Archive for the ‘science’ Category

Nuclear Technological decline

Sunday, October 9th, 2016

The US no longer produces weapons grade plutonium. Supposedly this is a choice.

It has asked other countries to not produce weapons grade plutonium, and to get rid of the weapons grade plutonium they do have.

The economical way to destroy weapons grade plutonium is to burn it in nuclear reactors, to use it for power, which destroys some of it and irreversibly contaminates the rest with plutonium 240, making it unusable for weapons, though still usable for power.

Unfortunately, the US, in attempting to do so, ran into “massive cost overruns”, which is to say, technological decline. Putting it in breach of its agreements with Russia and Japan.

Under the US-Russian PMDA, originally signed in 2000, both parties agreed to dispose of at least 34 metric tons of weapons grade plutonium, enough to produce 17,000 nuclear bombs.

The US, however, has not disposed of any plutonium, despite spending a lot of money attempting to do so. If you cannot use it, probably cannot make it.

Warmists capitulate

Friday, March 25th, 2016

For the last eighteen years there has been little or no global warming.

Major warmists have been steadfastly denying the undeniable.  Then a paper appeared, signed by most of the big names in Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmism, acknowledging “The Big Hiatus”

The Big Hiatus

The black line is what the the warmists predicted, the grey area was their error bars.

The colored lines are what has been observed.

The graph is divided into several sections. The hiatus/pause/slowdown is what has been observed since the accuracy of our tools for measuring climate change were improved.

This capitulation is largely due to the work of Climate Audit.

Climate models retrodicted the past with near perfect accuracy, despite the fact that our ability to measure or estimate past global climate was nowhere near that accurate. Conspicuously failed to predict future climate change.

I repeat my prediction of future climates: In times to come the climate will for long periods be substantially warmer than it is now. It will also for long periods be substantially cooler than it is now. There is now far more ice around Antarctica than was historically normal, and Antarctica has been abnormally frozen up for the past thirty years or so. In the past from time to time the North Pole has melted in summer. In the past the Northwest passage sometimes opened in summer and sometimes did not, and in the future the Northwest passage will sometimes open in summer and sometimes will not. In the future the North Pole will sometimes melt during summer, sometimes for several summers in a row, but mostly it will stay solidly frozen. Polar bears will get by either way. Having survived the North Pole melting in the past, they will survive the North Pole melting in the future.

Technological decay

Sunday, December 6th, 2015

I have long argued, and commenters on this blog have long been disputed, that science died shortly after World War II, replaced by official state religion wearing lab coats as priestly robes, and using test tubes as aspersoria for holy water.

The age of science began with the Restoration and the Royal Society.  The Royal Society’s motto was “Take no one’s word for it”.   Feynman, in his address “What is Science?”, rephrased this as “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” Now, however science consists of taking the word of secret anonymous committees meeting behind closed doors, committees that refuse to show their evidence, data, calculations, and method of calculation even while demanding trillion dollar programs, gigantic human sacrifice, and challenged by freedom of information requests.

I have long argued, and commenters on this blog have long been disputed, that since 1972, the west has been in technological stagnation or outright decline in most everyday fields, in an ever increasing number of fields. Yes, DNA reading and computer disk drives keep improving, but clothes washing machines have gone to $#!&, and there is a reason why people are nostalgic for the old muscle cars.

Observe our ability to build and operate tall buildings has been diminishing since 1972.

The highest level of technology is found in war. Soldiers are to take control of or destroy men and assets. Tanks, artillery, mortars and Armored Personnel carriers are to destroy soldiers. Ground attack planes and helicopters are to destroy tanks and armored personnel carriers, and air to air fighters are to destroy ground attack planes, and other air to air fighters.

So the highest level of technology, and the greatest expense, is found in the air to air fighter. A people’s capability to build and operate air to air fighters is the most sensitive barometer of its technological level, and a vital factor in that people’s capacity to win wars. You get air superiority, so the other side cannot use tanks against your soldiers, and you can use tanks against their soldiers, and artillery against their population centers and assets. You flatten their population centers and destroy their assets so that they cannot feed and equip their soldiers, and then your soldiers take charge.

And as you know, American air to air fighters have been getting slower and slower, more and more expensive, less and less maneuverable, flying less and less high, and carrying less and less ordinance. But now they are stealthed, right?  And Russian fighters are not stealthed.

Stealth can be beaten by sufficiently advanced electronics – you need two radars in substantially different locations whose radar is coordinated – one paints the target with a radar beam, and the other views the scatter from a substantially different angle. In response to the Turkish attack Russia now has part of the technology to beat stealth deployed in Syria: AEASA radars that can spray beams out in several thousand completely different directions per second. Does it have all of the technology deployed? Does it have the capability to coordinate two AEASA radars so as to see through stealth? Maybe. Probably. Though we will not really know until we see a major air battle between Russia and another advanced power.

Further Russian air to air fighters can fly faster, fly higher, are more maneuverable, and carry more ordinance than American air to air fighters. The recent display of Russian capability in Syria seems to be giving the Pentagon a nervous breakdown.  The Su-34 is every way superior, except for the very important defect that it lacks stealth.

When Dubai wants to build a tall building, it hires western experts. But those western experts are expatriates, semi permanent exiles from the west. They have foreign wives, girlfriends, and concubines. They don’t build tall buildings in the West because a horde of bureaucrats would shake them down for bribes (politely laundered through “consultants”, aka bagmen) and because they could not get any decent pussy in the west.

Our increasingly diverse ruling elite loses cohesion, in part through diversity, in part through selecting for cowards and liars. Because of this loss of cohesion, if you want to build a tall building in the west, you have to bribe a thousand priestly bureaucrats (whose self justifications are increasingly priestly – mostly they are protecting Gaia) and each of these thousand bureaucrats wants his pet consultant to collect ten percent of the surplus value that would be created by the building, adding up to a demand for one hundred times the value, while the King of Dubai is likely to content himself with a mere fifty percent of the value.

The cervix and rape

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2015

tl;dr: Legalize rape. Ban fornication. Old Testament got it right.

It is often said, and it is largely true, that women cannot get pregnant by rape. Of course they can get pregnant as a result of someone having sex with them while holding a knife to their throat while they scream and weep and struggle and protest, but unlikely to get pregnant unless they rather enjoyed the knife and the screaming and the weeping and the struggling and the protest.

To get a woman pregnant, the sperm has to swim from the vagina to the womb, which is a mighty marathon race for something the size of a sperm. And between the vagina and the womb, there is the cervix, which is a pair of lips.

What are lips for?

Lips are for opening and closing entrance to an orifice. They are to keep out some things, and allow entrance to other things.

So that sperm is not going anywhere unless those lips open.

If you touch a woman’s cervix and it is not her fertile period, the lips feel hard closed, like the lips of a woman’s mouth when you go for the kiss too soon, and do not permit her to turn her head away, so she purses her lips against the kiss.

If you touch a woman’s cervix in her fertile period, it is like touching the lips of a woman’s mouth when she is ready to be kissed. They feel like they are about to open, and if you keep on diddling her pussy, they do indeed open.

It seems likely that if a nice guy were to touch those lips, he would feel them hard, as if the girl was not in her fertile period, but being an asshole, I have not been able to do that experiment.

So from the point of view of natural selection rape is not a problem for women. Women have control of who can impregnate them. She has lips where it counts.

Rape is however a huge problem for husbands, who get cucked, and moderate problem for fathers, who find that they, rather than their son in law, is supporting their grandchild.

Observing female behavior, many of them do not seem to be trying very hard to avoid rape. One does not see businessmen wandering in dark and sketchy places with two bulging wallets half falling out of their top pockets.

If you see a woman in a laundromat late at night, and there is no one around, it is always a single woman. A husband will usually put his foot down and forbid the risky behavior that women so easily engage in.

Emancipating women means treating female consent as more meaningful than it actually is. Women want what they do not want, and do not want what they do want. Their sexual choices are erratic, incompetent, inconsistent, incoherent, and frequently self harming. They lack agency.

“Rape” is not in itself a bad thing, and it is difficult to say what is rape and what is not rape. Rape is a bad thing to the extent that, like female adultery, it undermines the family. Rape is not in itself harmful to women. It is harmful to husbands as a particular case of cuckoldry. We are very severe against rape because we wish we could be severe against cuckoldry, but forbidding cuckoldry is a thought crime, so we displace our rage against cuckoldry to rage against rape.

Similarly, college girls get chewed up and spat out by the cock carousel, so we fetishize ever higher standards of consent for college, when the problem is not lack of consent, but a superabundance of foolish and self destructive consent. The problem is not lecherous college males, but lecherous college females.

Women are of course more precious than men, for women can create life while men can only to destroy life. So harming a woman, or threatening a woman with harm, should be more severely punished than harming a man or threatening to harm a man. Men are the expendable sex. Women are the precious sex.

However, safe forms of corporal punishment, such as whipping a woman on the buttocks or the upper back, should not be considered harm when done by proper authority, such as husband or father, for proper reason.

Nor should sex without the consent of the woman be considered harm of the woman in itself, since female consent is erratic and mysterious even to the woman herself, but rather, sex with a married or betrothed women should be considered harm against the husband or fiance, and sex without the permission of the father should be considered harm against the father – illicit sex should be a crime against the man who has proper authority over the woman.

And whether the woman herself consented to that illicit sex should be a matter for the man that has proper authority over that woman, and should be not a matter of interest for the law or the courts.

And how many fingers is O’Brien holding up, Gcochran9

Wednesday, July 8th, 2015

The blog “West Hunter”, which investigates our ancestry, sometimes gets close to the edge of permitted thought. But will not slip over the edge. The globe is warming catastrophically, gay “families” are just are … just like normal families and are definitely not harems of sex slaves, and so on and so forth. And, while it industriously investigates the origin of races, there are, nonetheless, no such thing as races.

In a comment on that blog jamesd127 gives a summary of some of the more horrifying hate facts contained in “The Root of the Phylogenetic Tree of Human Populations” by Masatoshi Nei and Naoko Takezaki, Institute of Molecular Evolutionary Genetics, which tells us that the genetic distance between human populations is of the same order of magnitude as the genetic distance between humans and chimps, and that not all human populations have evolved at the same rate, with humans in environments very different from that of the common ancestor of man and chimp evolving substantially faster than humans in environments resembling that of the common ancestor of man and chimp.

To which the blog author responds simply “False”

Now it might well be that the conclusions one might draw from the paper are false, but to deny that the paper says what it says is on par with saying that O’Brien is holding up five fingers.

Nonetheless he is a good bloke. I also would say O’Brien was holding up five fingers if they had electric wires attached to my testicles.

But, since he probably does not really believe that the paper does not say what it says, I wonder what he really believes about global warming and gay families.

He does not want further discussion of this topic on his blog. He does not say “Because several large black professors with base ball bats and room temperature IQs will visit my office if this discussion continues”

Why human hypergamy is dysgenic

Sunday, June 28th, 2015

Normally hypergamy is eugenic.  That is what it is for, that is its telos, that is almost the definition of hypergamy.  Yet it is very noticeable that a successful natural is frequently poor, perhaps usually poor, and often rather stupid. A loser, except he is a big winner with girls.

Consider the peacock.  Glorious tails are so big and heavy that they are bad for the species, bad for the race, would be bad for clan and family if peacocks had clans and families, which they do not.   Females tend to want what other females want.

Suppose females tend to go for X, where X is initially a good indicator of health and fitness, where females selecting males on X is initially eugenic.   If other females select X, it is good to have sons with lots of X, so a female should select X if other females select X, even if X has ceased to be a good indicator of health and fitness. Selection for X tends to become more and more extreme, even if it ceases to be a good indicator of fitness. Sexual selection tends to become driven by unreasonable and rather arbitrary female fashions.

Humans and chimps murder, hunt, eat meat, and, unlike most animals, make war.  The only other mammals I know of that make war are the lemming and the naked mole rat.  I expect there are plenty of others that I have not heard of, but war is, for obvious reasons, a rare characteristic.   We may therefore conclude that the common ancestor of man and chimp was violent, ate meat, and made war.

War requires loyalty and comradeship.  You love your comrades, you will kill for them, and risk death for them.  Humans are killer apes, but our specialty is loyalty, friendship, and cooperation.

Humans are not only smart, thus good at cooperating, but have physical adaptions for cooperation.  Our eyes have whites, which make it harder for us to hide and make us more vulnerable to UV damage, but makes it easier for one human to tell what another human is looking at.  Our throats are modified for a wider range of sounds in ways that make it considerably easier for us to choke.   Humans are more specialized for cooperating than chimps.

The common ancestor of man and chimp lived in the jungle, but being the meanest sons of bitches in the jungle, some of them decided to wander out on the plains.  Since they were the slowest sprinters on the plains, we may conclude that they were dangerous enough to take care of predators.  The theory that the first of our ancestors to go on the plains were timid gentle herbivores was not very plausible even back in the days when we thought that chimps were timid gentle herbivores.  If you cannot climb out of reach of carnivores, and you cannot sprint very well, what are you going to do?.  A child or a female is going to stick with the males, a male is going to stick with his comrades.

Plus out on the plains, there is more meat and less fruit, more hunting, less gathering.  So females are more dependent on males.  So more patriarchy, more specialization for violence, more specialization for cooperative violence, and, with more patriarchy, more war.   We became smarter in the course of thousands of genocides.   Conversely, primitive humans that live in jungles tend to evolve to become more like chimps.  In the jungle, females don’t need male support and can kick their kids out at four to gather for themselves.  Cooperation in large groups of men is less important in the jungles, where the individual male tends to individually predate on women and children, and so humans of that ancestry are not very good at cooperative endeavors – much better than any other animal, but not as good as their plains dwelling relatives.

Large groups of males quickly sort out their status hierarchy, after a bit of status jousting that is usually too subtle for women to understand, and thereafter treat each other with respect.  The private crisply salutes the officer, the officer salutes back slightly less crisply.

Women in contrast never sort out their status hierarchy, and are always plotting against each other and undermining each other, so that it is difficult for large female groups to work together.

To women, this standard smart male cooperation all looks like submissiveness, looks like being low man on the totem pole, because this stuff just goes over their heads.  To her, it looks as if the officer and the private are both kissing each other’s asses, so she wants:

See the way he walks down the street
Watch the way he shuffles his feet
My, he holds his head up high
When he goes walking by, he’s my guy

When he holds my hand, I’m so proud
Cause he’s not just one of the crowd
My baby’s always the one to try the things they’ve never done
And just because of that, they say

He’s a rebel and he’ll never ever be any good
He’s a rebel ’cause he never ever does what he should
But just because he doesn’t do what everybody else does
That’s no reason why I can’t give him all my love

He’s always good to me, always treats me tenderly
Cause he’s not a rebel, oh, no, no, no
He’s not a rebel, oh, no, no, no, to me

If they don’t like him that way
They won’t like me after today
I’ll be standing right by his side when they say

He’s a rebel and he’ll never ever be any good
He’s a rebel ’cause he never ever does what he should
Just because he doesn’t do what everybody else does
That’s no reason why we can’t share a love

By and large, he really will never ever be any good, for for men to get stuff done, have to work well with other men. By and large, he is a rebel because stupid – if he was a smart rebel he would be rebelling in ways less visible and more subtle than shuffling his feet.

But if all women tend to make the same mistake, then in a woman’s interests to make the same mistake as other women commonly make, for the sake of sexy sons

Because female sexual selection for X tends to go over the top, tends to become unreasonably extreme, because females tend to select for even more of what other females are selecting for, tends to be fashion driven, selecting for men who are at the top of the male hierarchy leads to selecting for men who do not display submissive behaviors, which leads to her selecting for the rebel who shuffles his feet, when she should be selecting for the officer whose reply salute is slightly less crisp than that of the private, which leads to her selecting guys at the bottom of the male hierarchy, rather than the top.

This post inspired by the movie “Zulu”, where all the characters, British, Boer, or Zulu, were ridiculously manly except for the preacher and his daughter, and the preacher’s daughter entirely failed to notice.

The point of the dark enlightenment is to understand the world, not to change it.

Sunday, May 10th, 2015

Theory is understanding and understanding is theory. Seeing the world as a collection of bare unexplained facts is effectively the same as seeing the world as filled with magic. To suppose that somehow price controls on wages or medical treatment do not behave like price controls generally is in effect to believe in magic.

Without theory the world is a collection of magical events, something that defies understanding.

Experiments can be faulty. Experience can be faulty, and its interpretation can be faulty. There are experiments “showing” that Uri Geller is a spoon bender. A person who understands the world will know, despite the seeming evidence, that Uri Geller is a fraud. Reflect on Moldbugs demonstration that macro economics is a fraud.

But surely The Reaction is at least a little bit interested in changing the world?

Theory suggests two paths for changing the world.

The Moldbuggian path is to be worthy of power, wait for leftism to self destruct, as it has so many times before, and then when the military come looking for a priesthood, we are available.

The other, more activist, path is to form a thede, tribe, religion, religions being synthetic tribes, and proceed on the long march through the institutions of the red empire, the empire of the bases, and in due course subjugate the blue empire, the empire of the consulates. From time to time the Red Empire has blown up Blue Empire proxies, and vice versa. It would not take much for the fighting to get serious.

The reaction has engaged in a number of experiments in tribe formation. It is too soon to evaluate the results. We don’t yet have much empirical data on tribe synthesis.

Which brings us to the secular reaction’s view of religion. Which is that Religio matters, religion not so much. A religion’s unfalsifiable beliefs, its empirically neutral beliefs, are reverse engineered from its rituals, are rationalizations of its rituals, rather than the rituals being engineered from the beliefs. The unfalsifiable beliefs of Shinto are incoherent, since Shinto is a random grab bag of rituals, yet Shinto still worked quite well regardless, despite having very little in the way of beliefs for people to believe in.

A religion should be an effective tool for transmitting the wisdom of parents to teenagers, telling stupid people to do what smart people already know to do.

Power laws in polygyny

Saturday, March 21st, 2015

When we read that only one man in three reproduced, we tend to imagine two thirds of the men in an underclass detached from society, enslaved, killed, or driven out, and one third of the men forming society, with three wives each. Or you could have two thirds killed in war and the survivors get the booty. And similarly, if only one man in seventeen …

But obviously it is likely to be a power law. The ratio of men having n wives to men having n+1 wives will be roughly constant.

It turns out that, assuming equal production of males and females, this power ratio is equal to one minus the proportion of men contributing to the gene pool.

If one third of men reproduce, then about one man in nine has one wife, about one man in thirteen has two wives (that is to say, two thirds of the number of men who have only one wife), one man in twenty has three wives, (that is to say, two thirds of the number of men who have two wives), about one in thirty will have four wives and so on and so forth.

That seems like a fairly stable society, assuming you keep the excluded men under control. One solution would be to give the more valuable part of the excluded men the used up old wives of the men who are actually part of society, women approaching their use by date, women who have exceeded their use by date. This corresponds to the ancient Hebrew system of easy divorce for men only, and the traditional Muslim system of alarmingly easy divorce for men only.

Equal distribution of pussy by basically socialist means is fair, which is to say, monogamy with patriarchy, since we are reluctant to use market and capitalist incentives to manage the production of women, which is to say, fully propertize them and sell them to highest bidder for profit, with breeder farms functioning like piggeries. If we are not going to incentivize the production of women by capitalist cash market means, should not distribute them by capitalist cash market means.

On the other hand too much equality in the distribution of pussy is dysgenic. We want some men excluded, but two thirds excluded seems so large as likely to be destabilizing.

And of course, we want the right men excluded, which at present does not seem to be happening. Although production of children in marriage is mildly eugenic at present, in that wealthier men have more wives (serially and informally) and more children, the effect is weak, and probably more than counterbalanced by the grossly dysgenic production of children outside marriage – dumb women producing little bastard thuglets, smart women never getting married, never much wanting to get married because they cannot find any men who are their social superiors, and the supply of immortal vampires is a bit low, so they just don’t feel much like having sex. And, if they do feel like having sex, which mostly they do not, having had sex with someone they feel is a social inferior, they form weak attachment to any resulting children, aborting, neglecting, or outright murdering, or looking the other way when stepdad number three does the murdering. To become good mothers, women need to first be good wives, to feel themselves owned and mastered by someone better than themselves. Charles Murray argues that upper class women are well behaved, but in fact women who are married to upper class men, which is not quite the same thing as upper class women, are well behaved. Upper class women who fail to form suitable marriages and stay married in those marriages give truck stop strippers a run for their money.

A ratio of fifty percent – half the men have no offspring, a quarter have one wife, a eighth have a wife and a “maid”, a sixteenth have a wife and two “maids” and so on and so forth would be pretty stable, since no possible combination of those missing out could overcome those getting some. We could dispense with the easy divorce, at least for wives. One should enforce patriarchal monogamy, which is to say, the socialist equal rationing of pussy, to the extent necessary to ensure a majority of men are attached to society at a youthful age, but enforcing it more than that might well be overkill.

High reproductive variance among males

Friday, March 20th, 2015

The sociobiology leading to the conclusion that women are ill suited to be part of the larger society, and should be subordinated to husbands and fathers, rests in large part on high reproductive variance among males in the ancestral environment, the environment of evolutionary adaption.

Now it obviously seems likely that reproductive variance among males was extreme – just look! And pretty much everyone in the manosphere agrees that it was, but until recently, I have not been able to find any good science pinning it down.

Now I have.

Throughout most of human history, almost all women reproduced but only one male in three reproduced. During the neolithic, from agriculture to the start of the bronze age (very rough dates) one male in seventeen reproduced – sixteen males died without children, one male had seventeen wives, concubines, and slave girls. After this roughly four thousand year period of very extreme inequality, it returned to its long term norm, one male in three – all races, all cultures, all societies, and it is been at roughly its long term norm for the past four thousand years or so.

Heroic entrepeneurship after the Restoration

Wednesday, December 3rd, 2014

According to the Whig/Marxist version of history, the roots of the Industrial revolution were in the Glorious Revolution, which represented the rights of man and the rising political power of businessmen.

There are several problems with this story. One is that the rise of China decisively proves that the rights of corporations matter a whole lot more for economic development than the rights of man, and if you are looking for the origin of the rights of corporations, you are looking at the Restoration. (more…)