone who successfully accuses Gavin Andresen of a sex crime. If anyone can put him in prison for at least a decade and on the sex offender registry for life, then I shall send the informer one bitcoin. How do you like to live in a world where any idiot could get paid to make up accusations against you, Gavin? Or perhaps send you some child porn and call the cops? What if others chip in and make the bounty 1000 BTC, do you still only feel warm and fuzzy about "protecting the children" then, Gavin? And what makes you think creating these kinds of perverse incentives is the job of the Bitcoin Foundation?
We seriously need to support some new developers, because not even the central bankers could come up with this shit...
Anyone who wants to contribute to the bounty on successfully accusing Gavin Andresen of a sex crime can send BTC to 1Ay8PaesNqgu1QDP7VD9tNKuYKhsneHqSD, and I will hold it for that purpose.
And just to clarify, I am not trying to incite false accusations here. I am just giving him *exactly* what he asked for...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
