Jun 5, 2015

How Small Genetic Differences Give Rise to Racial Diversity

via Counter-Currents

Author’s Note: This article is based on an older work published in the October 2005 issue of Identity. It has been developed further by input from Roger Pearson, a Professor of Anthropology, particularly in the section on the origins of European man.

When the Human Genome Project was completed in 2000, it was widely touted that its result showed no genetic basis for race. In fact some scientists of the liberal-left consensus went so far as to dub race a “biological fiction.” I argue that developments since then have clearly demonstrated that quite small genetic differences can produce disproportionate results that substantiate the fact that racial differences are a reality and that they are more complex than just differences in skin color and hair texture.

When we are told that as the difference in DNA between peoples from different parts of the globe is so small therefore there is really no such thing as “race,” let us first remember that the difference between humans and chimpanzees is only just over one percent. Yet despite sharing 99 per cent of the same DNA, how is it that we are so different in appearance, behaviour and, above all, in mental abilities? Our pet dogs and cats also share around 80 per cent of our DNA. Approximately 75 per cent of mouse genes so far identified have a firm counterpart in the human genome.

Furthermore, according to Prof. Stylianos Antonarakis of the University of Geneva Medical School and Dr. Ewen Kirkness of the Institute of Genomic Research, Maryland, latest DNA research shows that some DNA regions of humans, dogs, and species as distant as elephant and wallaby are nearly identical.[1] Importantly, they also found that huge tracts of human DNA, previously written off as meaningless junk, have been found to contain a hitherto unrecognised “genetic grammar,” making the language of our genes much more complex than previously thought. More on the importance of this DNA junk in producing group, or racial, differences later. But for the moment let it be noted that small though DNA differences may be the effects they can have are considerable.

It Starts in Your Genes

We appreciate that some readers fully understand the fundamentals of genetics outlined in the next few paragraphs. For those who have not really bothered about “genes,” “chromosomes,” and DNA, the following is a basic guide suitable for anyone with O level Science.

The characteristics you inherit from your parents and their ancestors are in your inherited genes. This genetic information forms part of the chromosomes which are composed of DNA, which is the chemical deoxyribonucleic acid. The chromosomes, which exist in pairs, are threadlike structures, usually found in the cell nucleus of animals and plants carrying the genes. The DNA molecule takes the structure of a double helix, i.e. a pair of parallel helixes with a common axis, and it exists in the nucleus of every living cell. This was the revolutionary discovery made by the British scientists James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, including the fact that the two strands were complementary. The complete DNA sequence housed in a cell of an organism is known as its genome.

DNA consists of long sequences of four chemical ‘letters’ – C,T,G, and A – strung together in different combinations like different colored beads on a necklace.[2] The information of DNA is encoded in the precise order of these four chemicals; like writing but using fewer symbols.

Genes are the smallest element of DNA and are the basis of heredity. There are around 600 genes that create each chromosome. In the human body there are 23 pairs of chromosomes containing 46 chromosomes altogether. They are sections of data that are received from our parents; one chromosome from each parent, and they combine in the embryo to create a set. It was originally thought that the genetic message comes equally from each parent, but it now seems that some children might end up with three, four, or even more copies of a gene from one parent. Although one can often see that offspring are related, even with large families each child, unless an identical twin, will be different in varying degrees. This is because the number of different offspring a pair of human parents could produce are two to the power of 47 (remember there are 46 chromosomes that can be shuffled about) or 140,000,000,000,000. Furthermore, this figure does not include genetic crossover, which results in an even higher figure.

Mitochondrial DNA

It is the nuclear DNA that really makes us what we are. It consists of around 25,000 genes, compared with a paltry 37 that our mothers pass to us in mitochondria.
Mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell. They consume the sugars that our bodies have converted from food and in return produce electricity with which to power the cell But it is considered to be separate from the cell, because it has its own DNA, and this DNA is unaffected by other genetic exchanges.

Although you may have inherited all manner of characteristics through your nuclear DNA from parents, grandparents and back many generations, there is one factor that remains constant: the mitochondrial DNA hasn’t altered at all. It remains intact through the female line. Male sperm contains only enough mitochondria to power the sperm to the surface of the egg – it does not enter the egg. The egg, however, contains mitochondria that have been passed from mother to children for countless generations. The only way for mitochondrial DNA to alter is by natural mutations, which occur very slowly when compared with the almost frantic gene mixing we and our parents take part in. Importantly, according to Adrian Woolfson[3] and also Sarich and Miele[4] even the smallest DNA changes can result in significant changes to the structure and function of a living creature. In fact minute changes can have disproportionate results.

It is the natural mutation of nuclear DNA occurring just occasionally over countless generations that has led to group differences and thereby the establishment of separate human races.

Because the rate of mitochondrial genetic mutation is slow, Sarich proposed that it can be used as a clock to turn back time to a period before the mutations had crept in. The common belief at present is that modern Europeans originated from Africa (although some, such as the late Prof. Carleton S. Coon, contend that the ancestors of the living races of man achieved Homo sapiens sapiens status [truly modern status] independently in several different global areas). When mitochondrial DNA from modern sub-Saharan African populations are sampled they can be compared with European mitochondrial DNA. The mutation difference between the two populations can then be compared and a “clock” can be produced to give a time-scale which indicates when the distant ancestors of modern Europeans first left Africa (assuming they did). But there are vast differences between the genome of the Negro peoples of sub-Saharan Africa and the present day inhabitants of Europe, Asia and the Americas, because evolution did not stop after migrants moved out of Africa.

It is known that pre-sapiens “hominid” or humanlike populations were already in possession of many parts of the Old World before “intelligent” Homo sapiens spread around the world and replaced them. Some of these were quite intelligent, such as the Neanderthals of Ice Age Europe. But the prevailing view is that these were all replaced by the ancestors of modern men, although it is possible that in some places there may have been some genetic mixing with older more primitive populations. However that may be, the latest research indicates that after early Homo sapiens migrants from Africa entered Asia, they slowly spread outwards over the more habitable parts of Asia. Some went eastwards, in several waves, along the southern parts of Asia. The earliest of these are believed to have been ancestral to the Negritoes, a now rare people who resemble African Negroes, who have left traces of their genes in parts of India and Southeast Asia, and another wave may have been ancestral to the Australoids of Australia and New Guinea, who also left their genes amongst some of the living tribal peoples in the more remote parts of southern India, and amongst various southeast Asian peoples, notably in Cambodia.

But another portion of the Homo sapiens population that moved into Asia spread out in a more northerly direction, and found themselves north of the great mountain barrier that stretches from the Caucasus through northern Iran and Afghanistan. Here the climate was much colder, and from this population two further living human stocks are believed to have evolved. Those who spread eastwards became ancestral to the Mongoloids of Mongolia, China, and East Asia. Those who spread in a more northwesterly direction, became ancestral to the Caucasoids of Europe and Western Asia. The harsh conditions of cold northern Eurasia proved a challenge to survival, and many believed that this resulted in further evolutionary selection in favor of greater intelligence. Those who could not find ways of providing for their families during the long winter months, were less likely to survive. Certainly, the non-tropical climate led to modifications in the physical appearance of those who continued to be shaped by evolution in Europe and northeastern Asia, hence the fair coloring of Europeans, especially northern Europeans, and the relatively fair skin color of the Mongoloids of Eastern Asia.

When talking about race, we must remember that the further we go back in the history of the human race, the more localized people were, and so different populations evolved differently. There was no genetic mixing between Central Africans, North Europeans, Chinese, or Australian aboriginals until relatively very recent times. It is true that populations living in more central areas, such as Mesopotamia were likely to become admixed with neighboring peoples, and genetic mergers would occur in such places. The Caucasoids of the Middle East and North Africa deliberately conducted slave raids into sub-Saharan Africa to capture Negro men and women to serve them, and although they often neutered the males many had offspring from the female slaves, and so the genetic constitution of these people was changed, and their higher civilization slowly decreased.

The Cro-Magnons whom we find in southern Europe during the last Ice Age, some 25,000 years ago, were seemingly very similar to and probably ancestral to most living Europeans, but Northern Europe was not populated until the last Ice Age waned some 12,000 years ago, and allowed the glaciers and permafrost to disappear. DNA samples from human skeletal remains (based on a branch of science known as “archeogenetics”) showed that the first human settlers arrived in Britain around 10-12000 BC as Britain was thawing. They were much the same people as the people who settled Western Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia as these areas became habitable. According to David Miles, formerly chief archaeologist at English Heritage and a research fellow at Oxford University in his book, The Tribes of Britain,[5] the genetic make-up of modern indigenous Britons has hardly changed from those first post-Ice Age arrivals. He states that 80 percent of the indigenous British persons shares the same genetic characteristics as those early hunters and gatherers.

Some people have misinterpreted this important information by suggesting that the Anglo Saxons and Vikings, and even the Celts, must have had a minimal racial contribution to British stock if 80 per cent of us share the same genes as the first arrivals of 12,000 BC. This view is also held by Bryan Sykes in his book Blood of the Isles,[6] based on the evidence of mitochondrial and y-chromosome DNA. The point here is that all the above peoples were but different variations of an otherwise common European race and, even Sykes recognizes that a key point is that European genetic differences are small. The earliest settlers of the British Isles and Western seaboard of Europe were in all probability akin to the Basques of northeastern Spain, but later, in historical times, the British Isles were settled more thoroughly by Celts, whose homeland was Southern Germany, and then by the Germanic peoples, from Northern Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. All were what we today would call European, with the Celts and Germans tending only to be blonder than the first settlers. Genetic testing has been carried out on modern day white Danes, Dutchmen, and Germans from Saxony and in nearly all cases very little difference in DNA has been found.

Small Differences – Wide Ranging Results

The human DNA carries an estimated 25,000 genes and at present it seems to be not much more than 0.15 per cent, i.e. 360 genes, account for the differences between individuals and races, whether it be freckles, Afro hair, ginger hair or hereditary in-growing toenails. Geneticist Steve Scherer, a senior scientist at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children, has said: “Based on what we now know it (the genetic difference) is probably in the 0.2 per cent range and in the end it may even be as high as one per cent.”[7]

Within the last eight years scientists have carried out in-depth work to chart these genetic variations. One of these, Francis S. Collins, a former leader of the Human Genome Project, had to admit that “well-intentioned statements” about the biological insignificance of race may have left the wrong impression: “It is not strictly true that race or ethnicity has no biological connection.”[8]

Again, the importance of the small genetic differences between people groups/races was suggested in a paper in 2005 by Hua Tang and other scientists on “Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity.”[9] Hua Tang et al contended that in a study of Blacks, Caucasians, Hispanics and Asians in 12 different U.S. locations and three in Taiwan, that there are 326 genetic markers for racial differences.

A variation in a single gene may explain why some people can withstand pain — or other physical or emotional stress — better than others, a team from the University of Michigan and the National Institutes of Health reported in a recent issue of Science.

Vanitas-Adriaen_van_Utrecht-_Vanitas_-_Still_Life_with_Bouquet_and_Skull-LARGE


If we bear in mind that the rest of the primates have virtually as many genes as humans, then it cannot be the number of genes that account for the differences between us. As Woolfson explains, the main difference between the genes of “higher” organisms, such as vertebrates, and those of “lower” organisms is that they are “smarter,” which means simply that each gene is more complex, as are the behavioural patterns it influences. As genes become smarter, the organisms they build and operate become more complex.

We also have to consider that as much as 98% of the human genome contains “junk,” which are DNA sequences that lack protein-coding genes and about which scientists still need to know much more. It is now being found that a huge amount of information lies outside genes, scattered throughout the “junk” and is responsible for the maintenance, regulation, and reprogramming of genetic processes.

Now pulling all the above information together, it can be seen, for example, that the difference between the complexity of a fly and a human can be explained not only by the extra 10,000 or so genes found in a humans, but in the number of different gene behavioral patterns each genome is capable of producing. The difference is a huge number, larger than the number of elementary particles in the known universe, according to Woolfson. This means that a relatively small variation in the number of genes between two species has the potential to generate a tremendous difference in biological complexity.

If one applies this to the 330 plus gene differences between, for example, the European and the African, it would explain the biological, physical and metaphysical differences between these two races of the common species Homo sapiens.

The Evidence

Several laboratory investigations carried out on behalf of the Police and/or the FBI in the USA have confirmed that genetic testing can determine a person’s exact racial profile. A classic report was that by Josh Noel, a staff writer for the Advocate News, Florida, 06/04/03. It stated:

A private genetics lab altered the hunt for the south Louisiana serial killer after telling investigators that the person they sought was a black man. For eight months the investigation had focussed on white men.

Tony Frudakis, chief executive officer of DNAPrint Genomics said that he told the task force that the serial killer was 85% Sub-Saharan and 15% Native American based on analysis of the killer’s DNA.

Eventually a Black man was arrested as his DNA matched exactly the lab’s report. Frudakis has said his company can determine a person’s ancestral past by analysing 73 DNA markers and narrowing the result to proportions in four categories: East Asian, Indo-European, Native American, and Sub-Saharan African.

The Guardian, 16/06/05, reported that a drug (BiDil) is now available in America which is aimed specifically at African-Americans to remedy heart failure. Among New Yorkers aged 45 to 54 the death rate from heart disease among black people is 55% higher than among whites. The Food & Drug Administration’s stamp of approval for the drug was being opposed by some liberals because it would “give the stamp of authority on racial biological differences.”

In an article on genetic medicines in The Times, 18/6/05, Kenan Malik said that according to the American Heart Association the death rate amongst Black Americans was five times that of Whites. Malek also pointed out that Northern Europeans are more likely to suffer from cystic fibrosis than other groups. Tay-Sachs, a fatal disease of the central nervous system, particularly affects Ashkenazi Jews. Beta-blockers appear to work less effectively for African-Americans than those of European descent.

The New Scientist, 20/1/05 reported that a length of DNA has been found in a fifth of Europeans which is very rare in Africans and non-existent in Asians. This DNA is said to be 3 million years old and can only have passed to modern Europeans in the last 50,000 years, otherwise it would be present today in all other races.

In 1992 Bo Rybeck, Director of the Swedish National Defence Research Institute, stated that: “As we became able to identify the DNA variations of different races and ethnic groups, we will be able to determine the difference between blacks and whites and Orientals and Jews and Swedes and Finns and develop an agent that will kill only a particular group.”

The Sunday Times, 15.11.1998, revealed in a report from Israel: “Israel is working on a biological weapon that would harm Arabs but not Jews, according to Israeli military and western intelligence sources. In developing their ‘ethno-bomb’, Israeli scientists are trying to exploit medical advances by identifying genes carried by some Arabs.”
A North Korean team of microbiologists are also said to be working on an ethno-bomb which would destroy white races.

Earlier Evidence

Before the secrets of DNA began to be unravelled and showed clearly that there were many genetic markers indicating racial differences, ample evidence had existed but was ignored or suppressed by the Marxist-liberal intellectual “elite” and its media mouthpieces. All differences were due to environmental factors, they said. This was the standard answer to the findings of countless IQ tests over the past century which have consistently shown that Northeastern Asians (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese) have a higher IQ than Europeans, who in turn are some 15 percent above people of African origin. A broad, in-depth investigation into IQ research studies was carried out by Herrnstein and Murray, the results of which were published in The Bell Curve, 1994, and greeted in the main with abuse by those who could not challenge their findings on racial IQ differences and that it was largely genetic and hereditary.

This may be connected with the fact that the Sub-Saharan African has a brain weighing just under 1 kg, compared with 1,240 gm for Europeans and 1,300 gm for East Asians.

leonardo-view-of-a-skull-c1489
We are frequently told that there is a shortage of West Indian, African, and Asian blood donors in the UK and that these are urgently required, but at the same time we are told there is no difference in the ratio of the blood groups in the various racial groupings. Similarly, with kidney, heart, and other organ transplants emphasis is given to matching the race of the donor and the recipient. More recently doctors have found, to their apparent surprise, that this also applies to the success of bone marrow transplants. In Britain the media has often reported on the difficulty people living here of Asian and African stock have in finding a donor of similar ethic origin.

It has long been known that West Indians and Africans are almost exclusively susceptible to the hereditary blood characteristic, sickle cell anemia. This makes them more receptive to jaundice, pneumonia, and TB, sometimes leading to death.

The UK Prostate Cancer Charity issued a report in March 2005 that Prostate cancer among African Caribbean men is three times more prevalent than among Whites. This has been confirmed in recent UK TV programs (June 2013).

American Indians have a tendency to hypertension and high blood pressure and, like the Japanese, have a low tolerance to alcohol.

We could probably continue with another page of specific biological, physical and mental differences to support our view that all these minor differences add up to there being a substantial difference between the world’s main racial strains. However, the emphasis is on difference, not on superiority of any one race over another because it would depend on the yardstick chosen to measure superiority.

To end on a personal note, the human genome project revealed that there are some 1,400 potential illnesses/diseases carried by single gene markers, and one of them I suffer from. This is Dupuytren’s Contracture, which causes one or more fingers to bend in towards the palm; a “disease” which I shared with Margaret Thatcher. Prior to an operation my surgeon said that it only occurs among people of “North European descent” and is sometimes known as the “Scandinavian disease” or the “Viking Finger.” The highest rates of incidence world-wide are in Iceland, followed by Denmark, and in Britain, the Orkneys and Shetlands followed by the north east of England (where many of my ancestors came from). I have since had a DNA test carried out by Professor Bryan Sykes’ Oxford Ancestors Ltd which confirmed I carry a Y-chromosome recognised as being of probable Danish Viking origin.

Of course, distorted fingers are of little concern for the future of the world’s races, but distorted reporting on the genetic evidence of each race’s distinctiveness is of great concern.

Notes

1. Science, October 2003.
2. Adrian Woolfson, An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Genetics, published by Duckworth Overlook, London, 2004.
3. Ibid.
4. Sarich and Miele, Race, Basic Books, 2004.
5. David Miles, The Tribes of Britain, Oxford University Press.
6. Bryan Sykes, Blood of the Isles, Bantam Press, 2006.
7. Paper by Professor Henry Harpending, University of Utah, June 2005.
8. Nature Genetics, Autumn 2004.
9. American Journal of Human Genetics, Spring 2005.

The Partial Suicide of Bruce Jenner

via Alternative Right

The recent case of Bruce Jenner, an ex-athlete who, at the age of 65, decided to "debut" as a "woman" on the cover of Vanity Fair after committing partial suicide through "gender reassignment" surgery, is the kind of thing that is hard to comment on meaningfully. Yes, we all know this belongs in a freakshow, and, yes, of course, SJWs are all for it. 

An added disincentive to wade into the controversy is the frankly creepy photo that goes with this story, where we see Bruce trying to hide his big, manly hands behind his fake new female body. We have no wish to sully our site with that abomination. One wonders if those mighty mitts will be the object of further acts of mini-suicide through surgery or whether they will in turn be the agents of a final act of total suicide. In the meantime the best comment on this sorry business comes from running this clip from South Park.

Former Liberal Member of European Parliament Acknowledges African Invaders Are a 'threat to the White Race'

via Elliot Lake News

Kristiina Ojuland, a former Foreign Minister of Estonia and former member of the European Parliament, voiced her disapproval of the European Commission’s migrant quota plan on her official Facebook page, by calling for a pan-European campaign against admitting any refugees in the EU.
In a post that was more reminiscent of a far-right extremist, than a former Vice President of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party (ALDE), Ojuland said that the “white race is threatened” by dark-skinned immigrants (Ojuland actually used an Estonian word “neeger” which is not officially considered offensive in Estonia, but nevertheless becoming socially unacceptable).

Today, yet again, I see a fully able young Negro begging for money in Italy,  from people who have worked hard to earn a lunch. I think that we should start a pan-European campaign to collect signatures to ensure that not a single so-called refugee gets across the Mediterranean. Enough of this nonsense!” Ojuland, the former high-ranking politician who for years campaigned Estonia to join the EU, wrote.

Her posting has so far gathered over 2,000 “likes”, 500 shares and 300 comments. While many people pointed out her offensive remarks and some called her “racist”, one would have thought that the former foreign minister would back down, but it didn’t turn out to be so. Instead, Ojuland chose to rigorously defend her statement, and even went offensive against the moderate commentators who asked for common sense.

“Stop using a word ‘racist’! As a White person, I feel that the White race is threatened today!  Are Estonians also so brain-washed now that they start talking some kind of politically correct bullshit?” Ojuland said.  … read more.

Schools Claim They Are Trying to Solve the Problem of Non-White Violence by Teaching Non-Whites to Resent Whites

via TMA_SierraHills

St. Paul faced a problem with minority violence in its school. What to do? The answer: pay a consultant $3 million to teach about White racism.

In 2010, the St. Paul school district began a contractual relationship with the Pacific Educational Group, a San Francisco-based organization that tries to help public schools deal with achievement and disciplinary issues involving black students.

PEG... claims that the American education system is built around white culture, tradition and ocial norms – aka “white privilege” – to the unfair detriment of black students.

Not long after PEG started working with St. Paul school officials, crucial policy changes were made, according to various news reports. Special needs students with behavioral issues were mainstreamed into regular classrooms, a position openly advocated by PEG. Student suspensions were replaced by “time outs,” and school officials starting forgiving or ignoring violence and other unacceptable behavior, according to various sources. The result has been general chaos throughout the district, with far too many students out of control because they know there are no real consequences for their actions.

A  local publication called CityPages recently told the story of Becky McQueen, an educator at St. Paul’s Harding High School.

“Last spring, when she stepped into a fight between two basketball players, one grabbed her shoulder and head, throwing her aside,” the CityPages article explained. “The kid was only sent home for a couple of days.

“In March, when a student barged into her class, McQueen happened to be standing in the doorway and got crushed into a shelf. The following week, two boys came storming in, hit a girl in the head, then skipped back out. One of them had already been written up more than 30 times.

“Yet another student who repeatedly drops into her class has hit kids and cursed at an aide, once telling McQueen he would “fry” her ass. She tried to make a joke of it — ‘Ooh, I could use a little weight loss.’ Her students interjected: ‘No, that means he’s gonna kill you.'”

McQueen now has her students use a secret knock on the classroom door, so she will know who to allow in, the article said.
You may wonder what the district was getting for its three million dollar consultant:
PEG says concepts like hard work and planning for the future are traits of “white culture” ...

The Seven Deadly Sins of Cultural Marxism

via Return of Kings

Earlier this week I was walking through JFK airport when I found this curious, handwritten document, obviously dropped by another passenger. The document had no names on it, but I can only assume that a high-ranking general in social justice army was the author. I reproduce it below without modification except for the pictures, which I added as I felt they helped illustrate the concepts in the document.

Back in the day before there were iPhones, there used to be this list of seven deadly “sins” of things that people were supposed to avoid. Of course, people who lived before us were stupid so their list of the seven deadly sins is almost completely wrong.

While the old list of sins is wrong, I do like the easy-to-remember format, so I created a new list of sins that you should avoid. I’ll share those later, but first, let’s review the outdated list.

The Old, Outdated Seven Deadly Sins

Here is the old list. As you can see, most of these are not sins at all. In fact, most of these “sins” are things that people should be strongly encouraged to do.

Pride

Self-Esteem



Pride, or hubris, was what the ancients thought was the greatest sin as it was the sin of the devil.

Today, we call this “self-esteem” and you can never have too much of it. Even if a person is indolent and has no achievements to his name, he is still a special snowflake who should hold his head up high with great self-esteem!

Lust

Why was this ever a sin? Now, everything is permitted.

Everyone should be encouraged to be as promiscuous as a chimpanzee, especially women. Men should be encouraged to use porn. It keeps them occupied so that they don’t recognize that their rights are being eroded.

Gluttony

5284763
Healthy at any size

The old meaning of gluttony was overindulgence. It was usually associated with food, but it could really be taking anything to an unhealthy extreme.

Gluttony is still somewhat applicable depending on who you are. Women are incapable of being gluttons, because they are healthy at any weight. However, men who eat butter or bacon are gluttons. Encourage them to eat more tofu because it kills their testosterone. The less masculine they are, the easier they are to control.

Avarice

Avarice, or greed, is a rapacious desire for riches. This sin is still in effect. People who want to pay lower taxes are guilty of the sin of avarice.

Sloth

Sloth
Sloth from The Goonies

Sloth is a physical or spiritual laziness.

This is a difficult topic to summarize, but in general, we want to continue the policy of working the male undesirables until they drop dead. For more details, consult The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism.

Wrath

aa



Wrath is an uncontrollable anger. Wrath can be good or bad. An example of a good, wholesome wrath is opprobrium poured out upon the Duggar family after the molestation scandal.

Envy

Economists with Asperger’s Syndrome have figured out that envy is actually a good thing because it drives our wonderful consumerist society. Kim Kardashian has a Porsche, so you should have one too. We want to encourage the proles to keep buying products that they don’t need so that we continue to get richer.

The New List of Seven Deadly Sins 

Here is new list of Seven Deadly Sins. We won’t call it that of course, but it serves as a good mnemonic device. This is a work in progress, but I think you’ll get the general gist from what follows:

Racism

HarryReid
Harry Reid, who said that Obama, could be successful because of his “light-skinned” appearance and his ability to speak “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,” is not a racist because he is a progressive.

If you judge a man by his character and not the color of his skin, you are a racist.
Only whites can be racist. Just as type-O blood is the universal donor, whites are the universal oppressor.

However, whites can be cleansed of their inherent racist nature by reading Slate, Rolling Stone, and the New York Times, and by regularly watching the Daily Show and MSNBC. Also, they should be sure to vote for the correct political candidates.


Misogyny

Dworkin_on_After_Dark
Healthy at any size feminist Andrea Dworkin: “Only when manhood is dead — and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it — only then will we know what it is to be free.”

A misogynist is a person who believes in antiquated, traditional sex roles.
As enlightened, modern individuals, we know that all heterosexual sex in our patriarchal society is coercive and degrading to women, and sexual intercourse, by its very nature, makes women inferior and forces them into submission. In other words, all heterosexual sex is rape.

Misogynists reject this obvious truth, and consequently, they must be eradicated.

Homophobia

MIAMI BEACH, FL - APRIL 14: Juan Cuba Lorded, Teddy Fournier and Bob Micket (L-R) stand at the start line for the Azucar High Heel Race before the beginning of the Fifth annual Miami Beach Gay Pride Parade along Ocean Drive on April 14, 2013 in Miami Beach, Florida. The race participants according to the rules had to  wear high heels no less than 3 inches, approximatly 10 people entered the race to have a chance of winning the 1st place prize of $500.  (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Add caption

A homophobe is a person who doesn’t care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home, but who feels that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

Science Denial

images



Science consists of two great, unquestionable dogmas. If you deny either of these dogmas, or even question them, you are a science denier. The first great dogma is that there is no God. Believing in a sky god is a form of retrograde behavior that can lead to other sins such as misogyny or homophobia.

But the god of the Muslims is real because we are scared of those guys and hope they don’t hurt us.

The second great dogma is anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The correct solution to AGW is to only permit elites such as ourselves and Al Gore to fly in private jets. Some insolent people have the audacity to ask how AGW will be affected by the earth’s natural climactic cycles. These people are science deniers and should be attacked as enemies of the people.

Hurting Someone’s Feelings

922943

People should always feel good about themselves unless they are retrograde persons who violate one of the new deadly sins.

Ugly people should be told that they are beautiful. Mentally slow people should be praised for their sharp intellect. If a man says he is a woman, call him Caitlyn. If Instagram girls fly to Dubai to have sex with Arab sheiks, men should be encouraged to play Captain Save-a-hoe and marry them after they hit the wall. [Editor’s Note: I was shocked by the author’s political incorrectness in the preceding paragraph.]
This deadly sin is one of the most powerful tactics we have in our arsenal to compel society to accept our social engineering changes.


Masculinity

8111089480_60cfbf03c9_z


A small number of men have started to try to roll back the glorious progress of feminism in order to try to reestablish antiquated patriarchal forms. If these men are permitted to reproduce and raise traditionally-minded children, it could result in a demographic nightmare for our social justice project. Science forbid!

However, if we can convince men that masculinity consists solely of growing a handle bar mustache, drinking bourbon, and smoking a pipe, then this movement might serve as another distraction to keep men from the next deadly sin—thinking.

Thinking 

SchoolOfAthens


For decades now, we have done an outstanding job of persuading the public that they were daring free-thinkers all the while they were completely conforming to our indoctrination.

But now, a dangerous new trend has emerged where men are starting to question the very foundations upon which our society is built. These thought criminals are reading the old books and questioning things such as equality. They are even debating which form of government is best.

We are starting to see the glimmerings of independent thinking. This trend must be stopped at all costs. Fortunately, this is only a tiny group of men and we will soon figure out a way to divide them so that they do not gain critical mass.

Post Script

The document abruptly ends there. While it might be a ruse, I thought it would be prudent to share with you as it does contain a few valid insights into the mind of a rank-and-file social justice warrior.

Florida: Black Gangs Openly Declare Shooting War on White Students

via National Vanguard

Even though the threat was specifically directed by Black gangs at White students — who would be shot because and only because they are White — neither the Fox 30 TV report linked here, nor the school superintendent, dared to mention the words “Black” or “White.” (The word “White” was used — once — in the Fox 30 online article.)

Several parents of students at First Coast High School are sharing a Facebook post that has them scared for their children’s safety. Some parents tell Action News they will keep their kids home for the last week of school.

“She’s scared, she’s scared,” said Bridget Vannoy.
Vannoy said her daughter informed her that gang members at her school are threatening to shoot white children.

“Very disturbing. I’ve decided not to let my daughter go to school next week because of this,” she said. “Don’t know whether it’s a sick prank or whether it’s true whether it’s rumors that kids have made up.”

This information was so disturbing to Vannoy, she wrote a post about it on Facebook. It’s now been shared by many parents who said they’re afraid to send their kids to school.

If you have a child,  friend or know anyone that goes to FIRST COAST HIGH SCHOOL you need to be aware of this THREAT


Action News took their concerns to Duval County Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Nikolai Vitti.

“We are aware,” said Vitti. “As I said earlier, there’s quite a few threats and they happen daily, not just at the end of the year, and every time we learn something like that we take a proactive approach.”

Vitti said their approach includes ramping up security and personnel at the schools, which he said they’re already doing — and this week they say they are keeping an extra eye out and their ears open.

“First Coast is one of our targeted schools where we have additional personnel, so we have an all hands on deck mentality right now. Every person available that could prevent something from happening is out in the field right now,” Vitti said.

But — parents like Vannoy said they aren’t taking any chances.

“My daughter, her well-being is in my hands and I am ultimately the decision-maker and for my child to be safe I’ve elected not to send her to school next week, said Vannoy.

The school year ends on June 5.

Diversity Is Strength! It’s also … Train Crashes?

via VDARE

The investigation of the deadly derailment of Amtrak Train 188 in Philadelphia is continuing and Amtrak has announced it will now be placing cameras to monitor the actions of its engineers [Video Cameras Coming to Amtrak Train Cabs After Philly Crash, by Trevor Mogg, Digital Trends, May 27, 2015].

Unfortunately, they might have their cameras pointed in the wrong direction: vandalism by rock-throwing thugs may be the real cause of the crash. But if so, on past form, our rulers may never tell us.

The May 12, 2015 crash killed eight passengers and injured 200, including several Amtrak crewmembers. Investigators have ruled out mechanical malfunction or rail problems. The locomotive engineer’s drug and alcohol tests have turned out negative. Preliminary interviews seem to rule out fatigue or illness. Investigators are examining the engineer’s cell phone records, but the engineer’s attorney has stated that his cell phone was not in use during the operation of the train. The FBI has concluded that a bullet did not cause front window damage in the engineer’s compartment—but investigators have not ruled out a “flying object” striking the train.

That “flying object” could well have been hurled by vandals, smashing the window and possibly stunning the engineer, accounting for his loss of memory. Trains along the Philadelphia stretch of the northeast rail corridor, the country’s busiest, are routinely “rocked” by stone-hurling hoodlums—and on the day of the Amtrak derailment, projectiles struck other trains traveling in the same area:
A spate of projectiles apparently hit trains in North Philadelphia the night of the crash.
A Trenton-bound Septa regional commuter train was struck around 9:12 p.m. near the North Philadelphia station, breaking the windshield and disabling the train.
Alfred Price, a documentary filmmaker, was in the train’s front car when he heard a loud boom and felt the train come to a stop. No one was injured, but when passengers knocked on the door of the engineer’s compartment, the engineer emerged dazed, Mr. Price said in a telephone interview on Friday. ‘The window was smashed. It was shattered,’ he said. ‘He didn’t really know what was going on. He was in shock.’
As the Septa passengers waited for a replacement train, they watched Train 188 pass by….
Shortly before the crash — around the same time the Septa train was hit by an object — a southbound Amtrak Acela train was also hit by a projectile, shattering a side passenger window.
Passengers told Philadelphia Magazine that the impact had happened north of the North Philadelphia station, the same area where, investigators say, Amtrak Train 188 might have been hit.
[Rock Hurling Is Old Nemesis of Train Crews, by Dave Phillips and Elizabeth Harris, New York Times, May 16, 2015].
As the New York Times’ report notes, the “would-be rock throwers” had easy access to the area and an “endless supply of ammunition” (piles of rocks) not far from the Amtrak derailment. An NYT reporter described the area near the derailment as “dark blocks of crumbling rowhouses” and “vacant factories.”
‘There’s fences, but a lot of times they are falling down,’ said a 16-year-old with long hair and a thin mustache who gave only his first name, Isaac. ‘A lot of people go down, creepy people, bums — they throw rocks, they throw bottles, but usually it’s no big deal.’
Nevertheless, the possibility that a flying object hit an Amtrak train before it lurched off the rails Tuesday in Philadelphia has unnerved riders and drawn increased public scrutiny to the safety along that stretch of track. Federal and railway officials say being struck by rocks, bricks and even bullets is a longstanding problem for trains in the country’s rail systems.”
Railroad tracks are private property where trespassers are supposed to be controlled by transit police patrols.
“But residents of North Philadelphia say old fencing in their deteriorating neighborhoods provides easy access to the rails, where the police rarely venture. Bottles, bricks, tires, old bicycles, cinder blocks and other urban detritus pile up by the tracks, along with people who have nowhere else to go.
“Bums be a lot back there, stumbling around all high,” said Carmen Marie, a lifelong resident, “crackheads, folks shooting up, doing whatever they do, throwing things.”
The Washington Post reported the FBI is researching the possibility of a “projectile” striking the train, but it refused to acknowledge that people could have thrown the projectile, merely saying, there was “the possibility that outside factors could figure into the incident” [FBI probes report that projectile hit Amtrak train that derailed, by Lori Aratani, Luz Lazo, and Michael Laris, May 15, 2015. Emphasis added.]

Vandals are apparently “outside factors.”

gty_amtrak_press_conference_nutter_jc_150514[1]Rocking” has caused casualties before. In January 2013, a rock crashed through the front window of a moving commuter train and injured the SEPTA engineer near 33rd and Girard Avenue in Philadelphia. Yet the New York Times reported that Philadelphia’s Mayor Michael Nutter, who is black, “dismissed the significance of other trains being hit by objects, saying… ‘Different place, different train, nothing to do with this tragedy here.’”
This reaction by Mayor Nutter is all too typical: yet another African American public official excusing away the city’s thugs. Following in the footsteps of Baltimore’s Mayor, former Attorney General Eric Holder, and President Obama, Nutter avoids the reality that large, predominantly black sections of Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, New York, Cleveland, and other urban areas are just chronically violent.

Our elites are no longer “Defining Deviancy Down,” as Daniel Patrick Moynihan astutely noted, but are Excusing Deviancy Away in describing violent acts as “outside factors.” And now this kind of behavior is even spilling out of the ghettos and even sabotaging our mass transit system.

So the “Broken Windows” theory of criminal behavior (in this case, one “Broken Window”) may offer a more credible explanation for what caused this deadly event than the lack of Amtrak funding or the personal peculiarities of engineer Brandon Bostian, reportedly a gay activist.

But remember that, in 2005, when an SUV deliberately parked on the tracks caused 10 deaths in a train derailment in Glendale CA, the formidable Michelle Malkin was completely stonewalled by local authorities when she asked if the man responsible, Juan Manuel Alvarez, was an illegal alien. Indeed, Alvarez’ immigration status seems never to have been reported in the Main Stream Media, although it emerged at his trial that he lived in Mexico as a child and speaks Spanish to his family [Attorneys plead for Alvarez| Defense team tells jurors about phone message he left after deadly 2005 Metrolink crash, By Jeremy Oberstein, Glendale News-Press, July 11, 2008].

If federal officials are suddenly unable definitively to determine the cause of the fatal Amtrak crash, we can guess black “youths” were responsible.

Which may be why you won’t hear much more from the MSM about why eight people died that May night.

Submarine Life Today

via The Thinking Housewife

Four U.S. Navy sailors have been sentenced to prison for secretly recording videos on cell phones of female crew members in the shower. One petty officer received a prison term of two years and a dishonorable discharge. Another received a term of 18 months and a bad-conduct discharge, reports the Associated Press. Two others were given relatively minor sentences and several other crew members of the USS Wyoming await court martials.

So let’s get this straight.

The Navy deliberately creates conditions in which young, healthy men and young, healthy women are confined together in extremely close quarters in the middle of the sea. Then when the men show interest in the women as women, their careers are destroyed. They are not simply reprimanded for doing something improper, and of course it was improper, but their careers are demolished.

Such incidences must create a chill. There must be constant tension on coed ships. And for what military purpose? None. While the Navy severely penalizes men for minor male pranks, it relies on one thing above all else for its very existence — masculinity.

— Comments —
Mrs. T. writes:
I agree that confining young, healthy men and women in extremely close quarters for long durations of time is a problem waiting to happen. However, what these men did was deliberately sneaky. It violated the women’s sense of privacy. If it happened to me, I would have been horrified and ashamed that the video was passed around for all to see. And after all Shoemaker, the videographer, had to crawl into a tight crawl space to obtain footage. That is plain creepy. While it’s true they shouldn’t have their careers dismantled, Shoemaker is a husband with two young children. In that instance, I believe he should be held to a higher standard.

Laura writes:
Agreed.

It was a serious violation of privacy and decency. It was an aggressive act.
But this is a submarine. I blame the Navy first for creating temptations and the occasions for sin.

Much worse are the extramarital affairs. The Navy is supposed to protect families not destroy them. No administrative code, no penalties, can prevent romances from happening when men and women are put in close quarters. But that’s just so obvious and everyone knows it.

Laura adds:
When a woman becomes a soldier or sailor, she is assenting to participation in military culture, which generally does not afford much privacy or protection from crudeness and mean pranks. Don’t sailors see each other naked all the time? I would guess that sailors play pranks on each other fairly often. Are they sentenced to jail for two years and discharged from the Navy because they seriously embarrass another sailor? I’m not saying that they should not have been penalized, but, wow, this just seems so overboard. That’s not my real concern though. I don’t know all the details of this case. The real issue is that women are even on these ships.

Too Black to Fail: The University of Alabama at Birmingham's Football Team Reinstated

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB): the federally-funded university keeping the 73 percent black city of Birmingham artificially afloat. 

It's a university proving the Iron Rule of Black Empowerment in Black-Run America (BRA) is stronger than ever: Any decision or action negatively impacting black people will inevitably be reversed.

You see, UAB officials recently decided to cancel the football program because the sport was "not sustainable."

This was in late 2014; only two days ago, the president of UAB, Ray Watts, announced the football program would be resurrected

What might be one of the reasons UAB brought back its football program?

If you guessed, "Because canceling the football program had a disproportionate impact on blacks," you'd be right. [African-American male population at UAB plummets amid loss of football, Al.com, 5-19-15]:
When UAB president Ray Watts announced the demise of football, rifle and bowling last December, he dramatically changed the racial composition of the Birmingham school's student body. 
There were 89 African-Americans on the Blazers' 105-player football roster last season, according to the College Sports Solutions report issued last week to the Athletic Assessment Task Force. They and their teammates were told that if they wanted to keep playing football, they'd have to do so elsewhere. Those 89 students represented nearly 12 percent of the total male full-time African-American undergraduate enrollment of 759 in 2014, according to UAB enrollment data. The majority decided to continue their college careers elsewhere, with less than 30 choosing to stay at UAB. 
Teams are allotted 85 full college football scholarships. If UAB doesn't reinstate football, numerous opportunities for young men, many of poor socioeconomic situations, to receive a free education at a quality academic institution may be lost forever. 
"One consideration of this change is the loss of football scholarships that are disproportionally supporting low-income kids," said Stephen Black, the director of the Center for Ethics and Social Responsibility at the University of Alabama. "It's on UAB to make sure that gap is at least filled, and hopefully more so, in low-income kids to have large scholarships to the university." 
Black would like to see UAB use the funds allotted for football scholarships to developing merit-based scholarships for low-income students. 
That African-American male population might not be easily replaceable, however. The school denied only 289 male applicants for enrollment for the fall 2014 admission cycle, according to the CSS report. Among full-time African-American undergraduates, nearly 65 percent is female. 
Jim Bakken, a university spokesman, said "diversity is a core strength at UAB" and noted that UAB was recognized by the Princeton Review as "one of the most diverse universities in the nation." 
Football emphasized recruiting within the state. Fifty-four members of the 2014 Blazers were from Alabama; 24 players from the Birmingham metro area"It's a blow to student-athletes, not just in football, but it will probably spiral and affect every sport," Daphne coach Glenn Vickery told AL.com.  "It closes a door of opportunity to stay in-state and get an education."
With 84 percent of the UAB football team being black, it's hard to take seriously Bakken's claim of "diversity" being a core strength of the school (or, for that matter, the nearly all-black football being that successful, posting a combined record of 18-42 since 2010).  

It should be noted UAB has long been trying to get rid of any representation by white males, notably abandoning its Viking mascot in 1993 because
The University of Alabama-Birmingham Blazers recently abandoned their mascot-a viking like character named Blaze-for being too male and too Caucasian, and because he was intimidating to children.
Or, as the Associated Press reported [UAB to dump controversial mascot, 1993]:
The University of Alabama at Birmingham has dropped Blaze, the mascot for its athletic teams, which are called the Blazers. Blaze, who was a big, rough-and-tumble Norseman, drew fire for being too mean, too masculine, and too white. Grant Shingleton, sports information director for the university, explained that poor Blaze was, “I hate to use the word — too Aryan.”  
Though the Nordic character Blaze was too white and "too Aryan" for UAB, the football program ended up being too black to cancel.

Remember: Any decision or action negatively impacting black people will inevitably be reversed.

Republican Treason Once Again: Life for Immigration Reform Is Death for America

via EGI Notes

So, once again we see Republicans betraying their stupid and sheep-like White base with the GOP's insatiable desire for cheap labor. The level of stupidity and mendacity here is beyond belief.

Key to this whole thing is confirmation of my previous assertions that the “solution” – particularly the Republican “solution” – to illegal immigration is simply to open the borders completely and massively increase legal immigration.  After all, if anyone who wants in gets in, there will be, by definition, no illegal immigration.  The net result is of course the same – demographic genocide and cultural destruction - but, hey, the “economy is growing” so who cares, right?

“When it comes to illegal immigration, what’s the No. 1 reason people come to this country illegally? The same reason our ancestors came here: to work,” Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said Tuesday at a bipartisan event exploring pragmatic methods of reigniting the debate on reform. “From my standpoint, if you really want to secure our border, let’s eliminate or drastically reduce the incentives for illegal immigration, starting with a guest worker program.”

So, again, you “secure” the border by opening it up.  Thus, for example, if you are worried about criminals robbing your home, just leave the door open with a sign that says “take whatever you want.”  See, it’s not stealing then!  Of course, all your valuables will be gone just the same, but, since they weren’t “stolen,” it’s all good!  That’s the sort of retarded argument that will likely go over good with the moronic GOP base, and it is why the emphasis on illegal immigration is wrong – if you pretend (or actually believe) that the only problem is illegality, then all the System has to do is legalize everyone and – whoosh! – problem gone!  The problem is immigration itself - the relative legality is only a side issue.

And even if you want to emphasize economics rather than racial and cultural survival, the arguments still stink. The economy might “grow” but the vast majority of the benefits of that “growth” accrue to the immigrants themselves and to the wealthy who increase their profits from cheap labor.  Middle class Americans get screwed once again, and also have to deal with all of the externalities of the influx. Essentially Big Business privatizes the profits and socializes the costs of immigration, with White Americans bearing those costs.

And for the one-millionth time: there is NO STEM worker shortage in America.  There is a surplus. A massive surplus. There are in fact stagnant wages, unemployment, and underemployment. This is just a ploy to further drive down wages, replace White Americans with pliable Asiatics, and increase the dispossession of the American people.  Hey, politicians, if getting “smart people to work for us rather than for our competitors” is such a good idea, why don’t we apply it to other fields?  Let’s import politicians, lawyers, businessmen - surely there must be lots of foreigners who can fill federal and state political positions as well as you guys do, and do it cheaper.  Think of all those sharp minds out there – lawyers, business executives, media workers – we need them here!  After all, isn’t there a politician, lawyer, businessman, and media executive shortage?  Bring ‘em in!  And, if STEM folks are so smart and all, maybe they should be the ones in Congress making the laws, instead of a bunch of lawyers, MBAs, and other shysters?

In the end though, economic arguments are at best secondary.  For example, normal people are horrified by stories of parents trying to sell their children to strangers. Arguments of “but the parents are just trying to make a profit and maximize their economic well-being” do not convince when it comes to that. In reality, trading mass immigration for “economic growth” is exactly the same thing. The “parents” – the present generation of Americans – are selling their “children” – their posterity, their future generations – off to the highest bidder in order to attempt to maximize economic well being today.  From an EGI standpoint, these “parents” are losing “child equivalents” by letting in aliens. 
The disgusting and abnormal nature of this behavior is hidden from the masses since it is more indirect and impersonal than some drug addict trying to peddle their baby, and it is less immediate, and so does not resonate to folks who have the attention span of a mayfly. But, still, it is true.  You are going to dispossess your posterity, and for what?  So the GDP can be a fraction of a point higher than it would be otherwise?  So Brown folks can be in the back of the kitchen washing dishes, or out in the fields doing labor that is shortly going to be automated anyway?  So IT moguls can have cheap Asian labor?  So we can replace American STEM workers with Yellow and Brown Asiatics, while at the same time hypocritically agonizing over “why don’t more American students go into STEM?” So that pathetic White omega male nerds can have more legal Oriental concubines as their “wives?”  So that the 1% can make more profits off of the Death of America, off of the dispossession and disenfranchisement of the rest of us?

Are White Americans really so stupid that they will fall for such an obvious scam job?

The Era of Breakdown

via The Archdruid Report

The fourth of the stages in the sequence of collapse we’ve been discussing is the era of breakdown. (For those who haven’t been keeping track, the first three phases are the eras of pretense, impact, and response; the final phase, which we’ll be discussing next week, is the era of dissolution.) The era of breakdown is the phase that gets most of the press, and thus inevitably no other stage has attracted anything like the crop of misperceptions, misunderstandings, and flat-out hokum as this one.
The era of breakdown is the point along the curve of collapse at which business as usual finally comes to an end. That’s where the confusion comes in. It’s one of the central articles of faith in pretty much every human society that business as usual functions as a bulwark against chaos, a defense against whatever problems the society might face. That’s exactly where the difficulty slips in, because in pretty much every human society, what counts as business as usual—the established institutions and familiar activities on which everyone relies day by day—is the most important cause of the problems the society faces, and the primary cause of collapse is thus quite simply that societies inevitably attempt to solve their problems by doing all the things that make their problems worse.
The phase of breakdown is the point at which this exercise in futility finally grinds to a halt. The three previous phases are all attempts to avoid breakdown: in the phase of pretense, by making believe that the problems don’t exist; in the phase of impact, by making believe that the problems will go away if only everyone doubles down on whatever’s causing them; and in the phase of response, by making believe that changing something other than the things that are causing the problems will fix the problems. Finally, after everything else has been tried, the institutions and activities that define business as usual either fall apart or are forcibly torn down, and then—and only then—it becomes possible for a society to do something about its problems.
It’s important not to mistake the possibility of constructive action for the inevitability of a solution. The collapse of business as usual in the breakdown phase doesn’t solve a society’s problems; it doesn’t even prevent those problems from being made worse by bad choices. It merely removes the primary obstacle to a solution, which is the wholly fictitious aura of inevitability that surrounds the core institutions and activities that are responsible for the problems. Once people in a society realize that no law of God or nature requires them to maintain a failed status quo, they can then choose to dismantle whatever fragments of business as usual haven’t yet fallen down of their own weight.
That’s a more important action than it might seem at first glance. It doesn’t just put an end to the principal cause of the society’s problems. It also frees up resources that have been locked up in the struggle to keep business as usual going at all costs, and those newly freed resources very often make it possible for a society in crisis to transform itself drastically in a remarkably short period of time. Whether those transformations are for good or ill, or as usually happens, a mixture of the two, is another matter, and one I’ll address a little further on.
Stories in the media, some recent, some recently reprinted, happen to have brought up a couple of first-rate examples of the way that resources get locked up in unproductive activities during the twilight years of a failing society. A California newspaper, for example, recently mentioned that Elon Musk’s large and much-ballyhooed fortune is almost entirely a product of government subsidies. Musk is a smart guy; he obviously realized a good long time ago that federal and state subsidies for technology was where the money was at, and he’s constructed an industrial empire funded by US taxpayers to the tune of many billions of dollars. None of his publicly traded firms has ever made a profit, and as long as the subsidies keep flowing, none of them ever has to; between an overflowing feed trough of government largesse and the longstanding eagerness of fools to be parted from their money by way of the stock market, he’s pretty much set for life.
This is business as usual in today’s America. An article from 2013 pointed out, along the same lines, that the profits made by the five largest US banks were almost exactly equal to the amount of taxpayer money those same five banks got from the government. Like Elon Musk, the banks in question have figured out where the money is, and have gone after it with their usual verve; the revolving door that allows men in suits to shuttle back and forth between those same banks and the financial end of the US government doesn’t exactly hinder that process. It’s lucrative, it’s legal, and the mere fact that it’s bankrupting the real economy of goods and services in order to further enrich an already glutted minority of kleptocrats is nothing anyone in the citadels of power worries about.
A useful light on a different side of the same process comes from an editorial (in PDF) which claims that something like half of all current scientific papers are unreliable junk. Is this the utterance of an archdruid, or some other wild-eyed critic of science? No, it comes from the editor of Lancet, one of the two or three most reputable medical journals on the planet. The managing editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, which has a comparable ranking to Lancet, expressed much the same opinion of the shoddy experimental design, dubious analysis, and blatant conflicts of interest that pervade contemporary scientific research.
Notice that what’s happening here affects the flow of information in the same way that misplaced government subsidies affect the flow of investment. The functioning of the scientific process, like that of the market, depends on the presupposition that everyone who takes part abides by certain rules. When those rules are flouted, individual actors profit, but they do so at the expense of the whole system: the results of scientific research are distorted so that (for example) pharmaceutical firms can profit from drugs that don’t actually have the benefits claimed for them, just as the behavior of the market is distorted so that (for example) banks that would otherwise struggle for survival, and would certainly not be able to pay their CEOs gargantuan bonuses, can continue on their merry way.
The costs imposed by these actions are real, and they fall on all other participants in science and the economy respectively. Scientists these days, especially but not only in such blatantly corrupt fields as pharmaceutical research, face a lose-lose choice between basing their own investigations on invalid studies, on the one hand, or having to distrust any experimental results they don’t replicate themselves, on the other. Meanwhile the consumers of the products of scientific research—yes, that would be all of us—have to contend with the fact that we have no way of knowing whether any given claim about the result of research is the product of valid science or not. Similarly, the federal subsidies that direct investment toward politically savvy entrepreneurs like Elon Musk, and politically well-connected banks such as Goldman Sachs, and away from less parasitic and more productive options distort the entire economic system by preventing the normal workings of the market from weeding out nonviable projects and firms, and rewarding the more viable ones.
Turn to the  historical examples we’ve been following for the last three weeks, and distortions of the same kind are impossible to miss. In the US economy before and during the stock market crash of 1929 and its long and brutal aftermath, a legal and financial system dominated by a handful of very rich men saw to it that the bulk of the nation’s wealth flowed uphill, out of productive economic activities and into speculative ventures increasingly detached from the productive economy. When the markets imploded, in turn, the same people did their level best to see to it that their lifestyles weren’t affected even though everyone else’s was. The resulting collapse in consumer expenditures played a huge role in driving the cascading collapse of the US economy that, by the spring of 1933, had shuttered every consumer bank in the nation and driven joblessness and impoverishment to record highs.
That’s what Franklin Roosevelt fixed. It’s always amused me that the people who criticize FDR—and of course there’s plenty to criticize in a figure who, aside from his far greater success as a wartime head of state, can best be characterized as America’s answer to Mussolini—always talk about the very mixed record of the economic policies of his second term. They rarely bother to mention the Hundred Days, in which FDR stopped a massive credit collapse in its tracks. The Hundred Days and their aftermath are the part of FDR’s presidency that mattered most; it was in that brief period that he slapped shock paddles on an economy in cardiac arrest and got a pulse going, by violating most of the rules that had guided the economy up to that time. That casual attitude toward economic dogma is one of the two things his critics have never been able to forgive; the other is that it worked.
In the same way, France before, during, and immediately after the Revolution was for all practical purposes a medieval state that had somehow staggered its way to the brink of the nineteenth century. The various revolutionary governments that succeeded one another in quick succession after 1789 made some badly needed changes, but it was left to Napoléon Bonaparte to drag France by the scruff of its collective neck out of the late Middle Ages. Napoléon has plenty of critics—and of course there’s plenty to criticize in a figure who was basically what Mussolini wanted to be when he grew up—but the man’s domestic policies were by and large inspired. To name only two of his most important changes, he replaced the sprawling provinces of medieval France with a system of smaller and geographically meaningful départements, and abolished the entire body of existing French law in favor of a newly created legal system, the Code Napoléon. When he was overthrown, those stayed; in fact, a great many other countries in Europe and elsewhere proceeded to adopt the Code Napoléon in place of their existing legal systems. There were several reasons for this, but one of the most important was that the new Code simply made that much more sense.
Both men were able to accomplish what they did, in turn, because abolishing the political, economic, and cultural distortions imposed on their respective countries by a fossilized status quo freed up all the resources that had bene locked up in maintaining those distortions. Slapping a range of legal barriers and taxes on the more egregious forms of speculative excess—another of the major achievements of the Roosevelt era—drove enough wealth back into the productive economy to lay the foundations of America’s postwar boom; in the same way, tipping a galaxy of feudal customs into history’s compost bin transformed France from the economic basket case it was in 1789 to the conqueror of Europe twenty years later, and the succesful and innovative economic and cultural powerhouse it became during most of the nineteenth century thereafter.
That’s one of the advantages of revolutionary change. By breaking down existing institutions and the encrusted layers of economic parasitism that inevitably build up around them over time, it reliably breaks loose an abundance of resources that were not available in the prerevolutionary period. Here again, it’s crucial to remember that the availability of resources doesn’t guarantee that they’ll be used wisely; they may be thrown away on absurdities of one kind or another. Nor, even more critically, does it mean that the same abundance of resources will be available indefinitely. The surge of additional resources made available by catabolizing old and corrupt systems is a temporary jackpot, not a permanent state of affairs. That said, when you combine the collapse of fossilized institutions that stand in the way of change, and a sudden rush of previously unavailable resources of various kinds, quite a range of possibilities previously closed to a society suddenly come open.
Applying this same pattern to the crisis of modern industrial civilization, though, requires attention to certain inescapable but highly unwelcome realities. In 1789, the problem faced by France was the need to get rid of a thousand years of fossilized political, economic, and social institutions at a time when the coming of the industrial age had made them hopelessly dysfunctional. In 1929, the problem faced by the United States was the need to pry the dead hand of an equally dysfunctional economic orthodoxy off the throat of the nation so that its economy would actually function again. In both cases, the era of breakdown was catalyzed by a talented despot, and was followed, after an interval of chaos and war, by a period of relative prosperity.
We may well get the despot this time around, too, not to mention the chaos and war, but the period of prosperity is probably quite another matter. The problem we face today, in the United States and more broadly throughout the world’s industrial societies, is that all the institutions of industrial civilization presuppose limitless economic growth, but the conditions that provided the basis for continued economic growth simply aren’t there any more. The 300-year joyride of industrialism was made possible by vast and cheaply extractable reserves of highly concentrated fossil fuels and other natural resources, on the one hand, and a biosphere sufficiently undamaged that it could soak up the wastes of human industry without imposing burdens on the economy, on the other. We no longer have either of those requirements.
With every passing year, more and more of the world’s total economic output has to be diverted from other activities to keep fossil fuels and other resources flowing into the industrial world’s power plants, factories, and fuel tanks; with every passing year, in turn, more and more of the world’s total economic output has to be diverted from other activities to deal with the rising costs of climate change and other ecological disruptions. These are the two jaws of the trap sketched out more than forty years ago in the pages of The Limits to Growth, still the most accurate (and thus inevitably the most savagely denounced) map of the predicament we face. The consequences of that trap can be summed up neatly: on a finite planet, after a certain point—the point of diminishing returns, which we’ve already passed—the costs of growth rise faster than the benefits, and finally force the global economy to its knees.
The task ahead of us is thus in some ways the opposite of the one that France faced in the aftermath of 1789. Instead of replacing a sclerotic and failing medieval economy with one better suited to a new era of industrial expansion, we need to replace a sclerotic and failing industrial economy with one better suited to a new era of deindustrial contraction. That’s a tall order, no question, and it’s not something that can be achieved easily, or in a single leap. In all probability, the industrial world will have to pass through the whole sequence of phases we’ve been discussing several times before things finally bottom out in the deindustrial dark ages to come.
Still, I’m going to shock my fans and critics alike here by pointing out that there’s actually some reason to think that positive change on more than an individual level will be possible as the industrial world slams facefirst into the limits to growth. Two things give me that measured sense of hope. The first is the sheer scale of the resources locked up in today’s spectacularly dysfunctional political, economic, and social institutions, which will become available for other uses when those institutions come apart. The $83 billion a year currently being poured down the oversized rathole of the five biggest US banks, just for starters, could pay for a lot of solar water heaters, training programs for organic farmers, and other things that could actually do some good.
Throw in the resources currently being chucked into all of the other attempts currently under way to prop up a failing system, and you’ve got quite the jackpot that could, in an era of breakdown, be put to work doing things worth while. It’s by no means certain, as already noted, that these resources will go to the best possible use, but it’s all but certain that they’ll go to something less stunningly pointless than, say, handing Elon Musk his next billion dollars.
The second thing that gives me a measured sense of hope is at once subtler and far more profound. These days, despite a practically endless barrage of rhetoric to the contrary, the great majority of Americans are getting fewer and fewer benefits from the industrial system, and are being forced to pay more and more of its costs, so that a relatively small fraction of the population can monopolize an ever-increasing fraction of the national wealth and contribute less and less in exchange. What’s more, a growing number of Americans are aware of this fact. The traditional schism of a collapsing society into a dominant minority and an internal proletariat, to use Arnold Toynbee’s terms, is a massive and accelerating social reality in the United States today.
As that schism widens, and more and more Americans are forced into the Third World poverty that’s among the unmentionable realities of public life in today’s United States, several changes of great importance are taking place. The first, of course, is precisely that a great many Americans are perforce learning to live with less—not in the playacting style popular just now on the faux-green end of the privileged classes, but really, seriously living with much less, because that’s all there is. That’s a huge shift and a necessary one, since the absurd extravagance many Americans consider to be a normal lifestyle is among the most important things that will be landing in history’s compost heap in the not too distant future.
At the same time, the collective consensus that keeps the hopelessly dysfunctional institutions of today’s status quo glued in place is already coming apart, and can be expected to dissolve completely in the years ahead. What sort of consensus will replace it, after the inevitable interval of chaos and struggle, is anybody’s guess at this point—though it’s vanishingly unlikely to have anything to do with the current political fantasies of left and right. It’s just possible, given luck and a great deal of hard work, that whatever new system gets cobbled together during the breakdown phase of our present crisis will embody at least some of the values that will be needed to get our species back into some kind of balance with the biosphere on which our lives depend. A future post will discuss how that might be accomplished—after, that is, we explore the last phase of the collapse process: the era of dissolution, which will be the theme of next week’s post.