Systemic break in the American market coming

Michael Greenberger, a former official with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is responsible for policing much of the derivatives market, disputed Treasury’s main defense of the exemption –that the contracts expire so fast that they don’t pose serious risks to the financial system. “Within the next 60 months, there will be a systemic break in this market,” said Greenberger, now a law professor at the University of Maryland. Other people aren’t buying any of the financial spin coming out of DC or NYC. The illusions is breaking outside of America: America’s reckless money-printing could put the world back into crisis America’s base money supply –the bedrock of the world’s reserve currency –has doubled in little more than two years.

Chow Towers of Babel

Chow Towers of Babel

SOME SCIENTISTS HAVE become so excited by the work of bio-wall pioneers like Patrick Blanc that they have begun to contemplate greenifying not only the outer envelopes of buildings, but their stratified floors, as well. Specifically, if green roofs and green walls can serve positive purposes, like preventing sewage wastewater from clogging up the city’s arteries, maybe green buildings can be put to even more productive use — like solving the planet’s food crisis, perhaps?

THIS ISSUE IS A LITTLE BIT outside the scope of Green Apple’s work — we’re certainly an ambitious group of people, but I highly doubt that we’re going to be building a full-scale farm anytime soon. But we most certainly plan on introducing much more food production into our landscape designing, from hops and herb gardens to beekeeping and backyard chickens. So it’s important that we examine the future of food and its relationship to landscape and localization.

THE CONCEPT GOES something like this: Our food system is currently undergoing a major crisis. Fact: the population of the planet will reach a staggering seven billion by the year 2012, and most estimates put the population at eight billion only 12 years after that, with nine not far behind. And as the human settlement project expands on the land, residential and industrial developments gobble up what were once mom-and-pop farms. We still end up producing more food every year than the year before, but the human population expansion far outstrips these food increases.

FACT: THE WESTERN fast-food industry, which requires massive amounts of grazing ground to satiate our appetite for cheap beef, is responsible for the depletion of huge swaths of the Amazon rainforest, the last set of lungs for Planet Earth. It also diverts a lot of grains grown elsewhere for the feeding of these animals, instead of providing plant-food for people. So a much more meat-intensive diet is mass-marketed to America and less developed countries. The result: more corporate profit, less food for humans, per plant input.

FACT: INDUSTRIAL FARMING, the process by which we bombard the soil with chemicals and artificially facilitate the growth of monoculture food crops, has depleted the earth of its natural nutritional content. This locks us into a vicious cycle whereby we must continue to poison the soil if we want it to yield any harvest. The alternative, letting the land lie fallow for years while we pay for the sins of previous generations and patiently rebuild the mineral content of the topsoil, is too expensive to contemplate in a capitalist system, meaning, that it’s not profitable in the short term.

FACT: THE AMOUNT OF fossil fuel that can be pumped out of the ground every day has reached its peak, and is undeniably steadily and permanently declining. Ten calories of oil energy — in the form of fertilizers and fuel for transportation — are required in order produce only a single calorie of food. Less oil means less food produced at higher prices. And putting pressure on the grain industry to supply bio-fuels from corn and sugar cane only increases demand, which causes a corresponding further increase in the prices of these food staples, mainly for poor people.

BOTTOM LINE: WE HAVE reached the physical limits of the globalized industrial food production and distribution network. In the last couple of years, dozens of countries around the world, from Egypt to Russia and from Mexico to the Phillippines, have seen rioting in the streets due to rising food prices. Even in rich countries like Canada, food stockpiles have declined to insanely low levels (I would rather not speculate about specific figures I have read about). Add the effects of climate change into the mix, and we only need a couple of unusually low-level harvests in a row, and we’re looking at planetary famine.


Food Riots in Mexico, 2007

Food Riots in Haiti, 2008

Food Riots in Milwaukee, 2008

SO AN IDEA BEING PROPOSED as a possible solution to these terminal ills is called ‘Vertical Farming’. The general gist of it is: either take pre-existing skyscrapers in the downtown core, or build brand new ones, exclusively for the purposes of growing more food — kind of like combining the Hanging Gardens of Babylon with the Towers of Babel. If we’re running out of space to do horizontal horticulture, maybe there needs to be a third agricultural revolution, this time in the third dimension? This is the problem and the proposal; in the next blog entry in this series, The History of Height, we’ll analyze it from a deep eco practical perspective.

Ebonics in Law Enforcement- Ignorance on the march!

Ebonics in Law Enforcement

by Jeff Davis

Now, this one is just plain weird. The Smoking Gun website reports: “The Department of Justice is seeking to hire linguists fluent in Ebonics to help monitor, translate, and transcribe the secretly recorded conversations of subjects of narcotics investigations, according to federal records. A maximum of nine Ebonics experts will work with the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Atlanta field division, where the linguists, after obtaining a DEA Sensitive security clearance, will help investigators decipher the results of telephonic monitoring of court ordered nonconsensual intercepts, consensual listening devices, and other media.”

So the Black underclass has not only failed to assimilate (as anyone with a brain could have predicted); they have drifted so far apart from Whites that their language is becoming incomprehensible to law enforcement personnel.

Ignorance on the march!

The Smoking Gun article notes “The DEA’s need for full-time linguists specializing in Ebonics is detailed in bid documents related to the agency’s mid-May issuance of a request for proposal (RFP) covering the provision of as many as 2100 linguists for the drug agency’s various field offices. Answers to the proposal were due from contractors on July 29. In contract documents, which are excerpted here, Ebonics is listed among 114 languages for which prospective contractors must be able to provide linguists. The 114 languages are divided between common languages and ‘exotic languages’. Ebonics is listed as a common language spoken solely in the United States. Ebonics has widely been described as a nonstandard variant of English spoken largely by African Americans. John R. Rickford, a Stanford University professor of linguistics, has described it as ‘Black English’ and noted that ‘Ebonics pronunciation includes features like the omission of the final consonant in words like ‘past’ (pas’ ) and ‘hand’ (han’), the pronunciation of the th in ‘bath’ as t (bat) or f (baf), and the pronunciation of the vowel in words like ‘my’ and ‘ride’ as a long ah (mah, rahd).”

“Ebonics” is not a language. It is an ignorant and illiterate bastard English spoken by ignorant and illiterate people. Ignorance is not a culture. Ignorance is not a point of view. It’s just ignorant. In essence, the Department of Justice is now proposing to hire ignorant and illiterate blacks and pay them huge federal salaries and benefits, including medical insurance that most White people can only dream about, for the “service” of listening to black drug dealers babble obscenities at one another on wiretap tapes.

By catering to the inane politically correct notion that “Ebonics” is a language they’re just creating another rat hole to pour endless tax dollars down. What next? University degrees in this non-existent “language”?

De 5-0 gone be gettin’ dese sorry brothas paid fo’ snitchin’ on de slingers and de fiends in de projects, ‘cept dey betta not get burned, or some homey goin bust a cap in dey @ss. Hey, I watched all four seasons of “The Wire,” so I’m just as qualified as some ghetto black to be an Ebonics translator. Can I have a civil service job at $62,000 a year and full bennies, O-Man?

“Tradition alone cannot support legislation”

“Tradition alone cannot support legislation”

For the past half-century, “non-discrimination” has been a popular justification for enforcing the will of the ruling elite, and so it was today in U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s ruling that California’s Proposition 8 ban on “gay marriage” is “unconstitutional” because it “advance[s] the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples.”

It is also a remarkably un-democratic decision, in that Walker explicitly acknowledges that the “majority of California voters supported the initiative” in a fair referendum. (This certainly won’t stop the Left from universally acclaiming the judgment as a victory for “the people.”)

But the most revealing line of all is Walker’s claim,“Tradition alone cannot support legislation.” (Walker actually means something much stronger, for it was because the law was based on tradition that it had to be thrown out.)

Many well-intentioned conservatives and Christians want to rely on the court system, lawyers, and politicians (who are lawyers) to “save marriage” from the cultural revolution. They should stop wasting their time. Instead, attempting to divorce marriage from the state altogether (Ron Paul’s position) — that is, making it pure tradition, unconnected to legislation — is the only way to protect this millennia-old folkway from the forces on “non-discrimination.”

Model for the absorption of foreign-sourced critical understandings

Model for the absorption of foreign-sourced critical understandings

by PF

Critiques have consequences. Right now the greatest superpower on Earth, the United States, is faced with fundamental questions about its existence that it just can’t answer. What are we? Who are we? What should our strategic goals be? What are the fundamentals of our culture? All of these questions in my opinion are iterations of the first one: what are we? No satisfactory answer is forthcoming or can be agreed upon.

It is possible to intuit how an entity subject to such mass confusion cannot possibly continue to exist, but rather appears to simply be waiting on a series of transformations which will alter it beyond recognition. This is because an entity that doesn’t understand what it is, cannot maintain itself against the forces of entropy which, necessarily, will pull and push and work on it. Our predecessors in the 60s, 70s and 80s laid the cultural foundation for this dissolution of nationhood. In the late 70s, 80s, and 90s the resulting anomie began to have obvious consequences for the structural aspects of national existence – of which I would mention Ponzi economics and the dumbing down of school curricula and pop culture. Today the only thing that is sure is that the knock-on effects and unintended consequences of these mass movements are likely to carry us past several consecutive points-of-no-return, into a reality unmapped, unplanned, and given what little we can foresee of it, likely very dangerous.

To think, it may one day all end in nuclear war.

(If you have quibbles with the articulation of the preamble, I ask you to holster them, on the grounds that I wish to discuss something besides The General State of Things And How We Got Here)

Probably the most important causal strain underlying this cultural transformation was an act of intellectual warfare summarized in Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique. The perpetrators of these acts answer to the names of Cultural Marxism, Critical Theory, the Frankfurt School, and Boasian Anthropology.

Its quite remarkable to experience how these understandings, having trickled-down into knee-jerk reactions of even the intellectual proletariat, infuse every discussion. As Jonathan Bowden put it, they “permeate the ether”. The conclusions and tactics of these critiques have become some of the only common threads of our intellectual discourse, and an unconscious intelligenzia has busily spun itself a whole new cultural tapestry using them as a basis. The more people borrow their thoughts from the hive-mind, the more this ideational lattice-work appears to be independently rediscovered as an underlying facet of reality itself. Of course the observer is pointing to a reality that he himself has unconsciously structured and is calling it “World!”, as is par for the course with us, but it demonstrates that the battle which we lost was, first of all, an intellectual one.

Our general cultural attitude of lackadaisical, ironically-reframed despair belies how deathly serious the white man has always taken the results of his own reasonings. Abstract truth and reasonings about the consequences of action are absolutely no joke in white society: we enforce a moral order based on our abstract reasonings about the ultimate consequences of our actions. The accomplishment of the Culture of Critique, among others, was to link the existence of suffering, violence, warfare and genocide, to certain structural aspects of white society which could not be excised without collapsing the whole edifice. In trying to eradicate these tendencies, we subject our society to a continual state of collapse. This was accomplished via abstract reasoning about Patriarchy, The Authoritarian Personality, the necessary results and implicit psychology of white ethnocentrism, etc. For example, it was reasoned that any expression of our natural territorial instincts would lead to genocide. Thus we lost the ability to express them, and subsequently we have lost our territories.

Seeing that social critiques are capable of dissolving a society within a small amount of time, it is necessary to take them very seriously. Any future society which intends to exist will have to develop a protocol to protect itself from acts of intellectual warfare while stilll remaining adaptable and exploring new ideas. This implies a new seriousness in dealing with critiques which are voiced across EGI boundaries – critiques which are articulated by foreigners yet directed at one’s own society. I’m going to describe how critiques should be handled in a pre-Ethnostate society where people of foreign EGI are allowed unpunished self-expression.

I should say in advance that the following procedure can be rendered unnecessary if people of foreign EGI are denied free right of self-expression within a society. More likely than whites spontaneously adhering to the intellectual rigor of the below-outlined scheme, is that our societies will continue to fracture into smaller units until foreign EGI has no voice and is accorded no trust within these social units, at which point we will be theoretically safe from intellectual sabotage. If there is no way for a critique to find wide-spread expression (e.g. the Culture of Critique found expression in pop music, Hollywood movies and TV), then there is at least apparently little danger of critical ideas causing wide-spread social destruction. We can use, to some extent already do use, the following procedure when investigating critiques articulated by people of foreign EGI.

Firstly, the analogy for how to treat foreign-sourced critiques is to treat them as if they were a shipment of dangerous weapons. This in the understanding that, likely as not, the shipment may contain weapons that are either booby-trapped or themselves intended for use as weapons against the receiver. In other words, the critiques may contain ideas permitting us to advance strategically, or they may contain ideas that deliberately will harm us, and most likely they contain a mixture of both. For example, a Darwinist critique of German romanticism might advance the truth search of Germans, in which case the foreign critique would have brought them advantages. If Englishmen had deliberately ‘rigged’ the critique to denude the German philosophical tradition of its ponderous, imagination-based method of self-relating, that might be a deliberate attempt at harm. European peoples don’t have much experience with intellectual warfare, since they don’t have much experience with tribalism generally. Strategic disinformation on the part of our governments is the height of aggressive ethnocentric intellectual warfare which we are usually capable of. Since our states are genocidally inclined against us, we can’t even lay claim to this being an ethnocentric act, which is the only strategic context in which they would even make sense.

When you get a shipment of foreign-sourced critiques there are several questions to be asked.

The first question is: who is this from?

Second question: what is their EGI?

Third question: What inferences can be made on the basis of existing conflicts between sender and recipient EGIs, about possible motives or preferred routes of sabotage?

Fourth question: how is the critique framed, does it seek an ammendment of the should-matrix? (The typical hack through which white morality is coopted to serve foreign EGI).

Fifth question: what ammendments to the should-matrix does the critique suggest and what strategic advantages does it promise?

Critiques which have the potential to be extremely dangerous or which come from known enemies should be recapitulated by local-source EGI’ed persons, the equivalent of rebuilding our own version of the weapon using the original as a template. In this recapitulation procedure, a person who is intellectually able to understand the content of the critique, but whose loyalty is known, restructures the critique into a series of strategic “if-then” statements. These statements diffuse the moral ardour and tone of urgency typically used by foreign saboteurs to force acceptance of their critique on the recipient. The suggested logical outcome matrix (“If you do this, then this will happen, which is what you want”) can then be looked at abstractly and dispassionately, to see if the critique actually suggests a usable amendment to current behavior.

The critique is then re-presented for consideration to a committee of people who are consciously involved in EGI-strategizing, such as the audience at this blog. If it has useful amendments in it, then these are accepted once they have been ‘naturalized’ by articulation through a local-EGI’ed critic. They are then given for experimental verification to a contingent of local-EGI’ed persons who are willing to experiment with the new suggestions. All of this can be done quite informally, indeed, we currently do it informally and unconsciously.

In the future I will take apart a common shipment of foreign-sourced critiques, what I call the ‘Sensibility Critique’, articulated in our times by uh and Silver, to show how they contain disastrously harmful memes which really are sufficient by themselves to destroy an ethnic polity.