bowling alone in tolerant networks, drinking the kool-aid in conformist castles, and kodokushi

At
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2010/07/journal-building-resilient-communities-from-scratch.html
CF wrote:

One more question, aimed mostly at JR, that seems to summarize alot of the discussion here about inclusion and community types:
Are multiculturalism and resilience compatible?
Is it possible to create a tribal identity purely out of the idea of material security, self-reliance and localism, irrespective of other cultural inclusion/exclusion categories like religion and race? I say this because tribalism and group identity are difficult to engender without historical memory, as is creating a whole new ethos without bootstrapping existing identities/tribalisms.
It seems many readers of this site favor incorporating an Resilience ethos into their existing group affinities.

I think Kievsky has already addressed this in his various writings, but I’ll follow his lead.

I think if you get a community truly focused on material security, self-reliance, and localism, you’re imposing about as much cognitive and behavioral hegemony as a standard religion. Maybe you don’t call it a “religion,” and certainly you don’t have to chant incantations, but you’re forming a tribe and drawing a border around them.

Tom Chittum wisely said that as soon as a community draws a border around itself, it has asserted local authority. If you start a group that believes in localism, you are necessarily building a castle wall and shutting out the globalists.

Even if you have a totally diverse network, if it’s localized, it’s a network inside a castle wall – a walled city, if you will.

If you are unambiguously part of a tightly-knit group, you can’t pick and choose. You’re part of the tribe. Your fellows might annoy you – but you can’t get rid of them, and they can’t get rid of you. When you get old and grey, you’ll still be part of the tribe.

CF wrote:

However, many of us have lived among multiple ethnic/religious communities through their life and genuinely value diversity; is such a worldview doomed amid increased social fragmentation?
Personally, I think the liberal/libertarian ideal of social tolerance/acceptance is something worth preserving; it seems to me that Resilience is more of a socio-economic arrangement than a cultural one.
Many of the people I know would jump on the chance to live a more localized life, but have no interest in joining some in-group that will enforce some rigid and binding standard of identity; it subverts the very spirit of individualism that makes open societies great.

Let’s take homosexuality as an example.

If the community is exclusively pro-gay, then that’s rigid; if the community is exclusively anti-gay, that’s also rigid.

Can you really have a small community that tolerates both pro-gay and anti-gay elements? I don’t think it’s possible.

You might be able to enforce “don’t ask, don’t tell” and insist that gays stay in the closet and gay-haters refrain from identifiable acts of anti-gay violence.

You might be able to get a group of people that truly doesn’t care about homosexual rights – i.e., they won’t lift a finger to help gays, but they also won’t bother to hurt them.

The homosexuality example can be extended to just about any divisive issue.

I don’t think genuine tolerance of diversity is compatible with any small or tightly-knit community.

Genuine tolerance seems to be awfully close to indifference. You might have a network of people who tolerate each other because they don’t have to pay attention to each other, but as soon as people notice each other, they will start judging each other.

If you have lived in large, anonymous communities, you have probably experienced a lot of tolerance, because there’s a lot of anonymity and indifference. In a big network like that, no one is important to anyone else; everyone is “Bowling Alone” as Putnam would have it.

If everyone is tolerant, then everyone can choose whatever he likes best. And that means that no one is obligated to be close to you. They might tolerate you, but they don’t have to make you part of their tribe.

When you get old and grey, will tolerant people still choose to like you? Will your tolerant children come and visit? Will you even have children if you tolerated childlessness as a lifestyle choice?

CF wrote:

Additionally, pulling back into some cloistered racially/culturally homogenous seems in direct contradiction to the spirit of expansive social networking upon which resilience will almost sure be built. In fact, I think this distinction between networks and fortresses is important, and could represent the difference between success and failure in this century.

I doubt very much that “expansive social networking” relates to resilience much. A farming village, where each household takes care to treat its neighbors well, is resilient. It’s not expansive; it’s conformist. People all have compatible world-views; they tend to “drink the Kool-Aid” of a common belief system.

So long as Chicago is getting shipments of food and energy, Chicago can afford to support an overclass of organized coercers. These coercers can give every ethnic group its own neighborhood. Those ethnic groups can be little closed castles ideologically, but can buy food from outsiders without any real emotional contact. Periodically, every little ethnic group can have a little parade, and everyone will talk about how lucky they are to live in a diverse, multicultural city with lots of ethnic restaurants. And if the people in the Irish neighborhood notice that the people in the Somali neighborhood are cutting the clitorises off their girls, the Irish don’t form a vigilante street gang – the Irish call the organized coercers, who might send Child Protective Services.

If Kievsky is correct, multiculturalism is a very expensive form of organized coercion. If the modern world were to collapse, perhaps postapocalyptic Chicago could not afford to maintain organized coercionists, with specialized Child Protective Services units. Perhaps the postapocalyptic Irish would form street gangs and shoot at the postapocalyptic Somali street gangs.

At this point, I would like to review the movie Prayer of the Rollerboys, but I find that film so remarkably repulsive that I still can’t watch more than a few minutes of it at a stretch.

Just to prove that I am a repulsive weeaboo, I’m going to tie this into Japan.

http://www.thatanimeblog.com/index.php/2010/07/fight-japan-the-dialectic-on-the-neet-problem-in-anime/

Japan is and has been in a rut for the past decade. Between the slowly aging population, economic stagnation, high levels of public debt, and the ever growing NEET problem, it feels like Japan is experiencing a torrent of problems that aren’t really getting any better. The general population hasn’t turned a blind eye to it either, and they definitely perceive one of the biggest problems to be the rising number of NEETs in Japan. With around 90% of the population saying that it’s a serious problem,
…This last year, the total number of NEETs grew again to something like 620,000, and although the problem has been overshadowed by the economic crisis, it’s still a very real concern. There’s a wide variety of opinions out there, but the debate is ongoing as to why this problem exists in Japan, and exactly what can be done to stop it.

Don’t read that article if you don’t want to be “spoiled” for a bunch of anime.

Kodokushi is Japanese for “lonely death.”


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST27061420070921

Statistics suggest that already more than 20,000 people a year die alone in Japan — 2 percent of all deaths.

This figure is expected to rise as the number of senior citizens living alone soars in Japan, the world’s fastest ageing society. In 2055, around 40 percent of the population will be aged 65 and over.


http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20100721f1.html

“Those who live alone and have no friends tend to be isolated from society,” said Katsuhiko Fujimori, manager and chief research associate of social policy at Mizuho Information and Research Institute.
“A lot of young people, especially men, came to big cities to work during the period of postwar economic growth, and now they are old and alone” because they are unmarried or their partner died, he said. “They might have wanted a free lifestyle, escaping from a close-knit community. But now that they’re old, they can’t live alone, especially if they need nursing care.”

Long hours on the job prevented men from attaining a work-life balance, and this has led to isolation after they retire, he said.

So there you have the modern world in a nutshell. Japan, a country favored with some of the smartest humans on the planet, has abandoned its young people to poverty, and allows the old to grow old alone. If a hundred people die in Tokyo, two of them will be dying alone, forgotten by the community. (And frankly, that sounds pretty good, so long as they’ve got plenty of painkillers. Who wants to die in a crowded house full of screaming kids, or a boring nursing home?)

Tolerance is glamorous as long as you’re young and horny and good-looking. That might last five years or fifteen years.

If you survive youth without dying violently, you get to live a long time, getting uglier as you go. Even if your community tolerates various colors and religions, does it tolerate ugly septuagenarians?

The natural end of tolerance is kodokushi, dying alone, childless, socially irrelevant.

What’s the alternative? I turn to Kievsky:

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/07/11/systematizing-the-problem-of-economicmaterial-survival/


http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/06/29/entrepreneurial-outsiders-versus-hunter-gatherers/


http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/06/22/the-non-productive-economy-based-on-jive-and-butt-kissing/

Advertisements

Duncan Kinder and Zenpundit comparing the USA and Rome


http://zenpundit.com/?p=3480

Duncan Kinder wrote:

It seems to me that it is precisely Obama and his crowd who are trying to reduce the independent entrepreneurial middle class to client status in our times.
True but incomplete.  Mitch McConnell and his crowd likewise are trying to reduce them.  Both crowds advance this mutual objective while diverting attention by pointing their fingers at the other.  It is a cat and mouse game.
This demonstrates another difference between contemporary USA and late Republican Rome, for the Patricians and Plebeians were divided by genuine – not cosmetic – policy differences.

According to Wacky-Piddly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell

From 2003 to 2008, among McConnell’s top 20 donors have been 5 financial/investment firms: UBS, FMR Corporation (Fidelity Investments), Citigroup, Bank of New York and Merrill Lynch. During his entire political career, the top three industries donating to McConnell have been: Lawyers ($1.5 million), Securities and Investments ($1.5 million), and Health Professionals ($1.4 million)

When Kinder talks about “clients” he’s referring to “patrons and clients” in the ancient Roman context.

The whole thread was kicked off by:

http://www.bernardfinel.com/?p=1433

Finel seems to see a Roman triumvirate as a good future for the USA. Finel does not discuss why the wealthy were so pernicious, nor explain Cicero’s “Softly, softly! I want none but the judges to hear me.”

Zenpundit’s comment is an Orwellian “crimestop” mixture of intelligent insight and failure to see the obvious:

I would add that the rapaciousness of the tax-farming in the provinces was due in part to Roman patricians delegating that perk to Rome’s Italian Allies, making the Italians the junior partners in Roman imperialism much the same way lower and middle colonial officials and military officers of colonial armies in the British Empire in the in 17th-19th century were frequently drawn from the Scottish, Welsh and Anglo-Irish gentry and “respectable” English freeholding yeomanry. It gave these ambitious folk a stake in the system and kept the door ajar to their possible entry into the ruling class ( the Romans eventually had to yield citizenship to the Italians, though the pedigree of one’s citizenship remained an important part of a politician’s auctoritas).

Finel’s analogy of Popularii and Optimates with Republicans and Democrats works well as a narrative device for the point he is making, but it is important to keep certain differences in mind. The Optimates and Popularii were not parties in any modern sense and can’t really be equated with 21st century liberal or conservative ideology either. Roman politics was heavily personalist and based on politicians building and leveraging clientelas, rather than ideological affinities. Socially, many in the Republican base today – the rural state, conservative Christians and LMC suburbanite small businessmen – would also fit better with the Popularii and plebians.

By contrast, many (certainly not all) in the Democratic base are sociologically more like the Optimates – at least the UMC, urban-suburban technocratic professionals, academics and lawyers from “good schools” who run the Democratic Party and fill the ranks of the Obama administration. Economically, both the GOP and the Dems are, in my view, increasingly in favor of a rentier oligarchy as an American political economy, with game-rigging for corporations, tax-farming schemes to hold down and fleece the middle-class, sweetheart revolving door between government service and private contracting – all of this self-dealing behavior would be comfortably Optimate.

Could we get a “man on horseback” or a “triumvirate”? Americans have repeatedly elected generals as President, including some of Civil War vintage who were, unlike U.S. Grant, of no great distinction and Teddy Roosevelt, a mere colonel of the volunteers, was a Rough Rider all the way into the Vice-Presidency. (Incidentally, I don’t see General Petraeus or any other prominent Flag officer today being cut from the mold of Caesar, Antony or Pompey. It’s not in the American culture or military system, as a rule. The few historical exceptions to this, MacArthur, Patton and McClellan, broadcast their egomania loudly enough to prevent any Napoleonic moments from crystallizing). Never have we had an ambitious general in the Oval Office in a moment of existential crisis though – we fortunately had Lincoln and FDR then – only after the crisis has passed and they were elected them based on the reputation of successful service. It is unlikely that we would, but frustrations are high and our political class is inept and unwilling to contemplate reforming structural economic problems that might impinge upon elite interests. Instead, they use the problems as an excuse to increase their powers and reward their backers.

Being hit by another global crisis though, might predispose the public to accept drastic but quietly implemented political changes beneath the surface that leave our formal institutional conventions intact, which is how republics are lost.

The USA’s Constitutional republic was lost in 1865; it was a Federal Republic from that point until 1913, when it became a kleptocracy dominated by the Federal Reserve. The tattered scraps of the original Constitution have been usurped year after year; Reagan’s War on Drugs and Bush the Younger’s War on Terror were noteworthy milestones in the demolition of the USA Constitution.

Currently the USA has movements that attempt to re-assert the Constitution:

http://www.nullifynow.com/


http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/

These movements are only relevant and practical because USA military officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the dictates of the President.

A map of abuse complaints against police

http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/?p=2776

provides a great deal of fascinating information, including the following map.

‘a policy of trying to force diversity is social poison’ but I’m watching riots and recalling Jacob Zuma and “Zigzag” Marzah

Currently in the comment thread at:
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2010/07/links-2-july-2010.html

we have andrew kieran arguing with abprosper:

andrew kieran said in reply to John Walters…
does diversity only count when people speak a different language to you, or are of a different colour? cause if you ask me the only serious terrorist threat britain’s ever faced has been overspill from the continuing Irish Civil War. Muslim bombers have committed one successful atrocity in this country (britain) since the UK joined the holy war. The IRA bombed every major city in england, assassinated members of the british elite, and caused endless havoc back home in ireland. and the UDA were just as bad. Both these groups have very strong ethnic enclaves in scotland, ireland and england.

Should i perhaps seek a national homeland where there are no protestants then, because we obviously just can’t get on?

Maybe i should disown my protestant friends, as they have a different culture from me. While i’m at it, i’d better defriend Omar and Noshine, because their ethno-national interest is contrary to mine.

whatever. you go off and hide in your little white-washed ethnic enclave like those pathetic white people that live in fortresses on hackney road thinking the blacks on the street want to do nothing but rob them.

i’ve lived in a lot of different areas with a wide variety of demographic makeups and the only constant variable that goes hand in hand with violence is poverty. there’s violence in black ghettoes, there’s violence in white ghettoes, there’s violence in multi-cultural ghettoes, there’s violence on traveller sites and there’s violence in marginalised communes.

and to round it off, i’d like to go back to my original point about the irish conflict. in scotland find catholic ghettoes and protestant ghettoes in glasgow. Guess what. these places are the worst shitholes in the country. they have no vibrancy, no life, just mistrust, suspicion, hatred, fear and violence. not just against the other but against any other race or social class.

if you want to go live in an ethnically homogenous cultural dead-zone go ahead, but don’t come crying to me when your kids grow up without hope because you’ve shut yourself off from the cultural mainstream

Reply Friday, 09 July 2010 at 08:25 PM
abprosper said in reply to andrew kieran…
Your last phrase there made no sense whatsoever. Cultural mainstream? I assume you meant “state and media constructed” culture there?

Real culture flows from face to face social interaction which if the studies are correct, are inhibited by the very diversity that you are trying to construct.

And without hope, please. Kids grow up in mono-cultural enclaves and come out great. Happy,educated, well adjusted and entirely excellent citizens all the time.

And while I agree that poverty is a component, so is instinct ,which is really what this is about.

“Not like me” goes deeper than learned behavior. Its instinct and while we as a species can learn to see others as like us, this is by no means automatic or even possible.

Humans are in part xenophobic because of our DNA. Heck if Robin Dunbar is correct, our brains have trouble seeing more than a few hundred people as “people” even when they are like us

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

Expecting us to form heterogeneous societies because a certain segment of humanity craves novelty or there is a political agenda in play is folly. When times get tough, people Tribe Up

As to your point about the Irish, well yeah.

Identity is not related to skin color. Its an issue of culture (of which skin color is a part) not just race and religion. Irish needs are different than English needs and there will be friction. Its probably easier to see Irish are “people like us” because they are fair skinned but given the amount of discrimination and bigotry they have faced, I doubt its a whole lot.

As far as your friends “defriend?” , I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean people you spend face to face time with, not some cyber-bud whose friendship is utterly meaningless

No one is telling you not to hang out with whoever you like. Thats not the issue. Nor is anyone telling you that you shouldn’t create multi cultural enclaves if you can manage it and you prefer that culture to the culture that a monocultural enclave will have

What they are saying is on the aggregate is for most people diversity is over valued for human happiness and that implies that a policy of trying to force diversity is social poison

I would like to thank abprosper for taking up the cudgels.

Right now, I would like to reply at length, but I am too busy watching riots induced by ethnic diversity.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15473431?nclick_check=1

OAKLAND — The agitators have struck again.
After about three hours of passionate but largely peaceful protests by hundreds of people who converged on downtown Oakland late Thursday afternoon, a splinter group of protesters, many wearing masks, egged on the crowd and ran through the streets breaking store windows, looting and setting fires before police moved in with flash-bang grenades.
People started pouring into the intersection at 14th Street and Broadway after the surprisingly quick verdict in the Johannes Mehserle trial. The former BART police officer was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for the fatal shooting of Oscar Grant III on Jan. 1, 2009.
Police officers, while visible and prepared, allowed the crowd of about 1,000 to block the street and set up a podium. One after the other, speakers grabbed a bullhorn to express grief and anger. Many urged the crowd to keep the protest peaceful, and by 8 p.m. there were only a few arrests for fighting with police and instances of rocks being thrown by a smaller group that tried unsuccessfully to march down Broadway toward police headquarters.
But all that changed after dark. By 10:30 violent protesters had left a trail of destruction down Broadway and throughout Uptown, smashing windows and looting. They hit Foot Locker and Sears — even ripping clothing from mannequins. Windows were smashed at Far East National Bank, Luka’s Taproom, Ozumo
Advertisement

Japanese, Oaksterdam University, Oakland Coin and Jewelry Exchange, Whole Foods, Grace Beauty Supply, JC Jewelry, the Acura dealership showroom, Wells Fargo, California Bank and Trust, US Bank and Bank of the West.

I am so mesmerized by this triumph of diversity that I can barely recall the victories of diverse South Africa.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1906000,00.html

South Africans received a horrifying measure of just how bad their country’s rape crisis is with the release this week of a study in which more than a quarter of men admitted to having raped, and 46% of those said that they had raped more than once.
The study, conducted by South Africa’s Medical Research Council, reveals a deeply rooted culture of violence against women, in which men rape in order to feel powerful, and do so with impunity, believing that their superiority entitles them to vent their frustrations on women and children. The men most likely to rape, the researchers found, were not the poorest, but those who had attained some level of education and income.
(See pictures of South Africa, Fifteen Years On.)
Researchers interviewed 1,738 men of all race groups, in both urban and rural settings in the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal, provinces marked by high rates of AIDS and poverty, and the men answered questions about rape and HIV using small handheld computers in order to guarantee anonymity. Of those admitting rape, 73% said that they had committed their first assault before the age of 20. According to the researchers, many of the study’s participants appeared to see no problem with what they had done. These findings, says Mbuyiselo Botha, a senior program advisor at Sonke Gender Justice, an advocacy group for abused women, “highlight the lack of remorse among men in our country, and also the attitude that women remain fair game for us.” Men, says Botha, “continue to abuse even to the point of getting away with murder.”
South Africa has one of the highest incidents of reported rape in the world. The most recent statistics show that 36,190 cases of rape were reported to the police between April and December 2007, though experts believe that number only accounts for one out of nine cases. But the number of rape cases that make it to court — let alone result in a conviction — are far fewer.
Researchers said that many of the perpetrators reported having bullied or been bullied. The study also underscores the huge divide between South Africa’s liberal constitution, which enshrines the rights of women and children, and “the realities of a society where poverty, inequality and violence are rife.”
Gender advocates say that the 2006 rape trial of prominent politician Jacob Zuma was incredibly damaging to their cause. Zuma, who was elected President this year, was tried and acquitted of raping an HIV-positive family friend. He told the court that the woman had dressed provocatively, in a traditional wrap-around kanga, and that it was against Zulu culture for a man to leave a sexually aroused woman unsatisfied.

However, any shortcomings of diversity can be rectified by traditional ethnic folkways, such as are still practiced in Liberia:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1334959020080313

(Reuters) – Former Liberian President Charles Taylor ordered his militias to eat the flesh of captured enemies and U.N. soldiers, a former close aide testified on Thursday at Taylor’s war crimes trial.

“He (Taylor) said we should eat them. Even the U.N. white people — he said we could use them as pork to eat,” Joseph “ZigZag” Marzah, who described himself as Taylor’s former death squad commander, told the U.N.-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone.

Now, with an appropriate celebration of diversity in mind, let me address the points one by one:

does diversity only count when people speak a different language to you, or are of a different colour?

Diversity can arise from any factor; humans, of course, have a great deal of natural variation in both physical and mental state. Even if one selects a community of genetically similar persons, one will find mental diversity, demographic diversity, etc.

Because “diversity” is so vague, no one can object to the slogan “celebrate diversity,” no matter how much rape and cannibalism might be going on.

cause if you ask me the only serious terrorist threat britain’s ever faced has been overspill from the continuing Irish Civil War. Muslim bombers have committed one successful atrocity in this country (britain) since the UK joined the holy war. The IRA bombed every major city in england, assassinated members of the british elite, and caused endless havoc back home in ireland. and the UDA were just as bad. Both these groups have very strong ethnic enclaves in scotland, ireland and england.

Well, I feel bad about that because the Irish might have inadvertently killed some of their lower-class British brothers, instead of hitting the plutocrats, kakistocrats, and kleptocrats who run the British Empire. I don’t much like empires; I prefer Jeffersonian republics. However, my feelings are not going to accomplish much until I translate them into actions.

Should i perhaps seek a national homeland where there are no protestants then, because we obviously just can’t get on?

I don’t know if you tend to riot in the presence of Protestants. If you can’t control yourself around Protestants, then don’t live near them.

Maybe i should disown my protestant friends, as they have a different culture from me. While i’m at it, i’d better defriend Omar and Noshine, because their ethno-national interest is contrary to mine.

Don’t worry, the people who say that they’re your friends are probably just being polite, so you probably won’t lose much if you stop hanging out with them.

you go off and hide in your little white-washed ethnic enclave like those pathetic white people that live in fortresses on hackney road thinking the blacks on the street want to do nothing but rob them.

If I saw a bunch of rioters burning ambulances near me, I don’t think I would limit myself to hiding. I would probably run far, far away, and then hide.

i’ve lived in a lot of different areas with a wide variety of demographic makeups and the only constant variable that goes hand in hand with violence is poverty. there’s violence in black ghettoes, there’s violence in white ghettoes, there’s violence in multi-cultural ghettoes, there’s violence on traveller sites and there’s violence in marginalised communes.

Thanks for the detailed anthropological analysis. I assume you’ll let us know when you publish your findings in Nature.

in scotland find catholic ghettoes and protestant ghettoes in glasgow. Guess what. these places are the worst shitholes in the country.

Well, then, clearly there’s nothing to do but to kick Scotland out of the United Kingdom so that it can develop its community life free from the interference of the UK central government.

Come to think of it, Wales, England, and Northern Ireland would all probably be happier as small, independent states, and the queen could limit herself to being Queen of England. Everyone could sit around and read G. K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc’s thoughts on why “Little England” is a better choice than the “British Empire.”

if you want to go live in an ethnically homogenous cultural dead-zone go ahead, but don’t come crying to me when your kids grow up without hope because you’ve shut yourself off from the cultural mainstream

Darn it to heck! I had been planning on having a bunch of kids, making them miserable, and then going crying to Andrew Kieran! Well, now that plan has to be scrapped, and I’m back to the old drawing board.

[boy scouts] John Robb updates the cyber-gang paradigm

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2010/06/coercive-games.html

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451576d69e20133f185f9

Ladies and gentlemen, the one and only John Robb brings online shock and awe into the 21st century:

Early work on this type of protest can be seen in the work of 4Chan’s Anonymous and China’s human flesh search engine. Both of these open source movements have shown to be surprisingly powerful at targeting single individuals (and poor at disrupting organizations). By using thousands of contributers, they are able to gather intelligence information on an individual (and their family). In short, learn everything about the target down to bank account numbers. This then enables the movement to target the individual and their family with:

    • Stalking and harassment. In the street, at a restaurant, or at school.
      Identity theft. From financial to professional. Publication of private information.
      Denial of communication. Flood phones, e-mail accounts, voice-mail, etc
  • .

In short, any online group of sufficient size could launch an effort like this. However, to really zoom the effort and turn it into a coercive tool, one modification should be made. It should operate as an online game.

Abiogenic oil flame war

Every so often, John Robb makes an offhand comment and somehow a flamewar precipitates in his comment section.

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2010/06/links-14-june-2010.html

The issue of whether oil is abiogenic or not is not particularly vital to the focus of this blog.

This implies that I ought to spend less time flame-warring about Peak Oil and more time coming up with ways to apply Thomas Jefferson’s thought to the modern day situation.

Update: No, wait, the flame war is angling toward Steele – which makes it relevant again.

I suppose Duncan Kinder might be upset

Welcome to a blog by a reader of huguenotcorsair.com.

I have long taken an interest in the online musings of Duncan Kinder and similar professionals, such as John Robb, Pat Lang, and Zenpundit. I call these men “boy scouts” to indicate that while they follow the motto “Be Prepared,” they also seem to have a traditional faith in the United States of America that hearkens back to a much simpler time.

No doubt many of them will be mortified when they are linked from this politically incorrect blog.

In particular, Duncan Kinder has a bit of wisdom at:

http://www.huguenotcorsair.com/2010/06/mafias-waste-disposal-business.html

The organizations that have the discipline and cohesion to do dirty jobs – such as collecting garbage from complicated urban societies – have considerable power in those modern urban societies.

This will become very relevant if favelas spread as much as the futurists have predicted.