-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/02/2017 04:50 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:

That's some good bit o' history. I was really referring to the level of existing order needed to create *more* levels of order. I don't think it's possible to argue with that. It's like arguing what's the use of the Self? BECAUSE without it you'd turn into little slime molds looking for food.

But I like the sentiment. I think the problem is more than the State. It's the pathetic infrastructure that would be an eyesore for centuries.

Bear in mind that the "State" is a model of governance, not a synonym for governance. It is a failed model, as witness the Anthropocene Era's mass extinction even in progress and the pending human population crash. The most successful governments in history, from a quality of life and durability perspective, organized as bands > tribes > federations, governed by consensus-driven local councils. There was no "Sovereign" in sight, no presumption that the collective owns its members or their supposedly personal property. Nor did designated decision-makers have the authority to enforce their orders by violent means. Many people assume that keeping the World As We Know It intact and walking it back to conditions comparable to the 1950s is humanity's Great Mission Objective. I don't mind calling that mind set a mass suicide imperative. If the image of lemmings running off a cliff did not exist, it would have been necessary to create it. :D -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJZCPrIAAoJEECU6c5Xzmuqi7cH/iGRvDtCkCYtGl2JmOYM3q50 CZKQ6HAuHDWr9Pi6dC5/pGyLlhlHzjXJQqCcx/PaNGeCkeAHjBKw8K+LV+1efjbW wplJqcmRs9KuGkgjyhN/6QC16TkPOaZ10C2cyEkZw9M8bwE2sDVNDq7ZeG4geUs4 N8N79xwiBdd3IqaNW84Rm5R09PN20jh4CmJHRMCDK/pghmAKPAfxnsCXdS+iRNR4 TLONBueV9a3YoSe9wnunT2PmP7r7I0+eS45N+4UrSK1pVuSEt3PGa+QGlR9iLzkm K7a3Wan909I8BbylK/E/z6tH3N3lqCr1rUFvq3DZk29WvIfOMcjmIhxyeikOgH4= =WCgL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Even better, just listen to this: Cyberpunkers, illegal mix, vol 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoR-3xuZNw8 There's, like, 6 more volumes. \x

...

The solution, then, is a META-state. A system of order bigger and better than the State.

Yes. How could we have missed such an obvious solution.

Easy tiger. Hopefully, the other posts clarify. Obviously the State sucks, but it sucks because of THE PEOPLE, don't forget that. And what is going to remain after the fall of the State? THE PEOPLE.

What's needed is a META-STATE. with JESUS AS PRESIDENT and the raving lunatic marko dynamite as VICE-PRESIDENT.

Yer getting a little fringe here. Take a chill pill, Dave.

And no, there's no need for 'congress' cause the 'laws' have all already been written and they are in THE BIBLE.

You're on a roll!

Last but not leat, the META-STATE will provide FREE homeopatic mierdicine.

Please, holistic medicine is already (relatively) FREE (because of the benefits it provides to all). Holistically! Sing with me. \0x

You know, you guys have given some decent responses. The truth of the matter is that I love the anarchists. I am equally happy with an Enlightened State (if such could be made) as anarchy, but I can't get settled with either because there's no love from either. So, I cannot allow myself to refute the arguments from anarchists. The truth is that the virtue of both possibilities have been fucked up. I mean neither seem to be able to take place. So I sit here in the doldrums, looking for a little wind here and there, but it's so scattered and I look for love to make it bearable. Or real solutions to these problems when there are none. Such is the situation that people die or kill themselves and it keeps happening. marxos

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/02/2017 05:39 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:

...

...

But I like the sentiment. I think the problem is more than the State. It's the pathetic infrastructure that would be an eyesore for centuries.

Bear in mind that the "State" is a model of governance, not a synonym for governance. It is a failed model, as witness the Anthropocene Era's mass extinction even in progress and the pending human population crash.

[ ... ]

The solution, then, is a META-state. A system of order bigger and better than the State.

Given that hierarchal power structures enabled and enforced by the State are the major cause of the greatest collective problems faced by the human race, the solution to the greatest collective problems faced by the human race is a bigger more powerful State! The logic behind this is self evident and inescapable. :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJZCTNIAAoJEECU6c5Xzmuq8X8IAIt8Kp+Zja/VWcw7Y79H+kOW 1cGoXvlJZYGRITxWifeHjwD/sw41KGdveVHdymk9JXXTvoiIzQhOx7L31FOBczat adJhjiI9fvOOD0iYocgKspmAvSKJWUSH1GA9Gl4pmm4aQYpmkqVP27K/O6PJq3CL AnBKKuEY5w4+lovgiuHtGaEby/KJHUUBy3XJQfCsdiqTAr+5jzsqyLcOuNcVW+Ic BFie4bVxNGnjUdrcc2wz8QLfGNypjZxRU83+LJ3yuBjcHP0LM8+ROV8PQkD1sVQR c/jEZnRK5LmeBj2NMVrB8xkRF16VxMRgy3i9x2a9waeftnUpuzXhWBqc8KkCezU= =b744 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

That's some good bit o' history. It was you who asked the question "Without a State, would we have electronics?  Radio?" I proceeded to answer that question, and others.  You asked the history question, I thought the answer was obviousl.  I was really referring to the level of existing order needed to create *more* levels of order.  That sounds like gobbledygook to me.    What do you mean by this?  What is a "level of order"?  And why do you (apparently) think that government is somehow necessary (or even desireable) to act as a driver of technology.   I think the opposite is true. I don't

From: \0xDynamite think it's possible to argue with that. Until we actually UNDERSTAND what you meant, how can someone argue?

But I like the sentiment.  I think the problem is more than the State. What problem?  I think "the State" is the problem. It's the pathetic infrastructure that would be an eyesore for centuries. States have been a "pathetic infrastructure" that has been "an eyesore for centuries.         Jim Bell

On 5/2/17, jim bell wrote:

From: \0xDynamite

...

Without a State, would we have electronics?  Radio? That's a question which displays a lack of knowledge of technical history.  Radio transmission was known as a consequence of Maxwell's equations, Maxwell's equations  .    Heinrich Hertz        Electronics can be traced to the "Fleming Valve",  Fleming valve   the rectifying diode implemented using the Edison effect, which was actually discovered by Frederick Guthrie.  Frederick Guthrie    Shortly afterwards, Lee DeForest  Lee de Forest added a grid, which made it possible for the "vacuum tube" to oscillate and amplify, leading to radio communications.   Radio broadcasting occurred BEFORE government regulation:  Arguably, the need to allow many stations to share a limited spectrum made such regulation necessary.

...

Computers?Computers existed before IC's; I used one, the DEC PDP-7, in 1976-80.   But at about $50,000 in 1964 dollars (about $500,000 in today's), the average individual wasn't going to buy one. What we know today as "computers" was primarily the product of the invention of the integrated circuit (IC) by MOSFET - Wikipedia   various scientists and engineers. Once the concept of the  Integrated circuit existed, and was seen to follow the scaling described by Moore's law   (initially, in the 1960's, a doubling of transistors on a chip every 12 months; later in the 70's and 80's the doubling period lengthened to 18 months, then to 2 years in the 1990's and later), if one transistor was possible in, say, 1961, 13 years later 2**13 transistors (8192) was possible, in 1974.  So, the development of early microprocessors such as Intel's 8080, 6502, and 6800 was virtually assured.  This was definitely NOT the product of government!  And it would have happened regardless of the "space race" of the 1960's and 70's. Also, you didn't mention The Internet.  Statists are fond of suggesting that the United States government made the Internet possible.  Well, no, it didn't.  During a time in which that government was financing research, some money was spent to develop network interface controllers Network interface controller, which at the time typically fit into a single RETMA 19" rack.  Not long afterwards, the same thing could have been (and was) implemented by means of more modern IC's.  But at that point, "the Internet" (as we know it, or at least knew it in 1995), was still impossible. If you still doubt this, consider:  Why didn't the Internet as we know it today exist in 1980?  To me, the answer is simple.  The fastest modem in common use by consumers at that time was a 300 bits-per-second, Bell 103 (different Bell!) compatible.  Great improvements followed:  1200 bps in about 1981; 2400 bps in 1983, 9800 bps in the early 1990's. Modem    I'd say it was the latter, 9600 bps, which really made the modern Internet plausible for the vast majority of the population.  So, it was the people who developed and built 9600+bps modems that made the Internet (as we knew it, in 1995) possible.

...

 MassTransit? I think most of the New York subway systems were originally privately financed and built.  Similarly, most railroads.  Similarly bus lines.  And airlines.

...

Bikes?

BTW, you haven't forgotten that powered human flight was first accomplished by Orville and Wilbur Wright, two bicycle mechanics.

...

And if we need a State, what form should it take?

Written into history books as events long past.           Jim Bell

On Wed, 3 May 2017 13:27:05 +0000 "\\0xDynamite" wrote:

Just as single-cellular life gave rise to multi-cellular life,

so now you believe in evolution?

a new LEVEL of order was made beyond the cell. In this sense, you could say all the problems that we've been having with "the State" are birthing pains bringing about the solutions to solve this endless conflict at the current level.

what's actually going on is that people with the same twisted desire for 'order' like you are embarked in the destruction or 'assimilation' of human invidivuals into some sort of 'meta organism'. Or perhaps the majority of people will be killed off when they can be replaced with machines and artificial 'intelligence'. I would have disregard that sort of cheap sci-fi scenario a couple of years ago, but now it's starting to look a lot more real...

On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 01:49:03PM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:

On 05/03/2017 03:27 PM, juan wrote:

...

what's actually going on is that people with the same twisted desire for 'order' like you are embarked in the destruction or 'assimilation' of human invidivuals into some sort of 'meta organism'. Or perhaps the majority of people will be killed off when they can be replaced with machines and artificial 'intelligence'.

I would have disregard that sort of cheap sci-fi scenario a couple of years ago, but now it's starting to look a lot more real...

The global Superstate scenario is "real" in the sense that many people actually seem to believe in it, approve of it and want to make it happen. Such is the power of propaganda in the age of ubiquitous broadcast communications, moving whole societies into fantasy worlds designed to facilitate economic growth under a top-down command hierarchy.

The Superstate scenario is "real" in the metaphorical sense that the Internet, trans-national corporations and high speed long distance transport of materials and consumer goods have already turned Homo Sap into a meta-organism that behaves like a colonial fungus bent on consuming the world's resources as quickly and completely as possible.

But the prospect of world peace and prosperity under a benevolent global State is "not real at all" in the sense that the global industrial economy is locked into self-destructive feedback loops driven by perverse incentives. Any Utopian plan that does not take the context of a global economic collapse and human population crash into account is a futile exercise in abstract speculation.

We are now inside the historical singularity: A system where the exponential growth rate of change in human affairs (new discoveries, technologies, etc.) has advanced too far to permit reliable long range projections of future developments. The rate of ongoing change is too high, creating too many hidden variables and too much turbulence. Under these conditions, even brute force solutions that seek to /impose/ predictable order via murder and terrorism on global scale will not yield reliable results.

The only things we can predict with much confidence today are that the better established laws of physics will remain intact, and that macro scale human motives and behaviors that have not changed over the last few thousand years will likely change slowly if at all. Given these baseline factors, we /can/ predict, with some confidence, that we will be dropping out of the singularity soon: Macro scale human demand for basic material commodities (including food) now exceeds the planet's carrying capacity; that demand is still growing, while the rate of resource exhaustion and human habitat destruction continues to accelerat e.

The Scientician faith and its Corporate Capitalist patrons tell us that technological "quick fix" solutions will be created when and as needed to keep the world as we know it intact. Like all respectable apocalyptic prophesies, those of the Scienticians are likely to be reasonably accurate right up to the point where the Heavens open up and Bog and all his Holy Angels come down and fix everything for us: That part never happens.

I do not advise people to "give up" on anything but the status quo, and I do not predict the extinction of the human species. We are the toughest weeds Nature ever made, capable of living on pack ice and hard rock desert using only Neolithic technology - and loving it. I do suggest that those who are able to do so get to work devising practical solutions for survival and recovery to the best available New Normal. The world's present rulers are hard at work on those problems right now, but their objectives center on worst case scenarios where retaining their present level of power is the primary objective, and everyone but themselves is expendable. Pardon my language, but fuck those people.

:o)

It's gonna get shitty sometime in the 21st century for a lot of people... as usual, I suspect the rich will scrape by just fine. For the rest of us, it's hard to know what to do. Maybe humanity comes out the other end with tech advanced enough (and populations reduced enough) to be a true post-scarcity society... or, maybe about a million other far more dystopian scenarios play out :P Enjoy it while you got it.

-- John

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/04/2017 06:11 PM, juan wrote:

On Thu, 4 May 2017 13:49:03 -0400 Steve Kinney wrote:

...

The Scientician faith and its Corporate Capitalist patrons tell us that technological "quick fix" solutions will be created when and as needed to keep the world as we know it intact. Like all respectable apocalyptic prophesies, those of the Scienticians are likely to be reasonably accurate right up to the point where the Heavens open up and Bog and all his Holy Angels come down and fix everything for us: That part never happens.

I'm not completely following. The scienticians don't subscribe to any apocalyptic prophesy. Quite the opposite, the shitbags are Optimists who believe in Eternal Progress.

What I call the Scientician faith is a very widespread popular religion, maybe the first really successful atheist religious sect. In the U.S. its followers number in the tens of millions and include most self identifying "Liberals" as well as numerous "Libertarians" and others who pin a large part of their self esteem on the notion that they are "smarter" than other people. The Scientician priesthood - - everyone who claims the title "scientist" and is available through speakers' bureaus and press agents - replaces the functions of the Church as "explainer of everything" and "Voice of Divine Authority." The apocalyptic prophesy I refer to is more or less the same scenario I outlined earlier: The impact of resource depletion, environmental degradation, population pressure etc. on human affairs in the next couple of decades. There is a sharp divide between the scientists and Scienticians over what the outcome will be: A broad consensus among working scientists in relevant fields says "life as we know it" will be ending shortly; massive losses are inevitable; and immediate, radical remedial action is warranted. But our Scienticians are happy to promote the belief that by throwing enough money at the symptoms when they become too severe to ignore, all the problems arising from the Industrial Revolution can be solved to everyone's satisfaction by Startling Miracles of Super Science. The Scientician position has practical consequences: It maximizes Corporate executive compensation packages, Corporate shareholder capital gains, and both poverty and human fatalities among the "lower classes" worldwide: It's a win/win/win proposition from our rulers' perspective. The State fully endorses the Scientician approach, as the State's sole function is to transfer money and power from the poor to the rich at the fastest practicable rate. As always, symbolic "initiatives" and strongly worded press releases are sufficient responses to public pressure to "do something" about, for instance, global warming. When our propaganda industries co-opted the image of science as a marketing tool, this already complex and contentious field of human activity became a /real/ hairball. Almost nobody who lacks formal training in the physical sciences stands any chance of understanding, much less evaluating, claims made In The Name Of Science today. :o/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJZC8hzAAoJEECU6c5Xzmuq1IwH/jGouDLGPlv1mHXEOyn3PQgk /oz17qF1mYTRTAXFNCLONfYH5m0dbDaGBp10OeAC1IfgCLAaY9s6uTyK2yK3Ca+u O/4o0Rp37pkV1OMEH6WhjbX8rPYi//+r9T5fmF01zG5zyd7MgKI+OZbaq+04GYrG lZHi/ze3mH1fltKldnqZcFeVCizDsVM8idFFpvvNs/MKyolWU4jLV7h0KJmDAed1 f05YPEO0Uql1dFi5sAAy9zs+Hs2USloyq7qAHt308tf8nYLcJn3nk6uZne3/FRcc NWXz4N6D8vhERgUeQdNj+rNSX42WYiyhPOYdhvk/IlssrLwqsnQ3nPPtJ8gXGcc= =rk1f -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/05/2017 03:24 PM, juan wrote:

On Thu, 4 May 2017 20:33:56 -0400 Steve Kinney wrote:

...

The State fully endorses the Scientician approach, as the State's sole function is to transfer money and power from the poor to the rich at the fastest practicable rate. As always, symbolic "initiatives" and strongly worded press releases are sufficient responses to public pressure to "do something" about, for instance, global warming.

Well, the global-warming end-of-the-world scenario is just state propaganda. And notice that *global* warming requires a *global* solution, like, say, 'monitoring' and controlling the 'carbon footprint' of every individual. Pretty convenient, the world is saved and the whole world's population gets fully domesticated.

So in short, you are telling us you don't know anything about geophysics and don't need to find out: Your version of Political Correctness provides final answers to all meaningful questions about the human condition. That sounds more like conventional religious fanaticism than the Scientician faith.

The technological, fascist 'progressives' are basically correct when they say that all technical problems can be solved. So if you expect their technical plans to catastrophically fail, you'll wait forever.

Aldous Huxley - The Ultimate Revolution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WaUkZXKA30

There's that Scientician faith in action! :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJZDP4SAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqpfYIALFIHs9pg8yS5ea6TsdT42Y+ S5gkIhGnB5nZtEgOkVp6fyVXmjKgsf/pr6WP6Lp9omsL5RBBJf1pfgD5UR4Y520M T5a1/eh1D17c+vnS5+nXyyI/ewBJeTkVUAjrFXUIVew5fb7w18djEGnhzx7hRPAW /wrV3+4kWNsjZTbHuS6bOxmom0tfumEQFzWPZjIggGYWFkD6F9yWR3ZdQqvsagvS IPAuto6aobsSkThGCaaTlR8CeUxZqQPIu9kh1KP+FgRRnn6xVpE3/D6P3qvsORtV 2eKcvtbfw3UkcnsSBXceusCS2BY8C99JwBCUqfCPvyMvZ7hzYHBItbKyBv3OYtg= =ho2H -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On May 6, 2017, at 12:08 AM, juan wrote:

On Fri, 5 May 2017 18:34:58 -0400 Steve Kinney wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

...

On 05/05/2017 03:24 PM, juan wrote: On Thu, 4 May 2017 20:33:56 -0400 Steve Kinney wrote:

...

The State fully endorses the Scientician approach, as the State's sole function is to transfer money and power from the poor to the rich at the fastest practicable rate. As always, symbolic "initiatives" and strongly worded press releases are sufficient responses to public pressure to "do something" about, for instance, global warming.

Well, the global-warming end-of-the-world scenario is just state propaganda. And notice that *global* warming requires a *global* solution, like, say, 'monitoring' and controlling the 'carbon footprint' of every individual. Pretty convenient, the world is saved and the whole world's population gets fully domesticated.

So in short, you are telling us you don't know anything about geophysics and don't need to find out:

I think I know more about physics and its manipulation by state mafias than you do.i ii

What's your evidence that anthropogenic climate change is a massive hoax? I know we've been through this before and I don't want another flame fest.... I'm genuinely curious. I ask because I've had some long conversations with people much smarter than myself whose area of research involves this, and the basic premise seems pretty simple and well established. Debating the nitty gritty details of how quickly we are warming the planet with carbon emissions and what exactly the effect is and will continue to be, on weather patterns, the oceans, permafrost, etc etc - discussing this can obviously be done... It's not like anyone (the nation states of the world) is particularly doing anything to really fight the effect, except for very token gestures. In other words, if it's a massive hoax perpetuated by scientists all over the world, they and the various institutions they represent aren't really getting anything from said hoax.

...

Your version of Political Correctness provides final answers to all meaningful questions about the human condition. That sounds more like conventional religious fanaticism than the Scientician faith.

bottom line : you criticize the scientific mafia ONLY if they say stuff you don't like. When your scientfic, state-funded mafia vomits nonsense about the global reheating apocalypsis,ii you love them.

...

...

The technological, fascist 'progressives' are basically correct when they say that all technical problems can be solved. So if you expect their technical plans to catastrophically fail, you'll wait forever.

Aldous Huxley - The Ultimate Revolution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WaUkZXKA30

There's that Scientician faith in action!

Not sure what you mean. Do you have any counterarguments for Huxley?

So far, apart from your enviro-friendly, off-topic tangent, I don't think you said anything too relevant to the problem of technically efficient propaganda, brainwashing, mind-control or whatever term is appropriate.

...

...

I think I know more about physics and its manipulation by state mafias than you do.i ii

What's your evidence that anthropogenic climate change is a massive hoax? I know we've been through this before and I don't want another flame fest.... I'm genuinely curious.

It is not exactly a hoax. Rather, they cherry pick the evidence, torture the data, use nonsensical statistical methods, and reject unwanted evidence as error, as for example https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

Given the website you cited, I think YOU are cherry picking your methodology. I'll make this simple, dumbasses. You don't need ANY evidence to conclude LOGICALLY and NECESSARY that billions of years of fossil fuel burned in 400 years of industrialism is going to have MASSIVE effects. Do you understand, billions of years of solar input stored in oil and coal reserves is completely burned within 1/10000000 of that same time? The attempt to prove with any other methodology is a red herring. But the real truth IS more complex and that is what keeps the problem unsettled. The climate, after industrialism, is like a pendulum between unstable attractors: ICE Age or Desertification of the Earth. The resolution of that swing is reconciled with only one variable: GOD. If you reject that possibility prima facie, then you see why nothing gets reconciled or stable: BIAS. \0x

On 2017-05-08 22:39, \0xDynamite wrote:

Given the website you cited, I think YOU are cherry picking your methodology.

I link to a cite that shows scientists forging data to manufacture global warming alarm: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ Where is cherry picking?

I'll make this simple, dumbasses. You don't need ANY evidence to conclude LOGICALLY and NECESSARY that billions of years of fossil fuel burned in 400 years of industrialism is going to have MASSIVE effects.

You are innumerate. Human activity, compared to natural forces, is like a gnat farting.

On 2017-05-12 09:13, \0xDynamite wrote:

The word is "site" and it's a bullshit, non-scientific site.

Fact is, official science was caught lying. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ You define all sites that are not official science as "unscientific". But it is official science that is unscientific. The very concept of "scientific consensus" is a fundamental rejection of the scientific method as it was defined by the Royal society from 1660 to 1944. Consensus is for synods, not scientists. Global warming is religion, not science, and uses the methods of religion. Official science is inherently unreliable, because if some science is official, this is a rejection of the scientific method.

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 08:27:43PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

If you have read the climategate files, you will know that the new scientific method, the method of official science, is to determine the truth by consensus, then look for evidence to support that official truth, while ignoring or suppressing any contrary evidence, and if evidence cannot be found to support official truth, to just make the evidence up.

This last bit "make the evidence up" is done with "scientific" models - often retrospective data curve fitting - and this is the problem they (govt paid "Scientist"s) have at the moment, their nice hockey stick curves (from the 1980s?) were modelled perfectly for the data, to fit the desired "scientific" outcome, and now the new data doesn't fit the desired hockey stick outcome, so ridiculous "scientific" explanations are trotted out, from "a global pause in global warming" to "important data points not previously included in the model" and other hogwash pseudo-"science" designed to regenerate the hockey stick. It's political bullshit, not science. They know it. We know. Anyone self respecting adherent to the actual scientific method knows it. But a lot of propaganda to the contrary of the scientific methods is identifying religious nuts to the discerning, which from one view is a public service - just not worth anywhere near the "public" theft-money spent on such "science" propaganda.

Perfectly apropos. Really enjoyed this link (or rather, the text behind the link). Grazios! (Indeed, it's as apropos as your top posting is uselessly contrary to the thread as it was and to our general expectations for this list which are thus heedlessly, needlessly, a rapping and a tappingly dashed on the rockingly unrocklike rocks of our imagination. Or something :-Dξꟾ Regards, ξ On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 07:46:58AM -0700, Steven Schear wrote:

Michael Crichton's famous lecture drops the mike on consensus vs. science and should be required reading for anyone with an open mind on this topic.

http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Aliens_Cause_Global_ Warming_by_Michael_Crichton.html

Warrant Canary creator

On May 13, 2017 4:51 AM, "Zenaan Harkness" wrote:

...

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 08:27:43PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

...

If you have read the climategate files, you will know that the new scientific method, the method of official science, is to determine the truth by consensus, then look for evidence to support that official truth, while ignoring or suppressing any contrary evidence, and if evidence cannot be found to support official truth, to just make the evidence up.

This last bit "make the evidence up" is done with "scientific" models - often retrospective data curve fitting - and this is the problem they (govt paid "Scientist"s) have at the moment, their nice hockey stick curves (from the 1980s?) were modelled perfectly for the data, to fit the desired "scientific" outcome, and now the new data doesn't fit the desired hockey stick outcome, so ridiculous "scientific" explanations are trotted out, from "a global pause in global warming" to "important data points not previously included in the model" and other hogwash pseudo-"science" designed to regenerate the hockey stick.

It's political bullshit, not science. They know it. We know. Anyone self respecting adherent to the actual scientific method knows it. But a lot of propaganda to the contrary of the scientific methods is identifying religious nuts to the discerning, which from one view is a public service - just not worth anywhere near the "public" theft-money spent on such "science" propaganda.

As I mentioned, cosmology is another field whose theories also can never be conclusively proven and despite massive consensus will remain just that: only opinion. Here Hawking et al fume at those opposing one of their cherished theories and the unmitigated gaul to play the Scientific Method "card". https://www.sciencealert.com/stephen-hawking-and-32-top-physicists-just-sign... Warrant Canary creator On May 13, 2017 7:46 AM, "Steven Schear" wrote:

Michael Crichton's famous lecture drops the mike on consensus vs. science and should be required reading for anyone with an open mind on this topic.

http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Aliens_Cause_Global_Warming _by_Michael_Crichton.html

Warrant Canary creator

On May 13, 2017 4:51 AM, "Zenaan Harkness" wrote:

...

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 08:27:43PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

...

If you have read the climategate files, you will know that the new scientific method, the method of official science, is to determine the truth by consensus, then look for evidence to support that official truth, while ignoring or suppressing any contrary evidence, and if evidence cannot be found to support official truth, to just make the evidence up.

This last bit "make the evidence up" is done with "scientific" models - often retrospective data curve fitting - and this is the problem they (govt paid "Scientist"s) have at the moment, their nice hockey stick curves (from the 1980s?) were modelled perfectly for the data, to fit the desired "scientific" outcome, and now the new data doesn't fit the desired hockey stick outcome, so ridiculous "scientific" explanations are trotted out, from "a global pause in global warming" to "important data points not previously included in the model" and other hogwash pseudo-"science" designed to regenerate the hockey stick.

It's political bullshit, not science. They know it. We know. Anyone self respecting adherent to the actual scientific method knows it. But a lot of propaganda to the contrary of the scientific methods is identifying religious nuts to the discerning, which from one view is a public service - just not worth anywhere near the "public" theft-money spent on such "science" propaganda.

On May 13, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Steven Schear wrote:

Michael Crichton's famous lecture drops the mike on consensus vs. science and should be required reading for anyone with an open mind on this topic.

http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Aliens_Cause_Global_Warming_by_Michael_Cric...

A shitty novelist points out that science has been wrong in the past, that predicting the future is hard, and that some equations are basically guesses (e.g. the drake equation). Of course, everyone has known this, including Drake and the SETI people, from day one (although there have been remarkable advances in the ability to detect exoplanets recently, thanks mainly to the kepler space telescope). What deep insight. It's funny how the biggest skeptics on climate science tend to either be funded by the petroleum (and related) industry (these are the few that publish studies) OR have no real scientific background and are generally right-wing/conservatives or massively conspiracy-inclined.

Warrant Canary creator

Did not create warrant canary, John

...

On May 13, 2017 4:51 AM, "Zenaan Harkness" wrote: On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 08:27:43PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

...

If you have read the climategate files, you will know that the new scientific method, the method of official science, is to determine the truth by consensus, then look for evidence to support that official truth, while ignoring or suppressing any contrary evidence, and if evidence cannot be found to support official truth, to just make the evidence up.

This last bit "make the evidence up" is done with "scientific" models - often retrospective data curve fitting - and this is the problem they (govt paid "Scientist"s) have at the moment, their nice hockey stick curves (from the 1980s?) were modelled perfectly for the data, to fit the desired "scientific" outcome, and now the new data doesn't fit the desired hockey stick outcome, so ridiculous "scientific" explanations are trotted out, from "a global pause in global warming" to "important data points not previously included in the model" and other hogwash pseudo-"science" designed to regenerate the hockey stick.

It's political bullshit, not science. They know it. We know. Anyone self respecting adherent to the actual scientific method knows it. But a lot of propaganda to the contrary of the scientific methods is identifying religious nuts to the discerning, which from one view is a public service - just not worth anywhere near the "public" theft-money spent on such "science" propaganda.

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 01:59:32PM -0400, John Newman wrote:

...

On May 13, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Steven Schear wrote:

Michael Crichton's famous lecture drops the mike on consensus vs. science and should be required reading for anyone with an open mind on this topic.

http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Aliens_Cause_Global_Warming_by_Michael_Cric...

A shitty novelist points out that science has been wrong in the past,

You highlight Crichton's point perfectly - that shitty science from the past that he spoke of is not, was not, and never shall be science, it was merely "science", political social movements dressed up as "concensus science". And here you are, once again, smack bang in the trap this has set for your weak mind - calling past "science" as science, instead of the politics it is. And anyway, what the hell has Michael Crichton's novel writing ability got to do with the clear, succinct and slightly humorous facts he raises in his essay/talk??

that predicting the future is hard, and that some equations are basically guesses (e.g. the drake equation). Of course, everyone has known this, including Drake and the SETI people, from

Did you even read the whole thing? The problem is that previously 'revered' rags like "Scientific American" have become the Popes of "concensus science", destroying actual scientific take downs of their cherished political dogma.

day one (although there have been remarkable advances in the ability to detect exoplanets recently, thanks mainly to the kepler space telescope). What deep insight.

It's funny how the biggest skeptics on climate science tend to either be funded by the petroleum (and related) industry (these are the few that publish studies) OR have no real scientific background and are generally right-wing/conservatives or massively conspiracy-inclined.

Since you have no basis in science, of course we ought to have predicted your typical decent into ad-hominen.

...

Warrant Canary creator

Did not create warrant canary, John

...

...

On May 13, 2017 4:51 AM, "Zenaan Harkness" wrote: On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 08:27:43PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

...

If you have read the climategate files, you will know that the new scientific method, the method of official science, is to determine the truth by consensus, then look for evidence to support that official truth, while ignoring or suppressing any contrary evidence, and if evidence cannot be found to support official truth, to just make the evidence up.

This last bit "make the evidence up" is done with "scientific" models - often retrospective data curve fitting - and this is the problem they (govt paid "Scientist"s) have at the moment, their nice hockey stick curves (from the 1980s?) were modelled perfectly for the data, to fit the desired "scientific" outcome, and now the new data doesn't fit the desired hockey stick outcome, so ridiculous "scientific" explanations are trotted out, from "a global pause in global warming" to "important data points not previously included in the model" and other hogwash pseudo-"science" designed to regenerate the hockey stick.

It's political bullshit, not science. They know it. We know. Anyone self respecting adherent to the actual scientific method knows it. But a lot of propaganda to the contrary of the scientific methods is identifying religious nuts to the discerning, which from one view is a public service - just not worth anywhere near the "public" theft-money spent on such "science" propaganda.

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:32 AM, John Newman wrote:

...

On May 13, 2017, at 7:12 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 01:59:32PM -0400, John Newman wrote:

...

On May 13, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Steven Schear wrote:

Michael Crichton's famous lecture drops the mike on consensus vs. science and should be required reading for anyone with an open mind on this topic.

http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Aliens_Cause_Global_ Warming_by_Michael_Crichton.html

A shitty novelist points out that science has been wrong in the past,

You highlight Crichton's point perfectly - that shitty science from the past that he spoke of is not, was not, and never shall be science, it was merely "science", political social movements dressed up as "concensus science".

And here you are, once again, smack bang in the trap this has set for your weak mind - calling past "science" as science, instead of the politics it is.

And anyway, what the hell has Michael Crichton's novel writing ability got to do with the clear, succinct and slightly humorous facts he raises in his essay/talk??

Hey, you replied to one of my emails! I guess it's easier to jump on this bandwagon than try to defend any of your other countless (and disgusting) hypocritical views.

Maybe we can send some death squads out to the science departments at any institution doing climate research? Especially if they're (((jewish))) - sounds right up your alley, you bad boy ;)

In any case, Chrichton selectively chose a few things which, as i said, no one ever claimed was a known science. Like the drake equation. Then he further selected a bunch of stuff that has been discredited, thanks to further scientific work, over time. In effect, he showed that science, over time, works.

What he showed is that it works VERY poorly when those in scientific "authority", and who often have reputation and/or financial attachments to the prevailing Consensus, use their influence (politics) to suppress conflicting views (and often the careers of those holding them). Yes, over time it "works" but the lengths of these "erroneous consensus" epochs can stretch to lifetimes and during these periods the public can be denied the advantages of the later "proven" science (for example, saving lives due to effective medical treatments) or forced to pay (for example, through unwarranted taxation, misguided public policies and regulations).

And naturally he stayed away from all the wonderful things that have been wrought by scientific innovation, and that are in fact a CONSENSUS, once they have been accepted by the scientific community. That these consensuses can change is obvious, or he wouldn't have had so much crap science to pick from (and doctors would still be following Galen and bleeding you to get your humors in order when you went to hospital)

The crux of Crichton's arguments are that all too often Consensus is presented publicly as Settled Science instead of what is really is: politics. This is especially troubling when dealing with areas of science (e.g., climatology) in which the application of the Scientific Method (not just collected data or models) is impossible/impractical given current technologies. I have yet to see those pushing the anthropomorphic climate change models openly admit this.

The fact that science advances is not a legitimate attack on any particular piece of current science. If that's all you got... you got nothing.

And i called him a shitty novelist because he is just that - a shitty novelist. Actually i rather enjoyed a travel memoir he wrote, but basically he's a hack. It's an opinion, you aren't obliged to share it (i doubt you have the capacity to share it - somehow i don't envision you as a big reader. maybe mein kampf before bed? ;)

...

...

that predicting the future is hard, and that some equations are basically guesses (e.g. the drake equation). Of course, everyone has known this, including Drake and the SETI people, from

Did you even read the whole thing?

The problem is that previously 'revered' rags like "Scientific American" have become the Popes of "concensus science", destroying actual scientific take downs of their cherished political dogma.

...

day one (although there have been remarkable advances in the ability to detect exoplanets recently, thanks mainly to the kepler space telescope). What deep insight.

It's funny how the biggest skeptics on climate science tend to either be funded by the petroleum (and related) industry (these are the few that publish studies) OR have no real scientific background and are generally right-wing/conservatives or massively conspiracy-inclined.

Since you have no basis in science, of course we ought to have predicted your typical decent into ad-hominen.

...

...

Warrant Canary creator

Did not create warrant canary, John

...

...

On May 13, 2017 4:51 AM, "Zenaan Harkness" wrote:

...

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 08:27:43PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote: If you have read the climategate files, you will know that the new scientific method, the method of official science, is to determine the truth by consensus, then look for evidence to support that official truth, while ignoring or suppressing any contrary evidence, and if evidence cannot be found to support official truth, to just make the evidence up.

This last bit "make the evidence up" is done with "scientific" models - often retrospective data curve fitting - and this is the problem they (govt paid "Scientist"s) have at the moment, their nice hockey stick curves (from the 1980s?) were modelled perfectly for the data, to fit the desired "scientific" outcome, and now the new data doesn't fit the desired hockey stick outcome, so ridiculous "scientific" explanations are trotted out, from "a global pause in global warming" to "important data points not previously included in the model" and other hogwash pseudo-"science" designed to regenerate the hockey stick.

It's political bullshit, not science. They know it. We know. Anyone self respecting adherent to the actual scientific method knows it. But a lot of propaganda to the contrary of the scientific methods is identifying religious nuts to the discerning, which from one view is a public service - just not worth anywhere near the "public" theft-money spent on such "science" propaganda.

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:42:01AM -0700, Steven Schear wrote:

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:32 AM, John Newman wrote:

...

...

On May 13, 2017, at 7:12 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 01:59:32PM -0400, John Newman wrote:

...

On May 13, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Steven Schear wrote:

Michael Crichton's famous lecture drops the mike on consensus vs. science and should be required reading for anyone with an open mind on this topic.

http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Aliens_Cause_Global_ Warming_by_Michael_Crichton.html

A shitty novelist points out that science has been wrong in the past,

You highlight Crichton's point perfectly - that shitty science from the past that he spoke of is not, was not, and never shall be science, it was merely "science", political social movements dressed up as "concensus science".

And here you are, once again, smack bang in the trap this has set for your weak mind - calling past "science" as science, instead of the politics it is.

And anyway, what the hell has Michael Crichton's novel writing ability got to do with the clear, succinct and slightly humorous facts he raises in his essay/talk??

Hey, you replied to one of my emails! I guess it's easier to jump on this bandwagon than try to defend any of your other countless (and disgusting) hypocritical views.

Maybe we can send some death squads out to the science departments at any institution doing climate research? Especially if they're (((jewish))) - sounds right up your alley, you bad boy ;)

In any case, Chrichton selectively chose a few things which, as i said, no one ever claimed was a known science. Like the drake equation. Then he further selected a bunch of stuff that has been discredited, thanks to further scientific work, over time. In effect, he showed that science, over time, works.

What he showed is that it works VERY poorly when those in scientific "authority", and who often have reputation and/or financial attachments to the prevailing Consensus, use their influence (politics) to suppress conflicting views (and often the careers of those holding them). Yes, over time it "works" but the lengths of these "erroneous consensus" epochs can stretch to lifetimes and during these periods the public can be denied the advantages of the later "proven" science (for example, saving lives due to effective medical treatments) or forced to pay (for example, through unwarranted taxation, misguided public policies and regulations).

...

And naturally he stayed away from all the wonderful things that have been wrought by scientific innovation, and that are in fact a CONSENSUS, once they have been accepted by the scientific community. That these consensuses can change is obvious, or he wouldn't have had so much crap science to pick from (and doctors would still be following Galen and bleeding you to get your humors in order when you went to hospital)

The crux of Crichton's arguments are that all too often Consensus is presented publicly as Settled Science instead of what is really is: politics. This is especially troubling when dealing with areas of science (e.g., climatology) in which the application of the Scientific Method (not just collected data or models) is impossible/impractical given current technologies. I have yet to see those pushing the anthropomorphic climate change models openly admit this.

Well, you're unlikely to see John back down from his current stupid position - goes with the weak American-media-fed-childhood mind he seems to have.

...

The fact that science advances is not a legitimate attack on any particular piece of current science. If that's all you got... you got nothing.

And i called him a shitty novelist because he is just that - a shitty novelist. Actually i rather enjoyed a travel memoir he wrote, but basically he's a hack. It's an opinion, you aren't obliged to share it (i doubt you have the capacity to share it - somehow i don't envision you as a big reader. maybe mein kampf before bed? ;)

...

...

that predicting the future is hard, and that some equations are basically guesses (e.g. the drake equation). Of course, everyone has known this, including Drake and the SETI people, from

Did you even read the whole thing?

The problem is that previously 'revered' rags like "Scientific American" have become the Popes of "concensus science", destroying actual scientific take downs of their cherished political dogma.

...

day one (although there have been remarkable advances in the ability to detect exoplanets recently, thanks mainly to the kepler space telescope). What deep insight.

It's funny how the biggest skeptics on climate science tend to either be funded by the petroleum (and related) industry (these are the few that publish studies) OR have no real scientific background and are generally right-wing/conservatives or massively conspiracy-inclined.

Since you have no basis in science, of course we ought to have predicted your typical decent into ad-hominen.

...

...

Warrant Canary creator

Did not create warrant canary, John

...

...

On May 13, 2017 4:51 AM, "Zenaan Harkness" wrote: > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 08:27:43PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote: > If you have read the climategate files, you will know that the new > scientific method, the method of official science, is to determine > the truth by consensus, then look for evidence to support that > official truth, while ignoring or suppressing any contrary > evidence, and if evidence cannot be found to support official > truth, to just make the evidence up.

This last bit "make the evidence up" is done with "scientific" models - often retrospective data curve fitting - and this is the problem they (govt paid "Scientist"s) have at the moment, their nice hockey stick curves (from the 1980s?) were modelled perfectly for the data, to fit the desired "scientific" outcome, and now the new data doesn't fit the desired hockey stick outcome, so ridiculous "scientific" explanations are trotted out, from "a global pause in global warming" to "important data points not previously included in the model" and other hogwash pseudo-"science" designed to regenerate the hockey stick.

It's political bullshit, not science. They know it. We know. Anyone self respecting adherent to the actual scientific method knows it. But a lot of propaganda to the contrary of the scientific methods is identifying religious nuts to the discerning, which from one view is a public service - just not worth anywhere near the "public" theft-money spent on such "science" propaganda.

On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 12:35:05PM +0000, \0xDynamite wrote:

...

...

...

I think I know more about physics and its manipulation by state mafias than you do.i ii

What's your evidence that anthropogenic climate change is a massive hoax? I know we've been through this before and I don't want another flame fest.... I'm genuinely curious.

It is not exactly a hoax. Rather, they cherry pick the evidence, torture the data, use nonsensical statistical methods, and reject unwanted evidence as error, as for example https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

Given the website you cited, I think YOU are cherry picking your methodology.

I'll make this simple, dumbasses. You don't need ANY evidence to conclude LOGICALLY and NECESSARY that billions of years of fossil fuel burned in 400 years of industrialism is going to have MASSIVE effects.

Actually, you do need evidence. : perhaps we humans is Nature's way of getting all that locked up carbon (a very small amount in the scheme mind you), BACK into the atmosphere so the planet doesn't freeze over. You say big bad governments are exactly the lesson we need? There's a scientifically as-proven-as-the-opposite-conclusion conclusion that we only just got the industrial revolution going soon enough - another 1 or 2 thousand years and atmospheric carbon levels would have dropped to absolutely critical levels for any plant life at all.

Do you understand, billions of years of solar input stored in oil and coal reserves is completely burned within 1/10000000 of that same time?

You're missing the bit that plants when they die under ground (and other dead things - animals, sea critters etc), lock up valuable carbon so it cannot be used by life. The dominant life cycle on this planet is absolutely dependent on atmospheric carbon.

The attempt to prove with any other methodology is a red herring.

Our failure to take stock of the big picture is a phenomenon which is the result of political intention.

But the real truth IS more complex and that is what keeps the problem unsettled. The climate, after industrialism, is like a pendulum between unstable attractors: ICE Age or Desertification of the Earth.

So you say. Nice to hear God dropped in to clarify all our dumn asses though... we'd be fooked otherwise.

The resolution of that swing is reconciled with only one variable: GOD.

If you reject that possibility prima facie, then you see why nothing gets reconciled or stable: BIAS.

If we don't accept that a) there is God, b) God wants wild atmospheric swings on this particular planet at this particular point in time, then c) not seeing this is bias. Got it. Thanks for the flarification.

On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 02:51:02PM -0300, juan wrote:

On Sat, 6 May 2017 02:32:47 -0400 John Newman wrote:

...

What's your evidence that anthropogenic climate change is a massive hoax? I know we've been through this before and I don't want another flame fest.... I'm genuinely curious.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.h...

I might as well ask, what's your evidence for human caused 'global' warming, apart from the official story coming from the 'scientific' 'community'.

Where are your *global* temperature records? What about records for solar activity...? How old is the earth's climate? How far do your records go?

What's the theory that allows you to 'predict' the wheather? How reliable is it? What about so called 'chaos' theory? Have you ever bothered to see how accurate the one-week weather forecast is?

The theory is very simple. Carbon emissions trap heat and cause a greenhouse effect which, averaged over time, causes a rise in global termperatures. This is a rise that is backed up by data. Effects beyond this are, I think, very hard to predict.. you mentioned chaos theory :P Some generalizations seem obvious, though, and obviously bad. None of it has anything to do with predicting next week's weather.

...

I ask because I've had some long conversations with people much smarter than myself whose area of research involves this, and the basic premise seems pretty simple and well established.

Well, it seems to me that you believe what the 'scientific' 'authorities' say. So you believe in authority, and that has nothing to do with science.

I defer to rational thought. It seems to me you have an inability to acknowledge that there are people out there doing legitamite science, who may know more about a subject than you. It has nothing to do with authority the way you've framed it. No one has a gun to my head telling me to believe in this particular theory - I believe it on its perceived merits. Anyway, further argument I think will degenerate, and I'm fucking sick of toxic shit, but thanks for the answer :P

...

Debating the nitty gritty details of how quickly we are warming the planet with carbon emissions and what exactly the effect is and will continue to be, on weather patterns, the oceans, permafrost, etc etc - discussing this can obviously be done...

It's not like anyone (the nation states of the world) is particularly doing anything to really fight the effect,

I don't think there's much of an effect to fight, but it is obvious that there are 'government activities' related to 'climate change'. And those 'government activities' boil down to transferring money from joe sixpack to 'green' special interests.

...

except for very token gestures.

I don't think that the tens of billions of dollars that go to special interests including of course the 'scientific' mafia are a token gesture.

...

In other words, if it's a massive hoax perpetuated by scientists all over the world, they and the various institutions they represent aren't really getting anything from said hoax.

I think that illustrates your bias. You think the 'climate change' story benefits no one although your belief is pretty naive and can be dispelled with 5 minutes searching for "green subsidies" or similar terms.

And anyway, I wasn't too interested in discussing global warming, but cyber totalitarianism.

...

...

...

Your version of Political Correctness provides final answers to all meaningful questions about the human condition. That sounds more like conventional religious fanaticism than the Scientician faith.

bottom line : you criticize the scientific mafia ONLY if they say stuff you don't like. When your scientfic, state-funded mafia vomits nonsense about the global reheating apocalypsis,ii you love them.

...

...

The technological, fascist 'progressives' are basically correct when they say that all technical problems can be solved. So if you expect their technical plans to catastrophically fail, you'll wait forever.

Aldous Huxley - The Ultimate Revolution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WaUkZXKA30

There's that Scientician faith in action!

Not sure what you mean. Do you have any counterarguments for Huxley?

So far, apart from your enviro-friendly, off-topic tangent, I don't think you said anything too relevant to the problem of technically efficient propaganda, brainwashing, mind-control or whatever term is appropriate.

-- John

...

except for very token gestures.

I don't think that the tens of billions of dollars that go to special interests including of course the 'scientific' mafia are a token gesture.

There's aren't "tens of billions" of dollars spent to prove global warming except to counter-act the deniers. \x

Steven and Zenaan, Very good material. Nice analysis of the scientism. You'd like the study of the Nacirema people in anthropology. Finally people are starting to see that the worship of science was no superior than the worship of Jesus. Both have delayed real social progress by almost a century. \x On 5/5/17, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 01:49:03PM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On 05/03/2017 03:27 PM, juan wrote:

...

what's actually going on is that people with the same twisted desire for 'order' like you are embarked in the destruction or 'assimilation' of human invidivuals into some sort of 'meta organism'. Or perhaps the majority of people will be killed off when they can be replaced with machines and artificial 'intelligence'.

I would have disregard that sort of cheap sci-fi scenario a couple of years ago, but now it's starting to look a lot more real...

The global Superstate scenario is "real" in the sense that many people actually seem to believe in it, approve of it and want to make it happen. Such is the power of propaganda in the age of ubiquitous broadcast communications, moving whole societies into fantasy worlds designed to facilitate economic growth under a top-down command hierarchy.

"designed to facilitate economic growth"

The Ministry is quite insidious and unfortunately demands eternal vigilance with our own languaging.

All the stats show that all the "economic growth" we see is fundamentally transferred up the pyramid to the top 8 billionaires in the world.

When we use the words "the superstate/ one world order/ new world order ... is designed to facilitate economic growth" normies don't hear the propaganda, they hear only "scientific and mathematical analysis" and "more golden cages with nice things for me".

And we do have "technological and wealth advancement" - at least some of us in the ordained countries experience something that looks like this, and there is nothing wrong with creating, building, striving, working towards an abundant life, per se.

BUT, the illusion and propaganda is that "the system" actually facilitates this wealth and prosperity that a few experience (in the socialist Western countries, even those dependent on the "social safety net" can eat cheasecake every day if they wanted to. So the illusion appears real.

But the truth is, the greatest transfer of wealth from the people (including 'capitalists', creative individuals and hard workers) to the tiny group of "elite" debt based bankers, is what has happened in the last century or two, and as a consequence, the greatest possible slow down to the advancement of technology and wealth that could ever have been conceived

!

The debt based banking system is the most effective possible system outside of absolute physical slavery, to transfer wealth FROM the people, to those who own the banks.

And a physical "literal slave state" would not be as productive, and would therefore transfer less wealth to the banks.

So for the bankers, it's ultimately a win win to have something that appears as relatively "free market" yet in fact is far from it. Of course.

...

The Superstate scenario is "real" in the metaphorical sense that the Internet, trans-national corporations and high speed long distance transport of materials and consumer goods have already turned Homo Sap into a meta-organism that behaves like a colonial fungus bent on consuming the world's resources as quickly and completely as possible.

But the prospect of world peace and prosperity under a benevolent global State is "not real at all" in the sense that the global industrial economy is locked into self-destructive feedback loops driven by perverse incentives. Any Utopian plan that does not take the context of a global economic collapse and human population crash into account is a futile exercise in abstract speculation.

Our conversation/ public discourse, generally ignores the massive white elephant in the room which we are all bumping into, blocked by, and so often completely discluding from our conversations: the Rothschilds are one family, who own most of the world's banks - the "reserve" banks at least.

As the wife of one of the Rothschilds "Lords" said, if her sons did not want wars, there would be no wars.

It's that simple.

And we consent.

We consent collectively.

We consent tacitly.

We tacitly consent individually.

...

We are now inside the historical singularity: A system where the exponential growth rate of change in human affairs (new discoveries, technologies, etc.) has advanced too far to permit reliable long range projections of future developments. The rate of ongoing change is too high, creating too many hidden variables and too much turbulence. Under these conditions, even brute force solutions that seek to /impose/ predictable order via murder and terrorism on global scale will not yield reliable results.

The true singularity is much simpler than you imply, and is simply this:

The Rothschilds banking family have sewn up the worlds banks banks and monetary system(s) into their own hands. They quite literally control most of the worlds governments as a result of this

And we wonder why Syria, Lybia, Iran and Afghanistan were on the "must bomb" list?

...

The only things we can predict with much confidence today are that the better established laws of physics will remain intact, and that macro scale human motives and behaviors that have not changed over the last few thousand years will likely change slowly if at all. Given these

Macro as in "refusing consent is too hard, I'll just carry on in my gilded cage".

...

baseline factors, we /can/ predict, with some confidence, that we will be dropping out of the singularity soon: Macro scale human demand for basic material commodities (including food) now exceeds the planet's carrying capacity; that demand is still growing, while the rate of resource exhaustion and human habitat destruction continues to accelerat e.

A human family, with access to water, can grow food and live humbly.

Without access to water, they might fight with their neighbours, and they might die from starvation.

Survival can be a humble yet successful affair, but humans are trained to be dissatisfied and to fight.

...

The Scientician faith and its Corporate Capitalist patrons tell us that technological "quick fix" solutions will be created when and as needed to keep the world as we know it intact. Like all respectable apocalyptic prophesies, those of the Scienticians are likely to be reasonably accurate right up to the point where the Heavens open up and Bog and all his Holy Angels come down and fix everything for us: That part never happens.

Or drop an atom or fusion bomb on the modern Soddom and Gamorrah. But that looks like something other than "an almight Creator" frankly.

...

I do not advise people to "give up" on anything but the status quo, and I do not predict the extinction of the human species. We are the toughest weeds Nature ever made, capable of living on pack ice and hard rock desert using only Neolithic technology - and loving it. I do suggest that those who are able to do so get to work devising practical solutions for survival and recovery to the best available New Normal. The world's present rulers are hard at work on those problems right now,

Actually, they're hard at work gathering to themselves control over the current global means of exchange.

...

but their objectives center on worst case scenarios where retaining their present level of power is the primary objective, and everyone but themselves is expendable. Pardon my language, but fuck those people.

[waves religious object at Zenith of sky]

You are pardoned.

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 01:27:05PM +0000, \0xDynamite wrote:

...

...

That's some good bit o' history. It was you who asked the question "Without a State, would we have electronics? Radio?"

Yes and I was being serious. I hadn't encounted that history before.

...

...

I was really referring to the level of existing order needed to create *more* levels of order. That sounds like gobbledygook to me. What do you mean by this? What is a "level of order"?

It's not gobbledygook at all. Just as single-cellular life gave rise to multi-cellular life, a new LEVEL of order was made beyond the cell. In this sense, you could say all the problems that we've been having with "the State" are birthing pains bringing about the solutions to solve this endless conflict at the current level.

Einstein was credited with saying "You can't solve the existing problems at the same level which created them" (or something like that).

It could surmised that no amount of "self-oganization" could create that transformation seen in biology -- it had to be a GOVERNOR of some kind. By which I intimate that leadership, with a greater view of it all, can generate better, meaningful, and virtuous levels of order and that it HAD to happen at some point in the past, in order to give rise to the mammalian life which we cherish..

...

And why do you (apparently) think that government is somehow necessary (or even desireable) to act as a driver of technology. I think the opposite is true.

It's not that government is the driver, it is simply a large force that can assemble huge amounts of resources and human effort to solve problems.

Like hoax a moon landing or imperially dominate the world? The problem with government is that it is coopted by opportunistic scoundrels also justly described (many/most of then) as sociopaths - fundamentally they leech and dominate, creating far more problems than they solve, and the problems they do solve, are often created by government, and the other problems they solve, they solve by creating more problems, or worse problems, or both. In principle governmnet is founded upon principles which: a) a worth upholding, and b) are upheld (by said govt) In practice, we haven't yet found a system which encourages enough humans to put the principles first, rather than their self interest and the self interest of their friends and family. Create an empire on "democratic" principles, and it will descend into kingdom with an "blood-ordained" emperor and ultimately despotism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire It's all very well to agree that a benevolent dictator may achieve far greater results that "humans without any leader", but there are logic and causality presumption problems here: - "we won't get good outcomes without a system that enforces leadership and compliance by the masses" - "if we don't have government, we will miss out on the benefits to society if we actually got a benevolent leader, so we better hang on to government system" And other assumption problems: - "without government, we will never achieve great things" - "government is the best way to get big (mostly good) outcomes" We conflate our desire for order, safety and achievement with the existence of government, perhaps because for a good 5 to 6000 years, we have not known political anarchy. Also the word anarchy tends to lead thinking and discourse into the presumptions of the colloquial understanding of chaos; political anarchy, anarchism, or just plain anarchy in the context of "political system", is an entirely different beast, so I say the word itself is quite problematic in most newbie situations. The most PC alternative term "generally accepted as closely related and somewhat similar" seems to be "direct democracy" but with added in "absolute right to personal conscientious objection". Look at software development: - Microsoft is the democracy, enforced order system of development - Linux is the anarchy software development system, and the system where the truly benevolent dictator rose not by force, but: a) by being more benevolent than the opposition b) by have a truly libre license (i.e. anarchistic terms of entry and participation in the community) And we can readily compare not only Linux with Microsoft, but Linux with Minix, Linux with FreeBSD, and Linux with GNU, and, IN EVERY SINGLE CASE, Linux succeded and ultimately dominated the competition - yes, building upon and incorporating the competition (GNU, even bits of BSD), and the truly and ironic catch phrase we all used and laughed with over 20 years ago was that the primary intention / goal of Linux was (still is) "world domination" - which was and is so funny because how can you dominate others with freedom, by have no force, no compulsive enforcement of usage nor participation, merely a better license and better (truly at-your-free-will) participation terms. Anarchy won. That is, the anarchy software development system won. And not just won, absolutely, overwhelmingly, globally dominates - the BSDs had to properly establish their libre license to come back to their rightful and dignified position. Minix ultimately (metaphorically) got a kick up the arse and it too changed (I think) to a proper libre license. GNU, the ultimate free software "cathedral", has repeatedly had to learn the fundamental lesson: gcc -> egcs -> gcc GNU -> Linux -> GNU/Linux (facing reality) gcc (without modules) -> Many companies have had to learn the lesson, like the QT folks who ultimately changed to a true libre license to compete with "the community" who simply had learned that a libre license was the only option for putting their efforts behind (KDE/GNOME). And most recently Microsoft has joined the Linux foundation. So, which software development model is truly achieving global domination (and back in the day, in the face of overwhelming odds against, thanks to the incredible commercial might and global dominance of Microsoft, IBM, Oracle and the rest)?? Now here's a little secret - Linus did not quite nail it: In the face of the incredible stand of Richard Stallman and the FSF (notwithstanding their sub-optimal development zeitgeist) Linus Torvalds and his loud and explicit proclamations of "utility, not freedom thank you very much" were the single most effective way to facilitate, in the long term, corporate greed and centralisation of UNdemocratic corporate power, sidetracking an incredible opportunity for true system anarchy across the world, beyond mere software development. And that is a very unfortunate thing that few see.

You would never get equivalent levels of order in an anarchic situation.

Please be a little more rigorous with your conversation, if you wish to avoid pointless reactions and descent into bickering. Such a sentence is patently unfounded, and also without any citation by you of the assumptions and reasons for your belief, and worse you don't even acknowledge with the words you use, that this is nothing but your personal belief, which doesn't matter except that it leads to reactive and emotional responses which, as we see so often, lead to worse places than nowhere.

It would take some extreme urgency bording on panic to assemble such forces (because anarchists don't want to join someone else's causes, right?).

When folks say to you "I can't make sense of what you're saying", we're saying that there are many assumptions, beliefs, and possibly also projections, fears and delusions, which must be at the foundation of such a sentence, and therefore there are multiple possible meanings you are trying to get across, and combining these two things (unspoken points and potential intended meanings), a combinatorial explosion of possible responses. I.e., such a sentence puts far too high a load on those who would sincerely like to respond/engage with you in the conversation. Regards, Zenaan

One of the best answers to this oft asked question can be found in Frank Chudorov's, The Rise and Fall of Society. Free .pdf and .epub unavailable at Mises.org https://mises.org/files/rise-and-fall-society Steve Warrant Canary creator On May 2, 2017 5:40 PM, "jim bell" wrote:

------------------------------ *From:* \0xDynamite

...

That's some good bit o' history.

It was you who asked the question "Without a State, would we have electronics? Radio?"

I proceeded to answer that question, and others. You asked the history question, I thought the answer was obviousl.

...

I was really referring to the level of existing order needed to create *more* levels of order.

That sounds like gobbledygook to me. What do you mean by this? What is a "level of order"? And why do you (apparently) think that government is somehow necessary (or even desireable) to act as a driver of technology. I think the opposite is true.

...

I don't think it's possible to argue with that.

Until we actually UNDERSTAND what you meant, how can someone argue?

...

But I like the sentiment. I think the problem is more than the State.

What problem? I think "the State" is the problem.

...

It's the pathetic infrastructure that would be an eyesore for centuries.

States have been a "pathetic infrastructure" that has been "an eyesore for centuries.

Jim Bell

...

From: \0xDynamite

...

Without a State, would we have electronics? Radio? That's a question which displays a lack of knowledge of technical history. Radio transmission was known as a consequence of Maxwell's equations, Maxwell's equations . Heinrich Hertz Electronics can be

...

the "Fleming Valve", Fleming valve the rectifying diode implemented using the Edison effect, which was actually discovered by Frederick Guthrie. Frederick Guthrie Shortly afterwards, Lee DeForest Lee de Forest added a grid, which made it possible for the "vacuum tube" to oscillate and amplify, leading to radio communications. Radio broadcasting occurred BEFORE government regulation: Arguably, the need to allow many stations to share a limited spectrum made such regulation necessary.

...

Computers?Computers existed before IC's; I used one, the DEC PDP-7, in 1976-80. But at about $50,000 in 1964 dollars (about $500,000 in today's), the average individual wasn't going to buy one. What we know today as "computers" was primarily the product of the invention of the integrated circuit (IC) by MOSFET - Wikipedia various scientists and engineers. Once the concept of the Integrated circuit existed, and was seen to follow the scaling described by Moore's law (initially, in the 1960's, a doubling of transistors on a chip every 12 months; later in

...

...

70's and 80's the doubling period lengthened to 18 months, then to 2 years in the 1990's and later), if one transistor was possible in, say, 1961, 13 years later 2**13 transistors (8192) was possible, in 1974. So, the development of early microprocessors such as Intel's 8080, 6502, and 6800 was virtually assured. This was definitely NOT the product of government! And it would have happened regardless of the "space race" of the 1960's and 70's. Also, you didn't mention The Internet. Statists are fond of suggesting

...

the United States government made the Internet possible. Well, no, it didn't. During a time in which that government was financing research, some money was spent to develop network interface controllers Network interface controller, which at the time typically fit into a single RETMA 19" rack. Not long afterwards, the same thing could have been (and was) implemented by means of more modern IC's. But at that point, "the Internet" (as we know it, or at least knew it in 1995), was still impossible. If you still doubt this, consider: Why didn't the Internet as we know it today exist in 1980? To me, the answer is simple. The fastest modem in common use by consumers at that time was a 300 bits-per-second, Bell 103 (different Bell!) compatible. Great improvements followed: 1200 bps in about 1981; 2400 bps in 1983, 9800 bps in the early 1990's. Modem I'd say it was the latter, 9600 bps, which really made the modern Internet

On 5/2/17, jim bell wrote: traced to the that plausible

...

for the vast majority of the population. So, it was the people who developed and built 9600+bps modems that made the Internet (as we knew it, in 1995) possible.

...

MassTransit? I think most of the New York subway systems were originally privately financed and built. Similarly, most railroads. Similarly bus lines. And airlines.

...

Bikes?

BTW, you haven't forgotten that powered human flight was first accomplished by Orville and Wilbur Wright, two bicycle mechanics.

...

And if we need a State, what form should it take?

Written into history books as events long past. Jim Bell

From that reply I will assume you have nit read the book.

Warrant Canary creator On May 8, 2017 4:12 PM, "juan" wrote:

On Mon, 8 May 2017 15:59:11 -0700 Steven Schear wrote:

...

...

Mises.org

conservative fascists posing as 'libertarian'

On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 03:50:51PM -0500, \0xDynamite wrote:

That's some good bit o' history. I was really referring to the level of existing order needed to create *more* levels of order.

E.g "create tech to fly to Mars" and stuff?

I don't think it's possible to argue with that.

Humans have no problems organising themselves to create technology. Never have. But can humans organise themselves to stop collectively dominating the individual when the individuals harms no one else and damages no property? History tells us the answer to this question is generally "no, humans will almost always collectively blame externals for any and every perceived problem".