On Entropy and Efficiency

In any closed system, efficiency is always less than 1. In this world, a closed system with .8 efficiency is an excellent machine. ‘Machine’ being translated in the classical way: as a closed system which allows for one form of energy to be transformed into another, or which takes force and redirects it… hopefully in the service of work.

What does it mean to say something isn’t fully efficient? When you turn on your automobile, you might think that every bit of potential energy in the fuel is being realized to turn the wheels and propel you down the road. In fact, a sizable chunk of the energy in every litre of gasoline is going toward things like making your engine too hot to touch, and making the usual vehicle noises as the engine runs.

Not only is your engine responsible for turning your wheels, but these days it also sends some of its energy into an alternator, to create alternating current, which comes out of your outlets to power your phone. Your engine runs a compressor on hot days, that powers your air conditioning unit. Your engine provides the means to that bumping system you had Guido install, and to those neon lights that illuminate the undercarriage. At every step along the way of all these various energy-redirects, power is being lost.

As an aside, some of the most efficient machines are hydroelectric dams. In the mountainous parts of North America, it’s common for power generating facilities to pump water into upland reservoirs at low-use hours. As the water travels upward, its potential energy increases. At times of peak energy use (i.e. on hot summer days) the sluice gates are opened, and the water comes back down to push turbines and generate extra electricity. The dam is, in fact a big giant battery. I’ve seen reports that claim such machines are .9 efficiency. I’m not an engineer, but it’s a cool bit of trivia.

Brother Stroller has cited this video in the comments section. I finally got the chance to watch it. It addresses the correlation between cultural change with technological advancement.

I’m not any more a sociologist than I am a hydraulic engineer, but I find this sort of discussion interesting also.

What rarely gets discussed in these cause-and-effect discussions are the underlying mechanisms which caused things like family formation and monogamy to take off in the first place.

It seemed to Uncle Sig that our transition out of hunting and gathering, and into urban society, necessitated the transition out of a cuck/playa lifestyle and into a more and more monogamous one. (1) As human beings were forced to self-organize and civilize, their culture developed accordingly, with increasingly brutal punishments for adultery, that probably culminated in Ancient Rome, where Cato reports that the statutory and customary punishment for cheating on one’s spouse was death, with the aggrieved party having the right to execute sentence. (2)

One corollary of Freud’s thesis was, broadly, that monogamy began with people noticing that incest caused birth defects, which initially led to exogamy. Monogamy was a consequence, since it’s easier (particularly for ancient people, who lacked written records) to be sure that he wasn’t marrying his halfsister-cum-cousin-cum-auntie if the number of wives were limited. It’s interesting to note that the consequences of abandoning the wisdom of the preliterates is easily recognizable, even contemporarily. (3)

Since Rome, we have become ever more tolerant of all manner of deviant behavior, down to the present age, where nearly everything goes with few restrictions. Yet, the standard of living in our civilization has not declined. How is this possible? It seems to me that technology is the culprit.

The extended-family unit, composed of monogamous couples living in close proximity to parents and grandparents, was once the norm. It is not by accident that this was the most energy efficient machine that human beings had found to propagate their genes and their culture through time. At about the time of the industrial revolution, “rakes” became tolerated. In other words, at the same time that industrial machines began to do some of the work that the monogamous-human-family machine had done previously, a few men began to revert to the prehistoric norm of cuck/playa.

At first, of course, it was only the wealthiest men who could do such a thing. Karl Marx described bourgeois (ruling class) marriage as a “system of wives in common” (4) and called for its abolition. Today, with the help of algorithms-as-matchmakers, any married man can log on to snatch dot com and find himself a ho’ to cheat with.

As technology has provided humans with an easier and easier individual life, it has also constructed a simulacrum of liberation, in which every human being feels free to debase himself in any number of diseased ways, with whoever he finds expedient. The only people condemned in this new system are those with a healthy dose of residual morality. In their favor, they’re living the most efficient lives. When the tide turns, the petroleum runs out, the ice caps melt and the machines become cognizant… the survivors will largely be found among them.

  1. Freud, Sigmund. Totem and Taboo. Trans. AA Brill. Toronto: Dover, 2012. pp. 18-19
  2. Dixon, Suzanne. The Roman Family. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP. p. 242
  3. “Birth Defects Plague Children in FLDS towns” at Deseret News (link)
  4. Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The Manifesto of The Communist Party. Ch. 2. (link)

Boxer & His Stable of Kooks

Note: This is the second in a series of posts about fake Christians. It may help to read the first here before asking questions.

Back when ya boy Boxer was a teenager, he helped compile a sort of greatest hits list, entitled usenet’s lamest losers. The antics of the last couple of months have become reminiscent of this general trend.

Back on February 24, two losers lost an argument. One of them suddenly descended into insults and lame accusations: specifically that y’r host and humble narrator was a homosexual pedophile. (Note, a bit of the original exchange is here. The entire thread, which is worth a read, is on Dalrock, but may disappear soon.)

Screen Shot 2017-03-24 at 07.04.16

Screen Shot 2017-03-24 at 06.45.43

Link here.

This week, when the same two looneys lost a similar argument, they started up again. When I noted that I was still laughing at them for their recent antics, they got all indignant, as such human trash creatures will, and claimed I was making the whole thing up.

Screen Shot 2017-03-24 at 06.50.04

Screen Shot 2017-03-24 at 06.51.31

Link here – one of the liars has a blog, which is here

I find it hard to keep track of all these idiots’ reversals, untruths and excuses without a spreadsheet, so the specifics of it don’t really matter. Even still, it can tell us something.

In the first place, it serves as a warning to any young brothers about dropping his anonymity with these supposed “family values” tradcons on the internet. When kooks attack, they always do it in full SJW mode, and their instinct is to silence you by whatever means might be expedient. As the ill-cited Vox Day has pointed out, after libeling one as a sexual deviant, the next trick this sort of garbage turns to is calling a man’s family and employers, in a lame attempt to get him fired.

It also serves to illuminate the lack of gravity in any internet discourse. All things old are new again. As it was in 1998, so it is now.

That this happens so often, to so many different people, suggests that none of us should take any of this nonsense too seriously. The real fight is in the streets.

The unknown entity.

Men just entering divorce court: This is must read wisdom from a man who has been where you are now.

Wimminz - celebrating skank ho's everywhere

Twain said something along the lines of it’s not what you don’t know that will kill you, it’s what you do know for a fact but ain’t so that will kill ya.

I have long said this to people in business, the most important data is data you can never know, why everyone who walked past your shop walked past, instead of walking in.

In shades of this today’s earlier post about the long time wimminz friend asking for help for her daughter, how do I know how many were asked before me, and how many remain to be asked after me…

Whether the number of potential helpers is 3 or 300, I rather suspect that I am right at the end of the list.

That’s not the shit that will kill you, as Twain said, it’s knowing you’re number 1 on the list when you are really number 300…

View original post 1,052 more words

I Hate Being Married

Having been permanently banned from the pro-abortion and pro-divorce feminist forum at Catholic Answers, I can’t effectively comment on this insightful thread.

Screen Shot 2017-03-15 at 09.34.23

Note the third paragraph, where the wife admits that she refuses to fuck her husband, ironically and immediately complaining about “tension.”

In the fourth paragraph, she alludes to being a professional homemaker, then immediately complains that her husband doesn’t come home, after a long day of working for her fat ass, and immediately jump into changing diapers and giving baths.

This sad tale ends with a cry for help from the forum, and a fist upraised in the direction of the Catholic god, who would “rather have us stay married than live my remaining [time] alone…in peace.”

Fortunately, PensMama was on hand to offer up some wonderfully bright, helpful, unsolicited advice.Screen Shot 2017-03-15 at 09.41.29Pensmama87 fights the good fight, clearing up misconceptions that divorce is frowned upon in Catholic communities. Divorce is “sometimes the only realistic remedy to protect one self” she explains. She then refers the original contributor to the divorce attorney, to get those papers filed.

Within mere moments, DixieEagle chimes in to back her feminist sisters’ play.Screen Shot 2017-03-15 at 09.46.14 1There is no problem with members of the Catholic church divorcing, she explains. In fact, getting a divorce is protection from sinning! Who knew?

Unfortunately, our feminist heroines began to be drowned out by a plethora of sound advice, including admonitions to pray, communicate, quit being a cunt, and go see a priest — as in, an actual priest — as opposed to reading the words of strangers LARPing as priests and marriage counselors anonymously, on a pro-abortion and pro-divorce web forum.

All was almost lost until the old guard, led by my favorite Catholic Answers feminist, Xantippe, appeared to whip the crowd into shape.Screen Shot 2017-03-15 at 09.50.12.pngthe fact that the husband is thanklessly busting ass in overtime actually means that he is having an affair. Thank heavens (and it’s catholic god) for geniuses like this, who can see into the most private personal lives of strangers, and pronounce judgment. Feminism wins again!

More on Nationalism

Black Pill has a number of serious articles on what might be called lumpenproletariat white nationalism. He correctly identifies the loud and proud stormfront types as dishonest, and further deconstructs their ideology as a covert subset of feminism. Lots of people don’t like the author, but he did a great job in explaining the motivations of the most annoying faction.

Of course, not every white nationalist is a looney skinhead, looking for trouble (and another thirty-day stint in jail). Moreover, not everyone that society labels a White Nationalist actually is one. Steve Bannon isn’t a white nationalist, though The Huffington Shitpost has no problem attaching the label to him. I see no evidence that Charles Murray (the author of The Bell Curve) is a white nationalist, though the AP decided to libel him, for propaganda purposes, also. This sort of slant has distorted the lexical range of the term so tremendously that it is now almost meaningless. I will be a white nationalist, by the definition slung around in the media, simply for disagreeing with some unrelated trivial positions that our masters feel strongly about. I expect the New York Times to run my headline whenever I’m worth noticing.

So, how do we parse the serious white nationalists who differentiate themselves from the stormfront hammerskins? Some white nationalists seem very different compared to the male feminists who also share the label. I don’t pretend to know the answer. The only thing I try to consistently do is to respect people who self-identify. If someone tells me that he’s a white nationalist (or a Buddhist, or a Choctaw Indian) then I trust such a person to know enough about himself to identify himself correctly.

There are worse things than being a white nationalist. I have a personal acquaintance from my school days who got into a ton of trouble as a teenager. My understanding is that he went off to prison, where he was converted to some sort of European paganism. He self-describes as a white nationalist on social media (which is the only place I see him). He’s no longer burglarizing people’s sheds to get beer money, and he credits his faith as the reason. In this regard, it seems that white nationalism sometimes functions in the way the Nation of Islam can clean up African American criminals. If a love of the white race is what motivates you to stay off booze and dope, hold down a job, and be a respectable family man, then I’m all for it, and I’ll goosestep around with you out of respect.

Down below, Scott writes:

I’m not sure if I’m a white nationalist, but I can say that all things being equal I would prefer to live in a nation where my ethnicity is the majority, and where that majority is not required to prostrate itself in constant fear of being labeled “racist” by everyone else.

This is also known as being psychologically and sociologically normal.

If by “normal” we mean “usual” then I have to agree. People tend to like being around their own types, and no one wants to be discriminated against. It sounds, though, like you’re talking about narrow nationalism, rather than white nationalism. I have to note specifically the term “ethnicity” – which is not a synonym for “race”. There are plenty of blond white people in Syria, Afghanistan and Egypt, and I don’t really want a lot of them moving into my ‘hood, despite being racially akin to me. I don’t want them moving into yours, either. I’m sure they’re not all terrible, but they’re nothing like us, and language and religion are important. Different ethnic groups, even of the same race, often encounter problems sharing space.

Aside from the frankfurters, my own views are mediated by guys like Richard Rorty, György Lukács, and Francis Fukuyama. All of these guys predicted the rise of nationalism (as opposed to white nationalism) as a reaction to late-stage capitalism. Steve Bannon, who is by no means a white nationalist, is in fact a civic nationalist, and he’s an understandable synthesis to the currently collapsing political narrative.

The problem with nationalism in contemporary North America is the immense size of countries like the USA and Canada, coupled with the amazing mobility of its people. It used to be the case that we had regional identities, but those have largely been erased, not only through immigration, but through internal migration.

Even North American natives — white or black folks whose history in North America stretches back centuries — tend to move great distances for work, marriage, school and retirement. This leaves people uncoupled from community, and tends to deracinate even those people who sacrifice to stay on the land from which they were born. If your neighbors are constantly moving away and being replaced, then you become a foreigner in your hometown.

The centralization of capital also leads to a cultural homogenization. I remember, even ten years ago, when I’d find curious local shops and restaurants. These have largely been replaced by massive international chains. These megamarts will occasionally commercialize a reified simulacrum of some local culture, that once existed authentically, in their local branches, but the depiction is transparent and only done to maximize profits.

Not only do we not have community any longer, but we can’t really move anywhere to find it anew. The map has been redrawn, with huge, homogenous cities, all bearing the same vacuous pseudoculture, all featuring citizens who originated someplace else.

Thus I don’t have a lot of confidence that Bannon’s narrow, civic nationalism will be successful in saving America. If I had to guess, I’d predict that Texas and Québec would probably survive 200 years from now. Maybe there will be a nation of New England, and a nation of the American South, but the political and social climate in the rest of North America is sorta up for grabs.