Lately, Ron has been heard saying things like this:
[The US] government is in the process of failing, and they can't deliver on the goods, just as the Soviets couldn't deliver the goods and maintain their own power... We will have those same problems domestically. We face serious economic problems as this dollar crisis evolves. ... We don't need to just change political parties. We need to change our philosophy about what this country is all about.So, Ron, what is the Soviet Union all about these days, other than staying dead?
Too bad most of his ilk are nativist sociopaths.
Has a nice ring to it… The Collapse Party!
Ron Paul hasn't just started speaking like this. He's been warning of a collapse for years. I can't tell if you are knocking him or not.
Obviously Dmitry, Ron Paul has read "Reinventing Collapse."
I'm with Nebris: Ron Paul's a very gifted 17th century thinker. As nations collapse, key traits emerge. In the US, this includes the provincial/feudal/racist trifecta that Paul excels at which, ironically, has had a larger hand in our collapse dynamics than anything else.
And if you think Ron's wacky, have a gander at his kid Randal.
"If, further, this crash program somehow succeeded, in spite of constitutional limitations on government action, and in spite of the inevitable lack of financial resources for such an ambitious undertaking, and in spite of the insurmountable bureaucratic complexity, then I for one would be really surprised!"
I would be really surprised too!
Ron Paul, the Mighty Mouse of American politics. "Here I come to save the day!"
To be fair, I don't think that Paul sees himself that way, or that is the impression I get from interviews with the man. But his followers sure do believe that, and I don't think there is any belief more dangerous or delusional at the present moment than the idea that an individual politician can fix what's broken in Washington (and everywhere else in this benighted land).
The tea party morons have similar delusional beliefs about the Palin creature. We're going to see a lot of these characters get elected under the banner of "change," and the more faith people have invested in them the more dangerous they'll be. You can see some of that now with Obama, like the antiwar liberals excusing the horrors we've created in Afghanistan because Mr O is in charge. And he's one of us, right? Not at all like that warmonger Bush, even if he is doing the exact same things.
The "change" you're most likely to see is tanks rolling down Broadway. Not today; Obama is a weak and vacillating figure, and we're not quite "there" yet. But I can easily imagine turning on the tube in five years, and hearing Aunt Sarah or Uncle Mike Huckabee explaining why these unfortunate (but surely temporary) measures are necessary for the preservation of stability, freedom, yadda yadda. Oh, and curfew starts promptly at 9 PM.
I wouldn't hold my breath about Ron Paul; libertarian fantasies to the contrary, his little fatwa against the Fed is going nowhere and there's no way in hell he'll ever get elected president. In the unlikely event that he does, I expect he'll wind up like the Kennedys, or Paul Wellstone. The powers-that-be have absolutely no use for a "change" candidate who might actually try to change things. Something to keep in mind when you're thinking about supporting one of these would-be saviors. (And never forget, absolutely everything that matters in politics transpires behind closed doors, and at parties to which you're not invited).
The political platform of the American Collapse Party will be enacted when politicians do nothing, or more accurately, keep on doing what they're doing without changing course. At his core, Ron Paul represents the "Every Man For Himself Party."
The United States -- hell, the entire world -- needs a "Contraction Party" which could attempt to manage the contraction of natural resources, money, and ultimately, the human population. If the powers-that-be would attempt to guide a wind-down, the world would have a better chance of a softer landing when we bump up against the inevitable ceiling of the laws of nature.
Unfortunately, capitalism is like a cancerous tumour. The laws that govern it, such as compound interest and fractional reserve money creation, only allow for growing, growing, growing. Is there such a thing as an economic ideology or school of thought about shrinking an economy? I have not heard of anything along those lines.
So my money is on the "Collapse Party" winning by default. And when it wins, everybody loses.
Well, you can certainly tell who is interested in preserving the broken American system, and who is not.
Anyone who thinks Ron and Rand Paul aren't picking at real problems?
Ron Paul's ideas have been distorted to make him appear a racist, his points on border closure are about putting domestic interests first and containing a domestic system, versus the "progressive" dream of One World Government. So yeah, if you're a One Worlder, Ron Paul and Rand Paul probably look like kooks.
Or as "Nebris" calls them, "nativist sociopaths."
I'd suggest using the term "sociopath" toward anone but one's self is evidence of sociopathy.
And I'd suggest that using "nativist" as disparaging is nothing more than Naisbitt-esque "futurism" or utopian "one worldism" -- which may not be sociopathic but most certainly is destructive, to the extent it seeks mind-control over all humanity.
There's nothing dumb or wrong, however, about seeing the entire Earth as one ecosystem and being a one-worlder on that point. That's just facing reality.
And if you think Ron's wacky, have a gander at his kid Randal.
I think Senator Sonny's name is just "Rand." I always just took it for granted that RP named his son after Ayn Rand. I couldn't make this stuff up.
Yes, he has a free market fetish. No, he's not going to save the day for the USA. Nobody can at this point. But he wants no "foreign entanglements," and he wants to abolish the Fed. His finance hearings are going to produce some very entertaining videos on YouTube.
Dear Mr Oxtrot, 'nativist sociopaths' was just a more politic way of saying "racist sons-of-bitches".
Ironically, many of the ideas that Ron Paul proposes will soon become reality, whether we chose to do so now willingly and say we died with dignity or the reality will cause these things to happen
For example, Ron Paul proposes an end to empire building, bringing the troops back home and closing down all the overseas bases, scaling back the government to a bare minimum, and creating a currency that has value as opposed to worthless pieces of paper, end the IRS and stopping Bernake's printing press for good (ending the federal reserve).
Too little too late. Look at the protests in Wisconsin, the "painful budget cuts" that are being proposed all over the country, and the plummeting popularity of our certain to be one term governor here in MI, Rick Snyder, who is proposing taxing pensions. This is just the beginning as the political collapse gains momentum, not just at home but abroad
When the dollar gets diluted as it is now as a prelude to the dollar collapse and countries stop using it as the world's reserve currency, the military machine will run out of gas, literally, when oil exporting countries join China, Russia, Brazil, Venezuela, Iran, France, and others in dumping the US dollar or their ambitons to do so
Toss in the painfully obvious ever eroding tax base and the wars of "liberation", the overseas bases, and costly and wasteful, resource gobbling defense projects and Paul's wish to put an end to empire building and military interventionsism will have come to pass without us having done the sensible thing by doing so willingly.
The IRS will cease to exist even if the federal government should somehow stay intact as there will be few, if any wage earners to steal money from. Local politics will matter most and many states and even cities will finally realize that they would be better off without some huge, out of control federal government to begin with.
His ideal to put an end to what he calls the "nanny state" will become reality as the focus of "law enforcement" will change from spending vast sums of money to harass casual drug users, prostitutes, and people speeding on the roads (as there will be few, if any cars travelling on them) to quelling race riots, food riots, gang and class warfare, and the chaos and panic that will set in when the flow of oil gets shut off and the other phases of collapse run their course
Where the Libertarians give me the creeps is when they talk of 'privatizing entitlement programs', such as social security and medicare. Yet, again, the money simply will not be there to fund these programs so they will get their wish to see them come to an end.
I have no delusions about any political solution, but many of Ron Paul's ideals will become reality, whether we choose them or not
The problem with Ron Paul's candidacy, collapse-aware or not, is that nobody wants to hear that things are going south fast...except, perhaps, those voters and others who are deep in their own personal economic collapses.
It can be comforting, not to mention invigorating, for so many to know that they aren't alone and that the problems they have suffered are not solely their fault. The problem with pushing for smaller government at this point is that a) it can throw thousands of skilled workers out of the civil service, along with the diminished economic activity that would follow; and b)it will empower private industry to push for lower wages for its employees, again diminishing economic activity. Some would argue that this would be inevitable anyway, given the deficits and the national debt. However, the only alternative would be to raise taxes to such an extent that a taxpayer revolt would ensue and possibly destabilize the federal government.
The third way may be the hardest on the large scale, but may be the easiest to achieve individually. Adjusting household spending to reduce debt and increase savings (even if only to be kept in one's mattress) will help individual households achieve some level of freedom from their debt and leave them less beholden to the banks. Moving their money to local institutions such as credit unions will help investments that serve the community, and increase the benefits of ethical investment strategies. Encouraging cottage industry and household agriculture can help free up cash reserves which the government can then use to help pay off the debt. Will it be enough? It may not be, but adopting these practices throughout the country will help buffet thousands of households against the $#!^storm that will come when the foreign governments call in their loans.
Nope, scratch my idea that Rand Paul was named after Ayn Rand. A quick search turns up multiple sources confirming that he wasn't, and his name is, indeed "Randal". The idea was, indeed, too good to be true.
Should have checked my facts before hitting "Publish."
“I'd suggest using the term 'sociopath' toward anyone but one's self is evidence of sociopathy.”
So the only people who can identify a sociopath are other sociopaths? That would be a very useful fact for politicians if it were true; only people within the political sphere could ever know who is or isn't sociopathic. And if I correctly identify Tom DeLay, say, as a sociopath, then I am revealing my own sociopathic tendencies and must therefore immediately run for political office (or go into finance). Sounds like Catch-22 ½ to me.
For the record, I like Ron Paul. He's got a lot of integrity for a politician, although I think his pose as a “Republican” (the only way he can stay even remotely relevant within the system) tends to undermine that. I can't say the same for his son, who strikes me as just another political hack with an eye for the main chance. Go back and read some of Justin Raimondo's reporting about Rand Paul's political bedfellows; anyone who kisses Kristol backside to get elected is hardly a libertarian stalwart (not that I hold a brief for libertarianism; I've read too much about ecology and the shortcomings of economic “science” to ever go back to that addled philosophy).
But even if you gave Paul and all the other alleged “reformers” of 2010 the benefit of the doubt (and I don't, since most of them are just plain vanilla Republican Wall Street whores posing as “fiscal conservatives”), there is nothing they can to to forestall collapse. “Picking at real problems” is all they will be able to do, if they're allowed to do even that much.
That's kind of what I was trying to express above: don't put your faith in these people and for sure don't let allegiances to worthless entities like the Tea Party (or any other political organization) alienate you from your fellow collapsniks. Today's ideological opponent is tomorrow's next-door neighbor, perhaps one with skills and knowledge you might benefit from. His opinions on taxing capital gains and illegal immigration, on the other hand, are likely to be pretty useless.
@jpwhite, your post is right-on. We aren't invited to any parties that matter. I saw how the whole thing REALLY works close up for a while. It's gonna get ugly per the tanks scenario.
@bukko (and dmitry), a "collapse" or "contraction" party is an excellent idea. Sign me up. I worked a couple of years for a state government, a few years ago, and every time I hear someone blab on about sustainable growth, I get a sour taste in my mouth. The only way that any "growth" can be sustainable is for there to be concomittant "contraction" to balance it out. 10 births must be balanced by 10 deaths. If you spend 10 dollars you have to make 10 dollars.
But that's in an ideal situation. We are long past "sustainability." We need to CONTRACT, to SHRINK to ever hope to attain a level where we can hope for sustainability. We are already in overshoot.
If there are only 4 seats in a car and you already have 7 people who need a ride, and every hour an additional 2 guys show up and ask for a ride, shrinking the demand down to 1 more guy an hour STILL isn't sustainable! Because there were 7 guys and only 4 seats to begin with!
The remark about "sociopaths" (with mis-spelling the 2d time in my post!) was meant to be tongue-in-cheek as well as serious.
What is a "sociopath"? Who gets to define it? Toward what end?
I prefer to avoid labels and focus on acts that are either good or bad for people. Those whom some would race to call "sociopath" are easily identified by their urge to constantly to bad things. Focus on the bad things, not the label.
Focusing on the label, and empowering the label and using it as a tool to remove unwanted people from society, well that just gives disproportionate power to the label and those who wield it. Careful what you seek! A government could criminalize "sociopathy" and apply the label to you, for criticizing a govt official.
That wouldn't work out so neatly, would it?
Speaking of sociopathy, I might have whored this here before (apologies to Kollapsnik if I'm being repetitive) but there's a book titled "Political Ponerology" that explains how evil takes over political systems.
"Poner" is a Greek word meaning "power." The book looks at the psychology of sociopaths, and how the talented ones among them, the spellbinders, can warp organizations to their ends because the sociopaths are not constrained by the empathy and morality that most of us feel. They're like the banksters who don't have anything against you personally when they throw you out of your house; it's only business. The snake does not hate you when it bites; it's just what snakes do.
The book has an interesting back story. It was written by a group of Polish psychiatrists in the late 1940s, but suppressed by the communist authorities. The Poles also gave a copy to the Vatican, where it went down the Memory Hole. An English translation was reconstructed and released in 2006 (with extensive editor's notes likening the Bush Administration to sociopaths).
It's a good read, not too academic or airy-fairy touchy-feely. For those interested in why power structures get warped so they become the 180-degree opposite of what they're supposed to be, I recommend it.
Dear Mr. Oxtrot, Re your statement, "A government could criminalize "sociopathy" and apply the label to you, for criticizing a govt official," there already is a diagnosis called Oppositional Defiant Disorder. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder But a sociopath is unlikely to be diagnosed as such because they would likely charm their way through anything like that.
jpwhite: good points! I like Ron Paul mostly but his son is another political hack his recent speech declaring:
“I am proud to introduce my own solution to the mounting debt our spendthrift, oversized government has accrued. By rolling back to 2008 levels and eliminating the most wasteful programs, we can still keep 85 percent of our government funding in place,” Sen. Paul said today."
Wishful thinking seems to be a key feature of the political class.
The answers to your first, second and third questions are: 1) check the DSM-IV; 2) psychiatrists and psychological researchers; and 3) to hopefully help those afflicted with these behavioral tendencies, and those they may victimize.
I think we may be working on Catch-23 here. The last time I checked, “good” and “bad” were also labels, and rather less useful than terms like “sociopath” or “psychopath,” which define patterns of behavior that can be observed and evaluated without reference to morality (although admittedly the reason we are usually interested in these behavioral patterns is because they are generally considered to be “bad”).
In fact, focusing “on acts that either good or bad for people” seems like a pretty useless way to proceed, since the set of acts that people would generally agree are bad (murder, rape, child abuse, etc.) is pretty small compared to the total number of acts that people could perform. Not to mention the thorny question of “which people” any given act may be good or bad for. Is the taxation of capital gains good or bad for people? Go ask someone from the Cato Institute. Then go ask Michael Moore. Allowing illegal immigration? Offshore drilling? Preemptively invading other countries to prevent them from possibly doing dastardly things to you in the future?
Definitions and the terms to which they apply (or “labels,” if you like), on the other hand, are quite useful. In fact, I have a hard time imagining intelligent discourse between people who can't agree on the meanings of words. The morality or desirability of any given act, however, are things we'll just have to slug out in the legislatures and courts.
As for “empowering the label,” I'm afraid the scenario you fear has already come to pass in this country. Except the label being used is not “sociopath,” it is “illegal drug user.” If you get this label applied to you you might very well be removed from society, and since most people in America use drugs of one sort or another, it is indeed a very useful tool for the government to remove certain people from society. But they've been doing that sort of thing for ages, and it has little to do with the use or utility of labels. In fact, “illegal drug user” is a perfectly accurate descriptor of the individual to which the label is applied. It's the question of whether the drug use in question should be considered good or bad that we need to address.
That is a pretty incredible statement by Rand Paul, but pretty typical of what we've been hearing from the “reformers.” For people who bluster so loudly about their own toughness, the Republicans have been remarkably cowardly when it comes to offering budget specifics. But they are calling the shots, so there's no mystery about what the 15% will be. Mostly social spending, now when people need it the most.
I don't think Paul's statement represents wishful thinking, in fact I doubt there is a member of Congress who doesn't know what the score is. It's more likely a coded message to his donor base: “The MIC, overseas empire, health care and retirement rackets are all safe from the budget axe. So keep those donations coming. Everything will be just fine once we get those pesky poor people off the government teat. Oh, and as long as the Chinese keep loaning us money...”
I wish our elected representatives did know "the score". I wish they were all thoroughly familiar with the dire situation our country is in. However, I'm convinced many of them have spent far too much effort creating their own specific echo chambers, resounding with messages that can only pass through their confirmation bias filters.
Michelle Bachman, Rand Paul and others have been elected, as those before them, by broadcasting a message that resonates with enough voters to put them into office. That has little to do with their abilities at governing or even at identifying problems and solutions.
It is our job through media such as this blog site to provide confirmation to dunderheads whenever they latch onto a reasonably good idea, as rare as that may be. We must also resist aligning ourselves with their marvelously stupid ideas. My support of Ron Paul's desire to shrink the military and deconstruct the empire in no way implies my support of all his other views.
There is no political party that reflects all my political views and there is astounding stupidity among the elected members of every party. But, once in a while, someone gets one thing right.
If Ron Paul were truly committed to the Collapse Platform, he would have to fire his current crop of military advisors who are foolishly advocating for an immediate end to overseas military operations (and eventual decampment from all overseas bases with repatriation of troops and contractors back to CONUS).
He needs to change his tune and start publicly supporting one of the most successfully implemented foreign policy planks of the Collapse Party platform: stay involved in an expensive, hopeless land war in Afghanistan.
Additionally, if Mr. Paul wished to further distinguish himself from the current crop of garden variety run-of-the-mill collapse candidates, he could show his command of history and impress military collapse strategists around the world by putting forth a plan for the US to launch a major ground offensive against Russia (from US bases in Germany) to start in mid-2011 or 2012. He merely needs to point to the historical examples of Napleon's Grande Armée and Hitler's Operation Barbarossa to show the collapse-worthiness of this plan.
Of course he could also always step up support for a local US-based boondoggle, the US-Mexico Border Wall, in the same category as the Maginot Line and Hadrian's Wall, namely the destined-to-be-bypassed-or-abandoned category.
You appear ill-informed about the details of the Collapse Party platform.
We are in favor of repatriating all US troops while there is still time, because otherwise there is a good chance that they will become stranded overseas, and will be forced to fight their way out or to go native.
As far as military misadventures, a far better ploy would be for the US to declare war on France and then immediately declare unconditional surrender. Let the French sort out the mess. After all, they were in part responsible for the Colonies leaving the British Empire in the first place.
I'm saying it's dangerous to play into the authority of the DSM-IV (and its in-draft replacement the DSM-V). Have you read any of Tomas Szasz's work? The cubbyholing of what is essentially inconvenient, bothersome, or otherwise non-mainstream behavior and labelling that behavior as a psychiatric issue or syndrome, that's pretty far down the road to what the Germans did during the Third Reich in criminalizing everything that wasn't pro-Nazism. Other oppressive regimes also have used psychiatric "diagnoses" as bases for punishment, disappearance, torture, injury, murder of citizens.
I'd rather avoid that path myself, but I can see how it's attractive when you want to lasso, corral and brand a bunch of people who seem to be running society into the ground.
see my response above to Nebris and see if that doesn't clarify what I think about your response referring to the DSM-IV etc.
I work in mental health. I'm well familiar with diagnosis, categorization, and the ramifications of being labelled with a DSM diagnosis. They're already pretty negative in American culture. Why would someone want to make it worse?
BTW, I'm also a lawyer, so I'm well aware of how the law treats mental illness -- and it's not fair treatment, not at all. Very inhumane. Involuntary commitment is a pretty scary thing to think about, if you've ever suffered any form of DSM-categorized mental illness. And in many states it can happen despite your clear grasp on reality and sanity, if an "expert" testifies that you require commitment.
You want "experts" to have that power/authority?
Back to the subject at hand, there's no point in "diagnosing" Ron or Rand Paul. Just follow their statements and acts and judge them accordingly -- as worthy of your support on an issue, or not.
No need to label them. Labels serve no fruitful purpose in politics, other than division... and I'd suggest division isn't fruitful.
As far as I can figure out, a total governmental collapse is inevitable and needs to happen before any positive changes can happen. And it looks like the current Congress is more than willing to shred what is left of the social safety net. And that's when a lot of people get to become hungry and homeless. And that's when the collapse comes and people get into the streets. Wisconsin is just a mild preview of what is coming.
We are all Egypt now. The revolt will spread to the entire world. The question will be how the US government (and the military) reacts. Will it be Egypt or more like Libya, where military jets just started dropping bombs on the protesters today?
There is nobody with any power in any branch of the US government that cares about the people of this country. Or the country itself for that matter. So, I'm not going to waste my time thinking about how to form a political party or anything else that requires working within the existing system. Ron Paul has some good ideas, but he's been fighting this battle for over 30 years. Just like the electorate, he and his ideas have been marginalized.
Cultivateing the garden, my neighbors, and my useful skills are the only things I can count on. So I'll just keep on keepin' on.
That dog barks but can't bite. Fed is here to stay. It may be unconstitutional but it has become a key systemic element of American monetary infrastructure. It's like a rudder which is needed to turn the boat. While I generally agree on some of the elements of decreased spending and gold-backed currency, one must acknowledge the flexibility that fiat currency delivers. Certainly, it's the American irresponsibility and losing track of reality that contributed to the economic collapse, not the nature of the fiat currency itself. It's like abusing any other credit element.
Ron Paul's narrative is a broken record. Doom is pretty easy to call these days. What he seems to miss is the only thing keeping capitalism propped up is his arch nemesis, the state. I'm sure calls for less social support will go over well when 100 million are angry and unemployed. Maybe Mr. Paul thinks if the pesky government gets out of the way the "invisible and" will take care of the surplus population. his views on peak oil is that only if the government would not get involved the market would fix all problems. Excuse me while I puke at his bizarro religious beliefs.
For a new way to look at things check out the design and rationale for a "Resource Based Economy"
I believe RebelFarmer has grazed the surface of the current psychological problem that plagues the rich and powerful, in addition to other psychological problems others have discussed here.
A historical account of its development into a major school of thought (Nobody Cares) can be found here:
One of the principles I really like about the Transition Towns movement is "Not campaigning AGAINST things".
I'd like to extend that idea to "Not complaining about The System and not criticizing The Folks In Charge." The entire fossil-fueled modern world is headed for collapse, so there's no point in concerning ourselves with it -- or any of the fools who are trying to keep it functioning. The whole shebang will implode with or without our input. Let it go. Let it be.
Far better to focus our attention on growing and preserving food, making clothes, building with local materials, developing friendships with neighbors, forming community groups, striving toward local self-sufficiency and sustainable living while forging alliances with similar communities. In general: doing things that make a difference.
It can do wonders for the spirit, and can help to get the body in shape to boot.
Everyone's go to go through the "stages" (denial, rage, grief, etc.) I'm working on acceptance, but still hovering on the border of grief.
I think the hardest thing to combat is my own physical laziness. I need a "collapse coach"!! ;-))
Good comment, though, and best of luck to you, my donkey.
Fifty years from now, when you are sitting around a camp fire late at night the children will ask about the collapse. Don't use the word party.
Although Paul has some unrealistic expectations of decentralised economic rationality and the self-healing powers of markets, his program of ideas concerning the avoidance of excessive government intervention or corporatist control, in conjunction with the need for advancing deimperialization and supposedly disengaging the MIC is overall refreshingly honest, if somewhat difficult to execute. Some of his policies could slightly collapse the monetary system some more at first by not extending the debt ceiling or so.
Conversely, he also publicly denounces the follies of the Fed somewhat more clearly than most, he does at least try to address some corruption there.
In another media system, he might stand a good chance of winning a presidential election on an appeal to an innovative economic strategy and non-imperialistic foreign theory, not so much here.
Sociopathic conduct evidently comprises a consistently disproportionate element of upper hierarchies, perhaps this emanates mostly from actual sociopaths, here estimated to be up to 10%-20% of the active population in more unseemly professions, especially within politics, business and finance, efficient functioning of particular positions often becoming highly self-selective for exact antisocial conduct patterns.
I've settled on a system for provisionally classifying seven types of sociopaths in a theoretical framework of dominant sociopathy, or heuristic ponerology.
Type a-1, a-2, b-1 and b-2 would be clinically diagnosable sociopaths with innately verifiable, exceedingly abusive and largely non-correctible anti-social or sadistic personality disorders of varying configuration. Whereas a large number of all types cannot control violent or unlawful impulses and are often incarcerated or institutionalised, the more functional or successful specimen are capable of internally supressing and externally projecting or localising dissociality into institutionally dominant exploitative ventures, preferably via pliant governmental or corporate structures to be cumulatively formatted for antisocial induction.
Type a's might generally be more intelligent or proficient in the abuse of professional skillsets, being superior administrative mainpulators of business, finance and commercial legislation, relying on contained professional habitats for maximum efficency, ideally interspersed with likeminded or complementary types for synergistic sociopathy. Type b's would be suited for complex socio-political manipulations by more efficiently emulating a public conscience and emotive wordset, effectively feigning a moral memory when required in public, and able to optimally leverage any combination of lies without the associated hazard of guilt, thus yielding a significant advantage in politics and demagogy. The -1 types may [physically] lack the moral framework which allows autonomous value-system cognitions, and may be biologically incapable of comprehending the difference between reciprocal good and evil, or unable to dissociate [abusive] power from happiness, where -2 types could possibly develop empathy under certain conditions or still experience lateral love.
The c-1, c-2 and c-3 types could be a broader collection of synthetic or subjugated part-time sociopaths exhibiting more socially induced or stress-acquired sociopathological disorders, ubiquitous states of transient ethical dysfunction historically encompasses a large minority of the general population in more sociopathogenic societal configurations, conditional anti-social conduct being commonly induced by dominant subtypes through institutionally or culturally conductive sociopathy, which apparently yields unstable societies. These types should be resocialisable to a larger degree, having a clearly definable empathic conscience of sorts.
But do they have souls, even the worst of them, surely they must? They're still people perhaps, but considered as ethically challenged.
Type a : vampire
Highly intelligent, secretive, unable to socialise, maintains power by pulling strings from remote castle.
Type b : werewolf
Alternately savage predator and normal human, able to maintain normal social roles if wolf side is kept secret.
Type c : zombie
Normal human enslaved by vampires and werewolves. Highly infectious, seeks to devour the brains of normal humans, and mindlessly spread own mentality.
Note on ponerology: poneros does not mean "power" but "evil," althouigh these are not exactly mutually exclusive!
supergravity, that is interesting about the "subjugated, part-time sociopaths". I'd put my sister in that group.
Our latest argument was over the trend in prison privatization; she was for it, of course. She didn't seem to think there was anything at all wrong with establishing a positive profit motive for robbing people of their liberty.
Where do such people come from? How did she get that way?
As someone who probably does not have the skills to survive a full Collapse (renter, owning no land to grow food, work skills which are useful only in a techonological society and which can be easily outsourced), let me ask this question from a different angle.
Is there any chance for those like me to survive? If so, do you have any ideas on how to achieve that? Or for us, is it a case of wanting the Collapse to be pushed off as long as possible in order to stay alive as long as possible? If the latter, would it not be in our best interests to oppose "Collapse Party" agendas? How would you convince us otherwise?
Are we talking about "Collapsitalism"?
Here there would have been a comment by a self-confessed unapologetic fascist, if I hadn't marked it as spam. I do my best to keep out the obvious mental defectives.
Don't give up hope. You may be able to find work as a serf if you have a strong back and don't mind working for a feudal lord. Beatings and starvation at no extra charge, I hear.
Or you might try to learn something that will save you from such a fate. Or you might keep trying to delay the inevitable a bit longer. If you opt for delay, you should probably run for Congress, as you have the right mindset.
Dmitry, as a bright engineer from the land of Tsiolkovsky, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on space exploration and humanity's fate in general. Do you agree with Fred Hoyle that we have one shot to become a space-faring species, and if we fail it don't you think humanity's destiny is a long descent back to the Olduvai, followed by extinction?
It's easy in times like these to become a cheerleader for collapse and to want to sail away from the whole mess, but don't you ever miss the sheer engineering challenge of trying to do something "impossible”, in the spirit of the Russian Cosmists? Instead of a Collapse Party, maybe it's time for a Cosmist Party, and a renewed push into space, where all limits to growth disappear? Anyway, it's just a thought in case you've reached "peak doomerism" and are looking for new horizons, as happened to me not long ago...
Give yourself credit. You're aware of our societal problem, you've shown an interest in it by posting a comment here, and you acknowledge that collapse will happen eventually. So you're already further ahead than the vast majority of the public, who either (a) aren't aware of the problem, or (b) are aware but don't care about the problem, or (c) deny there's a problem.
Addressing your points:
1. You don't need to own land, and whether you rent or own your accommodation is irrelevant; you can help your neighbor(s) tend their gardens, or you can help tend a community garden.
2. You can learn new skills, such as how to tend a garden from start to finish.
3. Don't worry about your skills being outsourced; in a collapsed society, nothing will be outsourced, as everything will be done locally.
Regarding your question on how to survive, there's lots of information (plus a boatload of interesting ideas) in the articles on this site. Have your read all of them, along with their comments? If so, it's time to put what you've learned into practice. Dig in!
That's a good point isn't it?
Aren't the sustainable living people about to be left behind in the evolutionary race as the mega rich start to go off planet with their environment destroying riches?
Isn't the ideal of the environmental movement to be like the Barbarians of Huxley's Brave New World?
Is there an expectation that Earth loving virtue will be rewarded with a place in the future, or does the future lay with the financial winners, no matter how destructive they have been?
I notice Branson, with his Virgin Galactic is also involved in peak oil preparedness.
@ The Cosmist
You missed it. The Cosmist Party had its heyday 40+ years ago. The pursuit of its goals resulted in germination of the Collapse Party. The push into space illusion died before Armstrong left the first footprint on the moon. I knew it the day I read in NASA's newsletter that the Nova Launch Vehicle had been canceled. That was about 1967.
The reason given was the damage estimate for an on pad or low altitude explosion of its fuel load. It was expected to be nearly equivalent to a tactical nuke. There was no place in the US from which it could be safely launched.
It's just as well, because realistic people soon figured out that there is no place worth visiting that can be reached from here. That new horizon you claim to have seen is a mirage.
Leaving earth for another planet merely puts off the day of reckoning by a few thousand to at most one billion years. Barring a direct hit on earth from an asteroid, our sun is very old, and when it dies, so does our solar system and any nearby planets caught in the supernova or black hole that results from its death.
It is highly unlikely that humans could invent technology to leave this solar system and find a new one with a young sun before the end. It would take a coordinated plan involving every human being dedicating every moment of their lives to this one project, like a colony of ants that have only one purpose.
I am not saying that this is impossible. It is possible. The problem is that in doing so, we cease to be "human".
Either way, we go extinct.
Post a Comment