|
October 7th, 2004 | #1 |
Senior Goatly One
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
|
Jewish baiting and speech suppression.
The following posts are those I made in another forum, The Internet Book Database of Fiction.
http://www.ibdof.com/index.php I went in there to share some technical information about how to calculate the orbits of other planets and transfer orbits to fly from one planet to another. http://www.ibdof.com/viewtopic.php?t=1838 http://www.ibdof.com/viewtopic.php?t=1837 After posting those treatises, I became involved in a discussion of fossil fuel depletion and its probable effect on human colonization of other planets. At one point, I put the blame on the unwise use of fossil fuels on the ideals of humanitarian egalitarianism. I said that all you get when you feed the hungry is more hungry people to feed later: it's like trying to put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it. I also said that if more energy had been used to gain a permanent footing in space, while leaving the masses of mankind at the feudal level (i.e., no cars, no air conditioners, no TV), the fossil fuel might have lasted thousands of years instead of a hundred years, that when the end finally came it would be gentle, and that the humans who had established themselves away from Earth could continue to keep the technology spark alive with extraterrestrial sources of energy, such as solar energy or Titan's methane sea. I was warned by a moderator not to be so Nietzschean because WW2 had been fought to prevent someone from asserting the superiority of his own race. I responded to that in a particular way, and the moderator took a "masked dislike" to me. Is he a Jew? I don't know. He acts like one. Jerry Abbott Last edited by Jenab; October 7th, 2004 at 09:35 AM. |
October 7th, 2004 | #2 |
Senior Goatly One
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
|
Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 8:58 am
A big reason to colonize would be that all hell is about to break loose on Earth: stuff like worldwide famine, global resource wars, food riots, race wars, cannibalism, and in general a pretty bad time. On another planet, you wouldn't have to worry about any of that. The problem is that it's too late. Humanity has spent too many ergs in air conditioners, too many barrels of oil growing food to feed the hungry (and they're still there and still hungry), and not nearly enough investment of terrestrial fossil fuels in gaining access to extraterrestrial energy supplies in anticipation of the depletion of same here on Earth. Whether there is a nuclear war or not, humans are nearly finished as a technical species. It is, I repeat, too late to correct the failure to develop resources off-planet. That should have been done starting in 1940 or so, instead of doing anything else. Out there near Saturn, about a billion miles away, is a moon called Titan. It's surface is covered with an ocean of primordial methane. Think we're ever going to get our hands on any of it? Nope! How many asteroids do you suppose Mankind will ever mine for metal? Answer: none. How many cities will ever exist on the moon? Answer: none. We did have a chance at a "Star Trek" kind of future; we don't have that chance any longer. We wasted it. Why did we waste it? Stupidity? Not exactly. We succumbed to an error of moral values and ideology, often called "egalitarianism." If one man bakes himself a cake, we figured, then it isn't fair that there are other men who do not have cakes. Cakes must be given them! To be FAIR! The minions of fairness, frothing at the mouth, took over our public institutions for making collective decisions - governments, that is - and started making public policy conform to their distorted and exaggerated sentiments, and burdening more normal folks with the costs of subsidizing their programs. The masses of humans should have remained at the feudal level of culture. The use of fossil fuels should have been reserved to those who used them to help along the powers of mankind to acquire all of the resources of the solar system, with the idea that then it would be possible to consider interstellar voyages to seed the rest of the galaxy with the life that originated on Earth. To our species fell the responsibility for ensuring that this mission did not fail...but fail we did. Nature's organizing principles did three billion years of labor here in vain. On some other planet, at some other time, nature will repeat her work, perhaps with a better result. But it won't be us. So don't worry about whether you would colonize or not. You can't. Nobody can. Humans will never live on other planets. Jerry Abbott |
October 7th, 2004 | #3 | |
Senior Goatly One
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
|
PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:15 am
Quote:
Jerry Abbott |
|
October 7th, 2004 | #4 | |
Senior Goatly One
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
|
Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:33 am
Quote:
Jerry Abbott Last edited by Jenab; October 7th, 2004 at 06:49 AM. |
|
October 7th, 2004 | #5 |
Senior Goatly One
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
|
Brad provided me with this link.
http://www.charlespellegrino.com/project_valkyrie.htm Then another poster, Pirate Queen ChoChiyo, jumped in to argue with me... Jerry Abbott Last edited by Jenab; October 7th, 2004 at 06:52 AM. |
October 7th, 2004 | #6 | ||||||||||||
Senior Goatly One
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
|
Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 10:14 am
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
By the way, Earth will cease to be habitable in two billion years...three billion years before the sun runs out of hydrogen to burn. The reason for that is that the sun's total luminosity is increasing at about the rate of 10 percent per billion years. Two billion years from now, the oceans will start to evaporate, which will lead to a runaway greenhouse effect - assuming that one hasn't started from a different cause before then. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, just not as efficient for that purpose as carbon dioxide is. So, about two billion years from now, the Earth will become like Venus and all life which remains stuck here will die. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For someone to gain a skill, two things are needed: the opportunity to learn, and the physical/mental potential to do the learning. There is such a thing as opportunities badly targeted, or offered to those who have not a required minimum level of potential. Such poorly targeted opportunities cost as much, if not more, than those offered to people with more aptitude, and the resources spent on trying to teach, say, a monkey to read are utterly wasted. Those resources might as well have been destroyed by fire for all the good they did anybody. Not only that, you may have given the monkey cause for resentment or anxiety or feelings of inadequacy that could have been spared him had we simply left the monkey chattering happily in the jungle. [continued...] |
||||||||||||
October 7th, 2004 | #7 | |||||
Senior Goatly One
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
|
Quote:
Since our good times have lasted for about four generations, people in general have come to believe that this is a normal situation. But it isn't. Fossil fuels are a one-time resource. When they're gone, the good times will go with them. The human population has numbers that strain even our high-tech mechanized agriculture to provide food for them all. When there is no more fuel for tractors and harvesters, when there are no more nitrate fertilizers, food production on Earth will drop to 10% of what it is now, as hand-tool farming tries and fails to cope with demand. When you feed the incapable hungry, you only get larger numbers of incapable hungry people to feed a generation later. Trying to end hunger by feeding the hungry is like trying to put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it. It doesn't work: the fire just gets bigger. Wisdom should have shown us this, but sentiment prevailed, instead. The energy needed for gaining a permanent toe-hold in space, with sustained technology and access to extraterrestrial energy resources, was wasted on feeding the hungry and on providing unnecessary luxuries to spoiled rich people. The balance of political power shifted in favor of this status quo, and never in all the 80 years of heavy fossil fuel exploitation has it strayed from these species-lethal sentiments. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There are, among humans, those whose eye prefers the horizon to the ground under their feet, who would rather explore than exploit, who are able to look above the present struggle to see the glories that might come to Earth one day, if only we do our part correctly. Those are the "highest" in the spiritual sense: the Nietzsches who desire the coming of a better kind of man, who desire that the least of men be replaced by the equals of our present best and that our present best should be replaced by those who are even better. These are the people who serve the life force, nature's organizing principles as manifested in living things, by striving to better the quality of life - not the standard of living, but the intrinsic biological quality of the living creature. On the other hand, there are those who care mostly for pleasures, conveniences, and status. Their ambition is to get these things. Being strongly motivated, they often succeed. Civilizations come into being when hardy and industrious people are able to build them up from the wilderness. They decline and die after the people have become soft from the comfort and ease that civilizations give them. We will go into the apocalyptic post-oil era with two disadvantages: we are too numerous to do without fossil fuel powered agriculture and we are mostly too soft and weak to endure the rigors of a pioneer life. Quote:
Most of the qualities that make people either better or worse are heritable: carried in our genes and passed to children thereby. In the shuffle, some children born to mediocre parents turn out to be smarter than either of them. And occasionally a mental dud will be born to above-average parents. But these are exceptions. Neither life, nor anything else, is characterized by the exceptions. As a rule, like begets like. Usually, you'll find that smart children are born to smart parents, strong children to strong parents, dextrous children to dextrous parents, talented children to talented parents, and so on. Public policy would do well to create a caste system - not just any caste system but, rather, the right one - and target opportunity first and foremost to the highest caste. Whatever they can't use may be permitted to trickle down to the lower castes, so long as it doesn't spoil them with inflated expectations for the future. (I deleted a few comments of small importance where in Chochiyo compared me with people who criticized Galileo and Edison, who turned out to be right in the end. I replied that she had the comparison backwards.) Jerry Abbott |
|||||
October 7th, 2004 | #8 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I don't think it's too late to colonize other worlds, Mr. Jenab. Certainly it's a possibility that we're all going to die in a nigger hell, but maybe not. I'm a bit more optimistic, you see, in that I never discount the possibility of a major scientific/technological breakthrough, something coming at us from completely out in left field. For instance, the recent space flights performed by a small private company show there is hope yet for whites to establish themselves offworld - the best choice at this point being Mars. And America still has the financial power and the technological know-how to easily colonize the moon, were it not for the dead weight of 35 million groids and 35 million beaners around our collective neck. If we can just take back our country, and rid ourselves of these dark-skinned leeches, the stars can yet be ours. In fact, I'm so confident, I've already designed my starship to make the voyage...
|
October 7th, 2004 | #9 |
Senior Goatly One
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
|
Another poster, Echus Cthulhu Mythos, joined the discussion. We discussed the possibility of nuclear energy replacing fossil fuels and saving civilization.
|
October 7th, 2004 | #10 | |||||
Senior Goatly One
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
|
Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 6:17 pm
Quote:
That doesn't mean that humanity is doomed. It does mean that humanity is heading for sharply reduced circumstances. And it means one thing more. If the mission of our world was to grow life and then pass its seed on to other fertile worlds, then that mission has failed. Forever. Quote:
Quote:
Nuclear energy would have postponed the energy peak and kept civilization going a while, but not for long. The world only has so much high grade uranium ores, and we'd run out of them. The combined military stockpiles of U235 and Pl239 would support global civilization for only about 16 years. If the social program I mentioned - feudalism for the masses, technology reserved for those inclined to pursue the development of independent human settlements away from Earth, with perhaps an economy based on interplanetary commerce (as, I think, it'd have had to be, since on no single world in our solar system other than Earth do all the material necessities for life exist) - then civilization could have held out on Earth for far longer. And when the end came, thousands of years from now, it would come gently. And the spark of technology would continue thereafter, held by those people who left Earth, who could continue the effort of carrying both technology and Earth's life to the stars. Unfortunately, there came a parade of ideologies: Marxism, capitalism, democratic egalitarianism... that were all hell-bent, in one way or another, on expanding the benefits of technology to the masses. Why didn't someone see where they were all heading? Perhaps someone did, but didn't care. An important point to remember is that the human lifespan is brief compared with the march of events in history. Capitalism, for example, is like a cancer: it grows like mad, kills a world, and dies. But while it can grow, a lot of speculators can get rich, and so they do. Perhaps the world will die as the end result of speculation, but it won't happen in the lifetimes of most of the speculators, so the game goes on. Quote:
One fellow, M. King Hubbert, correctly predicted that the per capita peak in world oil production would come in 1979 - it has declined ever since. Now the absolute peak, the year in which is delivered to market the greatest number of barrels of oil equivalent - is upon us. From here on, supply will shrink in relation to demand. The problem with respect to public awareness of the accuracy of the warnings seems to be that the public has a short attention span. The five-day weather forecast, they can deal with. A prediction of a disaster 60 years away, no. Forty years away, no. Twenty years away, still no. Next year - certainly! But when the Crash is only a year away, they will indignantly ask why they were not informed sooner! Quote:
Jerry Abbott |
|||||
October 7th, 2004 | #11 | |
Senior Goatly One
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
|
Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 6:54 pm
Quote:
But there's another bottleneck with nuclear power, and that's the rate at which the reactors that now exist and the reactors that can conceivably be built before the hard times hit us, can produce power. It's too late to begin building fast liquid metal breeder reactors now. We couldn't build enough of them in time. The problems with fission energy never were satisfactorally solved. Nuclear power plants still have, despite assurances from the industry, a poor risk profile when you consider how much territory one Chernobyl can irradiate. Then there's the problem of disposing of radioactive waste. And there's one other thing. Our civilization uses many petroleum by-products other than energy. There's plastics and fertilizer, to name an important two. You can't make these things from uranium. Jerry Abbott |
|
October 7th, 2004 | #12 | |||||
Senior Goatly One
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
|
Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 7:40 pm
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Jerry Abbott |
|||||
October 7th, 2004 | #13 |
Senior Goatly One
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
|
Having read the webpage he linked me to, I returned to ask Brad_H some questions in regard to the Valkyrie rocket.
Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 10:15 am Brad, I read the thread on Valkyrie starships, and I've some comments. First, how do you generate the necessary quantities of anti-hydrogen? Second, how do you come up with the muons for the reaction mass? Is it a byproduct of the matter/antimatter reaction? Muons are charged, so you can probably direct them with a magnetic field, but... Third, how is directing a stream of muons against a sail to propel a starship different from shooting cannons astern from the bow of a ship and having somebody in the stern catch the cannon balls? It seems that the reaction forward would be canceled by the reaction backward, in both cases. Come to think of it, the reason hydrogen is used AS reaction mass in nuclear powered rockets is that its lightness give it an advantage in being accelerated from a powerplant at operating temperature: more kinetic energy per ounce of reaction mass results from the jet. But if we're talking about a matter-antimatter production of energy for the powerplant, it does not seem to be advantageous to choose hydrogen and antihydrogen. Something with a higher melting temperature would reduce the cryogenic demand (and probably the bulk, too). All you'd have to do is keep it ionized so you could isolate it from matter until it is used. Jerry Abbott |
October 7th, 2004 | #14 | |||
Senior Goatly One
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
|
Rather than answer my questions about the Valkyrie rocket, Brad_H posted to contend that the more limited energy resources available after fossil fuel depletion would suffice to keep civilization going and enable spaceflight.
Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 5:19 pm Quote:
A rocket, or even a fuel cell, is more than the fuel in it. You need steel, and getting steel from your reduced energy supply will involve taking energy from consumers who will pay for it. Remember, hydrogen fuel cells are net energy losers. It costs two or three times as much energy to prepare the fuel for a cell than you can extract by burning that fuel. And that doesn't count the cost of making the cell housing, the pipes and the fittings, etc. Fossil fuels have been so abundant that we've gotten into the bad habit of sloppy accounting. Now, as for spaceships and trips to Saturn. Even while fossil fuels were abundant, there was much political noise about "tossing money away into space when there are people hungry here on Earth." Do you suppose that the per capita decibel level will drop when the energy budget is much tighter? I doubt that it will. Politics will be even more heavily against space exploration then than it ever was before. Quote:
Quote:
Jerry Abbott |
|||
October 7th, 2004 | #15 |
Senior Goatly One
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
|
Interwoven with the above posts was a discussion of Jewish "Holocaust" claims in WW2. That discussion arose because Brad_H made assertions that were either based on doubtful implicit assumptions or contrary to fact. These posts were removed from the thread and put into a separate thread in a special "Soapbox" area, which is reserved for off-topic discussions, with "looser" rules. Supposedly.
|
October 7th, 2004 | #16 | ||
Senior Goatly One
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
|
Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 10:45 am
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe his enemies are lying. The victors write the history books, but what they say isn't necessarily the truth. National Socialism was crushed by a war in which, except for minor assistance from Italy, it stood alone against most of the industralized world. Considering what they had to work with, the Germans put up an amazing fight - which should suggest, despite their eventual loss, that they were top-notch stuff. Nobody has ever shown that the economics and values espoused by National Socialism were unwise. The war only proved that there were very entrenched establishments that strongly disapproved of National Socialism's economics and values. But think about these things: 1. Nature improves species by differentiation and competition. Not by the happy meltingpot method preferred by egalitarians. 2. Germany's economy did soar, before the war, while the industrialized countries on the Gold Standard langished in the Great Depression. The countries with the central banks in them needed war to overcome the Depression. Germany did not need war for that purpose. 3. Germany went to war because of a prior hostile action, namely an international boycott, that prevented it from selling its industrial surplus in exchange for foodstuffs to make up its agricultural deficit. The point to lebensraum was to acquire farmland to feed Germans. And Germany was reluctant to take this step: so reluctant that it endured six years of the boycott before invading Poland. Hitler's purpose was to unify and revitalize the German people. He wasn't trying to conquer the world. His plans were such that war, when it came, was most inconvenient for him; however, it was considered the lesser evil because the apparent alternative was to watch the German nation slowly starve. Jerry Abbott |
||
October 7th, 2004 | #17 | |||
Senior Goatly One
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
|
Quote:
I'm not certain why a question about Germany's motive in going to war should have provoked an examination of my opinions about the (alleged) Holocaust. There is some sort of knee-jerk reaction, psychological conditioning, that causes every question of WW2 history to lead rather directly to a probing of the questioner's belief in the Holocaust. Like Obi Wan said, "Search your feelings," and see whether you can find the source of that conditioning. I am among those who are aware that there were no Jews mass executed in Nazi Gas Chambers. This is a popular hoax, which for years has received official recognition and heavy subsidies from governments, and which has a massive public relations drive for the maintenance of belief. What the Holocaust is not, however, is truth. It is fiction, begun as Allied war agit-propaganda and continued as a cash cow by the Zionists. The cited death toll in the alleged Holocaust has steadily shrunk in the details - specifics of when, where, how and who. For example, Auschwitz was once said to have been where about four million Jews were gassed. A few objections by knowledgeable scholars caused the Zionists to grudgingly revise that total downwardly by almost three million. Yet the total of casualties claimed - that mythical Six Million - never wavered. One of the best refutations of the theory that Auschwitz was a "death camp" was made by a Jew named David Cole. Cole's excellent videotaped documentary was made at Auschwitz as he was conducted among the alleged "gas chamber" buildings on the grounds there. It records a number of discrepancies and improbabilities that the staff there paper over because it is against the law to express doubt about the Holocaust throughout much of Europe. David Cole recanted after receiving vicious threats, probably alluding to his assassination, by the Jewish Defense League. As it was with Galileo, his earlier work is sound; his recantation is false. Examinations of the Auschwitz camp in the 1990s by a forensics team from Canada and the United States took samples of brick from the alleged gas chambers and had them analyzed at Alpha Analytic Labs in Ashland, Massechusetts. No significant contamination by cyanide compounds was found. Another examination of the stolen samples was made in Krakow, where extremely tiny amounts of cyanide compounds were found, however only at levels commensurate with those also found in buildings that nobody believes was ever used as a gas chamber, such as the guards' barracks. The "Holocaust" is a hoax, all right. But it is a gigantic hoax, with bogus textbooks written about it, and with huge "memorials" built to commemorate it, and with the overt collaboration of public figures, and with endless propaganda in the media all swearing to its factuality. There are known frauds among the photographical evidence offered by the Zionists as "proof" of their claims: altered photographs, photographs with misleading captions, drawings misrepresented as photographs. Some of the photographs allegedly showing dead Jews at a "death camp" actually show dead Germans after the firebombing of Dresden. Some of the photographs do show dead Jews, but they died of typhus primarily and of malnutrition secondarily. Note that the corpses shown are usually emaciated - gassing doesn't take the pounds off like that. Quote:
Quote:
Jerry Abbott |
|||
October 7th, 2004 | #18 |
Senior Goatly One
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
|
Brad_H then posted a stentorious "MODERATION ALERT" in which he said he was obliged to re-locate the thread to The Soapbox. His reason was that Dr. Pellegrino, whose thread it had been in, would be offended if he saw the Holohoax being questioned there. Why would he be offended? Brad_H said that it just naturally followed from Dr. Pellegrino's dad having been a WW2 vet.
|
October 7th, 2004 | #19 | |
Senior Goatly One
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
|
ChoChiyo weighed in again to indicate how offended she was.
Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 5:24 pm Quote:
The Nazis cremated the bodies of typhus victims in an effort to control the disease. That's also why the Nazis used Zyklon B: to kill the rats and lice that carried typhus. Near the end of the war, the Allies bombed the supply lines so that the Germans could no longer bring medicine or food to the camps. That is why some of the prisoners starved, and it is why typhus spiraled out of control. The crematoria were swamped by the death toll, and it is possible that the SS tried to cremate a few corpses out-of-doors. Anyway, your Uncle Charlie didn't find any gas chambers, no matter what he thinks he saw. Jerry Abbott |
|
October 7th, 2004 | #20 | ||||||
Senior Goatly One
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
|
Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 6:41 pm
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Hitler wasn't a "twisted, evil little man." Any belief in that implausible charicature indicates a lapse of rational thought. Quote:
The essential Jewishness of Jewish television has never changed, though the specific Jews involved have moved around a bit. NBC is a good example of that moving around: its executives recently reshuffled among the key positions. Andrew Lack, who had been chief of the network's news division, ascended to become its president and COO. Neal Shapiro, who had been producing Dateline NBC, moved into Lack's old job. Jeff Zucker, who had been producing the Today show, was promoted to NBC entertainment president (a job that apparently was created for him), and Jonathan Wald moved into Zucker's old spot after shoving aside a lonely gentile named Michael Bass, who had been filling in for Zucker. Jews, Jews, Jews... and it's that way in every TV network. And it was that way in Germany, too, right before Hitler slapped their mischievious hands and took their toys away from them. Quote:
Oddly, among the greatest of the anti-Marxists was a Jewess named Ayn Rand (a.k.a. Alice Rosenbaum). She explained why Marxism always fails from a combination of tragedy-in-the-commons (at the grassroots level of society) and economic treason in which The State, having stolen property from each in the name of all, becomes nothing more than a mean, mean manager of everybody's lives. But whereas Rand did very well teaching us why Marxist socialism does not work, she ignored the biological factor and tried to impute Marxism's weaknesses to forms of socialism that are relatively untroubled by them. National Socialism is one such form. Quote:
[continued...] |
||||||
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|