Archive for June, 2017

Not the Zionist Occupation government

Friday, June 30th, 2017

The presidency grows ever more powerful, becoming more and more a total regime, dominating and effectively replacing every other level of government except the federal judiciary. Every school board, every local police shop, answers to the feds, not to local authority, and the power of the presidency aggressively extends into every business, every home, and every family. At the same time the merely elected government, including the mere president, are fading away to shadows conducting empty rituals, like the Queen of England proceeding in a stagecoach to open Parliament.

I had hoped for and predicted a Trump coup, in which Trump seizes control of the presidency. I still have hopes, but I predicted the coup would happen by now, and it has not happened yet. Rather, a reverse coup threatens, in which the special counsel indicts Trump of obstruction of justice on the grounds that his statements about Russia rigging the American elections in Trump’s favor are supposedly untrue, inconsistent, etc, and then the special counsel has men uniformed as cops make Trump do the perp walk, thus effectively impeaching Trump in place of an the archaic and obsolete procedure of a two thirds Senate vote. Of course, such coup by the permanent government against the merely temporary government has a significant risk that the secret service or the army might interfere, answering a coup with a counter coup. CNN is one of the voices of the permanent government, one of many loudspeakers connected to one microphone, and the recent firing of some CNN reporters indicates the permanent government is retreating from a coup.

The permanent government, or some in the permanent government, have been walking away from the increasingly improbable impeachment by two thirds senate vote and have been prepping for impeachment by special counsel. The firing indicates that they have been told by others in the permanent government to cut the special counsel option out. Retreat, once started, is hard to stop, hard to keep under control, tends to get out of hand. So I still have high hopes, but I have already been wrong on this topic.

Which brings me to the topic of this post. Who are the permanent government? Are they the permanent government of Israel.

On this topic, I have information from a well placed Jewish member of the American permanent government. When Jews from Israel’s permanent government talk to members of the US permanent government, they say “May I kiss your ass sir?”. When told to jump through hoops, and with great regularity and harsh and casual abruptness, they are told to jump through hoops, they ask “How high should the hoop be and should it be on fire?”

The American permanent government is disproportionately Jewish, and the Jewish members of the permanent government do not identify as white in their own minds. But they definitely do not identify as Israelis.

When we purge the universities, the civil service, and the judiciary of progressives, there will be a lot of Jews taking a swim in the pacific. There is going to be a lot of disparate impact. But the their equivalents in Israel are not going to miss them one little bit.

If we were to purge the genes, rather than the memes, if we were to gas the Jews, rather than drown the heretics, we would be goring the matador’s cape and would miss the matador.

That said, there is a disturbing visceral hostility to whites and white civilization in the US permanent government, which is particularly noticeable in Global Warming “science” and in “environmentalism”. Even if it were true that Global Warming is happening and is exactly what official science said that it is, the Paris treaty was not to stop global warming, but to punish whites in general and Americans in particular.

Remember Angela Merkel shrinking from the German flag, like a vampire from the cross. That is very much the attitude of many in the government to any science or technology that invovles getting your hands dirty. Except it is grandfathered in, it tends to be deemed self evidently illegal and immoral.

Jews have made many important contributions to science, and we would be poorer and less powerful without them, but to technology and applied science, not so much. Like the classic Greeks they theorize without getting their own hands dirty. For this reason I am inclined to doubt the Jewish nuclear force. Feynman made a big contribution to the Manhattan project, but he never actually laid hands on an actual piece of plutonium. The kind of person who could actually build successful nuclear weapons, rather than merely theorize about them, would insist on actually testing them. That Israel has not tested any nukes inclines me to doubt it has the kind of people who could successfully build them.

There is deep and wide hostility in the government to technological civilization, to commercial application of technology, to technology applied and developed to create wealth and power, to what makes white civilization powerful and importantly different from past civilizations. Not all Jews are hostile to technological civilization, Feynman certainly was not, and not everyone hostile to technological civilization is Jewish, but it is a disproportionately Jewish characteristic. Not all Jews are like that, but that is the way to bet. Blacks will tell us “You did not build that” and tell us “we wuz Kangs” and whites stole all our stuff from them, and history taught at our best universities tells us they were Kangs and we stole all our stuff from them, but Jews, unlike blacks, will condescend that actually building stuff is for menials and inferiors. Blacks would like to be capable of techno-commercial civilization, but are not. Jews snear and condescend at techno-commercial civilization. Which is irritating, but not usefully addressed by gassing them.

The bitcoin crisis

Thursday, June 29th, 2017

There can only be one.

There can only be one money, at the root of all others. Money is a measure of value, a store of value, and a medium of exchange, and you want to uses the same medium of exchange and measure of value as everyone else.

At the very beginning, I said the trouble with bitcoin, as originally designed, is that it does not scale. Everyone, to be a peer, to be an equal participant, has to store and process everyone else’s transactions, thus the cost of each transaction increases with the number of peers. I estimate the current cost of a transaction to be about a thousand dollars, most of which is carried by people speculating in bitcoin, hoping that as the USG empire collapses, bitcoin, rather than gold, will replace the dollar.

Bitcoin is reaching, indeed has substantially exceeded, its inherent limits. For it to become the one, it has to get away from a system where everyone processes everyone’s transactions, and stores everyone’s transactions.

The sidechain proposal is a way of getting away from that without a hard fork, so that your transactions are not seen by everyone, merely by enough people, and not stored by everyone forever, but only by a very small number of people forever.

Altcoins are hard fork proposals, which if they fix the scaling problem could become the one. At present the total value of altcoins is roughly equal to the total value of bitcoins.

At present, the true cost of bitcoin transactions is so outrageously high it cannot possibly become the one. It must die, and everyone invested in bitcoins will lose all their money, unless the sidechain proposal provides a forkless path to a world in which the true cost of bitcoin transactions is reduced to something reasonable.

But the interest in crypto currencies is so very great, the amount of money invested in crypto currencies is so very great, that one shall succeed. The amount of serious money invested is so very great that it looks overwhelmingly likely that as the USG empire falls, crypto currency, rather than gold, will replace the US$.

And that one shall be one that allows low, rather than hidden, transaction costs. Likely an altcoin rather than bitcoin, because the weight of special interests in bitcoin makes it hard to get to there from here.

But the wise investor should invest in gold, should invest in bitcoin in the hope that the scaling problems can be fixed without a hard fork, and should invest in an altcoin that has solved the scaling problem. And the last time I took a good look, none of them had actually solved the scaling problem, though many of them were hoping to solve it, claiming they had solved it, or had plans for eventually solving it.

The sidechain proposal has been kicked around for three years, and bitcoin’s transaction cost has been getting rapidly worse all this time.

Anyone who invests in bitcoin, is investing hoping that scaling can be fixed, for if scaling is not fixed, bitcoin will surely die. The current true cost of bitcoin transactions is absolutely unsustainable.

Roman Catholic Church cuckolded.

Tuesday, June 13th, 2017

I had thought the Philippines was the last place on earth where the Roman Catholic Church was not thoroughly cucked. Now it is cucked there also.

Muslims in the Philippines have been pissed at Christians ever since the Spanish conquered the place and imposed Roman Catholicism with fire and steel. And not very long ago, the Roman Catholic priesthood in Mindanao was mighty comfortable with fire and steel.

The Muslims in Mindanao in the Philippines think the crusades happened yesterday, and are at it again, attempting to seize the traditionally Muslim city of Marawi from Christians, killing priests and Christian teachers, burning their homes, churches, the usual. In response, President Duterte declares martial law and applies heavy weapons. And the Church seems to be more worried that martial law might lead to “human rights violations” than terror directed at Christians.

I am perfectly sure President Duterte will violate “human rights” all over the place. When I was in Davao, he was always violating the human rights of small time crooks and big time corrupt officials, and everyone loved him for it. I loved him for it. I would love to see Trump similarly violating the human rights of our federal bureaucracy.

According to the Roman Catholic priesthood of Mindanao, terrorism “is totally against the tenets of any religion of peace. Especially so when terrorism is perpetrated while our Muslim brothers and sisters are preparing for the holy month of Ramadhan. Terrorism distorts and falsifies the true meaning of any religion.”

You will notice there are no Muslim clerics in Mindanao saying that this terrorism is against the tenets of their religion

because it is not.

Why female status limits fertility

Monday, June 12th, 2017

Men want to have sex with as many women as possible, and give them no support.

Women want to have sex with the highest status men available (as women perceive status, which is similar to the way a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters perceives status), and be supported by men.

A prisoner’s dilemma problem, the war of the sexes, ensues.

If both freely pursue their interests, we get a defect/defect equilibrium, where a small minority of men have casual no strings attached sex with the large majority of women, and a these women sleep with only one man at a time, but sleep with one man after another, trading partners in an unending struggle to get a better male, or get a better position on his booty call list. This bad female behavior is exacerbated by the male tendency to give the newest woman the highest position on his boot call list. Women get the sex they want until they approach the end of their fertile years, but children don’t get fathers. Since producing fatherless children places a large burden on women, most women do not have children until used up on the cock carousel and approaching the end of their fertile years.

To enforce a cooperate cooperate equilibrium, mating choice has to restricted, denying men access to women, and women access to men. In order that men have the incentive and the power to restrict female sexual choice women have to be owned by men. Men and women have to be stuck with each other. Men need to own women, except that they cannot sell, rent out, abandon, or give away a well behaved woman that they have had sex with.

Iterated prisoner’s dilemma has a good solution if the number of iterations is large and has no definite end, but this is not the case with mating behavior, because a woman’s fertile years are short. The progressive scenario where woman sleep with one man after another until they find “the one” and then live happily ever after is prisoner’s dilemma with a large and indefinite number of iterations resulting in cooperate/cooperate, but the actual outcome is that they sleep with one man after another until they start to get desperate.

Rollo Tomassi, in his excellent book “The Rational Male”, starts out by criticizing “oneitis” – criticizing male disinclination to defect. If you defect on women harder and faster than they defect on you, women will defect on you less, not more. It is a successful and effective male adaptation to female emancipation. It works. He also criticizes mate guarding, because ineffective mate guarding is counterproductive, and effective mate guarding is illegal. Hard to do effective mate guarding without substantial social support – which certain religious communities have, but most of us do not. That effective mate guarding is difficult and illegal is extremely distressing to males.

Why feminists support Islamic Rape Jihad

Sunday, June 11th, 2017

Doubtless you have heard of the recent Idaho gang rape.

This was Islamic Rape Jihad, not just Muslim rapists, because the girl was five, because the boys put it on video, because the boys expected the support of their community, and because the boys received the support of their community.

Feminist response to this rape shows what feminists really want. Everyone reacting to this in an indignant manner is a male who is in favor of patriarchy to a greater or lesser extent, and many of them want to completely reverse female emancipation.

In the ancestral environment, and indeed today’s environment, if a woman was property the way a cow is property, she was likely to have substantially greater reproductive success than a free woman. If a man was property the way a cow is property, likely to have zero reproductive success.

In the ancestral environment, as today, male slaves don’t reproduce. Female slaves generally outreproduce free women. Thus the optimal strategy for a woman is to provoke until provocation results in enslavement.

The evolutionary optimal strategy for a female, in the ancestral environment, and in our present day environment, is to act in ways that gets the west conquered by Islamic State. If free, likely to have 1.5 children, and similarly her grandchildren, rapidly resulting in the total disappearance of her genes. If her menfolk are conquered and she is sold naked in chains on the auction block by Islamic state, likely to have six or seven children.

Optimal reproductive strategy for a woman is to be captured by a man who owns her much as he owns a cow and can do anything to her he could do to a cow. The optimal reproductive strategy for her owner is to treat her considerably better than he treats his cows, but the less he has power to do bad things to her, the more it is in his interests to do bad things to her. For a free woman, the stable strategy is defect/defect, for the woman to defect by serial monogamy, for the woman to spend her hottest and most fertile years continually trying to trade up to a higher status male or better place on some other male’s booty call list, and for a male to defect by keeping as many women as possible on his booty call list, to spin as many plates as possible, without investing in any of them. For a slave, because the slave cannot defect, because the slave is guaranteed to play cooperate, cooperate is also a good move for the male owner of a female slave, because he has a biological interest in the welfare of her children. He is free to impose cooperate/defect on her, but that is not actually all that much in his biological interest, which biological interest manifests in the tendency of men to love and care for women that they regularly have sex with, provided that they believe those women are not having sex with other men.

Feminist demands for emancipation ever escalate, no matter how extraordinary the privilege women are granted, because they are pushing for someone strong enough to master them. In the ancestral environment, free women were unsuccessful at reproducing, because prisoner’s dilemma. That she can defect on a man guarantees defect/defect, guarantees that he will try to defect before she does – giving her no care, protection, or support, keeping as many plates spinning as he can, so they look for someone powerful enough to stop them from defecting. Slave women will generally outreproduce free women, because he who owns a woman absolutely has incentive to invest in her and her children. Similarly, cows are numerous, their wild ancestors are generally extinct. If animal liberationists liberate chickens and cows, there are not going to be very many chickens or cows. If the People’s Popular Committee for Food Abundance tells the farmer he does not own his land and his crops, there is going to be crop failure.

And feminists, in supporting Rape Jihad, are unconsciously pursuing their optimal evolutionary reproductive strategy, which is to be sold by Islamic state naked in chains on the auction block. We are descended from free men and unfree women. Peoples, nations religions, cultures and groups with strong, proud, free, and independent women died out. They always die out.

Female emancipation is a shit test that we failed. Feminists support Rape Jihad because they are unconsciously looking for men who will pass their shit test.

The true cost of renewable energy

Thursday, June 8th, 2017

Because the cost of renewables is falsified, installation of renewables causes power crises. Renewables are installed. The cost of renewables is hidden in some other part of the system, renewables continue to be installed, that part of the system does not get increased funding, collapses, blackouts and brownouts ensue. Fixing the blackouts and brownouts costs money, the cost of electricity then rises to reflect the actual cost of renewables that no one will admit.

The cost of renewables is assessed without regard for the fact that renewables are intermittent and unpredictable. Sometimes the sun shines, some times it does not, sometimes the wind blows, sometimes it does not, sometimes it blows too hard and the windmills must shut down. This creates a burden on the grid, and the need for backup power, and this backup power and grid load is not costed or funded

So the overburdened grid shuts down, and you get blackouts, or there just is not enough power, and you get brownouts.

Eventually industry threatens to up and leave for lack of predictable power, and then, and only then, only after major threats from major industries, the additional generating capacity and grid capacity is built – and people have to pay for it. And then, and only then, the true cost of renewables becomes apparent.

Generating electricity costs very little. What is expensive is generating it when it is needed, and not when it is not needed, and transporting it from where it is generated to where it is used.

The rational way to charge for electricity would be like internet – charge by the size of the pipeline, not how much goes through it. Most of the cost of household electricity is the grid and power stations idling for times of peak demands.

The trouble with wind and solar is that sometimes the wind blows, and sometimes it does not, and sometimes the sun shines, and some times it does not. So it puts an unreasonable load on the grid and requires some kind other power source for times people want power, but the sun is not shining and the wind stops blowing.

If you have solar power on your roof, then when you feed excess power back into the grid it costs the power company money, because they have to have the extra grid capability to support unpredictable power being fed back into the grid at inconvenient times.

Hydroelectric is OK, provided one has a decent sized dam behind it, so that one can run water through the turbines when one needs power, and not run water through the turbines when one does not. It is the dam that is expensive, and the dam that makes hydroelectric power useful. Without a large enough dam, it is as useless and expensive as wind and solar.

If we had a cheap and effective means of storing power, then wind and solar would be great, and every household and every business would cheerfully go off grid and use solar for everything. High temperature batteries relying on molten sodium, molten salt, and beta alumina membranes are promising, but they are not yet economical in sizes small enough for household use, or even use by ordinary businesses.

The only cheap and effective means for storing power is pumped hydro. You need two large dams close together, one much higher than the other, and when the sun shines you pump water uphill, and when it is dark you run water downhill through the turbines. If you have rivers suitable for pumped hydro, then wind and solar is pretty reasonable. It is costlier than carbon and nuclear, but compared to the cost of the grid, not enough to make a huge difference.

Norway uses hydro, and hydro works fine. Austria uses hydro and pumped hydro. Portugal uses pumped hydro, and for them, wind and solar works fine. But most of the EU just does not have enough suitable dams for pumped hydro. And for them, renewable power sources are very expensive.

I took a list of EU countries that use widely varying amounts of renewable electrical power sources, leaving out Norway, Portugal, and Austria because of hydro and pumped hydro.

The cost of electricity in the remaining countries is, to a good approximation, proportional to the proportion that is generated renewably. Extrapolating to 100% renewable, it would cost 55 cents per kilowatt hour, extrapolating to 0% renewable, it would cost about 10 cents per kilowatt hour.

Fake News

Monday, June 5th, 2017

mark @markantro catches CNN staging a fake Muslim protest against terror. Hat tip Heartiste. Everyone in the reactosphere has posted this already, and I am posting it last, but I will give you a text summary of the video.

CNN positions the cameras pointing at a fake memorial of to those killed by terrorism, which “memorial” was supposedly created by the “Muslim protesters”, though initially we see only CNN camera crew around the “memorial”. Then they move the “Muslim protesters” into position after the fake memorial has been set up, giving them stage directions, positioning them, and posing them, in a way that makes it perfectly obvious they are actors who can be relied upon to take direction.

First the “memorial” is positioned by CNN staff who are not dressed as Muslim mothers. Then a CNN employee, not dressed as Muslim mother, holds a sign where the “Muslim mother” with the cute child is going to stand holding her sign. Then the child actor is positioned adjacent to the supposed memorial, because all the viewers will always look at the child actor first, and then, after the child actor and his supposed mother are positioned, all the other actors are positioned by the CNN movie director relative to the “memorial” and the child actor.

And then the official news starts about this heartwarming display of solidarity by Muslim mothers.

CNN says these are real protesters, not actors, despite the fact that they seen on video taking direction like competent actors.

OK. So is the “memorial” a real memorial despite the fact we saw that it had already been set up by CNN camera crew with not a “Muslim mother” in sight? If the memorial is fake, then the heartwarming mother and child are fake. The typical British Muslim is a military age male, and he is a refugee alright – taking refuge from the draft, frequently a refugee from a draft that would have conscripted him to fight a slightly different brand of Islamic terror, which draft he is dodging because he supports that other brand and does not want to fight against it.

Fact is if you are a Muslim, and you are not murdering innocents and raping children, not necessarily with your own hands, but in the sense of actively aiding and supporting those who do murder innocents and rape children, then you are a bad Muslim. And the vast majority of Muslims are at least passably good Muslims. Poster girl principle applies: If there was a significant minority of Muslims who do not support terror then CNN would not be reduced to faking it.

Islam is a warlike political movement. It is at war with us. We must conquer or surrender. And with our current leadership, surrender is starting to look not so bad.

Repeating once again: For well over a thousand years many kingdoms, nations, peoples, cultures, religions, tribes, and armed religions, have sought to coexist with Islam. None have succeeded. We will not be the first. In the end, we have to convert, or pogrom them, or they will pogrom us. Those are the choices. And surrender will not stop the pogroms, as each Muslim faction will complain that the other Muslim factions are insufficiently holy. Surrender, and we will become Bangladesh and Beirut. Surrender will cure our demographic death spiral, but will result in the decline of western science and technology, as it resulted in the decline of Indian science and technology. (The Damascus steel that so impressed the crusaders was Indian steel, created by the Aryan Indian castes, and soon Damascus steel swords became heirlooms, as the art of making them was lost.) A world without western science and technology cannot support the current world population, though China may well preserve our technology and economic system, and continue making minor improvements. Islam is the solution we do not want.

Our rulers plan to bring in four hundred million black male military age Muslims screaming for infidel blood and white pussy for their votes, to live on crime and welfare, and proceed to delude themselves about the long term consequences of this policy, which long term consequences are becoming apparent as we see supporters of Islamic terror elected to high office in London.

That CNN finds it necessary to fake Muslim opposition to terror tells us that there is only one solution. Islam must be expelled and/or suppressed. If Muslim states of a different faction find it necessary to expel Qataris back to Qatar, we need to similarly expel Muslims.

If Qataris are too dangerous to Muslims of a different faction to be allowed to stay in certain Muslim lands, Muslims are too dangerous to us to be allowed to stay in Christian lands. Expelling Muslims is supposedly unthinkably wicked, but Muslims are always expelling each other, usually for obvious and excellent reasons, and no one blinks an eye. When whites were expelled from Detroit, by bands of black thugs led by community organizers closely affiliated with the Democratic party, did anyone care?