Why I rarely discuss climate change

I rarely discuss climate change, because I consider the entire thing to be a kind of slop subject, an Internet fixation for online nerds, and possibly one of the worst of them (worse than even the JOOS). 

Nothing good can come from bringing it up, because the worst Internet people come crawling out of the woodwork-- whiny hysterical weirdos with a doom fetish and an addiction to puritanical lecturing and scolding: they view you as an embodiment of the people that never invited them to any parties in high school and college, and they view the subject as an opportunity for revenge, finally. 

The sensible thing, therefore, is to avoid it altogether and never get into any debates on it.  

Whether they consciously intend it or not (probably not since they don't seem very smart, more spergy than anything else) the climate people often seem to function as a kind of controlled opposition to the dominant neoliberal agenda of endless growth. 

It's revealing that they don't focus their energy on practical changes, and building a coalition of allies to bring down the entire framework of the last 50 years, but instead fixate on fighting the people on their side (who may be disaffected with endless growth, but who do not want austerity either). 

They're ultimately entirely concerned with tone-policing, witch-hunting, scolding, mocking, and lecturing and they try to turn every engagement into a debate where they make fun of you, rather than build engagement, cement any connections, or whatever-- it's all just whiny tattletale, power-tripping, and bootlicking behavior. 

It's the self-appointed (and probably unpaid) hall monitors of the global elite, using the current crisis of the system as an opportunity to indulge in their revenge-of-the-nerds type fantasies.

Many of these people envision the collapse in a karmic sense. They have an endless amount of cynicism for the future of the system, but they suspend all of that when it comes to the future that will take place after The Fall: everything will be wonderful, the wicked will be punished (everybody who hated me IRL, ie most people) and the virtuous will be rewarded (me and the other annoying nerds). 

Ironically enough, the actual collapse of law, order, authority, etc ultimately always results in a ruthless struggle for power and resources between competing factions (Syria, Latin America, etc)-- in which case it's precisely the power-tripping skinnyfat nerds who would be forcibly RETVRN'd to their natural environment (the high school lockers): they're not physically skilled enough to know how to do anything practical, they're too clever-silly / smart-dumb to be trusted with anything complex, and even if they somehow had any skills their whiny, self-focused, and anti-social personalities ensure that they can only thrive as bootlickers in a massive top-down system, whereas any real-world team would immediately ostracize them.

Getting back to the real-world, though, this continuous purge of the left ensures that the average voter is presented with two alternatives: delusional huckster growth by globalist scammers nobody trusts or, on the other hand, privation 'for your own good' administered by the beneficent globalist elites, who happen not to practice a single aspect of their ideology (private planes, mansions, and caviar for me; public transportation, overcrowded apartments, and slop for you!). As I said, it obstructs change while LARPing as radicalism.

The climate people also love to cry and rage and whine about the evil knevil WHITE MAN and his domination of the world, desire to rape Mother Nature (don't ask about their weird fetishes), and so on and so forth-- just endless lamentations-- but then of course they say nothing about the tremendous rise in emissions from 3rd-world countries that's taken place since the 80s, and is still going strong in the 21st century, thanks to off-shoring during the neoliberal era.

The system they have in mind is one where the average worker in some shithole post-industrial service economy in Britain or France or wherever will have his entire routine micro-analyzed and carefully scrutinized by overpaid bureaucrats with useless college degrees-- is this food good for the environment? what about eating chemicals instead? could you give up this? what about not having a car?-- while China, India, and Vietnam (and the global corporations that have off-shored production there) operate massive sweatshops which dump endless tons of garbage into the environment, with zero regulations over anything, and nobody does or even says anything about it (let alone the brave climate warriors). 

Somehow they inhabit a fantastic world where the continent of Europe showing lower emissions, and the continent of Asia having higher emissions, is just a random accident-- as if they weren't DIRECTLY LINKED TO EACH OTHER-- nah just a total coincidence, nothing to see here, but make sure to throw your trash into one of sixteen different bins (while we off-shore your job to some sweatshop) and pay this new tax we're going to introduce (now that American manufacturing in Vietnam is destroying the environment).

Then they accuse their opponents of being anti-science and having low IQs.

It's really the ultimate product of neoliberal delusion, a fake & gay ideology built on a hallucination-- it's somehow self-contradicting, deeply retarded, socially alienating, and impossible to bring about, and all of those AT THE SAME TIME too! 

What do Americans eat?

I've decided to do a mini-series on what Americans actually eat. 

We'll start off by reviewing what the experts say is the key to a healthy diet:

This is the infamous food pyramid, the basis for all the standard advice you hear from nOOtRiTIOn eXpERts-- red meat and animal fats, bad; vegetables, grains, and fruits, good.

If the advice is correct, a population eating more of the good foods (and less of the bad ones) should have become vastly more healthy- we can put that to a simple test. 

The Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has a database which covers the the food supply of various agricultural commodities from 1961-2013.

https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBSH

(They also have a newer database covering 2010 onward, using updated methods, but I didn't use it. I figured 1961-2013 should be enough.)

The number I looked at is the food supply quantity (kg / capita / year): the total supply in kg of the particular food, divided by the population that year. That way it doesn't just reflect the fact that there are more people in America compared to the 1960s. 

This is the supply / availability, not consumption, so there are going to be losses as a result of spoilage, shrinkage while cooking, etc-- these aren't perfect numbers.

But they're not going to produce more of what doesn't sell, so I think it's pretty useful as a measure of what Americans eat.

Starting with the foods at the bottom of the pyramid: 

 

All these wonderful healthy amazing foods have seen BIG increases since ~ 1970 or 1980, in line with the experts' recommendations.

Now dairy and animal products:

 ('Milk' includes cheese, yogurt, and ice cream, while excluding butter.)

Dairy and egg consumption have stayed the same, while consumption of animal fats is down. I'd be interested in comparing whole vs skim / low-fat, but that wasn't available.

Meanwhile:

 

Nothing wrong with more of those foods!

Finally, the meat section of the food pyramid: 

Beef consumption has fallen off, while pork has fluctuated but mainly stayed the same-- Americans are eating *less* red meat today than they were in the 60s and 70s. 

What about poultry and fish?

Poultry consumption has gone up massively, and fish is higher too. While experts are mainly in the vegan / vegetarian camp, these are the types of meat they tolerate.

Comparing beef and poultry:

Americans have been substituting poultry for beef since the 1990s.

So what about all the wonderful health gains?

Well:

This is the rate of increase in life expectancy, compared to peer countries-- it has been declining in the U.S since 1982. By 2010 it was at only 0.03 years.

This is the height of different birth cohorts. Again, we find a general decline following the 80s-- and not just reflecting more and more Hispanics: white Americans are shorter today than they used to be.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352827325001260

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db360.html

We've also gotten WAY more obese-- and this only looks at the early 2000s, not even the 60s or 70s. Family photos, movies / TV shows, etc of the 60s and 70s barely show any obese or overweight people--today it's become the norm.

This entire post gotten quite long already from all the charts, so I'm not going to add a text-wall-- what I'll do instead is post my analysis and observations in the follow-up / part 2-.

Trying to sum things up, however, we've followed the experts' recommendations: more vegetables and fruits and grains than ever before, lean proteins over red meat and especially beef, vegetable oils over animal fats, etc. 

And yet with all of these healthy foods making up more and more of the diet, we're not healthier than we used to be (as you would predict): the population is shorter and sicker, and the growth in our life expectancy has slowed down.

Simple conclusion? The advice does not make sense!

Kill All Normies

As part of my stated goal to try and write in a more serious academic tone, I read Angela Nagle's appropriately-titled book 'Kill All Normies' recently-- it's a very brief read, not much more than 100 pages, but a very interesting book. I highly recommend it.

She does a much better job of explaining some of the ideas I've been obsessing / seething about recently, which is why you should read her. Her subject is comparing the Tumblr identity politics left of the 2010s with the 4Chan alt-right of the same period, who both highly resemble each other.

There are many aspects of these alternate sub-cultures worth discussing, but the most interesting or salient to me is the endless smug hostility they have for the mainstream of their societies and, as I said in a previous post, the 'normies' and normality in general. It's almost like a slur for them, and in fact they treat being a normie like a kind of sin (which it is, in a sense, for people who make deviance central to their identities).

A point I made earlier is that what they all have in common, setting aside tribalism and appearances, is their shared rejection by society: they are the weirdos, misfits, pariahs, anti-social types, deviants, etc, essentially the embodiment of everything you do not want to be in life.

They Internet offers them an opportunity to bond over that common feeling of alienation and outsiderness. One of the ways they do that is by trying to shock and offend as much as possible, not in order to reveal some truth or expose hypocrisy, but purely for the sake of being as offensive and tasteless as possible, which is a kind of driving motivation for them: ugliness for its own sake.

There's a narcissistic and self-worshiping 'victim-aggressor' complex running throughout both of these cultures too (I'm not sure of a better term for it, and if I had one I would use it): the more they portray themselves as the ultimate pathetic unjust victims, the easier it is for them to lash out and get revenge in increasingly sadistic ways.

They both do this: the alt-righters make being a 'beta' a central part of their identity (distinct from the dominant jocks and alphas and whatnot), while the leftists blame toxic masculinity / patriarchy / whiteness / ableism and add more and more new categories of oppression.

Ironically enough, or rather naturally enough, this climate of endless victimhood resulted in a decade of endless school shootings and assassinations, the BLM / ANTIFA riots (all going after random bystanders, in some cases literal teenagers), witch-hunts and cancellations, unhinged violence in general, and all kinds of other cruel and sadistic behaviors. 

It never took the form of a collective and organized confrontation with anyone or anything, in the service of a larger goal, the way a team would do things-- but rather it was simply indulging in revenge fantasies and blood lust, lashing out at random, and being so desperate and pathetic that you pick on innocent people in order to get your fix: psychologically closer to a serial killer (and in fact many of them openly worship these types, again on both the Tumblr and the 4Chan side).

A natural comparison, which Nagle makes, is to the New Left of the violent 1960s and 70s: rebels against sOcIEty and 'the man', disdainful of and superior to the social order and the entire concept of society, dirty and disheveled and disgusting in appearance, into strange substances / drugs as well as bizarre sexual fetishes, against the entire concept of monogamy, self-indulgent and self-obsessed, and so on and so forth.

The central goal wasn't creating a new society through collective action (like the revolutionary communists) or protecting the working classes from exploitation (like the labor unions and democratic socialists), but instead destroying the entire natural order, in order to create a brave new world that would allow for as much insane anti-social behavior as possible: in other words, the opposite of collectivism, solidarity, teamwork, the common good-- nihilistic, individualistic, and degenerate.

As far as I can tell, both sides of the current Millennial culture war also have that fundamental hostility to society. Every aspect of normal existence (eating meat, monogamy, belonging, traditions and nostalgia and cultural inheritance, and so on and so forth) is problematic.

The propaganda or rationale may be different depending on the group, but the fundamental goal is waging a war to destroy society, on behalf of weirdos and deviants: it's a shame we don't have actual communists and fascists around, to execute these people.

Intro post: diets and veganism

I'm planning on returning to the highly controversial topic of diets. This brief intro post is just to start things off and say a few things that have been on my mind, mainly about the nature of veganism.

Whenever you mention the subject, it usually devolves into some kind of furious seething online debate, because the vegans bring an insane level of hostility (it's also like this with drug legalization, which I'm going to cover in future posts, and the two cults seem to overlap). I'm going to try to refrain from posting any schizo slop, though, and just try and look at things in a more neutral way.

I also want to make it clear that I'm posting and writing for the normies, bystanders, lurkers, and others who are neutral on this subject-- there's no actual point in trying to get through to vegans, and (even if I'm crazy in other ways) I'm not delusional enough to think that "arguments" and "reasons" etc will make them change their minds. 

You can try to help people that are mentally ill, but often times the best you can do is simply give them a cautious warning-- which they'll just dismiss, maybe even snicker at you for good measure, while doubling down on their insane bullshit-- and it's only after they've suffered the natural and foreseeable consequences, that you can offer them advice.

Like libertarian economics, veganism seems to be of those things that fails just about every single time it is attempted. However according to them it's not veganism that's the problem, but rather it's reality that is wrong (for not proving them to be correct).

Having known a handful of vegans IRL, and observed many more on the Internet, the way it always seems to go is something like this: 

-First, they see benefits early on, which they attribute to the plants and vegetables, but are likely the result of abandoning the ultra-processed slop that's in most foods these days.

-Then they reach a point of stagnation or diminishing returns, as the nutritional deficits start to accumulate and they start to receive more and more negative signals from their bodies. They may not be aware of it, but basically what they're attempting is a kind of prolonged starvation / fasting, it's a form of torture.

-Finally, they go into free-fall and just start getting worse and worse in every respect, at which point they either make the sensible decision to return to eating meat and dairy and animal products, or they suffer some kind of mental or physical breakdown.

How long the middle stage lasts seems to come down to how skilled they are at managing, rationalizing, and compartmentalizing the barrage of negative symptoms their body is sending them as a punishment / warning for pushing it in an anti-natural direction. 

Instead of implementing a change, they spend the entire time hyper-focusing and micro-managing and suppressing all the negative symptoms and problems associated with their diet-- but since nothing has been actually solved, the "cured" symptoms come back even harder, or new ones appear, and it becomes a futile game, an endless treadmill of non-solutions, until they hit their breaking point.

The underlying reason for this-- setting aside the sheer arrogance and stupidity of persisting with methods that DO NOT WORK-- is simply because we are not meant to get our nutrition from plants: all vegan diets are doomed in the long run.

Things like vitamin B12, vitamin A / retinol (carrots only have a precursor to it), creatine, heme iron, Omega-3s, and others are just not available from plants, while being crucial for human health.

But even the vitamins and minerals that *are* available from plants are harder for our bodies to absorb, since they are not as bio-available compared to animal products, which means you may wind up deficient even if you're meeting your needs "on paper".

Plants also contain anti-nutrients, which prevent you from absorbing nutrients and minerals. There are ways to get around this of course, but there are no such anti-nutrients in meat or animal products.

These glaring limitations make their diet impossible and unsustainable, and so long-term vegans are forced to become what I'd call hardcore / extreme supplementarians, which means they keep themselves going by taking a trillion pills and supplements a day-- it's essentially the Big Pharma diet, and the plants are there as a decoration.

This reverses the natural process of eating: instead of consuming a nutrient-dense food, and then letting the body's digestive system extract what it needs (with minimal artificial intervention), you eat food that is nutritionally empty or anti-nutritious, and then proceed to supplement every single thing missing on a case-by-case, individual, basis.

The problem with this is that nothing is as simple as a 1-to-1 substitute in a complex system like the human body, which means the work needed to sustain this in the long run is incredibly difficult-- you may not be consuming the right amount compared to what you would find in nature (either too much or too little, both can be harmful), some vitamins are fat-soluble and will not be absorbed otherwise, you need to adjust for bio-availability (which in many cases means taking pills made from animal products, defeating the entire point), and finally it's questionable whether certain pills and supplements are legitimate and effective, depending on what it is you need-- and so most vegans just wind up deficient and unhealthy. 

Veganism is ultimately the quintessential techno-slop diet, where a simple effective process is replaced with an insanely complex ineffective one, for no reason and for no benefit.

Future posts will look at the origins of veganism / vegetarianism (the rise of agriculture and its effects on human health, not controversial but still worth writing about). I'll also provide go into details on the various nutritional problems, with studies and data, as well as look into changes in the American diet over time.

Brief note on Venezuela

The effort-posts which I promised in the comments section to the previous post, are still in production / on the assembly line. Hopefully they'll be out in a week or two. In the meantime, I did want to post a brief comment on the ongoing situation in Venezuela:

We're still living on the fakest (and gayest) of all timelines-- everything is a sensational LARP, a lame reboot, or a simulation of what used to be real, and that includes politics / news by now.

In a previous post, I said that it was becoming clear that the Pentagon no longer had the manpower or industrial base to sustain a prolonged war, and that includes waging an all-out invasion of Venezuela or Iran in order to steal their oil. It's not WW2 or the Vietnam War, even if the goals are still largely the same.

This explains why they are so desperate to find proxies to do the dirty work for them, and why their only real option when there are none available is to pull off these spectacular night-ops shadow raid delta force badass tactical elite HD amazing footage fuck around find out-type actions, of the kind we all know and love.

The problem is that the vast majority of these 'amazing successes' are tremendous long-term losses, which are only there in order for fanboys to avoid reality, really closer to Tumblr fantasies than to actual strategic or long-term planning. It just boils down to openly committing war crimes, and being so desperate and impotent that you try to frame that as a win, while going nowhere.

American elites have successfully self-brainwashed themselves, so they don't realize that Maduro is not some kind of Evil Demon single-handedly running the entire nation, economy, foreign policy, etc of Venezuela, but rather just an individual figurehead for a broader political regime-- and one that, as the long history of failed 'regime change' shows, is really quite popular within Venezuela. 

It may be a shocking insight, but there isn't a 'silent majority' there yearning to have their entire nation looted by global corporations and bombed back to the Stone Age, regardless of what a handful of greedy shills say, which is why removing Maduro won't change anything.

The entire thing is similar to the assassination of Nasrallah in Lebanon, where they are still waiting for a similar group of Lebanese to rise up and disarm Hezbollah-- as if killing 80K+ civilians in Palestine, while committing terrorism in Lebanon, will suddenly have the effect of making the people there yearn to experience the same 'high IQ Judeo-Christian' rule in their own country.

The only thing that's different in Venezuela is what has *actually* changed--  namely that their previous leader got kidnapped, so now the vice-president is in charge (naturally). The entire government is the same, the nation is the same, the regime is still the same, and the resources are in the hands of the same people, who will be pursuing the same goals, and possibly with more determination now that it's clear that they're dealing with criminals. 

Just a totally useless and fake action.

This type of slop (as I have said before, but just to reiterate) is really a new type of porn addiction for Millennial right-wing NEETs (99% of Twitter). They have some kind of fetish that revolves around brown people, which is really a kind of inversion of the liberal do-gooder obsession with helping as many 3rd world people as possible: they need to regularly masturbate to footage of them getting killed or blown up or arrested / deported, in order to feel powerful and relevant. 

It has nothing to do with being conservative, since they don't GAF about preserving or conserving any aspect of America or American culture and would laugh at you if you suggested it, it's just that watching other people suffer makes them feel good-- and so when the Pentagon films itself committing war crimes in Yemen or Iraq or Lebanon or now Venezuela, it's like crack cocaine for them. 

There's no other explanation for this stuff, other than it being a disturbing and disgusting new form of high-tech nihilistic alienation and addiction. The fact that it's become the mainstream and go-to for the propaganda state is just because Boomers are no longer the target audience for political slop. 

This fetishistic addictive attitude also explains why there is zero focus on results within the entire GOP / right-wing propaganda bloc. You never hear-- 'how many factories came back this month?' or 'how much is the budget being cut by?' or 'how are we doing on inflation?' or really anything that would imply a long-term focus on results. 

When the base of the GOP is a 'united front' of miserable incels (of all demographics and age groups) all they do is just avoid reality as hard as possible, and so the entire thing devolves into a constant stream of unhinged and suicidal behavior, which they treat as a win. 

I'm trying to avoid discussing this stuff going forward, but it is difficult to ignore such a massive betrayal and selling out of their own voters and supporters-- not only are they not punishing Democrats at all, their entire focus has become humiliating the people who were responsible for putting them in office.