On the knife’s edge

In belatedly going over the Q4 2013 Z1 report, I was a little surprised to see that total credit market debt picked up a bit, increasing $909 billion in the fourth quarter alone. At 1.57 percent, that’s still not enough to keep pace with the historical quarterly advance of 2.36 percent, so it’s still disinflation mode, but it is the third-highest quarterly credit growth seen since credit disinflation began in Q1-2008.

However, the Household sector remains flat and the State and Local Government sector has been deflating the last three quarters in a row and seven of the last eight. This means that the private economy is still contracting because State and Local is restricted by tax revenues. Nearly all the credit growth is taking place in the Corporate and Federal sectors.

In fact, of the $7,718.7 in credit growth since Z1 peaked and began deflating in Q1 2009, $7,078.7 is Federal borrowing. In other words, the private economy is right on the knife edge of debt-deflation and has been so for the last five years despite the vast inflationary efforts by the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve.

As for the credit demand gap, at $29.4 trillion, it has now reached nearly 50 percent of Z1. That is why money printing to fill the gap is simply not an option and any attempt to do so will necessarily go right to hyperinflation and failure.


SFF Net separates from SFWA

This is interesting news in light of the number of professional writers who have quietly been leaving SFWA:

Steven Gould, President of Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America and Jeffry Dwight, President of Greyware Automation Products, Inc. announced that they are severing the formal ties between the writer’s organization and the legacy SFWA discussion discussion boards still hosted at SFF Net (a Greyware service).

Gould said, “SFF Net was the host of SFWA’s online home for many years. We are incredibly grateful for the years of support from Jeffry and his team. When SFWA moved over to managing its own domain at sfwa.org in 2009, the organization continued to maintain the old discussion boards for a transition period. The SFWA board of directors were discussing the appropriate time to separate when I received Jeffry’s email on the same subject.”

Dwight said, “SFF Net initiated this separation. We have no immediate plans to shut off the private.sfwa hierarchy, nor to remove access from those who already have it. SFF Net will continue to offer discussion areas to professional writers, but based on each individual’s writing credentials rather than membership in SFWA or any similar groups. Our goal is for the transition from sff.private.sfwa to sff.private.pro to be both gradual and gentle, so that no one is disenfranchised.

It’s a smart move by SFF Net. Being tied to SFWA prevented non-SFWA writers like me and many others from participating on SFF Net’s formerly active pro writing forums. And many of the most experienced writers who were already there simply never migrated to the SFWA forums, which were mostly infested by the activist junior members who don’t actually write or publish much science fiction.

It won’t be surprising if within six months, there are two- or three-times as many pro writers active at SFF Net than there are in the SFWA forums. Even though their individual credential requirements will probably be more stringent as well. And thus SFWA’s slide into further irrelevance begins….

UPDATE: This book feature from SFWA.org says it all about the modern SFWA. It’s now the Romance Writers of America’s little league.

FEATURED BOOK: “Post-apocalyptic biopunk romance from the RWA RITA Award nominated author of GHOST PLANET. Coming from Tor in April 2014.


The end of the free love era

As socionomics predicts, with economic contraction comes war… and disease:

The CDC has issued a report detailing its findings in attempting to trace the increasing difficulty in treating gonorrhea, a sexually transmitted disease (STD) that can cause severe discomfort, serious medical problems (such as sterility) for both genders and in very rare cases, death.

Gonorrhea is a bacterial disease that has been around for thousands of years, if not longer, plaguing human populations. In more recent times, it’s had to evolve to survive as humans learned to treat it using penicillin and other antibacterial agents. Over the past thirty years in particular, gonorrhea has evolved to the point that there are very few treatments left (ceftriaxone along with either azithromycin or doxycycline) and now, it looks like its poised to get the best of those as well, which will mean those who contract the disease in the very near future will find that doctors have no way to cure them…. The overriding conclusion of the researchers is that the world is now sitting on the precipice of losing the ability to fight a major bacterial infection.

AIDS was the warning and the medical and political establishments completely failed in their responsibilities in the face of the gay community acting up. One sincerely hopes they will do better the next time around. Because the next time does not appear to be very far off.


The Baen Brigade fires back

Another Baen author responds to John Scalzi’s attack on Baen publisher Toni Weisskopf:

Recently, Toni Weisskopf the publisher at Baen Books wrote a guest post at Sarah A. Hoyt’s blog, a re-post of an essay she posted on Baen’s Bar, a forum that requires registration so Sarah’s repost is the public link. 

This post has had a lot of responses ranging from acclaim to hate. That means that in some sense, it’s important.  IMHO, the most interesting response was by John Scalzi in his blog. It’s that post I want to try to comment on.  I choose to do it here rather than in the comments there because there’s a zillion comments on it already, and I’m writing to my friends, not his readers.

Scalzi summarizes Toni’s post as follows:

 “Once upon a time all the fractious lands of science fiction fandom were joined together, and worshiped at the altar of Heinlein. But in these fallen times, lo do many refuse to worship Heinlein, preferring instead their false idols and evil ways.”

Let me make myself perfectly clear. Of all the styles of argument that you can engage in, this sort of straw man argument pisses me off.  It offends me. It makes me want to stand up and scream. The problem is, John’s failed both at the art of summary and at intellectual honesty.  He’s set up a target that he claims is Toni’s work, and then shoots at it, but if you’re going to try to tear apart a writer’s work, it’s important to actually tear apart what they wrote.  John didn’t do that.  He exclusively comments, at length on his summary, not on what Toni wrote, never citing her words or thoughts. This is unjust and unfair.

This is all very well and good, but I think Mr. Boatright is forgetting something VERY important. You see, Mr. Scalzi possesses a BACHELOR’S DEGREE in PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE from THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO. You can’t front on that! In the meantime, another Baen author, Brad Torgersen, explains why he went with Baen instead of certain other publishers who have been in the news of late for not bothering to talk to their authors for periods exceeding one year and whose senior editors are chiefly known for sexually harassing women or describing themselves as racists on LiveJournal.

One of the things I found most unsettling about the novel publishing landscape were the numerous first-person accounts I was getting, from authors not too much further down the tracks from myself, about how it was a feast or famine business. You either hit home runs immediately, or you got dumped. It didn’t seem to matter who you published with, if you couldn’t show a substantial profit for the publisher, and do it very quickly, you were done. Likewise, if you were on the midlist and you weren’t showing bottom-line numbers indicating you were trending towards bestseller status, you were done. And not always explicitly either. Often people knew they were dumped simply because responsiveness from editors dropped to little or nothing, and contracts which had been previously promised, never showed up. There was no door being slammed, rather the dumping was done quietly. Sort of like having your utilities turned off at the street.

There was one publisher, however, who was getting consistently good marks: Baen. Authors — even new authors — were reporting that this publisher didn’t expect immediate grand slams. Instead, this publisher would work with new authors over time to grow and develop an audience. Not having landslide sales your first time out of the gate was not going to ruin you. Likewise, this publisher had a very respectable and healthy midlist, while also having very good brand label loyalty among readers. The latter being rare in an era when almost all readers are either loyal to a specific author, or loyal to a specific series and/or franchise. Thus it would be easier (for me as a new guy) to develop an audience, and I wouldn’t necessarily be doomed if I wasn’t cracking the top ten on the New York Times list with each subsequent book. There was the promise of breathing room!

I certainly hope that in the future Castalia’s authors will have similar cause to speak so well of us. I consider Baen to be a model for success in the new era of publishing. And, do you know, I’m beginning to suspect that the Baen Brigade is not fooled by Mr. Scalzi’s patented two-step where first he punches someone in the mouth, then steps back, smiles, and pretends to be best friends with them. He’s just joshing with his very good pal Miss Weisskopf, just like he and good buddy John Ringo were only kidding around with each other about his Participation Hugo.

Sorry, Johnny, but you picked your side and everyone knows it. Now everyone can see the very angry little lefty underneath the clown makeup.

UPDATE: Larry Correia piles on, which if you know anything about Larry, is saying something:

Basically, I love my publishing house. I know a lot of other writers, and I know somebody with just about
every publishing house out there. Hang out with a bunch of writers long
enough and you’ll get to hear them gripe about their publishers and
their editors. And if they’re not a star or a golden boy with their
publisher, then you’ll really get to hear them bitch and vent.  After
five years of this stuff I’ve heard all sorts of horror stories, yet I’m
unable to commiserate with them because luckily for me, my editors
don’t suck, and I haven’t ever felt like my publisher is trying to screw
me over.

Editing complaints are the best. I don’t know how many times I’ve
heard stories, especially from the mid listers at one of the big houses
about how they’ve turned in a book and waited 6 months, 9 months, or a
YEAR to get any editorial feedback. Hell, at that point I’ve already
written another novel and have forgotten the prior one. Then when the
feedback comes back it is “Hey, throw away this half of the book and
write something entirely different, oh, and I need that by Thursday.”
Sorry. Can’t commiserate with you, buddy….
Let me give you an example of what doing business with Baen is like. When I first started out I had absolutely no idea what I was doing as far as business, and like I said, no agent to guide me (got rejected by pretty much all of them, which is funny because I’m betting they’d love to be getting 15% of this action now!) so when I signed my first contract, I gave over things like dramatic rights (movies and TV), audiobooks, and foreign rights to Baen. At that point in my career, I was just happy that anybody was reading my stuff at all, and I couldn’t imagine that people would want to listen to it or read it in other languages.

So then I got approached by my first movie producer. Wow. Didn’t see that coming. Uh oh, my contract turned all that over to my publishing house… The contract doesn’t specify percentage details for that kind of thing. Now, at this point many publishers would have just screwed me over. Nope. One phone call to Toni, she sticks Baen’s Hollywood agent onto it, we talk, and boom, no problem. I’m then getting an extremely large percent of any of that sort of thing. For the last three years I’ve been collecting option money.


POLL: Who is the Greatest Living SF Writer?

  1. Larry Niven, 222 votes, 21 percent
  2. Neal Stephenson, 193 votes, 18 percent
  3. Jerry Pournelle, 172 votes, 16 percent
  4. Orson Scott Card, 167 votes, 16 percent
  5. Gene Wolfe, 92 votes, 9 percent
  6. John C. Wright, 63 votes, 6 percent
  7. Robert Silverberg, 61 votes, 6 percent
  8. Lois McMaster Bujold, 60 votes, 6 percent
  9. China Mieville, 32 votes, 3 percent
  10. Michael Flynn, 12 votes, 1 percent

1,075 votes total. Larry Niven is the winner.

Congratulations to Larry Niven, who was voted the Greatest Living SF Writer by more than half as many people who vote for the Hugo awards and more than vote for the Nebulas. I’m a little shocked that China Mieville garnered so few votes, as I thought he was a fairly serious candidate; in retrospect, William Gibson should have been on the list rather than Michael Flynn.

I was somewhat bewildered by some of the writers suggested by people who missed out on the original discussion. David Weber? He is certainly a best-selling author and his books are indubitably entertaining but greatness is not measured in Mary Sues. Connie Willis? Well, she’s won a lot of awards, but literally zero people even brought her up in the nominations. Kim Stanley Robinson? A one-trick pony and the trick grew old several books ago, to say nothing of the fact that no one even mentioned him.

It was a surprising credible showing by Lois McMaster Bujold and somewhat disappointing by Robert Silverberg. I think Silverberg and Wolfe are probably not read as much by my generation and the following one. Card and Wright were about where I expected them to be; I wouldn’t be surprised if they switched places in another ten years. And it showed that Neal Stephenson is the best of the coming generation of SF elders.


Portrait of a Breakdown

The famous stalker of Asian women and rescuer of woodland animals appears to be going off the deep end. In addition to revealing his latest identity, “Nikola” of the copious comments on the Greatest SF Writer poll, he posted this on his blog:

Nina asked if anyone’s ever gotten pissy about being drawn and I suggested people who do probably don’t notice they’re being drawn and just assume they’re being stared at and I blamed people like the regulars on Vox Popoli and Alpha Game Plan for basically trying to sexually harass their way into de facto sex segregation. I should have explained the context better, in which Vox Day has been stalking and harassing people who write unfavorable reviews of his novels.

That would have been an amusing conversation to witness. It’s certainly ironic to see “Andrew Marston”, one of the most notorious trolls on the Internet, accusing anyone else of stalking and harassing people. But this is what they call “psychological projection”, I suppose. It is eminently clear that the guy is mentally unhinged. Consider:

Why I Want To Punch Matthew Bellamy.

This is why: Vox Day likes Muse. I once said I knew a few nice Muse fans. Here’s the thing, Vox Day is such a racist, misogynist pompous stuck-up giant twerp blogger scumbag fuckface dickhead asshole that it negates the few cool Muse fans out there.

That’s my superpower, actually. He has unmasked me: I am Divide by Zero, capable of negation at will. I find the experience of watching Marston to be fascinating; it’s rather like watching one of Maupassant’s protagonists as he disintegrates. It won’t surprise me if this guy eventually attacks one of the Asian women with whom he is even more obsessed than he is with me and “the Popoli”.

The more I see, the more I think the blogosphere has gotten gradually worse. Listen, Vox wrote a post defending (not quite advocating, I don’t think the blogosphere has sunk that low yet) sex trafficking. And one of the Popoli said some things but they’re more full of shit than Gene Belcher on Super Bowel Sunday. For one, Serena isn’t about me, it’s about some guy named Paul Trowe. The other thing she said was just an indecipherable, incoherent mess. Get over yourself, you’re not that important. 

(Nod, smile, back away slowly, one hand on the concealed .357 Ruger….)


EU refuses to recognize Crimean referendum

The EU really does hate the will of the people, even when nearly three-quarters of the entire Crimean population supported the referendum.  Athough in fairness, they didn’t recognize the Dutch and Irish referendums on the Lisbon Treaty either. So at least they are being consistent, in their inimitably anti-democratic manner:

As stated by all 28 EU Heads of State or Government on 6 March 2014, the European Union considers the holding of the referendum on the future status of the territory of Ukraine as contrary to the Ukrainian Constitution and international law. The referendum is illegal and illegitimate and its outcome will not be recognised.

The solution to the crisis in Ukraine must be based on the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in the framework of the Ukrainian Constitution as well as the strict adherence to international standards. Only working together through diplomatic processes, including direct discussions between the Governments of Ukraine and Russia, can we find a solution to the crisis.

The European Union has a special responsibility for peace, stability and prosperity on the European continent and will continue pursuing these objectives using all available channels.

It’s particularly rich coming from José Manuel Barroso, the unelected Head of the European Commission since 2004. Zerohedge notes that at 79% participation, the referendum is more democratically legitimate than any US presidential vote since 1900… and 93 percent of the population voted to join Russia. Apparently the Obama administration is also refusing to recognize the will of the Crimean people. Which makes sense; it has no regard for the will of the American people either.

In response to those who are claiming the vote was illegitimate on the basis of the Russian military presence, one man on Twitter noted:  “Hell I’d want a foreign army protecting me as I voted the South out of the United States, too.”


Tribalism comes to America

The Democrats coalition of minorities is fracturing now that the minorities have become the de facto majority. As Steve Sailer notes: “The future isn’t going to be terribly idealistic.”

A legislative push to permit California’s public universities to once again consider race and ethnicity in admissions appears to be on life support after an intense backlash from Asian-American parents who fear it will make it harder for their children to get into good schools.

A planned referendum sailed through the state Senate in January without fanfare on a party-line vote, but three Asian-American Democrats who initially backed the measure are now calling for it to be “tabled” before the state Assembly has a chance to vote on it — a highly unusual move. And it seems unlikely to get the two-thirds majority in the Assembly without the support of the five Asian-Americans in the lower house.

Over the last several weeks, the three senators who have had second thoughts about the referendum — Leland Yee, D-San Francisco; Ted Lieu, D-Torrance; and Carol Liu, D- La Cañada/Flintridge — said they have received thousands of calls and emails from fearful constituents who believe that any move to favor other ethnic groups could hurt Asian-Americans, who attend many of the state’s best schools in large numbers. A Change.org petition to kill the referendum now has more than 100,000 signatures, and email listservs for Chinese-American parents have been flooded with angry posts.

Three days ago, the senators sent a formal letter to Assembly Speaker John Perez urging him to stop the bill from advancing any further. “As lifelong advocates for the Asian American and other communities, we would never support a policy that we believed would negatively impact our children,” the letter states.

Translation: the anti-White White-Yellow-Black-Brown alliance is breaking down because some of the anti-White policies are starting to negatively affect the Yellow population. And since the Yellow population is openly tribal, they’re not about to follow the self-loathing White lead into disadvantaging their own children.

It’s no great mystery. The USA has been importing tribal people since the Italians began arriving in large numbers. Now that the tribalists finally outnumber the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants in sufficient quantities to overcome the political inertia, US politics has devolved into the same sort of tribal power politics that is practiced in every other multi-tribal state. Whites aren’t the majority anymore, they are just another tribe. The sooner they accept that and start playing by the new rules, the better off they will be. Blacks are completely hosed in this new political reality because Asians and Hispanics don’t accept the White Guilt card and they tend to dislike Blacks far more than Whites ever have.

It’s totally pointless to blather on about outmoded ideals and 18th century principles. There never was any “melting pot”; this is the new tribal reality that will launch the new dawn of nationalism.


War and the Austrian Business Cycle

David Stockman explains the oft-observed connection between economic contraction and military conflict. Astute observers will note that the cycle he describes correlates much better with my “Limits of Demand” modification of the core mechanism of the Austrian Business Cycle:

During World War I the US public debt rose from $1.5 billion to $27 billion—an eruption that would have been virtually impossible without wartime amendments which allowed the Fed to own or finance U.S. Treasury debt.  These “emergency” amendments—it’s always an emergency in wartime—enabled a fiscal scheme that was ingenious, but turned the Fed’s modus operandi upside down and paved the way for today’s monetary central planning.

As is well known, the Wilson war crusaders conducted massive nationwide campaigns to sell Liberty Bonds to the patriotic masses. What is far less understood is that Uncle Sam’s bond drives were the original case of no savings? No credit? No problem!

What happened was that every national bank in America conducted a land office business advancing loans for virtually 100 percent of the war bond purchase price—with such loans collateralized by Uncle Sam’s guarantee. Accordingly, any patriotic American with enough pulse to sign the loan papers could buy some Liberty Bonds.

And where did the commercial banks obtain the billions they loaned out to patriotic citizens to buy Liberty Bonds?  Why the Federal Reserve banks opened their discount loan windows to the now eligible collateral of war bonds.

Additionally, Washington pegged the rates on these loans below the rates on its treasury bonds, thereby providing a no-brainer arbitrage profit to bankers.

Through this backdoor maneuver, the war debt was thus massively monetized.  Washington learned that it could unplug the free market interest rate in favor of state administered prices for money, and that credit could be massively expanded without the inconvenience of higher savings out of deferred consumption.  Effectively, Washington financed Woodrow Wilson’s crusade with its newly discovered printing press—-turning the innocent “banker’s bank” legislated in 1913 into a dangerously potent new arm of the state.

It was this wartime transformation of the Fed into an activist central bank that postponed the normal post-war liquidation—-moving the world’s scheduled depression down the road to the 1930s. The Fed’s role in this startling feat is in plain sight in the history books, but its significance has been obfuscated by Keynesian and monetarist doctrinal blinders—that is, the presumption that the state must continuously manage the business cycle and macro-economy.

Having learned during the war that it could arbitrarily peg the price of money, the Fed next discovered it could manage the growth of bank reserves and thereby the expansion of credit and the activity rate of the wider macro-economy. This was accomplished through the conduct of “open market operations” under its new authority to buy and sell government bonds and bills—something which sounds innocuous by today’s lights but was actually the fatal inflection point. It transferred the process of credit creation from the free market to an agency of the state.

As it happened, the patriotic war bond buyers across the land did steadily pay-down their Liberty loans, and, in turn, the banking system liquidated its discount window borrowings—-with a $2.7 billion balance in 1920 plunging 80 percent by 1927. In classic fashion, this should have caused the banking system to shrink drastically as war debts were liquidated and war-time inflation and malinvestments were wrung out of the economy.

But big-time mission creep had already set in.  The legendary Benjamin Strong had now taken control of the system and on repeated occasions orchestrated giant open market bond buying campaigns to offset the natural liquidation of war time credit.

Accordingly, treasury bonds and bills owned by the Fed approximately doubled during the same 7-year period. Strong justified his Bernanke-like bond buying campaigns of 1924 and 1927 as helpful actions to off-set “deflation” in the domestic economy and to facilitate the return of England and Europe to convertibility under the gold standard.

But in truth the actions of Bubbles Ben 1.0 were every bit as destructive as those of Bubbles Ben 2.0.

In the first place, deflation was a good thing that was supposed to happen after a great war. Invariably, the rampant expansion of war time debt and paper money caused massive speculations and malinvestments that needed to be liquidated.

Likewise, the barrier to normalization globally was that England was unwilling to fully liquidate its vast wartime inflation of wage, prices and debts. Instead,  it had come-up with a painless way to achieve “resumption” at the age-old parity of $4.86 per pound; namely, the so-called gold exchange standard that it peddled assiduously through the League of Nations.

The short of it was that the British convinced France, Holland, Sweden and most of Europe to keep their excess holdings of sterling exchange on deposit in the London money markets, rather than convert it to gold as under the classic, pre-war gold standard.

This amounted to a large-scale loan to the faltering British economy, but when Chancellor of the Exchequer Winston Churchill did resume convertibility in April 1925 a huge problem soon emerged.  Churchill’s splendid war had so debilitated the British economy that markets did not believe its government had the resolve and financial discipline to maintain the old $4.86 parity. This, in turn, resulted in a considerable outflow of gold from the London exchange markets, putting powerful contractionary pressures on the British banking system and economy.

Real Cause of the Great Depression: Collapse of the Artificial Boom

In this setting, Bubbles Ben 1.0 stormed in with a rescue plan that will sound familiar to contemporary ears. By means of his bond buying campaigns he sought to drive-down interest rates in New York relative to London, thereby encouraging British creditors to keep their money in higher yielding sterling rather than converting their claims to gold or dollars.

The British economy was thus given an option to keep rolling-over its debts and to continue living beyond its means. For a few years these proto-Keynesian “Lords of Finance” —- principally Ben Strong of the Fed and Montague Norman of the BOE—-managed to kick the can down the road.

But after the Credit Anstalt crisis in spring 1931, when creditors of shaky banks in central Europe demanded gold, England’s precarious mountain of sterling debts came into the cross-hairs.  In short order, the money printing scheme of Bubbles Ben 1.0 designed to keep the Brits in cheap interest rates and big debts came violently unwound.

In late September a weak British government defaulted on its gold exchange standard duty to convert sterling to gold, causing the French, Dutch and other central banks to absorb massive overnight losses. The global depression then to took another lurch downward.

But central bankers tamper with free market interest rates only at their peril—-so the domestic malinvestments and deformations which flowed from the monetary machinations of Bubbles Ben 1.0 were also monumental.

Owing to the splendid tax-cuts and budgetary surpluses of Secretary Andrew Mellon, the American economy was flush with cash, and due to the gold inflows from Europe the US banking system was extraordinarily liquid. The last thing that was needed in Roaring Twenties America was the cheap interest rates—-at 3 percent and under—that resulted from Strong’s meddling in the money markets.

At length, Strong’s ultra-low interest rates did cause credit growth to explode, but it did not end-up funding new steel mills or auto assembly plants.  Instead, the Fed’s cheap debt flooded into the Wall Street call money market where it fueled that greatest margin debt driven stock market bubble the world had ever seen. By 1929, margin debt on Wall Street had soared to 12 percent of GDP or the equivalent of $2 trillion in today’s economy.

As is well known, much economic carnage resulted from the Great Crash of 1929. But what is less well understood is that the great stock market bubble also spawned a parallel boom in foreign bonds—-specie of Wall Street paper that soon proved to be the sub-prime of its day.

Indeed, Bubbles Ben 1.0 triggered a veritable cascade of speculative borrowing that soon spread to the far corners of the globe, including places like municipality of Rio de Janeiro, the Kingdom of Denmark and the free city of Danzig, among countless others.

This is an excellent addition to both military and financial history. Be sure to read the whole thing; it’s close 10k words, but it is definitely worth the time and effort. This, in particular, is a key observation that underlines the falsity of the Keynesian narrative: “The Keynesians have never acknowledged the single most salient statistic about the war debt: namely, that the debt burden actually fell during the war, with the ratio of total credit market debt to GDP declining from 210 percent in 1938 to 190 percent at the 1945 peak!”

I’d noticed this myself in looking at total credit market debt, but never thought through the implications as Stockman has. One can even see it in the relevant chart posted in RGD.


Civilizational collapse may be in the cards

According to a NASA-sponsored study, anyhow:

A new study sponsored by Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Center has
highlighted the prospect that global industrial civilisation could
collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation
and increasingly unequal wealth distribution.

Noting that
warnings of ‘collapse’ are often seen to be fringe or controversial, the
study attempts to make sense of compelling historical data showing that
“the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found
throughout history.” Cases of severe civilisational disruption due to
“precipitous collapse – often lasting centuries – have been quite
common.”

By investigating the human-nature dynamics of these past cases of collapse, the project identifies the most salient interrelated factors which explain civilisational decline, and which may help determine the risk of collapse today: namely, Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energy.

These
factors can lead to collapse when they converge to generate two crucial
social features: “the stretching of resources due to the strain placed
on the ecological carrying capacity”; and “the economic stratification
of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or “Commoners”) [poor]” These
social phenomena have played “a central role in the character or in the
process of the collapse,” in all such cases over “the last five thousand
years.”

Well, people can’t say they weren’t amply warned by a broad spectrum of observers. I’ve been saying SOCIETAL collapse is inevitable for years now, but I was hoping that Western civilization might hang on with the turn of the tide against multiculturalism and mass immigration.

The problem is that a decade-long period of depression and ethnic cleansing is increasingly beginning to look like the rosy scenario rather than the worst case one.