I have not posted too much at here in the last few years but I will be posting more often.
Some people did not like this message. Guess I opened their secret a bit.
Anyways, I am gonna copy it to here.
Somebody in Gail Tverberg’s blog mentioned “A High Wind in Jamaica”, a 1929 book which fell into the memory hole because it was very politically incorrect.
Tl, dr, a bunch of children of plantation owners (huge landowners with lots of ‘indentured workers) are shipped to England for study. Their ship is taken by a down-of-luck pirate ship whose captain tries to treat them as well as he could.
Long story short, the children participate in violence, murder and orgy in the ship, but after they are rescued they accuse the pirates who were caught. All of them are hanged , and the oldest one, who personally stabbed a captain (but blamed it to her sister who becomes insane), ends the book, playing with a bunch of other upper- and upper-middle class kids as if nothing happened.
The children were all able to block the naughty deeds they had done in the ship by selective memory. They suffer no PTSD, guilt or regret about the fate of the pirates which they led to their deaths.
That book’s author Richard Hughes’ mother, who grew up in Jamaica, probably supplied the gist of the story, which might have been that of herself, or at least someone she knew firsthand. In other words it was probably not entirely fiction, although he made no mention of its reality for rest of his life.
Such kind of behavior is quite common upon the upper and upper middle class, who take others’ sacrifice for granted, and they tend to feel nothing about those who are under them.
They are also pretty good adapting to new environments, like some Russian nobles I mentioned in my post about Gagarin, and lie low until their time comes. When that comes they do not feel anything about those who helped them when they were down, and tend to eliminate them to eradicate any memories of their bad days.
Also, upper class officers tend to suffer little PTSD. Other than Freud not too many psychiatrists are likely to publish their posh clients’ psychohistory, since their clients will know whom they are talking about, but in general the upper class tends to forget their bad histories quite easily, and are also quite good justifying them.
I have dealt with some lower members of the rich myself and although they are a bit less shameless than their higher-ups, I saw such tendency among them.
In the history of the world only Soviet Union was able to largely eliminate the old upper class, and that was because Stalin was even more heartless, shameless and free of guilt than the former nobles. Stalin was one of a kind, the only person the violent Caucasian tribes could not f’k with. (Compared to him Putin is a pushover.)
In almost all other cases, like England during Charles II, France after 1815 or Eastern Europe after 1991 the old order quickly took over, and the feudal lords quickly restored the old balance of power. Only in Russia, where a lot of the upper class had been killed and the remainder mostly reduced to marginal status with very little memory of their ancestors, the old order has not returned, having been replaced by the order of Oligarchs.
The upper class tends to be good at manipulation at convincing less privileged people to help them, and also good at discarding them without impunity. That’s how they are, and that’s how they will survive collapse- they had done it many times before.
This is a repost of one of my past piece elsewhere, but it is worth reading.
Depopulation might be needed to make the overload on civilization lighter. It is nasty, it is not pleasant but if it has to be done it has to be done.
I found these two quotes from this blog.
Bloix 12.14.12 at 11:09 pm
The Corn Laws were enacted in 1815 to keep continental grain out of the [islands of Great Britain and Ireland]. By cutting off England from the continent, the Napoleonic Wars had turned Ireland into a breadbasket for the rapidly growing English cities. The Corn Laws — passed primarily to aid English farmers — maintained the Irish competitive edge and encouraged Irish landlords to commit their fields to wheat for export. By the 1840’s, 75% of Irish arable land was devoted to cash crops for England.
Over the same period, the Irish population grew at a rate much faster than that of England or of Europe generally. In 1750, the population of Ireland was about 3 million. In 1840, it was about 8 million – the highest it has ever been. They were almost entirely rural poor, and because Ireland was not industrializing, there was no work for them. Being Catholics, they had few legal rights.
There was no work for these new millions. Instead, they lived in “cabins” almost outside the money economy, on scraps of waste land rented from landlords under the conacre system – annual rental without the legal rights or social expectations of tenancy. They paid rent in kind or in labor. Many of them lived far from towns and manor houses, in distant villages in the south and southwest, isolated from the organized middle class and aristocratic life of the country. They lived on potatoes and cabbages, with the occasional cup of buttermilk or bit of bacon.
Wheat is grown in large fields, requires animals and teams of manpower for seeding, plowing and harvest, is stored in covered buildings safe from water and rats, and must be ground into flour by a miller. All these things require an organized society in which the various participants, both rural and townsfolk, are linked by economic necessity. If the system of growing and distributing wheat is disrupted, many people at all levels of society suffer.
By contrast, potatoes were grown in unplowed “lazy beds,” hand tilled and harvested, left in the ground until wanted for food, and dug up and eaten without processing. A family could raise potatoes and cabbages for a generation, and trade them for the occasional tool or piece of cloth, without ever entering into any money transactions or forming any long-term economic ties with anyone. They did not deal with people outside their small communities. They were mostly illiterate, and most spoke no English. They had large families, each generation crowding onto the patches of waste land they could afford from their landlords.
When the potato blight hit their crops, these people were utterly defenseless. They had no legal rights to speak of; no rights to their lands; no money savings; no skills; no relationships with anyone in a position to help them. No one needed their labor; no one outside their communities knew them personally. The landlords were happy to see them go, as they could then improve the land for the ever more profitable wheat, cattle, and sheep.
As hundreds of thousands swarmed onto the paths and roads, looking first for work, then for food, and then for a place to lie down and die, they appeared completely alien and even frightening to the townsfolk and the landowners – different in speech, religion, customs, and physical appearance, like foreign intruders in their own country. Many hundreds of thousands more never left their villages, dying out of sight in their hovels and under their hedges.
It was a famine that didn’t matter to anyone who had the power to stop it. If anything, the deaths of two million and the emigration of a million more was a positive benefit to the English and to the Anglo-Irish who ruled the country.
Shay Begorrah 12.17.12 at 1:44 pm
While the “genocide” label for the great famine seems excessive (it was more “put the brutes on a diet” than exterminate them) the unpleasant demographic problem of Catholic Ireland was neatly and fortuitously dealt with, and partially thanks to the merits of the free market. Today the population of the UK excluding Northern Ireland is about ten times that of the island of Ireland, in 1841 it was only twice the population of its troublesome western neighbour.
To be more exact in 1841 the population of England, Scotland and Wales came to about 18.5 million while Ireland’s was 8.1 million. An annoyingly large proportion of these 8.1 million were not just illiterate savages but illiterate Catholic savages of questionable loyalty. The famine led to an astonishingly long period of population shrinkage in Ireland as these ne’er believe wells first died and then emigrated. In fact Ireland’s population only stopped decreasing in around 1967, 115 years after the end of the famine.
Quite an advertisement for the benefits of laissez faire and the policy prescriptions of The Economist.
In the standpoint of civilization, and in a Benthamian Utilitarian perspective, the famine was good since it lifted a large burden from Britain, cleared more land for the more successful, and eliminated a large potential threat of uneducated and potentially disloyal population.
People like Gail Tverberg think that a reduction of population can’t be sustained, and it will bring down Civilization with it.
Right now, 89% of the world’s wealth is held by the more advanced nations including China’s four wealthiest coastal provinces (which hold more than half of all of China’s wealth), and the rest of world, numbering perhaps 6 billion, own the remaining 11%.
In other words, even if the rest of the world disappears tomorrow, it will only hurt about 11% of the world economy.
A dieoff will affect the weaker, the less informed, the less skilled first. The stronger, the better informed, and the more skilled will still have some kind of place.
The powers that be have no reason to stop the dieoff when it means there will be less troublemakers and less complexities.
It is the dieoff of more capable members of civilization, like the Cambodian genocide of more intelligent people, which hurt Civilization.
The billions will die out of sight, out of mind of the people who do matter. And their few properties will be claimed by those who are stronger, and economic growth will occur from it.
It is necessary to change our paradigm.
Not all lives are sacred.
Triage and prioritizing is needed.
Right now, too much resources were wasted to bring civilization to the Third World.
What is that? For what avail?
It would have been better if nothing other than enough facilities to ship out material were built there.
Instead, billions of people want to have the ‘good life’, and quite a lot of them moved to the advanced world to plague it.
We will have to think about whether it is worthwhile to continue to feed them since they are not useful for anything.
Today’s world is such that only the smartest have a shot of making a living; average is over.
Most of the Third World, whether you like or not, are too stupid to survive the cutthroat world of capitalism.
It is the best to let nature take its course.
If mankind has to part with 7 billion and match the number with what is written at the Georgia Guidestones to maintain the current civilization, it will have to be done.
It is nasty. It is thankless. Whoever doing this will probably be vilified by ungrateful descendants.
However it has to be done.
Nothing is more important than civilization and everything mankind gained in the last 300 years.
Not too many people are likely to contribute to human civilization.
It is very important to identify who will be most likely to contribute to human civilization, with the stars as the final destination.
Humans are within a generation from achieving a technological breakthrough which will be even bigger than , say, printing.
However it could all disappear like morning dew.
Yes it is in a crunch time, not seen since 1527, when the Turks surrounded Vienna to conquer all of Europe. No one remembers the name of Nicholas von Salm, who saved Vienna and Western Civilization.
I am sorry. Quite a lot of us do not contribute anything to human civilization – they will have no place.
It is just wishful thinking of the poor and the disenfranchised that the rich and powerful will suffer like everyone else.
Now technology has developed to such level that the rich and powerful can hide from the hordes of hungry masses, who will never find where they have hid before dropping dead like flies.
Robots can do the agriculture for them. No need to hire workers who might be inclined to kill their massas.
Solar power and possibly atomic batteries can keep their compounds’ power supply alive forever, for all practical purposes.
The max which could be kept in that way might be around 12 in today’s tech ; but the 12 won’t be in location. It will be in many locations which the poor and the less powerful cannot even imagine.
It might be another Noah’s Ark, which will be defended by a bunch of nuke-powered subs.
Civilization will reach a higher status, but without those who were not lucky to join the ranks of the truly worthy.
No amount of ‘moderation’ can hide the truth.
People have to see a spade as a spade.
Sweet-talking and changing the focus won’t cut it.
It is getting clear that the richest, most smart and most advanced top 1% – 5% of humanity wants a clean, permanent break from the rest of population, once for all.
Consumer economy is only a small portion of the general economy, which is mostly B2B nowdays. Companies will consume – individual consumption only takes a tiny portion of the total consumption.
So, if 50%, or even 90% of the world’s population disappears, economy will get just 1% – 2% worth of blip.
The world is turning into a crossroad which won’t be pretty for the less wealthy, less talented and less smart. And the worthy do have the power to suppress all resistance.
The future will be full of surveillance. Modern North Korea will be seen as a very liberal country in the future.
The top 1% or so will reach Type I Civilization and will start the space conquest. The rest will live in a condition which will envy what the residents of Elysium’s Earth had.
But that was how the humanity lived for most of its existence so it is just returning back to square one.