Page 2 of 2

Re: CRC Civilization Recovery Center

PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:57 am
by Billy
I know I'm not going to gain any friends making the following comments, but I have to speak my piece. If only to play Devil's Advocate.

Re: the OP.

Not trying to rain on your parade. Your idea has potential. However, think about human nature - during a long-term Crisis, who are most likely to survive? The toughest, the most ruthless, the most intelligent. Saying "crime-free, comfortable and safe communities" is one thing. Implementing it is quite another, given the likely population you will be dealing with. Unless you are willing to go as far as enforcing Peace with the bayonet? That will, in turn, beg the question: How many people will be willing to submit? To trade their freedom for comfort and fleeting "safety"? And there will be peace only so long as people fear Official Blowback more than not...

Re: Our esteemed friend from Germany.

My family is German. My wife born and raised there. Our son, also born there, in Stuttgart. We have deep roots in Germany, and speak/read German around the house.

The refugee problem is a touchy one. I, for one, do not approve of Germany - and greater Europe - admitting so many. If the ultimate goal is allowing them to stay so long as their home of origin is in trouble, with the ultimate goal of going back home, then fine. If the goal is to admit waves of refugees into Europe permanently, then no. I am not without empathy, nor am I without a sense of altruism. But allowing so many into Europe permanently is altruism bordering on suicide. It is, I think, self-defeating. In the effort to stay out of war, the EU is inadvertently setting the stage for a very bloody future war in Europe by admitting millions of 'refugees'...

If Europe has a duty to accept refugees, do not those other nations have a duty to not create them?

I was a soldier. Most of my adult life. I have been to war and studied it. One cannot be in the middle of it and not know it's history. After the Peace of Westphalia, wars were the province of the nation-state, and thus was born 1st Generation warfare. This lasted till the middle of the 19th century, more or less, when 2nd Generation warfare eclipsed it. By the end of 1918, 3rd Generation warfare - also known as "Maneuver Warfare" - had been perfected in theory. By the 1930's, it had been perfected in reality.

All of which brings us to 4th Generation warfare. This is important to us because it represents the nation-state losing their monopoly on declaring and fighting war. Political and religious factions, even individuals, now declare war on their own. Those 'refugees' being admitted to Europe are the seeds of future war being sown, same as the "immigrants" flooding into the US in their millions are the seeds of future war being sown over here. They do not vote for, nor advocate for the systems of government that are found in the West, though they easily could. They don't do it at home. They won't do it here or in Europe. They will only stay "peaceful" so long as they are outnumbered. As their numbers grow, so will the violence escalate.

When I was active duty, I had the chance to review a list. It was a list of literally every country on Earth, the breakdowns of their populations and their current state. A friend of mine says the list was produced by US intelligence, and even though I have no reason to doubt him, I cannot remember myself. It was almost 20 years ago, after all.

The more homogenous a nation was, the more at peace they were. Those near the top of the list - Iceland, Finland, etc, were almost 100% homogenous and were at peace. The greater a percentage of "other" in their population, the less 'at peace' they were. As the percentage of 'other' increased, so did the violence - crimes against people, robberies, etc. Then came riots, demonstrations and street fights. Then came terrorist bombings and covert war. Then open civil war.

The magic number seemed to be 40% "other" in a population. Any nation on Earth that had a population of 40% "other" or greater in its native population was either a totalitarian state ruled by a dictator or tyrant, or was a complete repressive police state, or was engaged in Civil War. There were no exceptions.

The 'refugees' who flood Europe - and the West in general - have no interest in assimilating. Applying our cultural values to those who do not share them will always result in failure. And that failure will result in humanities default setting - war.

Re: CRC Civilization Recovery Center

PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 9:38 am
by Maurice Goldsmith
Hi Billy

I'll just respond to a few of your points, as I should really be working now! However it's a very important subject.

I respect your opinions, and your willingness to give them, even if they might invite disapproval. Unless we face facts as they are we can't start to come up with solutions.

who are most likely to survive? The toughest, the most ruthless, the most intelligent
I guess this will partly depend on what happens and what the situation is like after the catastrophe. In my thinking I'm certainly planning for a period when the "hawks" (to use game theory language) do well, and the weaker of the doves struggle to survive. However I also believe that those who cooperate will do best in the longer term (the win-win). What I'm unable to predict is how long it will take before that happens, and how best to survive until it does without becoming the one with the bayonet.

altruism bordering on suicide
I fear you may be right, much as I would like to believe in altruism. The US has always been held up as a shining example of economic strength built on immigration, but I'm afraid I'm not seeing it here in the UK. Maybe it takes several hundred years. So far the experiment with multiculturalism doesn't look good to me.

One thing the US seems to have got right (looking at it from outside) is setting a certain minimum standard for citizenship (speaking the language, loyalty to the flag, knowledge of the culture). It's happening belatedly here, but having a large population who can't speak the national language has got to be disruptive.

The more homogenous a nation was, the more at peace they were.
The magic number seemed to be 40% "other" in a population.
This is very interesting - is it backed up by reviewed research? It would be good to have some objective evidence to debate for a change.

Applying our cultural values to those who do not share them will always result in failure.
I think this is very true - like trying to impose democracy on people that aren't ready for it / don't want it.

And that failure will result in humanities default setting - war.
My personal goal in this is to understand how to change that default setting. We first have to acknowledge that we humans have a destructive side, and the sheer depth of that destructiveness. Without that acknowledgement atrocities, massacres and holocausts will keep happening. Then we can start to look at how to change it, and it won't be a quick job.


Re: CRC Civilization Recovery Center

PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 12:11 pm
by Billy

Thanks for taking the time to reply - even though you should be working. Heh.. No worries, I have many fingers in little pies that constantly need attention, but blow them off to do something else...

I'm trying to come up with a way to make this sound apolitical and diplomatic. Problem is, I've never been diplomatic. Ever. Always been a "this is the way it is and if you don't like it, then you'll have to learn how to deal with it" type of person. My old commanders either loved me or hated me, depending on if they wanted an honest opinion vs. wanting sycophants and yes-men. Far as I'm concerned, it's my job to point out flaws, problems, possible options or - worst case - when an idea is a horrible one in order to keep my superiors from screwing up royally...

Sigh... okay. Here we go.

Hawks vs. doves, post-catastrophe? The hawks will have a very strong advantage - and that is simply the will do to what the doves won't. That means applying decisive violence where needed and where it will accomplish the most, no matter whom is on the receiving end. The doves main strength, I think, is sheer numbers and the willingness to act as a large group. Which dances on the edge of collectivism (which I despise) so we're just going to avoid that whole bear trap...

Hawks have a heirarchy, same as anywhere else. Thing is, they have strong personalities - often, most are natural Alphas - and when you get a bunch of strong personalities together, there is always conflict as to leadership. There must be some over-arching power to control them - either through respect or fear, or both. If the doves can ever get organized - usually by their own hawk - they stand a good chance. If they don't get organized? Then they're roadkill.

Hate to say it, but in the age of Radical Individualism (excellent saying I heard once: Radical Individualism is the handmaiden of collectivist tyranny), even a dove leader will have to resort to Peace via the bayonet at some point. From what I have seen - and what history bears out - is that only when a population is close to 100% homogenous, are they self-policing. The countries on Earth that still are, they have smallish militaries and genuine Peace Officers policing the citizenry - and often, they are superfluous. There is no need for over-militarized "Law Enforcement" (which, interestingly, has "force" in the name) and bloated standing armies.

The US has always been held up as a shining example of economic strength built on immigration, but I'm afraid I'm not seeing it here in the UK. Maybe it takes several hundred years. So far the experiment with multiculturalism doesn't look good to me.

Multiculturalism - that is, that all cultures are the equal of all other cultures, everywhere and can simultaneously exist in the same place at the same time - is, frankly, a fraud. It is an extension of the fraud of Egalitarianism - the belief that everyone, everywhere has the exact same strengths, weaknesses, intelligence, etc. Trust me, that is as phony as a 3/4 dollar bill.

You simply cannot have people from multiple cultures - some overtly hostile to each other - living in the same space at the same time, sprinkle fairy dust on them and expect Nirvana. The only way "peace" is maintained is if there is a greater power that all sides fear more than their hated rivals. So long as they fear Official Blowback more than a reprisal attack from their rivals, there is an uneasy "peace" - which means you're back to Peace via the bayonet again.

"The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that -- however bloody -- can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave." - Lysander Spooner

The homogenous population avoids the above by removing the majority/minority paradigm entirely.

A word about the US and our immigration. Again, I am trying to to maintain an apolitical position - this is just what has happened in the US historically. That saying it is unpopular (bordering on heresy) isn't my fault nor my problem. What was that about in a time of tyranny, speaking the truth is a revolutionary act?

The US was founded by Enlightenment thinkers - Englishmen. They were white, European and some flavor of Christian. The North was populated by the largely English/puritan types. The South, by the Scots and Irish. The old animosity between those groups literally sowed the seeds of our own war. I do not call it "The Civil War", as the South had no interest in anything the North did - we simply wanted to go our own way. The war began when Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South. Fort Sumpter wasn't the start of the war - I explained that to my son in this way: Imagine you bought a house. Not only do the previous tenants not leave, but they invite all their family and friends over with guns, and they shoot at you when you set foot on your own property. Lincoln had already abandoned all of Texas without firing a shot, so precedent had been set. Fort Sumpter was Southern property, the Federals illegally squatting on it.

But I digress. Back to US immigration.

The successive waves of immigrants to the US were almost 100% European to a man. There were small populations here and there of others - the Chinese allowed to immigrate to work the railroad. Small populations of Jews, etc. But almost all were white, European, and some flavor of Christian. I do not address American blacks since they were not brought here as 'immigrants', nor were there historically any great waves of them 'immigrating' in the conventional sense. If you took a trip somewhere you had never been before, and you saw some guy walking around, you automatically knew several truths about him - he spoke English. He was a European or his parents were Europeans. He was a Christian of some flavor. There were bonds there - a common culture, and if not a common culture, then the foundations for one. It was relatively easy for them to assimilate.

Even so, there were several moratoriums on our immigration where it was suspended entirely for long periods of 20 years or more, to give those who had arrived time to assimilate.

And this continued until the 1965 Immigration Act, which basically rewrote our immigration policy - since no legislation ever stays the same. Someone is always amending it, tweaking it, "fixing" it... if you look at the US crime rate over the last 100 years, it is more or less stable until the middle 1960's. After which, it skyrockets and more or less stays high. There are other factors in play other than just the immigration issue, but permitting - even encouraging - millions of people into this country (and the greater West) who want nothing to do with our culture, have no interest in assimilating and are sometimes openly hostile to us is madness.

Example: Kitty Werthman, back in 1985, infiltrated a "peace march" in Switzerland and cozened up to the genuine Communists - under gentle questioning, they admitted their long-term goals were first to take South American countries like Nicaragua and Honduras. Then move into Mexico. Why did they want Mexico? They didn't. They just needed it for their main goal - that being, to "take back" the American Southwest.

How? That sounds like a revolution. You'd need a virtual army to pull it off.

Their answer: "You Americans are so naïve. Your churches are doing our work for us."

Remember, this was 1985. When asked when this 'invasion' would take place, they said "That depends on who your President is. Probably 2004, but no later than 2008."

I'll let you digest the above before continuing on... it's a very complicated subject, but I find it fascinating (in the same way driving slowly past a very bad car accident is 'fascinating')...

Re: CRC Civilization Recovery Center

PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 9:40 pm
by Maurice Goldsmith
Hi Billy

You obviously have a lot of first hand experience whereas I really only started thinking about apocalypse when I wrote my novel. Just to pick up on one of your points, the need for a hierarchy with a strong leader, I find it really interesting that while writing I came up with the idea of a dominance hierarchy which just demanded to be included - I tried several times to chop it out, but doing so felt like killing the story. Since then I've been exploring the idea, and would agree with you that a hierarchically based community with a decisive leader would be the best format for survival.

For me the difficulty is how to live with a foot in both camps - making a living in the pre-apoc world while preparing for what comes next. I agree with what you've written in another post, that the catastrophe when it comes could happen very fast, so we need to be ready for it, and the degree of preparation will to a large extent determine the difference between being a survivor or a victim. At the same time you can't go round "applying decisive violence" in the pre-apoc world without getting into big trouble. My day job as a therapist is about as dove-like as it gets (all too often sorting out the mayhem left behind by the alpha males/females in management). When I try to share my ideas about a community based on a dominance hierarchy they often don't go down too well, let alone trying to assemble and train a group of followers.

I might be naive but I'd like to believe that the warlord model isn't the only option - that it's possible to have a hierarchy with a dominant but benevolent leader who manages by consent, because the followers buy in to the leader's vision. It's certainly something I'd like to try, as the problem I see with the rule by bayonet idea is that once times get better and the danger abates the followers are not going to stick around.


Re: CRC Civilization Recovery Center

PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:59 pm
by Billy

What I have seen is that there are a couple basic models.

When times are relatively good - excluding exceptional circumstances, such as the American Revolution - the concept of "rule by consent of the governed" seems to be the preferred model in the West. In the East, depending on which bunch you're talking about, it could be a Theocracy run by a bunch of religious leaders - an Oligarchy. Others have a King, Emperor, Grand High Poo-bah, etc. Sometimes with a constitution and/or some type of a Senate, Congress or House that represents others (have to keep the powerful people happy and represented... otherwise, you won't be King for too long). Others have a literal Dictator that is perpetually "elected" via sham "elections"...

When things go South - meaning Bad Things happen - and there is a crisis, most of the time people instinctively look to a strong leader to take control and fix the problem. If the leader they have when the Crisis hits is not strong and decisive and does not make sound decisions, then he's gone - replaced by someone who will make those sound decisions. It is important to note that the people look to the strong leader, not the leader grabbing power and assuming the role of dictator. So long as it is voluntary, people are okay with one guy making all the decisions. When President Sumdood pre-emptivly assumes the role of dictator, there's blowback.

I know, it doesn't make sense on it's face. There's probably some kind of social pathology involved there, but I'm not adept enough to know what that is. I know it when I see it, though. Here at home, decisions are made by both myself and my wife working together. Power is shared. Our son does get some say in the matter, as he is part of this family as well. But when a Crisis hits - like when our basement flooded or the roof blew off the barn - everything literally stopped and everyone looked to me to manage the Crisis and lead. Which to me was a bit confusing - how can this family be run by consensus and the sharing of power, but when things go wonky, all of a sudden I'm in charge? Don't misread that to say I don't want to be in charge - just illustrating the inconsistency... Perhaps it goes to something instinctual - that when people are afraid, they look to one strong leader because it's comforting. Literally "Things will be fine, because President Sumdood will take care of us"...

I think it's important to understand this dynamic because in a post-apoc world, that's very much the definition of a long-term Crisis, people are already going to be scared, hungry, lost... it will be very easy for a person to set themselves up as Dictator for Life and abuse the instinct people have to look to the one leader... the "Benevolent Dictator" model? That's the best descriptor I could think of. But it would be very easy to go from Benevolent to Malevolent. Lord Acton was right.

Re: CRC Civilization Recovery Center: collaboration

PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:47 pm
by tahanson43206
This is primarily for Billy ...

Feedback from others in the membership of this forum is welcome.

Maurice Goldsmith tells me he has completed transmission of private email to all previous posters.

This was done in batches of five, due to limitations of the Knowledge Forum software.

As a reminder to everyone contacted, please DO NOT reply to Maurice privately. He was kind enough to take on the outreach task, but cannot reply to everyone in the group.

Instead, each of you has a group of four others who were included in the mailing that reached you. Please contact the other four people, to see if there is anything they would like to achieve from the forum. This is an opportunity to provide guidance for Dr. Dartnell, who (after all) is the Benevolent Dictator of the Knowledge Forum.

Each of us was accepted as a member with the implicit understanding we would contribute to the growth and success of the forum.

This is an INTERNATIONAL forum. It is BY DEFINITION 100% composed of "other"

I am interested in stimulating creative activity here, including creation of new industries based upon local manufacture.

The loom project you (Billy) have offered to advance is a particularly attractive project for a global group.

The technology is accessible, in the sense that it was only 100 years ago (give or take) that it was widely practiced, and people are STILL hand weaving in India and other nations.

It is highly desirable to attract to this forum people who are creative, highly educated, energetic and willing to tackle hard problems, such as creating machinery that can create a high quality shirt or other garment in a home manufacturing device.

I'm NOT talking about a Star Trek replicator. That will happen, but (probably) not for a good 10 years, and perhaps longer.

What we CAN DO today, in 2015, is to work out (and to share with each other) design and assembly of an adaptation of existing 3D Printing technology to "weave" a square of plastic fabric.

This would be a demonstration of principle.

In a related investigation, we can (and should) develop nanotechnology to simulate the thread producing activity of the silkworm larvae, so that multiple threads can be extruded simultaneously in whatever diameter and color is called for by the customer.

This is a GLOBAL forum, with a scientist founder.

Let us take advantage of the opportunity we have at hand to improve our own situations, and if possible, the situations of the "other"


Re: CRC Civilization Recovery Center

PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 4:02 pm
by Billy

You're a hard one to read.

Going to send a PM, to clarify some things.


Re: CRC Civilization Recovery Center: Local Skills

PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:48 pm
by tahanson43206
It is time to bring this topic back to the active display.

A documentary about Edward O. Wilson ran on a local station recently. Wilson's thesis that humans share eusociality with ants, bees and a very small number of other insect species rang true for me.

It supports my belief that the key for success of the-knowledge forum is NOT limited to benefits to individuals, but includes benefits to teams of individuals who together build up a set of skills and knowledge and material assets needed to sustain the community in case of disaster.

When this topic was first launched, I was thinking primarily about displaced peoples. However, the value of building up a CRC is most easily realized in stable communities that are NOT yet disrupted by disaster.

Extending this idea a bit, every person who is accepted as a member of this forum has the potential to become the starting person around whom an entire community can eventually assemble.

As examples:

1) Seed banks can be started by each member, and contents documented at an online location to be determined
2) Milk providers who are near to a member can be enlisted to participate in knowledge preservation
3) Radio communications can be established and exercised regularly, through affiliation with the Amateur Radio Relay League
4) Defense skills and equipment can be developed and exercised through appropriate affiliations