Read More...

good post.

though it must be added that Berman also discusses something equally as fundamental, counterproductive, delusional, deleterious and destructive as, "negative identity" — the amerikan dream.

The Hustle:

"The crux of the problem remains the American Dream: even 'progressives' see it as the solution — including, I have the impression, the Wall Street protesters — when it’s actually the problem."
- Why the American Empire Was Destined to Collapse
Author and social critic Morris Berman says the fact that we're a nation of hustlers lies at the root of our decline
www.alternet.org/world/154453/why_the_american_empire_was_destined_to_collapse/?page=entire

this really speaks to me.

it resonates with a glaring hypocrisy in Occupy perhaps best manifested by one of it's leading, hypocritical lights, Chris Hedges, when he consistently champions restoring the American middle class at the same time he exhorts us to, "embrace, and embrace rapidly, a radical new ethic of simplicity and rigorous protection of our ecosystem".

it should be obvious that the two (American middle class and radical simplicity) are diametric, each the enemy of the other.

but i encounter and experience little if any perception let alone discussion of this paradox.

only more of the same.

Ralph Nader is talking minimum wage (hacking at the branches) when we should be focused on the fact that, "We do not live in an economy, we live in a Ponzi scheme" [*] (striking at the root), and essentially begging for table scraps is not a reasonable let alone viable solution.

yes, i know this is idealistic (if such words apply given the gravity of our black hole, no matter which direction we choose) albeit steeped in reality.

and i know, as the late, great Joe Bageant astutely observed:

"In the face of all this stands a very diverse public, which regardless of what some might claim behind a few beers, is not about to take up arms or use force to unseat the ruling class. When your life and your family are so utterly controlled by persons and forces that you cannot even see, you don't take such risks. That's not gutlessness. It's common sense."
- Understanding America's Class System (Honk if you love caviar) [**]

but living on the razor's edge of homelessness it's difficult to shake disillusionment, frustration and anger in response to the ever increasing futility of this American life.

i don't want a job, a car and a house
i don't want to Occupy the past
i want a Revolution
a different way of being

---

[*] www.arthurmag.com/2009/03/16/let-it-die-rushkoff-on-the-economy/

[**] www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/08/understanding-america.html

I'm sorry to see the calumny against Americans not "having the grey matter" to "make changes to their collective mentality". In the first place, it is not possible to MAKE changes to a collective mentality. That mentality is an emergent property of the collective and, while leadership can help to make a difference (Gandhi for example) it is a very slow, incremental process until it reaches a watershed. Gandhi was, BTW, a great exponent of the oppositional culture, there is no way he could have united India without the British and in the end the religious differences were too great to contain.

Change is even more difficult in times when there is an existential threat of any kind. The fact that Americans are under increasing threat from their own system is part of the tragedy of all empires, but it guarantees that they will find it too dangerous to change because the cost of failure in that change is too terrifying to contemplate.

Similarly, it the the process of all Empires to accrete and centralise all benefits and to begin to fail at the edges, leaving the centre relatively unscathed until the final phase when it finds itself incapable of sustaining the system which is inherently dependent on looting the periphery. Once the periphery comes inside the national borders the process eats itself and dies.

That does not in any way reflect on the intelligence of the members of the empirical community, their entire world view, for all of their lives and those of several generations before, is informed and conditioned by the fact of empire and the hidden subsidies that it supplies. Breaking out iof that requires something akin to mental illness, the willingness to see, and believe, that what is all around is false and that some alternative that cannot be instantiated until the old way is removed will be better.

It may be the case, but it will get you "treated" for delusions in every empire that has ever existed. The Romans threw the Christians to the lions, the US throws its dissenters to the pharmaceutical business until they become "well" again.

It might be useful to think of Europe's troubles as the failure of the periphery of the US empire than as some discrete event, for example.

TAE and TOD readers, the Archdruid and others are doing the only thing possible in this world, creating a thinking model and action plan for small groups who can act as sources of knowledge and skills when the inevitable happens; to imagine that any empire or its denizens can do otherwise is neither helpful nor reasonable.

It's quite flattering to hear that the good ol' US of A surpasses again. There we are, the cause of a literal majority of the evil in the world today. We're Number One!

Stalin and Mao would be jealous. Is there some sort of handicap system to let Pol Pot and the Kim family maintain credit for their spectacular performances with limited resources?

Personally, I find few Americans that can discuss much of anything with any real meaning. Far too self absorbed and America centered in their thought processes. So the "lack of grew matter" definitely resonates with me. Any subject relating to reality is deemed "too depressive, doomy and/or gloomy". Now football, American Idol or as a retired high school principal informed me, "I'm much more interested in choosing my deck stain" are hot topics and can consume hours of senseless debate.

Oh, and despite being an actual Yankee, I know that the Texas War of Independence was not exactly the gringo raid that for instance Hawaii was.

After Spain failed for 300 years to get New Mexico/Texas settled, the brand new Republic of Mexico deliberately offered very attractive terms to immigrants. Besides Usacos, they got a substantial number of Germans to take them up on it.

There were so many LEGAL immigrants that Mexican culture (always thin on the ground that far North) was going to get swamped. So Santa Ana reneged on the promises, apparently violating the Mexican Bill of Rights in the process. And, yup, the dudes from Dixie reached for their guns. Even paranoids do have real enemies.

Eugene12,

If you want to see provincial, check out a European on her first trip to North America.

Did you know that the RCMP doesn't wear dress tunics on Bay St? And nobody wears stocking caps or mackinaws. Wow!
No cowboy hats on the Chicago El either!!. Who'da thunk it?

For postgrad, Ontario is only a _little_ bit bigger than the EU 15.

Surly recently wrote an article about Morris Berman over on DD, "Donner Party America: They Eat Each Other".

If you’re not familiar with the work of Morris Berman, you might wish to become so immediately. Berman is a cultural historian and social critic, former academic, and author of many books, including a trilogy observing the decline of America.

The Donner Party story and analogy, drawn from the interview below, seemss particularly apt. The observation of the native expedition party, that “they eat each other” reminds me of the observation that the United States has a “wetiko,” or cannibal culture, that Thom Hartmann made in his book, ”The Last Days of Ancient Sunlight.” In that book, Hartman made the point that we needed a new set of stories around which to organize our culture. Berman however, is having none of that. In his view it is far too late. And that is, of course, the view that motivates many on this board. Interesting how these lines tend to converge at some as yet undefined but seemingly-just-over-the-horizon vanishing point.

I first encountered Berman in his book, “Dark Ages America” several years ago. Some of the themes therein are continued in his new book, “Why America Failed,” which is the subject of this interview below with author Nomi Prins.

Berman’s argument is that the seeds of America’s decline were sown from the very beginning. That the culture of hustling, materialism, and the pursuit of personal gain without regard for its effects on other people have been the powerful forces that have motivated Americans from the very beginning ever since the Pilgrims landed in America. We seem to have this idealized view of the founders, and their unselfish beliefs that motivated the creation of our sacred founding documents. The truth is, the fix was in from the very beginning, they created a commercial republic from the start with an eye to preserving property. Wasn’t long before naked self interest had replaced the common good as the primary social good in the colonies.

Read the rest at:

www.doomsteaddiner.org/blog/2012/03/11/donner-party-america-they-eat-each-other/

RE

BTW who's the dude in the cravat? Where does he fit in the narrative?

I'm unfamiliar with how Hegel used the concept of negative identity in his work, but I've recently read Karl Poppers comprehensive analysis of Hegel's failure as a philosopher in The Open Society and its Enemies. Popper totally ruins Hegels intellectual integrity there, and reveals him to be an authoritarian apologist in regards to government.

Any system of empire needs to define military and ideological opponents at all times to maintain its political and cultural identity. Empire is inherently hostile towards political diversity and open civil discourse because of its 'negative identity', and disintegrates under any serious moral criticism, civil discourse and political dissent, because its motives are always intellectually fraudulent and deceptive towards its own denizens as well as outsiders.

The US constitution, however, resoundingly contains the most positive political identity for a citizenry ever formulated on paper. There is no more logically consistent and socially adaptive document of this sort currently in 'use'.
The ideal of the democratic Republic yields the most positive political identity available to the individual, although citizens as a group still need to define 'others' outside the group identity as non-citizens, they need no ideological enemies other than [the danger of] tyranny and government oppression to maintain cultural group cohension.
The political identity of citizens in such a repupblic do not naturally require antagonised groups of non-citizens or foreign people, but the denizens of empire may always antagonise an outside group to attain negative group identity.

The 20th century provided excessive means to fully inform and enable the citizenry politically, and formulate a positive political identity, but this was not accomplished in spite of the greatest economic expansion in human history.
A strategy of social control to restrain positive political identities must have interdicted, to favor the structures of oligarchy and empire. Systemic political deception and misdirection by means of public schooling and the use of mass media as psychosocial weapon platform successfully instilled imperial doctrine in the citzenry beyond their reasonable means of intellectal resistance.

Most of US history has sadly been defined through empire, not as the republic that was intended. It has been said that the concept of citizenship defined in the constitution only applies to a wholly moral or spiritual people, and will serve none who are culturally divested from moral principles. Empire is totally devoid of moral principles.

While I agree that the constitution of the Republic provides a framework for a modest self governing and self correcting republic and embodies ideals of shared liberty, It began by creating and allowing classes of citizens( slaves, landholders, servants, unlanded) and did nothing to stop the continual breaking of every treaty made with aboriginal tribes. Instead it increasingly became a legal cloak for the practical aspirations of continuous imperial expansion. As for the idea that Berman places all imperial and colonial propensities to violence on America's shoulders, that is neither implied nor stated. Berman is countering the idea of American exceptionalism and idealism, not saying we are uniquely prone to these patterns.

The flaccid intellectuality that feels the need to preceed its tentative gestures with a demonstration of pre-Jungian blather, wrapped in Hegelianism, signifying nothing, betrays its utter lack of genuine depth or insight.

European imperialism established the relationship of the early colonists with the Indian, the negro and the Mexican.

Collective human nature, as noted by one of the other posters, doesn't turn on a dime. But it does turn. Witness the surge in concern for civil rights and the tacit permission for Mexicans to immigrate illegally. The American ideal has advanced the human condition.

As for the role of the US in the larger world, Japan attacked us and Germany was raping Europe, so yes, we got involved. Should we have allowed the USSR to seize Europe and the rest of the world unopposed? The results of our rejection of that scenario can be found in a quiescent Russia, a merchantilistic China, a prosperous SK and Japan, a friendly Vietnam, a free Eastern Europe, relative peace throughout the world and HOPE of prosperity in places like Africa and India.

Our current situation isn't pretty, but it doesn't improve with the exultant malice of those that crave the destruction of America.

Those pounding the relentless drum beat of defeatism heard in the scampering feet and vicious lies that advance the progressivist rot penetrating the foundations of America, would do well to consider a more honest assessment of the sources and products of the exceptionalism of the US.

To continue in their current vein is to damn the world and the hopeful beginnings of true human freedom.

FrankRichards wrote:


Hegel.

Gravity,

Whether or not you agree with Hegel's philosophy (I don't), there is no denying that he did wonders with his dialectic method.

RE,

I guess great blogs think alike!?

VZ,

You need a different name...

The rest of your post is unadulterated BS, both misunderstanding what I wrote and the state of the world.

viva wrote:

Gravity wrote:


OK, I'll bite. Have you read the first three articles of the Constitution? "Logically consistent" is a bit of a stretch. In fact, I'd be more comfortable calling it "a bunch of vaguely authoritarian nonsense that virtually guarantees the American population will never be free".

ashvin

Did part of your response to me get cut off? All I see is your 'bs' verdict and a quote from my post. I'd like to see your reasons for trashing my opinion.

It is curious that the author takes so much trouble to hammer the role of the US in the world, but seems to ignore the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room.

China is suffocating its cities with pollution, allowing desertification to consume its northwest, creating in Africa a series of colonies to support its rampant unsustainable grow rate, and all the while thumbing its nose at hard-won Western standards of treatment of citizens, all the while intimidating its neighbors.

No, the author of this piece prefers to talk about the US imperfections, though the US is a net carbon sink, is drastically reducing its consumption of gasoline, and has given assistance to the world, through the green revolution, the advent of miracle drugs and ongoing foreign aid.

This is not even to speak of the avoidance of WW III through outlasting the USSR in an arms race, maintaining general peace throughout the world with its military might, which keeps the big dogs from killing the little dogs, and the promotion a network of world trade, one in which the US accepts trade deficits to be essentially the buyer of last resort for many nations, making nations immemorially poor aspire to something better.

It may not be the vogue for progressives to tell these truths. But will they even listen?

Ashvin wrote:


Convergent thinking.

I remember back in around 2009 the first time I read one of Stoneleigh's deflationary credit collapse diatribes. "Holy Shit! Somebody ELSE sees this! How about that?!?!" LOL.

RE

viva zapata - the Corbett Report on Uganda and its oil (and of course China's interest in that oil) is a good listen. When my children started to talk about Kony, I wondered what was up; why was he mainstream so quickly. Have a listen.

www.corbettreport.com/uganda-africom-and-the-kony-boogeyman/

As for Russia, I once heard a senator say that it was easier just to bankrupt Russia than to fight her, keep the arms race going until she was broken.

As for Japan attacking you, why did that happen? Oil embargo, anyone?

The whole world, listen up: you will follow our way of doing things, or be crushed! Which do you want? No different than a common neighbourhood bully!

viva zapata wrote:


My opinion is that your opinion is ridiculously out of touch with reality on its face, and therefore requires no further explanation. The US maintains peace throughout the world with its military might? Please...

That being said, I never once said that the American empire was uniquely "evil", that everything about its culture is bad or that it has never made positive contributions in the world. None of those things are going to halt its ongoing collapse, though.

BTW, posts that use the image tag (img) still do not show up. Our back-end man Dan has been busy, but he should be able to resolve it soon.

Also, VZ, I find it supremely ironic that you keep referring to me, and presumably others who agree with me, as "progressives". Perhaps you missed this part:

Ashvin

It might surprise you to know that I find many of your premises valid. But the fact is that the course of nations cannot be predicted with the ease of the flip of a coin, particularly when their course is so exceptional, as has been that of the US. The variables are just too many and too complex.

Anyone that thinks the Constitution is outdated is simply not living in the real world. You (and I mean this in a collective sense) couldn't do any better on the best day you ever had. BTW it's not finished being written yet.

And you can sneer all you like at the idea that the US military is the sole guarantor of the peace and liberty of many of the world's nations. You can overlook the great successes we have enjoyed. You can wave off the freedom and PEACE and growing prosperity of the world. You can point and exclaim that Iraq/Afghanistan/ Iran (your choice here) are misadventures, but what can possibly replace the US and its interventionism that is better? No Martians, no non-existent entities, no impossible conjunctions, please.

Remember, things can get marginally better over the long term, but they can go straight to hell very quickly.

Be careful which devil you choose and which you reject.

viva zapata wrote:


What could possibly be better for billions of people who have been and continue to be subjected to the imperial wealth/resource extraction and militarized brutality of the Western core of our global system, and primarily the U.S. over the last 60 years? Is that really what you are asking?

It seems that you have constructed some kind of alternate reality for your own convenience, where people around the world are living free and in peace and stability, thanks to Uncle Sam's relentless military and economic interventions. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you don't see that, then there's nothing left to say.

Ashvin

Ever heard of the green revolution? Know where it came from? Know how many hundreds of millions it feeds today? Of course you do. Yet you continue to focus on your pet alternate reality, no doubt dismissing these facts as 'outliers'.

Do you recall President George Bush's AIDS initiative to Africa? Do you know how many lives it has saved and improved? Do you know what the cost has been to the American taxpayer for this gift? Of course you do, but you dismiss this as well because it conflicts with your polemic of a ruthless self-serving America.

When you attempt to thrust the US into the mold of empire that holds Rome and Great Britain, you do a disservice to your reader and a violence to reality.
You know perfectly well that the US has been the single force in the world since 1945 responsible for the growth of the prosperity and numbers of humans around the planet.

The flood of Nobel prizes and life-sustaining technologies from the universities of the US, funded by American taxpayers are now commonplace in even the poorest nations. And we aren't half finished.

You only wish there was nothing left to say.

Geopolitics according to Zapata:

"The Military-Industrial-Complex: Bringing Peace, Joy and Happiness to the Little People of the World since 1776"

LOL.

viva zapata wrote:


As a matter of fact I do. The Green Revolution is the result of mnufacturers of Ammonium Nitrate used to produce Bombs in WWII turning their production facilities toward the fertilizer market. The result of said revolution has been to destroy the economics of subsistence farmers all across the globe and make them dependent on the industrialized food apparatus that uses these fertilizers to produce cheap monoculture crops on mechanized ag land.

Tell me Zapate, are you simply trolling or are you really as stupid as your posting makes you appear to be?

RE
www.doomsteaddiner.org

Dear Ashvin:

Ha-ha. I exult in the discomfiture of those that react with rage when their biases are exposed. Thanks for playing.

While I recognize that synthetic fertilizers have resulted in the marginalization of many subsistence farmers, I would also note that the genetic techniques in improvement of plant types, particularly rice (most of which have originated in the US) far outweigh that drawback and, in fact, have served mankind well, feeding hundreds of millions today.

Why hate the good things the US does? As you can see, I seek a balanced narrative, I don't attempt to deprecate the bad things it does. Allow me to demonstrate again: the US can't always be the policeman of the world and doesn't do a perfect job. Try it sometime.

Here's an opportunity: why don't you have anything to say about the AIDS drugs the US supplies to Africa gratis? Doesn't fit into your box, does it?

Anyhow, here is a snippet (the last for today) on the 'green revolution', from Google, which is just one small part of the magnificent story of post-war American agricultural innovation, and how it has come to feed much of the world:

"The beginnings of the Green Revolution are often attributed to Norman Borlaug, an American scientist interested in agriculture. In the 1940s, he began conducting research in Mexico and developed new disease resistance high-yield varieties of wheat. By combining Borlaug's wheat varieties with new mechanized agricultural technologies, Mexico was able to produce more wheat than was needed by its own citizens, leading to its becoming an exporter of wheat by the 1960s. Prior to the use of these varieties, the country was importing almost half of its wheat supply."

Ashvin, I, a troll? I want us to be friends. Before it is over I will subscribe to your theory of the big bad imperialistic US- not! And you of course will be unconsciously whistling the 'Star Spangled Banner'- maybe.

Have a safe and happy weekend! Be seeing you.

Ashvin wrote:


Of course not. But what would China do with the equivalent of the US military? Is Darfur an example? Sorry, time to grow up.

viva zapata wrote:


Ashvin wasn't playing, I was.

You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone here that GMO crops which produce higher yields per acre are a good thing. Far as feeding 100Ms people with this pig feed, I don't suppose it ever occured to you that supplying this food practically for free for the last 50 years is the reason the planetary population of Homo Sapiens is in such a vast state of Overshoot to begin with? Now that the energy doesn't come cheap, neither does the food, so the 6B or so you bred up with your Monsanto GMO seeds and Round Up are just SOL. Gee sorry, the model doesn't work. Ooops.

RE
www.doomsteaddiner.org

viva zapata wrote:
the US ... is drastically reducing its consumption of gasoline

Well, ..., ish:
www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MGFUPUS2&f=A

@ Reverse Engineer. I am surprised at you RE. Berating someone that has fed billions of poor and impoverished fellow human beings. I hope you are not going to volunteer for work on the new government death panels. Would like to suggest you delete that post for the sake of your previous reputation.

So doomsteaddiner, you believe it would have been better for those that benefit from the green revolution to starve? Will you volunteer to be one of the lucky ones that gets their ration cut to 500 calories a day? What nations will we allow to starve first? You decide, oh wise one.

And while we're at it, fill us in, we'd love to know why the Monsanto seeds, apart from not being able to gather seed for a new crop, are monster seeds. You are crazy with conspiracy.

The world population has been growing exponentially for more than fifty years. Those bad medicines that disserve humanity by saving lives are partly to blame.

I know, I know, you're one of those that thinks the world should have five hundred, no one hundred million people- and you're one of'em. HAHAHAHA. Such compassion.

You are part of a sick inhuman conspiracy-addled bunch that hates authority because you were raised by mommy and daddy to think that you're above the rest. Well it ain't so. The Bengladeshi has as much right to feed his family and multiply as you. If you want to practice birth control and abortion that's your downfall.

You and Malthus can go take a flying leap into nothingness.

viva zapata wrote:


You're not framing the question correctly. In all likelihood, most of the current 7B on the planet would never have been born to begin with, so those who were never born would not starve.

Of the remaining people, then its a question of how the food gets distributed out and when the food runs out. Under the current scenario created by the Green Revolution of massive population overshoot, what you are likely to get is a Fast Crash of a biological population similar to the population crash of the deer on St. Matthew's Island. You have now virtually guaranteed mass starvation on the order of billions of people, whereas had societies been encouraged to live off of only what their territory would support, many fewer would have been born and many fewer would have ended up starving to death.

Ideally, had we begun building a world on sustainable principles 50 or better yet 100 years ago, ideally nobody would have starved anywhere and all people today would be living in relative comfort. As it is, a relatively small percentage of the world lives in great comfort while the vast majority of people barely eke out subsistence lives eating food shipped in from far away they no longer can afford. You have thus guaranteed that billions will now starve to death. Idiots.

RE

RE

I have to admire your patience and fortitude with dealing with this new Viva Zapata character. Zapata has always been a hero of mine, and that someone espousing such creepy globalistic tripe should defame his name goes past the limits of blasphemy. He is knowledgable enough to know this himself, so his choice of the ID is in itself deliberate and arrogant disinformation. Sort of like someone using the ID Francis of Assisi and then going on to laud Pol Pot's genocide. Smacks of Cass Sunstein's cynical stable. Maybe the NSA troll bunch out in Anaheim. I would respect him more (which is saying very little) if he had IDed himself as VIPR Patrol or Darth Vader.

I haven't read Morris Berman in the original, and I do not intend to. I am having some eye trouble and have to triage my reading. Additionally, with my current location and life style, all my reading is now restricted to the electronic. That said, from Ash's description, I would far prefer the late and sadly missed Joe Bageant's analysis of where America's aggressive and pugnacious attitude came from. He deals with it in depth in both his books.

While the Constitution of the United States is a far from perfect document, it's first ten amendments are a shining beacon of human rights and freedoms, even if sadly ignored in much of US history. The country may be facing a civil war in the very near future between Sauron like globalists bankers, who wish to impose a totalitarian regime far worse, due to the available technology, than even George Orwell could envision in his worst nightmares, and an ornery and imperfect crowd which wishes to reinstate the supremacy of the Constitution, of which Ron Paul is currently the titular head. The victory of the latter confederation is our last hope. Thus I see it as a strange time for well meaning people to focus on the Constitution's pimples and blemishes.

el gallinazo wrote:


EG! You're ALIVE! I was worried the Mexico Quake took you out. LOL.

Far as Zapata goes, the Patience and Fortitude are the result of playing NICE in the effort to further Plug DD. Trust me, if I was not making my best efforts at presenting logical arguments in the effort to get more readers on DD, I'd go BALLISTIC on this sort of drivel.

TAE however has been quite kind to me so far in allowing me to Plug DD, so I am not going to Napalm the Living Shit out of anyone here. I will most certainly do that on DD though if any such characters have the balls to show up there

Wonder why I have been BANNED from so many Blogs? LOL.

RE

El wrote:


Unlikely on both counts. Zapata's prose is ESL. He's not a native speaker of English. I'm guessing some SA country, otherwise he is Eurotrash.

RE

You may be right about the origin - tough call. I went through it too quickly to savor the flavor Yuk! Oh well. Physicians in the 19th century used to touch a patient's urine to their tongue as part of a diagnosis. It is a bit on the stilted side; probably is ESL. Shows a very strong mastery of English none the less. But you are assuming that Sunstein hasn't off shored his work. You are probably right. No need to economize with that $1.3 trillion federal deficit to spend. It's good for the economy. When the Ministry of Truth off shores its apparatchiks you know TSHTF.

As to getting the boot. Ash is minding the store now and he is very much into the idea of the free marketplace of ideas, with certain reasonable limitations. But we both may get the boot eventually.

Possibility exists that our NSA Friends are specifically employing ESL types as a means to make the Trolling seem more "real". However, based on my experience on NUMEROUS boards where I have run itno what are clearly Goobermint trolls, they habitually reference material you cannot find in normal channels. Zapata does not strike me as a paid Troll at the moment. Just a clueless dimwit with a marginal command of the English Language.

RE

RE

"Marginal command of the English language." Jeez, you are a tough task master. I have been trying to learn Spanish for several years, and I still can barely buy a bus ticket without winding up in the wrong city. I have an excuse of course - half my brains have already leaked out of my ears, and the other half is experiencing turbulence.

But enough of this character. I would like to bring the thread back to the clash between the Constitutionalist in the USA and Sauron's minions out of Basle and the BIS.

el gallinazo wrote:


Indeed I am fortunate that English IS my First Language and besides that I'm gifted with a 5 star Vocabulary to boot Fortunate for me besides that is English happens to have historically gained hegenomy in much the same manner that the Dollar did, so I am beneficiary of being on the top end of the most commonly used language on the Internet for this kind of argument. I'll cut slack for ESL speakers who are clear thinkers, but for Dimwits like Zapata? I'll carve him up like Thanksgiving Turkey. LOL. I'll do it with NATIVE speakers of English also, just ESL dimwits are sitting ducks for thsi kind of attack.



Well, I got some bones to pick with you on Ron Paul style Constitutionalism, but I don't think I will do it here. Overall, the Constitution is a Document designed to protect Private Property rights and enforce the dichotomy between the Haves and the Have Nots. There is a REASON only Property Owners had voting franchise rights under the Constitution you know.

RE

"Morris Berman, in his book Why America Failed: The Roots of Imperial Decline, delves into a very sensitive topic for most Americans. He asks the tough questions about the nature of American culture as it relates to various issues such as slavery, genocide, *the corruption of corporate and governing institutions*, systemic environmental destruction, imperial warmongering and economic decline."

*the corruption of corporate and governing institutions* - I'm just wondering when these were NOT corrupt.


"As much as we would like to believe that we can evolve away from our opposition culture into one that is *more comfortable with itself*, it is difficult to ignore the momentum of our self-repeating history over a few centuries."

*more comfortable with itself* - Unfortunately our system of privilege and capitalism is only too *comfortable* with setting up an enemy to divert attention to.

Ash, I think you answer this implied question with the article on the War Machine and its retailers, in "Becoming the Bank". The war machine is highly profitable and can buy off the politicians and prosecutors. Besides the war machine can rid the population of the angry young men who could be a threat by conscripting them or throwing more of them in jail. Or those angry young people with no future might just be tempted by high paying sales jobs in the drug industry, and then throw them in jail to use as slave labor.

The Oppositional culture demonizes the "enemy"and allows people to kill what they define as non-humans or animals. It removes any moral scruples a person might have about murder.

RE said.
"Overall, the Constitution is a Document designed to protect Private Property rights and enforce the dichotomy between the Haves and the Have Nots. There is a REASON only Property Owners had voting franchise rights under the Constitution you know."

This was exactly what went wrong with ancient Athens before Solon devised a cancelation of debts and the return of Athenians who had to sell themselves and family to slavery. They later instituted a lottery for serving on their Council of 500. It seems to be the first instance of a populist democracy at work. While it did not work all that well, it may well have been head and shoulders above letting the landed well-born and rich merchants literally enslave debtors.

Glennda wrote:


I think the Greeks made many attempts at instituting Popular Democracy, but the Greeks like all other cultures of the Old World both West and East were already infected by the Evil of Money. The very fact Greeks had to "cancel" Debts meant that they accepted the idea that Debts existed and were enforceable to begin with.

All the terminology in your post speaks to the idea of Ownership of the Earth. "Landed Well-Born" people? What is that? It means that because your father or his father grabbed a piece of Land, when you are born you are More Equal than others not so "well born". Soon as you accept the idea of being "well born", you accept inequity and you create the classes of Haves and Have Nots.

Hunter-Gatherers of course never latched onto such concepts, because they moved around all the time and "owning" a piece of land wasn't part of the paradigm. Thus no Money either. Money is just a proxy for ownership of resource really.

There is NEVER Democracy where there is Ownership. the two concepts are mutually exclusive. Ownership dichotomizes a population into Haves and Have Nots. ALWAYS. It cannot be countenanced anymore if Homo Sapiens is to survive. The concept has to be expunged completely before we can engineer a Better Tomorrow.

RE

RE
"All the terminology in your post speaks to the idea of Ownership of the Earth. "Landed Well-Born" people? What is that? It means that because your father or his father grabbed a piece of Land, when you are born you are More Equal than others not so "well born". Soon as you accept the idea of being "well born", you accept inequity and you create the classes of Haves and Have Nots."

Actually the phrase, "Landed Well-Born" people, is the wordage of the ancient Greeks. They had a kind of Aristocracy, before the beginnings of their democratic populist political system.

I agree that the institution of private property is a kind of theft from the commons. One of the big issues in the Occupy movement is whether "crimes against property" are violent, or should that only be reserved for "crimes against people". Certainly the loss of the Commons was a giant step in the rise of capitalism.

As far as debt is concerned, the book "Debt, the first 5000 years" by David Graeber (who is known as one of the main theorists of the OWS and anarchist movement.) has some very insightful facts from history and anthropology showing that debt has been in existence for millennia and is based originally on not barter but the trade of favors. Money on the other hand rose from the need to pay soldiers who were not neighbors, but mercenaries who could not be counted on to return favors.

Gold was used during war to pay the mercenaries, while debt or credit was used during peace. Now we use credit to finance our wars, and wage/debt slaves to suffer through them.

Glennda wrote:


In a Property Ownership Society, crimes against Property are synonymous with crimes against the Person, since the Person depends on his Ownership of the property to survive.

For instance, if you are a Farmer and somebody steals your growing corn, this is a crime against your person since you as farmer need that corn to survive.

"Commons" such as they might exist anymore have all been gobbled up by the property ownership system. Hell, Nation States claim ownership over Oil fields dozens of miles off their shores all the time. Who "owns" the Fishing rights around the Falklands/Maldives? Argentinians or Brits?

I live in Alaska right next door to one of the biggest "commons" in North America, Denali National Park. Can I go Hunt in Denali unrestricted? Hardly.

The course of History really has been one of taking all the commons and locking them up under one form of Private Ownership or another. Its all nonsense and will soon be shown to be such. Nobody can own the Earth. Its an artifice just as debt is an artifice. You have to buy into the obligation for it to have meaning. Once you no longer buy into it, the whole concept evaporates.

RE

I want to thank all the contributors to TAE for expanding my knowledge of so many different topics. I am learning so much about subjects I never knew existed, and my thinking about what I learned 50+ years ago is much different than what I know now.

el gallinazo wrote:


As you probably know, I am with RE (and SA) on this one. When you really delve into the structures that were created by the Constitution, the broad powers granted, etc., the ways in which this broad language has been interpreted over centuries, the resulting document is filled with much more than "pimples" or "blemishes" - more like full body-length scars.

The Bill of Rights stands as the singular and lonely spot of sunshine in all that mess, and even those protections have been twisted and turned in so many directions that they are essentially meaningless. Take the 10th amendment, for example. I'd say most constitutional attorneys would tell you that the fastest way to lose a case arguing for states' rights over the federal government would be to invoke the 10A in your argument.

In short, we need to stop idealizing the Constitution as being something that it isn't, and has not been for hundreds of years, with very few exceptions (the Warren Court comes to mind). Something that, arguably, it is not even capable of being in the current system. It protects the system of private property/markets, it establishes an illusory system of democratic representation and it gives the federal government carte blanche to exert authority over all lower level institutions and people. That's what the so-called libertarian "Constitutionalists" never seem to understand about the document in its proper context.

And, let me add that if you are worried about a complete police state takeover of the U.S., elements of which are arguably already in place, then I don't think you should find any comfort in the Constitution for protection. Between Congress' unchecked and mind-numbingly broad power to "regulate interstate commerce" and the President's unchecked role as "commander in chief" and to promote the "national security" of the nation, I'd say the Constitution could serve us all up to the globalists on a silver platter (already has in some ways).

What's the BoR going to do about that? Allow us to stand outside and protest in small groups, as long as we don't breach some arbitrary threshold at which our free speech turns into a threat to the public peace or national security? Or maybe it will guarantee that any searches of our person/homes/cars and seizures of our property will first be legitimized by some hack judge who determines "probable cause" and issues a warrant. How about our right to a trial, in which the masses are given the most incompetent and corrupted attorney that money can't buy? They can't inflict "cruel and unusual" punishment on us, but, hell, they can still waterboard us.

Ash,

As Katherine Austin Fitts would put it, Mr. Global is in his end game. I will not argue that the Bill of Rights has not been subverted by money interests over the history of the USA, but if enforced by its letter, it is a bulwark against totalitarianism. The Supreme Court, like the Congress, is a den of thieves and I think that any previous interpretation that they made of the Bill of Rights should be thrown in the trash heap of history. Any eighth grader can read it and understand it. The USA has already entered a state of fascist takeover by the global banking cartel as demonstrated by the NDAA on New Year's Eve and Obama's last executive order where he nationalized everything including sunshine. (Does that have any economic relevancy?) What remedy do you have to oppose this? How much time do you think that this blog and others like it have? I am not talking something theoretical but something that could conceivable catch fire among the American people. I don't think that a Hegelian interpretation of history will do the job. You think that they are about to abandon money within the next 12 months and go on to an anarchist utopia? I find here that the perfect is a deadly enemy to the good.

el gallinazo wrote:


I think TAE and most of the other Blogs chronicling the Collapse actually have quite a bit of time here. They are all very marginal in impact. Even the best read posts on TAE get only a few thousand page hits, and that is WORLDWIDE. If/when you get an audience in the Millions, then you might have something to worry about.

The Blogosphere as a whole gets a bigger readership, but when taken as a whole its a cacophany of many ideas that basically turn into Babel and so in aggregate does not move the zeitgeist in any particular direction. In essence here, you only really have something to worry about when large numbers of people start to PAY ATTENTION to you. About the only Financial Blog with THAT much power I think is Zero Hedge, but ZH is its own microcosm of Babble.

The population as a whole is still driven in Group Think by the MSM. As long as this continues to work for TPTB to push around gross general opinion, fire up the hoi polloi for War and so forth, the chit chat that goes on here in the Blogosphere is just a bit of White Noise in the background. Its not making any real impact as of yet. This may change and one should not give up here, but as of right now everything Stoneleigh, Ilargi, Ashvin, and in fact even Tyler Durden is writing is just piss into a Hurricane. Long way to go before such things present any threat to TPTB.

RE

el gallinazo wrote:


An eight grader can take a look at any number of factual scenarios involving suspicious behavior and determine whether "probable cause" exists for a search/seizure? Or exactly what legal procedures "due process" was meant to entail in any given situation? There are obviously blatant constitutional violations that are in practice today, as we are reaching an extreme level of oppression, but that doesn't mean the vaguely defined framework of the Constitution is either perfect OR good.



Between (a) personally doing what I can to withdraw support from these institutions, spread the message and prepare whatever lifeboats are possible to transition through a prolonged period of systemic and disorderly collapse, or (b) hoping and praying people like Alex Jones and Ron Paul will gallop in to the rescue through media/political action and "restore" the Constitution to a state in which democratic capitalism can thrive once again... I'm going to have go with (a). B is highly unlikely and also not that great of an outcome for the planet, anyway.

If we are to be shut down, then so be it. If the full force of the so-called NWO is to be unleashed in short order, and will sustain its all-encompassing oppression through top-down neo-feudal structures and access to ZPE technology, then there's not a single thing I could do about it, except get myself on a terrorist watch list when the hammer comes down. If not, and words written about the nature of our global system (IMO) and decentralized preparations/initiatives actually will make a difference for the lives of other people, then I don't want to regret missing that opportunity for the rest of my life.

The web is so interlinked with the business community that if it would stop working it would cause chaos.

The web has also become an intergrated part of j6p means of educating and communicating. Knowledge is spreading and it isn't always what the bosses want.

Example
Tunisia's revolution started the Arab Spring and was in large part due to the web.

Peoples attitudes are changing.
Think of the effects of a soldier killing 17 Afghans. It certainly a negative for the NATO forces.

Think of the block watch captain killing a black 17 yr old.

There is uneasiness among the population and an unrelated event could be a spark that changes everything for the status quo.

Everyday someone else starts to question the status quo and looks on the web for answers. Those wanting to work in secrecy are having a harder time hiding their misdeeds and finding acceptable explanations.

jal said "Everyday someone else starts to question the status quo and looks on the web for answers. Those wanting to work in secrecy are having a harder time hiding their misdeeds and finding acceptable explanations. "

This is my main concern...That TPTB, in order to work in secrecy, will shut down the entire Internet so that none of us could find answers.

ashvin wrote:


I second this initiative.

RE

Ash

You use, perhaps intentionally, a (false) logical fallacy to counter my position. I never said it was a choice between A or B. I maintain that one need pursue both A and B. More specifically, I have never voiced opposition to any of the nine points in Nicole's lifeboat as far as it goes. And I have never argued against a huge economic collapse in the near future. Nor have I argued that the initial collapse will be deflationary while the debt defaults unwind. However, I do argue that the lifeboat strategies could well be insufficient if the USA falls into a Nazi, Mao, or Stalinist dictatorship completely devoid of any rule of law. If so, these apparatchiks will not care whether you are in debt or not. They will not care whether you hold a mortgage to your house or not. The executive already has the "legal" right to confiscate your doomstead under its recent executive order. When and if they will execute that right remains to be seen. Hank Paulson didn't permit much water under the bridge before firing his "bazooka," which he purported that by simply brandishing he would never have to use. Thus, I am maintaining that a very minimum rule of law must be maintained for Nicole's lifeboat strategy to succeed and that this is currently being threatened by political events. I just went through Nicole's lifeboat, and only points (6) and (9) are not totally tied into property rights. Her lifeboat is built upon the premise of a minimal rule of law vis-a-vis property rights.

I will not argue that there are fine points in judging the application of the Bill of Rights that your typical eighth grader would be bored to tears by. Only lawyers earning six figure and up could find these arguments of interest. However, those are not the issues which I am referring to. Let's take the due process clause. Do you think that an eight grader would find Obama's "I can imprison or murder any American citizen anywhere in the world whenever I feel like it" law, sometimes referred to as the NDAA in violation of due process? Once again you use arguments simply to obfuscate.

The rest of your arguments are just as bogus, simply trying to mock my positions instead of countering them honestly. The readers of this blog are, for the most part, too intelligent for that. I hope you might respond in the future at a higher level of argument dealing with the issues I am discussing. I am sure you could do so if you choose to. The Inuits know that the wolf is the key to the health of the caribou. My arguments and positions are not meant to disqualify TAE, but rather through constructive criticism and debate, strengthen whatever remedial courses are available to us. I do not doubt that our over all goals are the same, namely to allow the 99% to survive with minimal hardship the oncoming tsunami. However, honest argument as opposed to sophistry would aid in that endeavor.

As to my researches into ZPE (zero point energy), they were discussed in private email conversations between us and should not play a part in our current, public discussion, particularly in an attempt to discredit my other positions by intimating that I am a "nutcase.". I see now that that was an error of judgment on my part which will not be repeated.

el gallinazo wrote:


This fallacy is one which is repeated in almost every Doomsteading Plan you commonly find regurgitated on the net. Prepping Doomsteaders seem to believe the biggest of their problems will come from the Hordes of Zombies raiding their Raised Bed Permaculture Gardens for Tomatoes. Not.

The much more likely danger comes from Da Goobermint/Military commandeering your production or simply replacing you with someone more connected to the power structure. Betting on being able to maintain your Private Property Doomstead as your own little Safe Haven is not a very good bet when there is a much larger power structure surrounding you.

IMHO, the best plans do not require you hold onto Private Property any more than that which you can reasonably carry with you. You should be self sufficient in being able to create shelter for yourself wherever you go. You should know how to "work the system" to get hold of Goobermint Cheese and whatever else Da Goobermint will dole out to try to keep the system together. You should be familiar with means of finding food and water in marginal territory. You should develop skills that could be Useful to the Fascist State. I often council younger friends who are good with numbers to bone up on Cryptography. Both Encoders and Code Breakers are very rare people and are essential components for both the Fascist State AND the Resistance, whichever side you think is the better one to line up with to insure your survival.

Your greatest and best defense is in your Mobility. Who is better off in Libya, the Doomsteader with a wonderful little farm pulling water from the enormous aquifer below Libya, or the Runner who can GTFO of Dodge FAST when NATO drops the Death from Above on his little town?

Da Goobermints all over the world will be doing what they can to restrict mobility and keep you TRAPPED inside their borders as a Taxpayer, or keep you OUT as another mouth to feed inside their borders. However, the world remains a big place, and all borders remain porous. I was recently down on the Mexican Border, and I can tell you for sure anybody who really wants to can move either way across that border. The Canadian Border is even more porous. You just don't want to be using the Public conduits for such movement.

You cannot "own" or hold that much, and that which you do try to hold onto in many cases will just slow you down. Whatever occurs here, you are going to have to make a go of it AS YOU GO. A couple of months of buffer is about the best you can hope for here. You WILL have to line up on one side or the other, either as a Fascist Apparatchik or as a Soldier of the Resistance. NOBODY will sit on the fence and make it through the Zero Point.

Travel lite, stay mobile, keep your wits about you. In the end, all you really ever have is your physical skills and that which you hold in your head to help you survive. This is all you EVER really "own".

RE
www.doomsteaddiner.org

El G,

I'm surprised that you took such personal offense to my reply, but I'm not surprised that you completely failed to understand what I was saying, given your increasingly hostile position towards anyone who doesn't believe in conspiratorial meta-narratives. I was generously assuming that everything you believe about the upcoming Stasi police state and the NWO plans in general are true (which I don't agree with), and saying that I still would not be doing anything differently with my time on this site.

Perhaps your memory is failing you (that's not meant as an insult, it's something you have said publicly), but you are the one who has changed his MO on this site over time. You respond to every single argument made with "yeah, but, you aren't going far enough to include the plans of TPTB, so what you are saying is irrelevant". Maybe not in so many words, but that's exactly how it comes off to me when I read your replies, and I'm sure it's not just me.

On top of that, you say that it's unfair for me to reference ZPE technology, even though that's a significant part of your "big picture" perspective, which you say is lacking here. You have referenced ZPE many different times on the TAE forum, not just in private conversation. You want to augment TAE's big picture with your carefully considered views, but only want to pick and choose what we can consider when responding? Please don't insult me by acting like I was bringing it up to score points with readers who don't believe in it. I was simply responding to your dismissive attitude towards the arguments made in my article.



OK, great. Everything I said in my original reply to you still stands. I would love to see the rule of law upheld, especially at the local and state level. The only thing I said was that the US Constitution is not where I would focus my efforts, because I do not believe it was designed to prevent authoritarian rule, by and large, and that the few protections it does offer will not be enforced. I find it amazing that "Constitutionalists" can keep ignoring the document as a whole and only focus on the BoR, which was added as an appeasing afterthought to push through an agenda which centralizes authority away from the states.



So far, I have heard nothing from you about "remedial courses" to survive what you believe to occur in the future, above and beyond what is advocated at TAE. Once again, you are confusing your lack of understanding for sophistry.

ashvin wrote:


I'll chip in a couple not listed so far as I can tell on TAE!

www.primitiveskills.com/
www.nwsos.com/public/survival/primitive.html

RE

From being a Girl Scout many years ago, I know it is important to 'Be Prepared'. And I'm way ahead of anyone else that I know in some preparations. Also, from reading TAE and elsewhere, I know it is important to practice various skills for survival, growing food, mentoring family and friends, etc., etc.

But how long is it going to take after the global financial Ponzi bubble implodes, when we really will need to become nomadic moving from place to place using those primitive survival skills? A few years? A decade? How fast does total collapse come?

And my arguments of my last comment also still stand. But I am going to drop any personal references in discussion now and in the future. I think our relationship is clearly, if unfortunately, newly defined. Yes, I regard the most reasonable explanation for the events I see as a long planned and detailed campaign by the global banking elite to establish a one world tyranny. They have become quite open and blatant about it recently, though they prefer for some reason to avoid the descriptive "tyranny." After years of looking at these events unfold, that is my Occam's Razor conclusion. It was not my viewpoint when I started reading TAE some four odd years ago. But even old dogs can learn new tricks. Everyone's milage may vary. I just invite people to take that viewpoint around the block, research it, and see how it drives. I expect to support it with links to additional information in the future.

But the heart of my argument is that the USA is very rapidly accelerating into a total police state. Anyone with eyes and ears can see and hear it. As with other police states in history, the most recent and largest being the Nazi, Stalinist, and Maoist, the rule of law broke down in most respects. As I have pointed out above, this break down can threaten Nicole's lifeboat as only points 6 and 9 are not based on some rule of law and property rights. Whether this activity is generated by a globalist plan or is purely domestic and some sort of unplanned thermodynamic unfolding of a herd psychology interaction is both important and unimportant. It is important in that understanding may help one predict and survive it. It is unimportant as we are dealing with the reality of it on a very practical, here and now level.

I have gone "off the reservation" now for two reasons. The first can be summed up by the NDAA and last week's executive order, buttressing the "legal" framework of a total, national, police state. The second is that the new format to TAE gives me the opportunity of presenting my opinions about whatever without "derailing" the sole thread, as now there are a near infinite potential number of topics and threads available. People who think I have nothing to offer and am a total whackjob can easily avoid me comments.

All I am pointing out here is the reality of an increasingly lawless police state, and the question of how to deal with it should be integrated into a lifeboat strategy. I have not offered a solution myself, as I am not sure that I have one formulated yet, but more primarily, I am stifling myself to inspire all the commenters into offering suggestions for our mutual consideration. The only remark in that regard I wish to make at present is that any remediation would either be focused at some form of resistance or avoidance. RE, not surprisingly, was first off the line, with a comprehensive approach. But his approach IMO would only fit a minority of the readership. So I simply open it up to the floor ................ any other ideas?

ZPE (zero point energy) - can anyone point me to a good paper on ZPE?
Wiki defines it as pseudoscience? Now is that really fair?

El G,

Your argument about an encroaching and oppressive police state is not something that goes ignored here. I recently wrote an entire series on debt slavery, which mainly focused on the growing unholy union of large corporations and federal governments (primarily in the US) that will attempt to maintain their wealth/power through enslavement of the masses. Perhaps indebtedness is not even required for such totalitarian control, but I believe it would serve as the most convenient means of transition, just as it did with African-Americans. I referenced the NDAA in that series.

So I really fail to see what more TAE should be doing to address these issues, especially considering the virtually unrestricted comment forum. The only difference is that we don't spend all of our time considering those issues, like some other analysts out there, and we do not pretend to know exactly how either the police state issue or geopolitical ones will affect the economic/financial state of affairs for most people. It is certainly a threat, but, IMO, not an all-consuming one.

We also disagree about the extent to which many of the things occurring now are being coordinated by TPTB as a part of a long-running, overarching plan for the global population, but, like you said, that is somewhat unimportant to the discussion over best methods of dealing with that reality. One thing that I have consistently argued is that the collapse of complexity in human civilization, driven first by financial breakdown and then by lack of net energy as well as environmental issues, will be our best defense against totalitarian control.

After that, we must rely on increasing awareness, individual/family/community preparations, learning practical skills such as those referenced by RE (which are important no matter what happens). I believe those are all things that TAE has advocated, at least in general terms. More active resistance may eventually become necessary for some people in the totalitarian scenario, but that will be an extremely tough road to travel for most.

JoeP wrote:


JoeP.

I will make one reply on this subject on this forum. And then not a peep from me here. Both relativistic and quantum mechanical approaches come up with an energy density in the vacuum of space which is often referred to as zero point energy. My understanding is that this problem which is connected to the cosmological constant drove Einstein crazy, as the energy density that popped out of his special relativity was near infinite, and he was not happy with that result. That is not considered pseudoscience. However, 99% of tenured professors regard this energy as inaccessible to do practical work. And one of the definitions of energy, at least when you teach it on the high school level, is the ability to do work.

There are thousands of garage inventors and licensed engineers around the globe working on the issue of trying to access this energy. There are many claims of over unity devices. There are also many claims of men in black suits raiding and confiscating whole laboratories and physically threatening inventors with their families who claim to have reached "over unity" which means getting more energy out then one is putting into a device. There are also claims of over 5000 patents seized on the basis of "national security." Because of this, many inventors have either gone secret or are working on an open source Internet basis similar to software like Linux and forgetting the patents.

Some people claim that there is no possibility to this as it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Others counter that the second law states that entropy always increases in a real world closed system, but the system is, in fact, not closed at all. If these devices are real and could be manufactured reasonably cheaply and allow decentralized and inexpensive power, it would represent a huge threat to various global interests. Duh! This of course does not support the reality, but it does support the idea that if the claims are real, there would be a huge pressure to suppress it. My personal, and very tentative opinion is that I think that there is a better than even chance that there is a basis in reality to many of these claims. There was an exposition of these devices recently in Italy, I believe it was Milano.

For anyone interested, the Internet is your friend. Nothing more from me here, other than the following, which is considered to be an excellent summary by conventional physicists.

math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html

What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum?

John Baez

June 10, 2011

People talk a lot about "vacuum energy" or "zero-point energy" - that is, the energy density of empty space. In cosmology, people also call this quantity the "cosmological constant", or "dark energy". Sometimes kooky people get really excited about the idea that if we could only use this energy somehow, all our problems would be solved. But first things first! Does this energy really exist? And if so, how much of it is there?
Once upon a time, someone named Amw wrote:

I have heard widely varying numbers for so called "zero point energy", some as low as practically zero and some as high as astronomical. It gets to the point I am not sure what to think.
And here is my reply:
Yes, one hears lots of conflicting stuff about this. However, you've come to the right place to get to the bottom of it all.

Here's the deal. We have two fundamental theories of physics: quantum field theory and general relativity. Quantum field theory takes quantum mechanics and special relativity into account, and it's a great theory of all the forces and particles except gravity, but it ignores gravity. General relativity is a great theory of gravity, but it ignores quantum mechanics. Nobody knows how to reconcile these theories yet. That's what people working on "quantum gravity" are trying to do.

Now, the reason I'm telling you this is that quantum field theory and general relativity have really different attitudes towards the energy density of the vacuum. The reason is that quantum field theory only cares about energy differences. If you can only measure energy differences, you can't determine the energy density of the vacuum - it's just a matter of convention. As far as we know, you can only determine the energy density of the vacuum by experiments that involve general relativity - namely, by measuring the curvature of spacetime.

So, when you ask about the energy density of the vacuum, you get different answers depending on whether the person answering you is basing their answer on general relativity or quantum field theory. Let me run through the 5 most common answers, explaining how people reach these different answers:

We can measure the energy density of the vacuum through astronomical observations that determine the curvature of spacetime. All the measurements that have been done agree that the energy density is VERY CLOSE TO ZERO. In terms of mass density, its absolute value is less than 10-26 kilograms per cubic meter. In terms of energy density, this is about 10-9 joules per cubic meter.
One can know something is very close to zero without knowing whether it is positive, negative or zero. For a long time that's how it was with the cosmological constant. But, recent measurements by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and many other experiments seem to be converging on a positive cosmological constant, equal to roughly 7 × 10-27 kilograms per cubic meter. This corresponds to a positive energy density of about 6 × 10-10 joules per cubic meter.

The reason they get a positive energy density is very interesting. Thanks to the redshifts of distant galaxies and quasars, we've known for a long time that the universe is expanding. The new data shows something surprising: this expansion is speeding up. Ordinary matter can only make the expansion slow down, since gravity attracts - at least for ordinary matter.

What can possibly make the expansion speed up, then? Well, general relativity says that if the vacuum has energy density, it must also have pressure! In fact, it must have a pressure equal to exactly -1 times its energy density, in units where the speed of light and Newton's gravitational constant equal 1. Positive energy density makes the expansion of the universe tend to slow down... but negative pressure makes the expansion tend to speed up.

More precisely, the rate at which the expansion of the universe accelerates is proportional to

- ρ - 3P
where ρ is the energy density and P is the pressure. (This isn't supposed to be obvious: there's a nontrivial calculation involved, and I'm just telling you the final result. The 3 is there because there are 3 dimensions of space, oddly enough.)

But as I mentioned, for the vacuum the pressure is minus the energy density: P = -ρ. So, the rate at which the vacuum makes the expansion of the universe accelerate is proportional to

2 ρ
From this, it follows that if the vacuum has positive energy density, the expansion of the universe will tend to speed up! This is what people see. And, vacuum energy is currently the most plausible explanation known for what's going on.

Of course, to believe this argument at all, one must have some confidence in general relativity. To believe scientists' attempts to determine an actual value for the energy density of spacetime, one must have more confidence in general relativity, and also other assumptions about cosmology. However, the basic fact that the energy density of spacetime is very close to zero is almost unarguable: for it to be false, general relativity would have to be very wrong.

We can try to calculate the energy density of the vacuum using quantum field theory. If we calculate the lowest possible energy of a harmonic oscillator, we get a bigger answer when we use quantum mechanics than when we use classical mechanics. The difference is called the "zero-point energy". The zero-point energy of a harmonic oscillator is 1/2 Planck's constant times its frequency. Naively we can try calculating the energy density of the vacuum by simply summing up the zero-point energies of all the vibrational modes of the quantum fields we are considering (e.g. the electromagnetic field and various other fields for other forces and particles). Vibrational modes with shorter wavelengths have higher frequencies and contribute more vacuum energy density. If we assume spacetime is a continuum, we have modes with arbitrarily short wavelengths, so we get INFINITY as the vacuum energy density. But there are problems with this calculation....
A slightly less naive way to calculate the vacuum energy in quantum field theory is to admit that we don't know spacetime is a continuum, and only sum the zero-point energies for vibrational modes having wavelengths bigger than, say, the Planck length (about 10-35 meters). This gives an ENORMOUS BUT FINITE vacuum energy density. Using E = mc2 to convert between energy and mass, it corresponds to a mass density of about 1096 kilograms per cubic meter! But there are problems with this calculation, too....
One problem is that treating the vibrational modes of our fields as harmonic oscillators is only valid for "free field theories" - those in which there are no interactions between modes. This is not physically realistic.

However, while taking interactions into account changes the precise answer, we are still left with an enormous energy density. The ridiculous ratio between this density and what's actually observed is often called the cosmological constant problem. One way to put it is that in units of Planck mass per Planck length cubed, the cosmological constant is about 10-123. It's hard to make up a theory that explains such a tiny nonzero number.

But there's an even bigger problem, too....

Quantum field theory as it is ordinarily done ignores gravity. But as long as one is ignoring gravity, one can add any constant to ones definition of energy density without changing the predictions for anything you can experimentally measure. The reason is that without measuring the curvature of spacetime, one can only measure energy differences. The big problem with calculations 2 and 3 is that they ignore this fact. If we take advantage of this fact we are free to redefine energy density by subtracting off the zero-point energy, leaving an energy density of ZERO. In fact this is what is ordinarily done in quantum field theory.
An even less naive way to think about the vacuum energy density in quantum field theory is the following. In quantum field theory we are neglecting gravity. This means we are free to add any constant whatsoever to our definition of energy density. As long as we are free to do this, we can't really say what the vacuum energy density "really is". In other words, if we only consider quantum field theory and not general relativity, the vacuum energy density is NOT DETERMINED.
So, I've given you 5 answers to the same question:

VERY CLOSE TO ZERO
INFINITY
ENORMOUS BUT FINITE
ZERO
NOT DETERMINED
Which should you believe? I believe 1) because it is based on experiment and fairly conservative assumptions about general relativity and astronomy. Answers 2)-4) are based on somewhat naive theoretical calculations. Answer 5) is the best that quantum field theory can do right now. Reconciling answers 1) and 5) is one of the big tasks of any good theory of quantum gravity.
The moral is: for a question like this, you need to know not just the answer but also the assumptions and reasoning that went into the answer. Otherwise you can't make sense of why different people give different answers.

References

For more on the energy density of the vacuum, try these:
Ned Wright, Vacuum Energy Density, or: How Can Nothing Weigh Something?
Sean Carroll, The Cosmological Constant.
For a calculation that explains why the vacuum having positive energy density means it has enough negative pressure to make the expansion of the universe accelerate, see the cosmological constant section of my website about the meaning of Einstein's equation. You may need to read a bunch of stuff in this website to understand the calculation - but it's fun stuff!

Framk B. Tatom helped me update this page. Here is how we got the numbers. Using the Λ-CDM model, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe estimates that Ω&Lambda = 0.726 ± 0.015. This means that the energy density of the vacuum is about 0.726 times the critical density. The critical density, in turn, is defined to be

ρc = 3H2/8πG

where H is the Hubble constant and G is the gravitational constant. The WMAP data estimate the Hubble constant at 70.5 ± 1.3 kilometers per second per megaparsec, and the gravitational constant is known much more accurately, at 6.67384 ± .00008 × 10-11 meters3 per kilogram second2. This puts the critical density between 9.0 × 10-27 and 9.7 × 10-27 kilograms per cubic meter, and the energy density of the vacuum between 6.4 × 10-27 about 7.2 × 10-27 kilograms per cubic meter. Please check our math, and our data!

For more, see:

Table 7 of G. Hinshaw, et al. (WMAP Collaboration), Five-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe observations: data processing, sky maps, and basic results, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement 180 (Feb. 2009), 225-245. Also available as arXiv:0803.0732.

bluebird wrote:


Timelines are the nastiest stumbling block for the wannabee Nostradamus. Because there are sooooo many inter-relationships and so many alternative tracks it is just a crapshoot to say it will take X number of years from today before its Lights Out and whoever remains standing is working with Stone Knives and Bear Skins.

To begin with, even a complete collapse of the Global Economy probably doesn't end Money at the Nation State level for a while. The FSoA for instance is likely to set up a Command Economy similar to that of the old Soviet Union, and issue Ration Coupons (of the electronic plastic variety) for both Food and Energy. You already see that with the expansion of the SNAP Card program. Something like 48M people are on that program now, around 14% of the population. That is not a small number.

Second, I think most observers underestimate the power of demand destruction here. The amount of fuel waste is soooo great here in the FSofA that we can probably cut easy 20-30% off consumption without that radically changing the way we live. Just large scale car-pooling would do that. The problem of course with such a vast reduction in consumption is that it would completely collapse the current economy, to an even greater degree than it already is collapsing.

Still due to demand destruction here and in Eurotrashland along with the developing nations and producers like China, with prduction levels at current levels we would quickly be AWASH in a sea of oil. The more expensive Oil will of course be shut in because the prices it can command will not support such production.

I try these days to get a handle on how quick the timeline is moving by observing the spin down in Greece and the contagion to the rest of the PIIGS. Canary in the Coal Mine there. Greeks have pretty much stopped buying Kraut Kars, and between the layoffs and the General Strikes called on average of once a week or so, BAU has pretty much ground to a halt. Any projections they are making for Tax Revenues are complete fantasy these days. Even so though, for Greece it still looks as though they are a couple of years away from Lights Out in Athens.

If its going to still take a couple of years at least for the Greeks, it will take longer still for the core countries of northern Eurotrashland on purely economic grounds maye a decade? However, intervening in that decade is the lieklihood of either World War or numerous Civil Wars breaking out throughout the region, similar to what is going on in MENA.

Any large scale War Effort will open up the Credit Spigot here in the FSofA. So in fact you could get a Wartime "Boom" Economy for a while with this. It will likely spend itself pretty quick though.

Anyhow, all things considered, it seems to me here in the FSofA we still have another decade of Lights On and some measure of BAU with cars still motoring about, albeit fewer of them all the time. I think more people will be going on the Dole and surreptitiously as I think is already occuring the industrialized food apparatus is become subsumed into the Fascist State through Monsanto and Conagra. Because of that, I don't think immediate starvation is likely here in the FSofA.

The biggest Wild Card here in the FSofA is the political dislocation that is already evident in OWS and is likely to keep expanding in different forms. There will eventually be Home Grown Terrorist groups which form up and do things like blow infrastructure such as Oil refineries and Pipelines. Impossible to say though when that type of behavior will reach a Critical Mass.

Complete Lights Out and scraping the dirt for food is probably still decades away here in the FSofA. Its going to be though a period of extreme Fascism of the sort EG fears the most. Though most of us probably will not ever hear about it directly through verifiable sources, like in Nazi Germany there will be Death Camps. Of all the "Lifeboat" strategies you need to engage in during this period, Numero Uno here is staying OUT of situations where you might be herded into a Death Camp. Stay OUT of prison. As states and municipalities run out of money to fund their prisons, they will transfer the prisoners to the FEMA Camps already built. Who will count the numbers who go in and who comes out of those places? The BLS?

Finally, be wary fo Goobermint job offers that incorporate Relocation for you and your family. When Da Goobermint offers you an AMTRAK ticket to Utah to build Windmills, do not get on that train. The destination will not be Utah, and there will be no Windmills at the end of the line to build. There will only be the Human Waste Reprocessing Facility in San Antonio.

RE
www.doomsteaddiner.org

Back in the days when I was a Rookie Commenter on the Peak Oil Message Board, there was a Veteran Commenter who went by the nom de plume of "Monte Quest". What occurred with Monte reminds me a whole lot of what seems to be occuring with El Gallinazo.

For his time, Monte was an EXTREME Kollapsnik. It was from reading his stuff that I first became aware of the population collapse of the Deer on St. Matthews Island. Monte made a very convincing case for a MASSIVE die off coming down the pipe, and you have to remember this is in 2007 even before Lehman went down. Besides that, I believe Monte was writing on Peak Oil right from its beginnings in around 2004.

Anyhow, Monte's viewpoint was so extreme that he often was subject to vicious attacks from many readers, and this inevitably escalated into some fabulous Napalm contests as well with Monte name-calling the Idiots attacking him, and the Idiots name-calling Monte a "Monster". I will say that in subtext as I read it Monte probably did favor culling the herd of Homo Sapiens in a purposeful manner, which does earn a "Monster" title generally speaking.

The result of the constant Napalm when Monte posted was that eventually, even though he was one of the longest standing members and a very well read fellow who was a fountain of information, the Moderators on Peak Oil Banned him. He may have been later reinstated, I don't know since shortly thereafter *I* also was banned from Peak Oil and I stopped tracking the board.

Here in this thread, it appears to me that EG has run afoul of the Mod staff, as personified in this case by Ashvin. The disputes also appear to go back in time some and predate my recent arrival on this scene, I won't speculate on them just on what I see occuring here.

There is a similarity between the Peak Oil board and TAE, in that both media I think attempt to remain "Mainstream" and accessible to people with moderate viewpoints, and they want to be taken "seriously" as an information outlet. In other words, TAE doesn't want to have the Rep of being an Alex Jones Tin Foil Website. LOL. Many Bloggers attempt to distance themselves from the "Tin Foil", most notably Karl Denninger who will ban you at the drop of a hat the MINUTE you drop "9-11" into a post. LOL.

Ilargi here noted in a recent post how he and Stoneleigh tend to avoid getting into discussions of the violent repercussions of the economic spin down we see occuring, and try to focus on what they believe are the "positive" ways you can prepare for the oncoming dislocations. Its a reasonably valid focus, just the problem is that it simply does not cover the REALITY all that well. If you do not analyze the will to violence that occurs as a result of an economic spin down, you are entirely ignoring all the fundamental reasons societies go to War to begin with. You can't NOT TALK about such things and be complete in the analysis.

Anyhow, as I see it EG is venting his frustrations here with the overall spin of the board, and since multi-thread software has been dropped on he is being a bit more outspoken with some of his more "Tin Foil" thinking. I don't say that negatively, because I am as Tin Foil as any blogger out there myself

For me, I finally resolved this problem by opening up the Doomstead Diner for Bizness. So far since I arrived on TAE I have been well treated and tolerated, but then again I don't go to far off the reservation with what I will write here either. On DD, ANYTHING GOES. I'm not worried about being taken "seriously" by anybody. I just wanted a forum where I could write it as I see it, without some Mod telling me to take it down a notch or two.

As I have read TAE over these past 3 years or so, Stoneleigh in particular just seems like a nice person with a good bead on the economics who is trying to get communities to wake up and smell the coffee. The lectures and tours are her way of doing that, and TAE as a Wild & Crazy website which pitches out Alex Jones style Tin Foil probably will not help her in that endeavor. So the likelihood for el Gallinazo here is that if he persists, even WITH the multi-thread board he's at least going to make some enemies, and at some point could get Banned as well. I know this, I BTDT on OPBs numerous times already.

In any event, I will once again use this opportunity to PLUG DD On DD, there is no underlying motvation to stay "Mainsteream" and generally acceptable to the Group Think of the world. If you figure the spin down is the result of some Old Jews aka Zionists aka Illuminati aka Global Elite or WTF it is you wanna label them, please feel free to detail your observations on DD If its a real good one, I'll be happy to put it up as a Feature Article on the Blog also. Zero Point Energy? No Problemo! I'll counter with my Spirit/Gravity/Energy equation and we can debate the Existence of God until the Internet Goes Dark. NO LIMITS! I don't have to stand up in front of any City Council group and seem like I am an Expert on anything. That is what Stoneleigh does, and more power to her for doing so, but it doesn't cover all the bases by any means.

RE
www.doomsteaddiner.org

A couple of days ago a friend was talking about an article he read in the "Guardian" abouta man who escaped from a prison camp in North Korea. It is an excerpt from a book titled "Escape from Camp 14".

I know one of the things my friend found most disturbing was the the way no one could trust another person.

It's also difficult to know how accurate the story is since North Korea is so isolated. But it does make me wonder about how people survive in such circumstances.

My reaction to the article does make me disagree with the assertion that that a decrease in complexity and energy in puts makes a totalitarin scenario less likely.

It is a sad and worisome future to contemplate.

Thanks RE for your commentary.

It seems that the financial collapse is taking much longer than we anticipated. It's as if everything else is moving in slow motion too. So collapse could take awhile, on its own.

However, it's all those unknowns that one could find their collapse immediately. When one is hit by a tornado, earthquake, hurricane, flood, that Mother Nature shows she can collapse anything very quickly. Or another World War, which this time would include devastation in the U.S.

But for those in my circle of family and friends, they tell me I'm the crazy nut. That our 'leaders' will protect us, and advances in technology will makes our lives better. So until they open their eyes and connect the dots for themselves, nowadays I mostly just keep quiet. It's less stressful that way, for all of us.

Reverse Engineer wrote:


If the forum moderation is personified by me, then no, he won't be banned. I have already told him that I'm fine with discussion of absolutely any topics on the forum, by anyone who wants to raise those topics. The only thing that I am not fine with is fraudulent comments (not really an issue anymore) and constant spamming by trolls that are trying to disrupt the entire site. AFAIK, that has always been the only limitation to the comment section here.

The fact that "tin foil" issues don't get as much play in the comments as, let's say, infowars or godlikeproductions or whatever, is more a function of the readership and its desired conversation rather than any official moderation. Of course, we don't spend much time writing about those issues on the front page, but, speaking for myself, that is NOT because I wish to remain "mainstream" in the eyes of readers, but rather because I genuinely disagree with many aspects of conspiratorial meta-narratives (those which attempt to fit almost every single significant occurrence on Earth into a story of coordinated takeover).

That's not to say there are no legitimate criminal conspiracies out there. I am interested in exposing the truth and reality as much as the next guy (for ex., I am very skeptical of the official 9/11 story). OTOH, I don't find it's ever worth my time to reference people who cling to meta-narratives as support for any other assertions (these are typically the same people who believe in abiotic oil and think climate change is one big hoax). But, as I said before, that's just me and others are free to reference whoever they like in their comments.

And just so you know, RE, you will not have to add TAE to the list of sites you are banned from, either for the topics you raise and link to or for plugging DD and trying to attract readers there. I understand how difficult it is to get a blog up and running, no matter how good the content is. As long as you continue contributing to the discussion as well, we are all good (otherwise, it would just be plain old spam!).

ashvin wrote:


I'm curious Ash, have you ever read Carrol Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope: History of the World in Our Time"? Its now online Open Source available to download for free. Here is a link to the pdf

archive.org/download/TragedyAndHope/TH.pdf

Its over 1000 pages, so unless you are a fabulously fast reader, I don't expect to hear back from you too soon on this. Unless of course you already have read it. After you finish it, we can start talking Conspiracy Theories.

Insofar as getting my ass booted off TAE, at the moment it seems unlikely for a few reasons. I haven't had enough time yet to irritate enough people, first of all. LOL. Second, overall TAE has a lower percentage of jerks than most websites. Third, the number of people participating in this forum is quite low right now. Fourth, I now have DD to go over the top whenever I see fit. So I'm likely good for a while here on TAE.

Happy Reading!

RE
www.doomsteaddiner.org

RE,

Yes, I perused that book online last year. It's a very interesting and unbiased perspective presented by Dr. Quiqley, with plenty of hard evidence for support. What's even more interesting, IMO, is that Quigley himself has said on several different occasions that he was not making an argument for the types of all-encompassing, conspiratorial narratives that people who reference his work tend to support (especially those who believe in a NWO "communist" conspiracy).






Also, there is no need for you to speculate on the various reasons why you will not be banned from TAE...

I already told you that you won't be and why.

Quigley's denials notwithstanding, the book itself makes a very clear cut case for a generations long conspiracy. No it is not uniform and no all events are not perectly controlled, but the manipulation and who is doing it is very clear indeed. To deny this is conspiracy is to deny what is plain obvious.

ashvin wrote:


Ashvin, speculation is what I DO, whether I need to or not. It is one of my more charming qualities.

RE

From the introduction to "Tragedy and Hope"

1 wrote:


RE

RE,

None of that is disputed by me. I think you simply misunderstood the scale of conspiracy I was referring to by "meta-narrative". All of the stuff regarding the Western capitalists, their puppet politicians and their central banking system over the course of many decades, including secret policy meetings (such as the one on Jekyll Island to create the FRA), seems quite obvious to me at this point. The problem for me is when people take legitimate conspiracies, along with other accurate information/data and isolated historical events, and attempt to weave it all together into one giant story, narrated by an all-powerful, all-encompassing group of human beings (and perhaps aliens). I'm not accusing anyone here of doing so, but Alex Jones (for ex.) is on the wrong side of that line for me. Indeed, anyone who confidently claims that climate change (and perhaps peak oil as well) is a complete hoax perpetrated by TPTB has already crossed over too far IMO.

ashvin wrote:


Now you are just quibling about the level of complexity anyone chooses to work their way through in terms of developing a coherent narrative. Although I personally tend to be fairly conservative in terms of how far past the "obvious" Conspiracy with its locus at the BIS I will speculate on, I don't have any problem with others who will draw further connections beyond that. I don't have some arbitrary line where somebody has "crossed over" and "gone too far". IMHO, that is very parochial thinking and limiting in what might in fact be truth, or at least have a grain of truth to it.

Anyhow, the most IMPORTANT Conspiracy and the one which I believe is inarguable is that in fact there never has been a "Democratic" FSofA, or even a Republic for that matter. Its just a shell, with the real power held by multinational corporations, descendents of the British and Dutch East India Companies. Yet most people even here would likely scoff at the idea that the "USA" of their imagination has NEVER existed at all. Most people here seem to think its ust with the passage of the Patriot Act and NDAA that the FSofA is "becoming" Fascist. In fact it always has been so. I've been aware of it since boyhood, and I am past 50 years old now.

Inosfar as all the various subterfuges and assassinations over the years, come on,do you really think Lee Oswald was operating on his own? Several large towers collapse on their own footprint, one of which did not even sustain an impact? To think these things happenned randomly boggles my mind, the statisticl probability is nil. We ARE being controlled by a large scale criminal conspiracy, and it has been in operation for a very long time. Far before the founding of this country/shell corporation.

RE

Reverse Engineer wrote:


No. Now, I am just explaining to you the original argument I made from the very beginning, which you misunderstood. Call it "quibling" if you want. Perhaps you don't have a problem with people drawing non-existent connections and distorting reality for the convenience of their own arguments (and, many times, their own pocket books), but I do. The line I use is only arbitrary in the sense that it is impossible for me or anyone else to establish an empirical cut off point at which legitimate conspiracies turn into fanciful myths and stories. I use PO and climate change as one of my litmus tests because I am very confident in their scientific reality, and those who argue against them, despite all contrary evidence, lose a lot of credibility in my book. It is by no means the only reason I would dismiss their theories, though.



Your relatively recent arrival on this site shows here. I have written many times about the nature of our oppressive capitalist system, and how we have never had a truly "democratic republic" in which "all men are created equal". In addition, many others at this site generally agree on that point. Even on this thread, you can see my rants against the US Constitution as a "shining beacon of liberty". In my response to you up thread, I stated that I am very skeptical of the official 9/11 story (basically, I think it's bogus). So, nothing new there.



What boggles my mind is that you said "I personally tend to be fairly conservative in terms of how far past the "obvious" Conspiracy with its locus at the BIS I will speculate on" in your comment, and then go on to say "we ARE being controlled large scale criminal conspiracy, and it has been in operation for a very long time."

Really? Are we being controlled or manipulated/influenced? Is it some hegemonic elite that has been determining almost all major developments for centuries, or are these developments more a function of a diverse set of powerful factions vying for control, extracting energy/resources and interacting with resistant populations? There's a big and important difference. Perhaps you don't think so, but I do.

ashvin wrote:


Ashvin, compared to theorists who figure we are infiltrated by Reptilian extra-terrestrials, this is a VERY conservative statement

Anyhow, you already cop to the conspiracy that goes back to Jekyll Island, so you are in for at least 100 years there. Go back and review Matt Perry's forcible opening of Japan and the lead ups to the Civil War, then pitch further back in time to Hamilton's sell out to Eurotrash banking interests, and its pretty easy to connect the dots through the colonial era and into the latter days of the Elightenment.

Things get messier in the Dark Ages when a lot of the movement of the wealth captured by the Roman Empire was moved through the Holy Roman Catholic Church. However, even there the power and influence of the HRCC still throws weight around, and that whole ball game is definitely a multigenerational comspiracy going back to at least 300AD or so.

To deny the Catholic Church is a multigenerational criminal conspiracy is to deny what is obvious and staring you right in the face. It's not the only one out there either, by any means.

RE

Reverse Engineer wrote:


Why did I have a feeling "things" were going to get messy??

Seriously, though, it's clear that we are not going to agree on this. There are the truly knowledgeable historians such as yourself, and then there are the rest of us fools who simply can't connect the dots staring us in the face! Hell, the reptilian-human hybrids are only ONE dot away from the previous dot, and that one isn't too many dots away from the catholic church, or the [insert your "obvious" conspiracy here]...

ashvin wrote:


Well, not that messy since at least 3 Popes were from the Medici Banking House and lord only knows how many Bishops and Cardinals.

It does seem unlikely we will view this in the same way, like all of history its open to interpretation and unless you actually have Mr. Peabody's WAYBAC Machine you will never get an absolute answer. It isn't a question of my being a more brilliant historian than you (even though that is true, lol), its just that I view the world through a different lens. I spin a version of history I think is true and which gives a coherent explanation for how we got where we are today. You don't wanna buy it, that is your choice. It makes lot more sense though than assuming random action across the centuries. To me, your explanations don't make a lot of sense, but that is JMHO so if it works for you, go with it.

RE

@Joe

First, note that El G has hit the proper high points.

For going deep I recommend the Bernard Haisch. Calphysics Institute, 'Zero Point Energy and Zero Point Field':



This is a comprehensive paper and is well within reach of a layman.

Enjoy.

What mystery that Gravity is a recursive algorithm.

Ash, I see you have learned little from our previous engagements on constitutionality. Its troubling to me that a bright and eloquent person can have such a blind spot for reason.

A simple premise; if government is an emergent property of complex society, if government would naturally emerge in any urban society, then it becomes necessary to lawfully restrain the powers of such a government once it appears. Otherwise its just organised crime deserving to be killed off, making violent revolution inevitable.

A social contract would mediate this restraint by constitutionality, no other system yet conceived can restrain the powers of government once established, not without violence upon violence and violent revolution.
The constitution is simply a lawful restraint on government power, and on the peoples propensity, not their power, to overthrow it. It logically enumerates certain rights which delineate those powers by the principle that individual liberty is reciprocal property, which must be owned privately to be shared publicly.

The concepts of property and ownership are not created by government but are properties of the human mind and body. Only certain forms of enforced ownership can be socially unjust, while other kinds of property rights are elementary to free will itself.
Certain kinds of private property are absolutely necessary to maintain human dignity and the freedom from slavery, such as the personal ownership of the body and the products of labor in most affairs. Those who think that ownership is always a social evil are somewhat amiss, if such private property is derived from a natural state of the individual mind or body that can only be altered by violence.

Back to that premise, if you believe that a society can do without government or any institutional structures, then the constitution is just another form of control. However, If you believe that government is an emergent property in any complex society, and will inevitably emerge in urban civilization, then a constitution will become necessary for that society to rise above barbarism.

I said that the US constitution is the most logically consistent and socially adaptive document of its kind, when comparing it to every other constitution ever written and when comparing it to barbarism.
Some of the administrative framework is deficient, not much more than in the others I've read, but the BoR and the declaration of independence are rare jewels, never improved upon as far as I know.
The configuration of representative organs is not perfectly alligned, I've found some checks and balances missing, and its said that the electoral college system is largely unrepresentative, but the document as a whole is still better than most, and it has unique elements that are refreshingly honest and self-conscious. it actually specifies the procedure to impeach the POTUS for treason. Most constitutions never mention the idea that an elected representative might be engaged in a crime.

The declaration of independence is the only legal document in history explicity stating that the sovereignty of the people precedes that of their government, and that the people must reserve the right to alter or abolish any government that becomes destructive of those ends of life, liberty/property and the pursuit of happiness. This is truly a revolutionary idea to formulate in a legal document, and vitally important to oppose tyranny. But any good constitution entails the concept of private property also, not always well balanced, but such things as the BoR formulate the ideal of such balance. The justice of private property is a balance; too little and the state can only create collectivist hell; too much and its crony capitalism or corporatism.

But Ash, I believe that every aspect of the constitution you consider destructive of liberty can be encompassed in the concept of political statism, Ive mentioned this before.
If a given constitution is only a statist tool, then its worthless, but the US constitution actually makes a conscious effort to minimise goverment statism. It doesn't accomplish this well, but it acknowledges that this phenomenon of runaway statism exists, better than any other I've read.
If you think we can do without government or large institutions then fine, we would not need lawful restrainst on powers that do not exist, but if these do exist, then we should need such a tool to restrain them with. If instead this tool of constitution would be used only to restrain the people while the rulers rob them, as you fear, it would be a tool of statism, but it doesn't have to be that way.

Supergravity,

Given your frequent reference to complex systems and "emergent properties", I would think you would understand the concept of scale-dependent structures. Let's put it this way - I find much more value in the protections afforded by U.S. State Constitutions than I do in the U.S. Constitution, even though much of the actual wording of protected rights is the same. How can this be? Well, it's simple. Those words have no value outside of the context in which they are being applied, and the large-scale "democratic" nation-state model has simply run its course, thanks in no small part to the seeds of authority/oppression sown by the Constitution itself, along with its self-appointed arbiters.

I'm dealing in the reality of our complex evolutionary systems, while you are fantasizing about their ideals. Nowhere is that concept more evident in our political system than in the Declaration of Independence.



Don't you find it troubling that such a document would be placed on so high a pedestal, despite the fact that it was effectively revealed to be a sham as soon as the independent republic was born? "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..."?? I think not. The people "reserve the right to alter or abolish any government that becomes destructive of those ends of life"? Fat chance.

If I found grandiose and obviously bogus language like that in any other contract to establish a meaningful organization, which is supposed to have clear operating principles and protections of life/liberty/equality, I'd crumble it up and use it for toilet paper.

So you accept the premise that big government in a nation-state would require restraint, but assert that since no consititution would be good enough to do this, big government should collapse or disappear, along with the nation-state, to make a more useful democracy and equitable rule of law possible, under a smaller constitution with fewer authoritarian loopholes.
That would be reasonable, providing that any kind of anarcho-system or stateless society would be feasible without large institutions.
But if large institutions like national government or multinational corporations would not disappear, then an equally large constitution is required to restrain them and limit their powers of abuse.

And if you would compare the US constitution to any other ever written, you'd find that the authoritarian and statist functions in there are relatively restrained already, at least for a nation-state. Show me something better. I've only read a dozen other constitutions, all are worse, but some do try to adhere to the same ideals, because these ideals are best in the context provided, for huge bureacracies to be restrained and to acknowledge the rights and liberties people already have.
Me fantazising about ideals while you deal with realities?
Good Gravity, Ash, you're being arrogant and self-righteous to dismiss an entire cultural heritage which was once the last stand against the tyranny of lesser laws.
The reality is that our complex evolutionary system has purposeful ideals, and people need defined ideals to create purpose.
I read somewhere that progress is the realisation of ideals, if so then there is no other way to measure progress, if there ever is any. So please don't think that exploring grand ideals of justice is a waste of time in dealing with complex realities, I find ideals of justice necessary to navigate the realms of discourse. And I doubt you have found a better value-system or grand ideal to codify for a nation-state.

My point was also that only these ideals of civil rights, liberties and duties may formulate a positive political identity for a citizenry, and I think this is true for all societies, government or not.
If a citizen is only a moral actor defined within a sovereign politcal boundary, it would depend on the political boundary to see what ideals of citizenship, equality and representability would optimize liberty and propsperity and minimize tyranny.

"One thing that I have consistently argued is that the collapse of complexity in human civilization, driven first by financial breakdown and then by lack of net energy as well as environmental issues, will be our best defense against totalitarian control."

I understand you here, you expect all political boundaries to shift inwards or collapse, but if the totalitarian control system doesn't die off from lack of credit or energy or will make unjust laws to feed itself by unconstitutional justifications, an idealistic frame of reference from a less barbarous age might be useful to navigate towards.

There's something else, when I first mentioned statism and how a constitution may be used as a statist tool in a previous post, you replied that therefore a rights-based constitution is not suitable to minimize statism. But I just cannot come up with any constituion that is not rights-based.
I live under the dutch constitution, its okay but nothing special, a parliamentary democracy built on an autarchic foundation of feudal monarchy, and none of its enumerated rights reveal their origin in a sovereign citizenry. It never mentions why people have any rights at all, that these rights are older than government.

To me, that statement sounds like the classic case of positive feedbacks that end up nowhere good for the collective. You are correct that this dynamic is the one that naturally evolves, as problems of complexity are always confronted with more complexity, until those complex solutions no longer work. You may think that a simple document with simply-worded protections is not a "complex solution", but it is when considering how those words must be interpreted and enforced in a vast array of different situations.



Look, none of what I'm saying is anything new and is certainly not borne from anything so mundane and simple as my arrogance or hatred of American constitutional democracy. My views are built on hundreds of years of much more brilliant and insightful minds than my own, including Proudhon, Engels, Marx, and a bunch of others that came after them (including the subject of this article). What I'm arguing is only very "radical" to a small subset of people who were taught in Western public schools, including me for the better [or worse] portion of my life.

I understand the infatuation with our founding fathers and the constitutional framework they produced. I have been through the wording and interpretation of the document more times than I'd like to remember, including the first three articles for the three branches of government and the BoR, as well as subsequent amendments. Sure, there has been a vast amount of intellectual firepower wrapped up inside that document, and I may very well find myself relying on one of its protections to save my ass in the future.

That doesn't change the fundamental criticism I have of appeals to a fundamentally flawed system to guide us through the current predicaments that humanity faces. Don't confuse centuries of well-reasoned theory and supporting evidence for my personal arrogance or my disdain for some document. I am not the only one with harsh criticisms of this "cultural heritage" that you have nearly deified as the greatest legal framework ever conceived by man, and certainly not the brightest.



Again, I feel like everything you are arguing here stems from the initial presumption that the US Constitution is a superior framework for governance and protection of individual rights than anything that has come before it, which leads you to claim that 18th century colonial America was a "less barbarous age". Perhaps by some metrics it was, but certainly not by others.

Do you now feel that the Americans are better poised to fight off totalitarian oppression than the Dutch, due to our superior document, if only we could muster the will power to use it properly? Given your frequent posts referencing the US Constitution, prosecutions for treason, etc. in response to many different issues, I imagine you do believe that. Well, I don't. And that has always been the disagreement between you and I. Nothing has changed.

I stand withAshvin on this topic.

Whatever the value of the concepts are in the Constitution, they are limited by the practical application of those concepts and by the structures developed to "enforce" the rules.

Be it the Magna Carta or the Declaration of independence or the Bill of Rights, the attempt to encode equity in society is always undermined by the fact that those writing the encoding laws are really mostly trying to protect themselves from Tyranny, but the protections themselves are Tyrannical in their own way.

A pure Democracy can be as Tyrannical as a Dictator, since obviously if most people are poor they are going to vote to strip the rich of their wealth, right? The IDEAL Goobemint should balance the interests of all people in the society, but clearly the Constitution as constructed does not do that, and it never has done that. As soon as you create large structures like legislatures and courts and an Executive, you create a dynamic in which any one or all of these structures can become compromised. "Checks and Balances" is a canard, over time these structures do not check agaisnt each other, rather they begin to work in synergy to create the very same type of tyranny that an individual Monarch might create, but worse because it is Timeless under the legal structure. At least with a Despot you can send him to the Great Beyond and hopefully get a better person running the show; if you create a Tyrannical SYSTEM, you can't ever get rid of it simly by changing the players in the system. The Constitution does not really PROTECT against tyranny even in its pure form, it GUARANTEES Tyranny of the system it codifies.

You wil never achieve an equitable society by adhering to the Constitution. Large3 Goobemint structures will never be responsive to the needs of the people they represent, they are always controlled by a small cadre of people, power seekers who gain control over such structures. The bigger it gets, the worse this problem is.

Overall, Human Society probably cannot support any Goobermint structure greater than 10,000 Human Souls and remain equitable in any significant manner. Because of that, as the energy nececessary to hold such large Goobermint structures disappears, we will see a break up of the One to the Many over time. The FSofA and in fact all Nation States are the construct of accessing ever more energy over time to combat the entropy driving these societies apart. Once this energy is not available to access, the society sizes and Goobermint structures will have to shrink accordingly. Once shrunk so, it is not a Constitution that binds the people together, but their dependence on each other to survive.

RE
www.doomsteaddiner.org

Good arguments, I'll incorporate them to improve the consistency of my position, or they might reveal the untenable inconsistency of said position.

Yes, it does trouble me that the self-evidence of human equality did not extend to the native americans, slaves, or women, that the framers were mostly slaveholders who redefined and demarcated mankind according to the exploitability of certain groups. But even a total hypocrite may speak true words. That they did not believe or follow what they wrote doesn't make it false.
I believe that they defined themselves to be created at least equally to the King of England, rejecting the rule of the crown, not necessarily meaning that their slaves were created equally to their masters.
The DoI was mostly a declaration for sovereignty and self-determination against the monarchy and the bank of england.
I felt that Ash rashly crumpled up that DoI because of the grandiose formulation of those notions; 'we hold these truths to be self-evident'.
You're not a redcoat, are you Ash?
But the French constitution mentions similar ideas, maybe less clumsily; liberty, equality and fraternity are only possible if people are equal in that way, most constitutions reference equality before the law.
Its better than writing nothing of equality for the task of rejecting the moral authority of the crown, and its certainly better than writing the opposite; 'We hold these truths to be self-evident; men are created unequal, that slavery is the natural state, that slaves are justly subservient to their masters, that the strong should harm the weak in accordance with their ability to do so,'
Look at that long list of usurpations and abuses by the king, of course they would reference the idea that the king is not God in their declaration against him, this idea that rich white landowners might be created equal in moral status to the crown served them well.
My mother is english, she taught me to be proud of the Magna Carta as the most important contribution to legal civilization made by the english, stating the notion that the king is not God and limiting divine rule by rational political discourse in the King's court. The Declaration of Independence might have served a similar purpose for the founders.

"That doesn't change the fundamental criticism I have of appeals to a fundamentally flawed system to guide us through the current predicaments that humanity faces."

True, because the planetary predicament for humanity is a multivariate function with only a few parts interfacing with law and legislation.
Yet the appeals to constitutionality are mostly just direct appeals to the rule of law. The rule of law doesn't always equal justice, sometimes its opposed to justice, but in select cases, the constitution of a people by itself is enough to define why certain laws are just or unjust, why certain actions of government are legal or criminal.
In that way, tis cruel to remove from the american people their moral compass and legal frame of reference, to defame its foundational ducument while only the constitution defines that the POTUS is guilty of treason [if he was a citizen at least], no other legal document defines the precise nature of the administrations crimes, constituting an absolute boundary to the rule of law which separates legal barbarism from civilization.
Sometimes its better to have a flawed device like this than nothing at all, at least while the federal government survives. But then said government also survives because of it, feeding off the people by the powers malvested in the body politic.

But what is the core of that flawed constitutional system?
A constitution must define a citizenry as its principle actor, none of its values would apply to anyone else. This is also why a negative identity excluding and persecuting non-citizens as non-persons may follow, or a positive political identity could be established instead, if the citizenry is equally proportioned to its moral actorship within shared humanity, not only within shared nationality.
That's what I got from the opening article; that the historical identity of american citizenship may have created more aspects of negative political identity for dehumanising outsiders and distancing non-citizens, than elements of positive identity made to respect others.

Perhaps, if a constitutional system is hoplessly flawed, it would be the conception of citizenship therein that carries the greatest burden of moral failure.
The french sociologist Alain Touraine accounts for three fundamental aspects of democracy in his book 'What is Democracy?' ; unconditional acknowledgement of human rights and civil rights, equilateral political representability and equality before the law of all citizens, and the nexus of political citizenship, allowing all humans as moral actors to become citizens of equal value. I haven't found a better summation of democracy.

I believe it is the concept of citizenship itself which is the core of a viable democracy and the rule of law, the citizen is the principle moral actor of the body politic defined within a sovereign political boundary, only the morality of the citizenry produces a moral politic, so that the people and their system of governance may attain shared aspects of a moral memory and cultural heritage.
But no constitutional democracy may formulate an absolute conception of citizenship, because it is a dynamic variable in political ideology; its moral dimensions must vary according to value-systems alligned in political groups or parties. An absolute conception of citizenship would constrict the political spectrum and create a political monopoly on morality, such is done in communist constitutions.

When a citizenry is established as a moral actor in the state, any constitution, however well written, cannot make people act more moral through their political identity than their natural proclivities would allow. The point of the opening article allows for the idea that the moral proclivities of the american people are no more developed than any other people, or that their historical identity of citizenship may have unleashed more immoral forces by resource conquest than foreseen by the framers, manifesting in the forces of empire and statism, not lessened by the constitution but strenghtened by it.

This may be true, but there's another side to it. Ill get around to that.

"Do you now feel that the Americans are better poised to fight off totalitarian oppression than the Dutch, due to our superior document, if only we could muster the will power to use it properly?""

Partially yes, because the US one is post-revolutionary and denounces tyranny and absolute rule in a way that most monarchist constitutions do not employ. You could more easily misinterpret our con. so that our rights are derived from the grace of the monarch instead of the unalienable humanity of citizens.
But then we have a multiparty system which I think is always better than a two party system for negotiating compromise, since a two party system is only one party away from dictatorship. Yet all our big parties are as centralist and corporatist as the Demopublicans.

I read the french constitution today, its very nice, they call themselves a democratic socialist republic, but most of the good stuff is in there. At least they're not a monarchy, after that bout of nastyness, and will not allow any constitutional amendments that would undo the Republic, and their constitutional court has awesome powers of reason, apparently.
Some cons. do improve procedurally upon the US con, but its the spirit of the thing that appeals, for defining and opposing legal barbarism within the administration right now.

Also, Reverse engineer makes solid points, ill rethink my position some more, whether the political boundary is scale invariant for moral conductivity.

Gravity,

Why is that our public schools mention European thinkers like Locke, Tocqueville and others when discussing the American political/legal system, but never mention even one of the steady stream of thinkers that have been highly critical of those systems over the last few centuries? Shouldn't we at least get a different perspective when learning about these things, so we can decide for ourselves?

I was not referring to the hypocrisy of the founding fathers earlier, although there was plenty of that, but rather the fundamental flaws of the system they designed with the aid of ideas from the Enlightenment thinkers (which, coincidentally, was very favorable towards property owners such as themselves). Jefferson is actually a notable exception, as he was an anti-federalist and anti-industrialist, so I would hold the DoI in higher regard than the US Constitution. Not that it matters, because the DoI does not constitute enforceable law in the US, and generally is not even used to help interpret the Constitution.

The problem, first and foremost, is that we are socialized to think in binary terms. Either the Magna Carta, subsequent common law and constitutional frameworks are "good" or "bad". Either the "Enlightenment" age was a huge step forward for humanity, or it was complete rubbish. Personally, I try to take a more nuanced approach and recognize the benefits and the costs of those developments at different scales; the intent, the ideals, the realities, etc.

I have been convinced by the thinkers who cannot be mentioned in public schools that the broad political economic paradigm that has taken root in the West since the Enlightenment-industrial age has imposed very severe costs on humanity as a collective species, even when ignoring the environmental issues. Maybe it's just because the schools fail to provide this perspective, and I find that very shady behavior. I'd like to think it's also because the substance of those criticisms just make too much sense, and fit in with everything else I know about complex systems.

So, no, I don't agree that the US Constitutional system is necessarily or obviously better than previous frameworks, or even that democratic and "rational" ideals borne of the Enlightenment at large scales are better than those of Divine rule by the Monarch. It's just not that simple... ever.