The global population in 1800 was about one billion people. Today it stands at over seven times that amount, with the rapidly growing populations of India and Africa expected to increase that to at least nine billion over the coming years. Readers today are well used to the idea that the “global south” is densely populated relative to its economic size and area, but this was not always the case. Prior to the collapse of Empire, Europe, having undergone thorough industrialization, was the most densely populated continent in the world.
Source: “The World at Six Billion”, United Nations, 1999.1950-2100 – UN, Dept. of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2011)
Europe was also where the world’s social justice movements—liberalism, communism and feminism—began, overthrowing the old order of kings, castes and courtship with the vulgar and degenerate world we suffer today. But why did this happen? Why did the immense increase of wealth and prosperity not correspond to an increase of human happiness, but instead lead to the emasculation of men, the breakdown of the family, and the disappearance of religion and morality?
In these series of articles, I examine the root causes of this paradox, what one can do about it on an individual dietary level, and what one can do about it on an individual environmental level. I am a strong believer in social change through individual growth, and, having experienced a dramatic turnaround in the quality of my own personality and success of my outcomes as a result of following these strategies, I hope that others can benefit from my knowledge, and similarly make themselves into solid Men.
Popular mainstream theories for social degeneration
Many authors have postulated economic reasons for this degeneration—industrialization, having deprived men of their primary roles as the masters of nature, reduced their worth and attractiveness—or utility—in the eyes of women. Relatedly, others argue that technological progress, which increased independence and ability for all, allowed women to go their own way.
Another popular argument is that increased prosperity leads to reduced incentive for discipline—r-selection versus K-selection—and so prosperous, disciplined societies create a generation of lazy youngsters, fat off the success of their parents, who cause so much havoc with their short sighted policies that their civilization collapses, leading to a new generation of disciplined youngsters who again create greatness. One example of a short-sighted policy would be the feminist political movement, which artificially separated woman from man by giving her, through affirmative action, socially harmful economic independence.
While all these explanations bear some truth, none of them delve into the deeply emotional, spiritual, human and thus fundamentally biological causes of social degeneration.
Why the mainstream theories are flawed
To begin with, a healthy Man and a healthy woman, even with modern technology at their disposal, should not so substantially less love and cherish each other, as seems to be the case today. The proof of this can be seen by examining what it is women do with that technology: a modern loose woman uses technology to go to places where men can ravish her. Even if it gives woman the ability to go it alone, Technology does not diminish her emotional and biological need for man.
Further, the availability of technology does not always translate into its adoption—the failure of Google Glass is the emblematic example. It does not have to be the case that smartphones are automatically adopted for Slut Culture—they do not have to automatically lead to female promiscuity. Anyone familiar with Russian or Japanese women, who have the same technology at hand, but a vastly greater sense of restraint and self-worth, can attest to this fact. Therefore, the technological argument is not sufficient to explain modern degeneracy, although it is certainly a necessary condition.
credit: Ninaras
credit: moguphotos
To briefly examine the argument that Men no longer have (non-financial) utility in the eyes of women: a man is not necessarily attractive to a woman if he actually breaks rocks, or actually kills other people—instead, being able to is sufficient.
Therefore, the emotional and spiritual inseparability of a healthy woman from her evolved master, man, remains and will remain eternally true. The change in technology and the nature of men’s work is not the causal factor—instead, the change in preferences of both men and women explains modern degeneracy. Men hardly today want to lead and possess their woman; and women do not respond to weakling men.
Let us examine the r/K selection argument: if it were the case that wealth and ease begat indiscipline automatically, it would be true that the rich produce weak and undisciplined progeny. This may seem like a truism today, viewed through the lens of the post-industrial, overpopulated Paris Hilton West, but in societies of the past, it was certainly not the case—rather, historically, the opposite has been true: the weak were poor because they were undisciplined, and the strong were rich because they were disciplined. The poor raised weak and hence undisciplined children, while the rich raised strong and disciplined ones, so the cycle continued and over time aristocracies formed.
An extreme version of this disciplined-rich mentality can be seen in modern British farmers, many of whom, financially wealthy and prosperous, drive old, beaten SUVs, reuse clothes and generally minimize expenditures. While it cannot be denied that even the modern rich have in general become mostly degenerate, this is, in my opinion, a (disproportionately visible) symptom of a deeper malaise that affects society across the board.
Therefore, I do not rely on the technological or economic explanations for societal degeneration-I view these theories as descriptive of passing symptoms or trends, and not timelessly causal truths.int
The population growth, nutritional depletion and environmental pollution theory of societal degeneration
Having outlined and accounted for the above theories, I argue instead that the degeneration of society is caused mostly by the biological degeneration of the human being that makes up the society. This degeneration is caused by factors that affect the human organism on the basest level, and the two primary factors are:
- Nutritional depletion of food, caused by the growth of industrial agriculture, which itself is made necessary by unprecedented population growth.
- The pollution of the environment caused by industry and the introduction of unsafe technology.
According to this view, it was not the Boomers’ access to ease that made them such degenerate and irresponsible scum, but rather the fact that the rapid population increase during their key developmental years meant that the growth of industrial agriculture that somewhat necessarily accompanied it—the Green revolution—created such nutritionally sparse food that there was insufficient development of Boomers’ brains, leading to a generation of overgrown children.
Further, according to this theory, the increased dependence on technology is not viewed as the cause of millennial autism, but rather a symptom of millennial autism.
Recent historical examples
Consider the historical path of Communism, which did not generally spring up in the villages. This was not because the landlords were better able to control the peasants, but instead because poor city dwellers, even if earning a higher income than poor peasants, had access to much worse food and lived in a far dirtier environment, making them both mentally and physically ill.
The unfortunate result of insufficient mental development in a crisis situation – our aim should be to save as many leftists as possible, and almost all can be.
The poor in the countryside today continue to vote conservative or liberal, while the urban poor vote socialist, for this same reason: the rural poor, despite usually being less wealthy than the urban poor, are intellectually mature enough to see how harmful a controlling government can be. The urban poor mostly achieve the intellectual maturity of children or adolescents, and mostly feel rather than think, so they support an emotion-based class war or gender war ideology.
This theory explains the early rise of social justice in Europe, where industrial agriculture was first adopted on a wide scale, and also explains why such movements did not organically grow anywhere else until much later, owing to the much later adoption of industrial agriculture. It should be noted that in the countries where communist revolutions were actually successful, they enjoyed no broad support, but instead were able to defeat the mostly pre-industrial historical governments because of these governments’ economic weakness, and also because of extensive support by globalist or communist interests (this was true in Russia, China and Cambodia).
Ancient historical examples
This theory also explains the path of historical civilizations—Rome’s case is highly instructive. At its birth Rome was a small collection of largely self-sufficient, highly disciplined towns, where the diet, like in many towns of that era, was a mixture of grains, vegetables, small farmed meats (like chickens), and hunted meats—what we would call a balanced diet. In this society, men were the masters of their households, with power of life and death over their family members, while facing total responsibility for their family members’ behaviour. Only a group of strong, capable and self-disciplined individuals could sustain such a social order.
Population of the City of Rome; 1.0E6 = 1 Million Inhabitants – Source: www.davidgalbraith.org
Rome’s extreme martial and social discipline led to expansion. As it expanded and the city’s population grew, the diet for most people changed over time to mostly grains farmed highly intensively, shipped in from all over the Empire, losing a lot of its nutrition on the way. Simultaneously, and partly as a result of rising grain production, meat consumption fell, reducing the population’s testosterone levels, leading to falling strength and willingness or ability to compete, as well as rising mental illness because of copper overload.
The weakened population’s increasing demands for emotion based socialism led to the growth of a massive welfare state, and eventual bankruptcy, hyperinflation and collapse of the central government.
India is another equally tragic example. The population growth that resulted from highly prosperous Nanda rule led to the growth of Buddhism and the adoption of degenerate attitudes, moral collapse and eventually weakness to invasion. After the institutionalization of Buddhism by power-hungry and utterly Machiavellian psychopath Ashoka—who looked to weaken the Brahmins, Hinduism’s traditional moral guides—Buddhism’s degenerate vegetarian curse spread like a virus, and created, over several generations, a population of weaklings, who weren’t again able to assert their independence for over a thousand years. The Song dynasty followed a similar path as these two empires, being eventually overrun by the Mongols (the Yuan dynasty).
Population of China – Source: Vaclab Smil, China’s Environmental Crisis (1993)
This degradation of the diet, caused by population growth, has been, at least, a significant causal element behind the degeneracy and collapse of most prosperous sedentary civilizations.
The modern context
The dramatic increase of the population since ancient times should help you understand why humans today are such fools and weaklings compared to our ancestors. There is only so much nutrition in the world’s topsoil to go around, and a population seven times greater than 200 years ago, eating a diet uncorrected (through nutritional supplementation) for dietary sparsity, will be living individually, in effect, 1/7th the life that its ancestor population did. Is it any wonder that people today feel so weak and helpless that they want mommy government and daddy police state to give them the illusion of comfort and security?
This theory is also borne out in the data: in general, food today contains ½ to 1/10th the nutrients it did in the 1930s, which was already about 50 years after the adoption of modern style industrial agriculture in the West. This dramatic fall in nutrition has accompanied the tripling of the global population, and close-to doubling of the European population, since that time. While some population control seems necessary, I believe that sustainable organic agriculture, combined with nutritional supplementation, should obviate a large amount of needed population reduction.
I hope that the reader is, after consideration of these facts, sufficiently convinced of the true causes behind the modern world’s degeneracy. People have, fairly universally, across the political spectrum, become weak and insane from malnutrition. Artificial protein may have allowed some men to grow muscles, and calcium from an (over-)reliance on milk may have allowed them to grow tall, but perhaps the lack of most necessary nutrients has meant that they are generally still retarded, emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually.
The effects on modern society
This weakness amongst men—and dietary sparsity has disproportionately affected men, due to our much greater nutritional requirements—has not just resulted in an inability to control the destructive forces that lie latent in every society. Worse, the fundamental outlook of men, who viewed themselves as the creators of civilization, the slayers of enemies and the protectors of women, all under God, has changed. The modern millennial man is a childlike hedonist who cares little for his civilization, culture or People.
An aspiring patriarch.
An example of testicular failure. Image credit: Giorgiomtb/Shutterstock
Environmental toxins
Environmental toxins are also a problem. Electrical, oestrogen and toxic metal pollution are under-researched but may have devastating effects on human health. Radio waves, plastics, unfiltered medication and purposely added toxins in the water supply, like fluoride and chlorine, have deleterious effects too.
What can we do?
Considering these realities, it serves little purpose to blame women for their self-destructive behavior. While in the past, like men, women used to have enough emotional maturity to try to live a life of self-respect (for example by remaining virgins and not drinking alcohol), they have never had much agency, charisma or true self will, even before the diet was empty, and before they were being stuffed full of drugs and chemicals by the unscrupulous pharmaceutical industry and its proxies.
These poisons may cause serious and dangerous, (although slowly fixable) hormonal and behavioral changes, but the real effects are felt by their offspring. Unfortunately, once a woman is hooked on these drugs (for example, the birth control pill or antidepressants), she is unlikely to come off them, and if she does, she is unlikely to do anything to fix the damage to herself or her future children. This is especially the case as the medical industry, which has brainwashed her to see doctors and the state as her loving protectors, is unlikely to recommend it.
Even so, these drugs don’t permanently alter the fact that women, as mostly emotion driven actors, are biologically and intrinsically people pleasers, and respond automatically to the most powerful person (or group of people) that can give them a raison d’être. Even if we can’t ensure that women in general improve their diet and avoid pollutants, we can certainly make changes on an individual level, convincing or browbeating our girlfriends, sisters and mothers.
The healthier a woman gets, the greater her affinity with nature becomes and the more maternal she feels, so you can be fairly certain that she’ll try and pass on the knowledge to her children and friends, like our grandmothers and great-grandmothers did. Furthermore, there are a large minority of health conscious women, who it should be our duty to marry and impregnate as many times as possible. Considering the rapid population declines that will occur in the atheist and leftist segments of our countries’ native populations, these women are our best hope for creating a viable future.
You will have to teach her a few things. Credit: csp_Subbotina
The situation is not hopeless—but we have a fight on our hands
In the past, well-informed people couldn’t expect, due to the limited, and elite-controlled, nature of communication technology and the educational system, to make any impact on the vast majority of the population. The political fight against Big Agra and Big Pharma seemed hopeless. Today is different: the growth of the Internet and the increasing spread of awareness has meant that more people are aware about the importance of eating well, avoiding environmental dangers and supplementing wisely.
This is partly evidenced by the steadily rising percentage of people who eat organic diets, and the booming supplement industry. I hope that, in the future, at least a significant portion of us can survive in a sane enough state to politically fight back against moves by globalists, Islamists, communists and ruthless financiers who are circling, like vultures, over our degenerating civilizations.
On the other side of this political battle, the globalist controlled medical industry has been the biggest proponent of unhealthy diets and dangerous and addictive drugs. Special interests have also been the biggest corrupters of regulators and the institutions created to defend the population against industrial and chemical pollution.
A system of global monopoly wealth extraction is not possible with active, capable and self-confident masculinities from proud nation-states to resist it; those who seek to benefit from such a monopoly system have tried their absolute hardest to suppress natural health information. But so far they have failed, and the situation is only improving, so there is considerable reason for hope.
Conclusion
Our forefathers demanded to fulfill their destiny, ordained by the Gods, to defend our civilizations against the forces of rapacious greed and murderous atheistic villainy—to be the protectors and kings of our people. Today, most men are mentally ill and have become childish hedonistic narcissists. As expected, the ruthless and soulless have exploited this weakness for their own benefit. Now that you have, I hope, understood the principles behind why most of us have lost the urge to fight to protect our cultures, the cause and fix to the industrial malaise should no longer seem out of reach or impossible to grasp.
This area of the human condition is just one another where we stand at the crossroads of history. But in my opinion it is the most important: if the dietary trend of the last two centuries is not reversed, and the nutritional quality of at least a significant minority of men is not substantially improved, then each generation of people will become more communist, more feminist and more weak than the last, and the globalist special interests that seek to create a totalitarian world-monopoly police state will win, regardless of temporary political victories.
Each of us has chosen a path to follow in our quest for spiritual, intellectual and national salvation. This is mine. In my future articles I will detail the best dietary approach for strong men (and beautiful women) to follow, and overview the most important environmental precautions we must take, in our quest to fix the root causes of modern degeneracy.
I hope that, ultimately, you are convinced to help me, and others like me, prevent our world from collapsing entirely into a miserable cyberpunk dystopia.
Read More: The Industrial Revolution Has Led To An Incredibly Powerful System Of Elite Control
what we can do as a society is elect people who believe in population control. Like Trump.- less illegals/immigrants… Take Haiti; 10 million living on an Island postage stamp that should have about 500,000 people. Why? Why not give them aid only if they get their nuts cut and tubals. Thats how you save people- by not bringing more into the world.
I see…cultures without meat consumption are weakling breeders which lack the ability to compete? You mean like Japan? A country which led high tech industry for decades and has an incredibly high rate of life quality?
I read until “environmental toxins”. I shook my head and then my tin foil hat fell down.
The Japanese eat a lot of fish, and have throughout history. In addition, they have had pork and chicken in their country as dietary staples for centuries (perhaps millennia).
More recently in their history, they’ve increased their intake of unfermented soy proteins, and as a result they eat less fish than they once did. This could well be related to the social problems appearing in Japan over the past few decades. But they’ve traditionally been a fish-eating people, and the extraordinarily long-lived Okinawan people subsist on primarily fish and pork.
Thats how Okinawans like Mr Miyagi could still kick ass well into their 70s
Wax on,wax off.
They now have the highest rate of diabetes in japan now. It was favorable conditions long ago that set the stage.
Aside from a little dab of soy sauce with sushi, I avoid all soy product due to the high levels of phyto-estrogens. Besides, soy protein does not metabolize as well as meat protein in the body. Your body is an ancient vessel and has not evolved to recognize or effectively process soy product. If you’re eating Japanese, maybe skip the edamame and don’t eat the tofu cubes in your miso soup.
Welcome shill havent seen you before! How much does it cost to sell your country down the river? Ive got a quarter..will you agree with our side now?
Nice article, a welcome break from the trump n feminism stuff. Unfortunately, you are right about the lack of nutrition in our food, but what do about it? Crop rotation gave way to mono-cropping, and the only reason things grow is because of the fertilizer (the basis of which is natural gas). The soil is so depleted that if we no longer had fertilizer, most of our farmland would turn into a giant dustbowl. It would take a few centuries, not a few years, for the soil to rejuvenate itself…what to do, what to do.
Couldn’t feed enough people with proper soil usage. Too many fatasses that overconsume. Corporations need their money. Kill off fatties and world is a better place.
Our soils aren’t depleted. Anytime you grow a crop of any sort and remove the fruit of said crop you are removing the some of the nutrients in the soil. It has nothing to do with crop rotation. If you want to keep growing a crop on the same soil the nutrients must be replaced, regardless of their origin. Fertilizer is simply replacing soil nutrients removed by the harvest of previous crop. Fertilizer has nothing to do with lowering nutrient levels of the food that is influenced by variety selection more than anything else.
The basis of fertilizer isn’t natural gas. Natural gas is however used in the production of nitrogen fertilizer by using the hydrogen contained in natural gas to cause a chemical reaction for extracting nitrogen (ammonia)from the air. Nitrogen is only one part of fertilizer.
Not sure where the whole “Foods today are depleted of nutrients as compared to X years ago” came from. I recall visiting old-timey houses, on a tour of Springfield, IL back in 1984. I was in the 7th grade and 5’9″. The interior doorways of these houses had, at best, 3 inches of clearance from the top of my head. IIRC, most male adults’ average height 100-150 years ago was a whopping 5’5″ – 5’6″. Lincoln was a behemoth in them thar days!
Ive seen studies of fruits that showed it. Im starting to feel like the propagandists are hitting us.
Good good point, people grow taller today because of better nutrition……although some of them get a little TOO much. I also went on a tour of old houses at Westville near Lumpkin Georgia when I was around the seventh grade and had to duck to go in many of the doors.lol
That showed they were depleted or not?
20-40 ish depending on nutrient.
Discus is acting a little funny tonight, I tried to reply earlier but it doesn’t show up, anyway….
Nutrient levels in food have less to do with fertilizer in the soil than it does with variety selection. Varieties are selected based on appearance and shelf life more than taste or nutrition. The market demands pretty produce that is appealing to the eye and stays fresh as long as possible so that’s what’s available. If one wants different produce its not going to come from your local chain grocery store.
I have read about this in terms of produce we have today has been cross bred to be more focused on visual appeal and long storage life than nutrient rich. The trouble is the heads of food conglomerates are making these decisions for us, I’m sure if there was 2 lots of each produce type on display at the supermarket – one long life, and more colorful and uniform in appearance , and the other with a higher nutrient/mineral content, that they would find the 2nd lot would still sell well, if people knew benefit vs the trade off.
Organic produce sells reasonably well even for its higher price tag, though its generally purchased by the more affluent consumers.
I can agree with that mostly except those conglomerates are giving people what they want. If the market demands something else someone will supply it such as organic production.
This is like most any other modern problem there is no magic bullet to cure it all in one shot. Many books can be written on the ins and outs of modern production agriculture.
I have no doubt that’s what the heads of the food conglomerates will say. They are not doing surveys in their supermarkets or having side by side comparison selling options for consumers though. My guess is that they are doing marketing focus groups, and the participants are naturally picking the bigger, shinier more colorful product or the cheapest product. If the participants were given the option to choose a less colorful but more nutritionally beneficial option, maybe the outcome might be different. I’d be surprised if the focus is on nutrition in these test group samples though.
As for longer shelf life, that will suit the food company so no need to consult the consumer on that. If there is a option for a higher yield variety but at the expense of lower essential minerals, that’s an easy sell to farmers, and I am sure consumers wont be consulted on that either.
I do appreciate the ‘if the market demands someone will supply’ philosophy and that is what is driving the organic produce & farmers markets. As you say unfortunately there is no magic bullet solution to suit farmers + food coys + consumers. Maybe it could be argued there was once but in the pursuit of increasing profit the variables have shifted. As a consumer as long as I have options its okay, plus I can grow my own heritage varieties at home (which I do) + I eat fish and game meat to reduce eating grain fed production line beef.
Yes there are options.
As for company products vs what people want and will buy vs what farmers prefer to grow vs profit for everyone starts to get into the which came first? The chicken or the egg? No easy answer.
I think it would be cost prohibitive to test for nutrition regularly. I don’t think it even factors into their decision, or if they even know about how much the situation has degraded.
Its probably more calories than “better nutrition.” I would define better nutrition by more vitamins and minerals, which were def more prevalent in the whole food diets of our grandparents.
Agreed. Most of that produce is genetically modified for size and color, not vitamins and minerals.
Youre right. We vote with our dollar. Thats why a whole generation or two will be lost to obesity before we wake up and stop believing the fast food commercials.
Produce (fresh vegetable type) is conventionally propagated, with the exception of some gmo squash.
You dont know what you are talking about. In many places if you dont put down fertilizer things womt grow. Meanwhile in argentina deep black soil crop rotation leaving crops fallow..and thin healthy people.
Yields in Argentina are half what they are in the US. I’ve never heard of soils that won’t grow crops with fertilizer, where are these soils located? What type of soils are they, loam,silt,sand,loess,alluvial,volcanic,peat,clay? ANY time you grow and harvest a crop nutrients leave the soil with the harvested fruit that must be replaced,it’s a fact of nature,no getting around that.
Without even going to the trouble to look it up, if people in Argentina are less fat than Americans it’s going to be because they consume a lot less sugar in their diet than fat Americans do, it has nothing to do with fertilizer or crop rotation.
Yields in Argentina are almost half what U.S. yields are. The only place I can think of where nothing will grow is on beach sand near the water due to salt more than anything else. Plants even grow in the desert without fertilizer. The point of fertilizer is to replace soil nutrients that are removed when the crop is harvested. Ever heard of slash and burn farming? That’s what we would be back to doing without fertilizer. In modern agriculture crop rotation is more beneficial for disease prevention than fertility however, you can rotate crops all you want but without replacing nutrients reduced yields will follow.
Crop yields in the U.S. have quadrupled since the sixties, they have almost doubled in the last 10-15 years,that doesn’t happen on low fertility soils.
Again you speak as an expert but its from a bs script. Fertilizer only has up to 4 nutrients that are replaced. Thats as in 4 total. Its like the myth they try to spread that you cant eliminate toxins from your body. its almost like there is a vested interest in feeding us toxins and feeding us lies.
Organic fertiliser (e.g. cow dung, some other formulations) is much better, but it is also much more expensive/process intensive.
There also isn’t enough to go around. The advantage that organic fertilizer has is its slow release properties, it releases its nutrients slowly over time whereas conventional fertilizer is more readily available while also being more susceptible to leaching.
I AM an expert, I’ve been doing this stuff for almost 40 years. Homogenized fertilizer has a lot more than four elements. When you buy a bag to go on your yard the analysis numbers on the front are going to be something like 5-10-15. Those first numbers are the basic nutrients –
5=(N) 5lbs of nitrogen per hundred pounds of product.
10=(P) phosphorus
15=(K) potassium
Those are the basic elements then micro and macronutrients are also added in agricultural fertilizer according to crop and yield goals- i.e. – sulfur, boron,manganese,magnesium,molybdenum,copper,zinc etc. All these are naturally occurring elements already found in soil and again, anytime a crop is harvested these elements must be replaced to maintain yield and profits.
Have a read through this paper, it is a good overview of the subject of nutritional content: http://www.myhealthyhome.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/NutrientDepletionofourFoods.pdf
Funny you dont even know that selenium is added which is standard in northern europe. I guess you know better than farm bureau president whos been farming for 60 plus years. So tell me what effect doea ph have on nutrients and say clay soil?
And likely much better nutrient profile.
Nitrogen,potassium and sulfur are not as directly affected by soil ph as phosphorus. In low ph(acidic) soil conditions phosphorous is less soluble and harder for plants to take up. In high rainfall areas which generally tend to have acidic soil an optimal ph of around 6.5 is best for plant development. Low ph can be corrected by application of Finley ground limestone which is usually applied in the fall to have time for ph correction by early spring. Soils are acidic at a ph of 5 and below and alkaline at a ph above 7.5. Most nutrients are more soluble and available within the range of 6.5 to 7.5.
We are talking row crops here, selenium is added to fertilizer in Europe primarily for grazing animals not row crop production.
Interesting reading though there are a few points I have issues with that at the moment I don’t have time to go into. I have no problem with organic production and it can be successful in many situations however as with organic fertilizer there simply isn’t enough to go around.
There was mentioned average corn yields in the 1930s was 50 bushels it was more like 25-28 and that would have been impossible to maintain without soil amendments. When you take a crop off the land nutrients are leaving with it and have to be replaced to maintain yields it’s just a fact of nature that’s impossible to get around.
A forest or natural grassland can sustain itself because nothing is being harvested, the plants die,decompose and return their nutrients to the soil to be later taken up by new plants. Even a plain old pasture used to graze animals has to have the nutrients replaced that leaves with the animal.
There isn’t enough organic fertilizer available to cover everything, farmers around here compete hard for chicken litter but there is only so much available.
Fail.
Whatever man, keep believing everything those environmental hippies keep telling you.
Extra double fail.
Lyin Ted!
Ok
What do you think about the outflow of nutrients at the end of the human consumption system as a result of not using human waste? Many countries made extensive use of human compost before the adoption of sewage systems after WW2, including India and Japan.
I cannot fathom how, at present, the nutritional leech can be significantly reversed without this method. We’re the biggest nutrition intakers and the outflow is often dumped into the sea or into non-flooding rivers, in an inert state due to the sewage treatment processes.
Further, I think the reintroduction of a human compost collection system may reduce the unemployment problem for unskilled men.
Without really researching it the only problems I can think of with it is having trouble eliminating pathogens (which could probably be done with proper composting) and human waste ( if I recall correctly) usually contains a lot of heavy metals that can cause trouble due to buildup in the soil over time. I would imagine it would be expensive to remove them from the waste prior to application.
But those crops are dowsed with glyphosate. We dump 200 billion gallons on our land every year now. Its just been recognized as a carcinogen by the FDA. It seeps into our water. Its found in 80% of our food, our hair cells and mothers milk. Thousands of species of animals and insects go extinct every year from these pesticides. The food grown is also modified to be bigger and prettier, with less vitamins and minerals.
] In May 2016, the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues concluded that “glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet”, even at doses as high as 2,000 mg/kg body weight orally.[
Yes, they published that, then they retracted that statement and changed their mind: “Glyphosate documents were inadvertently posted to the Agency’s docket. These documents have now been taken down because our assessment is not final. EPA has not completed our cancer review. We will look at the work of other governments as well as work by HHS’s Agricultural Health Study as we move to make a decision on glyphosate. Our assessment will be peer reviewed and completed by end of 2016″ How confident should we be about the health of a chemical that those organizations aren’t sure about?
If those organizations are all unsure about glyphosate’s effect on cancer, if 12 countries have banned it, what are the chances that it’s healthy for us? More importantly, what are the chances that Monsanto, a hundred billion dollar company, might “influence” the data to twist those studies? They have scientists, doctors, lawyers, and Hillary Clinton in their back pocket.
There hasn’t been 200 billion gallons of glyphosate produced since becoming available in 1974. Your figures are a little off.
Typical glyphosate field rates are around 32 ounce per acre(43,560 sq ft) that’s not exactly dousing.
Mostly I’m just saying that the majority of the things one reads on the internet about agricultural products and fertilizer is alarmist BS designed to get more clicks or dollars in grants donations etc. and is usually written by people who have no idea about agriculture.
I am doing a research paper on the subject and I was wondering if you’d be willing to delve into those points that you disagreed with at some greater depth? I am happy to exchange via emails if you prefer. It would be valuable for me to have an informed, non-shill opposing viewpoint.
Give me a day or two to read back over it and I will, I have a lot going on at the moment.
He probably meant pesticide, like monsantos glyphosate.
This article is a US government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Abstract
Transgenic glyphosate-resistant (GR) soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] has enabled highly effective and economical weed control. The concomitant increased application of glyphosate could lead to shifts in the soil microbial community. The objective of these experiments was to evaluate the effects of glyphosate on soil microbial community structure, function and activity. Field assessments on soil microbial communities were conducted on a silt loam soil near Stoneville, MS, USA. Surface soil was collected at time of planting, before initial glyphosate application and 14 days after two post-emergence glyphosate applications. Microbial community fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs) were analyzed from these soil samples and soybean rhizospheres. Principal component analysis of the total FAME profile revealed no differentiation between field treatments, although the relative abundance of several individual fatty acids differed significantly. There was no significant herbicide effect in bulk soil or rhizosphere soils. Collectively, these findings indicate that glyphosate caused no meaningful whole microbial community shifts in this time period, even when applied at greater than label rates. Laboratory experiments, including up to threefold label rates of glyphosate, resulted in up to a 19% reduction in soil hydrolytic activity and small, brief (<7 days) changes in the soil microbial community. After incubation for 42 days, 32–37% of the applied glyphosate was mineralized when applied at threefold field rates, with about 9% forming bound residues. These results indicate that glyphosate has only small and transient effects on the soil microbial community, even when applied at greater than field rates. Published in 2007 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
No credible studies show that glyphosate harms the soil either.
Farmers rotate crops out here all the time. I know this for a fact, I lease off acreage to a local farming family and they rotate regularly.
The society is only as sustainable as the mindset of the ordinary average person in it.
Interesting hypothesis. Health and nutrient are a big issues that is being overlooked today, but I think to say that sub-par diet is causing hedonism, feminism, and communism is stretching things too far. Socio-economic conditions and our current consumerist culture are far greater factors that are causing the social disorders we are witnessing today. It’s urbanization in combination with prolonged peace that causes degeneracy, substandard food quality is merely one of the symptoms of that.
Rome was almost continuously at war – yet still became degenerate as it’s population grew. And urbanisation is a necessary result of growing population, not vice versa, but it is population growth that tracks degeneracy, not urbanisation – look at the falling populations of Poland, Russia and Japan and how they are ushering in ultranationalist governments, even as the countries remain relatively urbanised. Urban anonymity simply enables degenerate preferences to be exercised more easily – it is not the cause itself.
Humans are biological machines, at root, and our culture is an expression of our biological state. Degeneracy is a natural evolutionary mechanism to control the population, and therefore if population nutrition can be improved (evolutionarily synonymous with a falling population) then K-selected impulses naturally kick in.
The historical empires that I mentioned were continuously or very often at war, but still succumbed to degeneracy despite that.
Further, peaceful countries today, like Russia, Japan, and Poland, are experiencing ultranationalist revivals because of falling population (and improving food quality).
I agree with you that urban anonymity is certainly a necessary condition – but ultimately, urban anonymity cannot exist without a massive population of people (who are already degenerates). I therefore don’t think we disagree on the cause, even if our analysis of the process differs.
In my opinion, we are biological machines, and our cultures are meta-manifestations of the organised desires of many individuals working in some sort of community. Therefore, what affects the individual on the basest level ultimately determines his desires, which determines the community’s organised desire, which determines the culture.
Lastly, I am so convinced that I am correct because before I ate right and supplemented right, I used to be an utterly degenerate leftist, and eating well etc. saved me. I shall write more in my future articles!
Good, informative article, if a bit lengthy and unfocused. I am of the strong opinion that the larger the population, the less prosperous each individual (at least when you’re up in the billions).
A dollar is nothing more than a proportional share of the limited resources to which you are entitled. Beyond that it has no meaning. In other words, if you total all your purchasing power denominated in dollars and divided it by the total purchasing power in the country, that would equal the percentage share of resources you are capable of commanding.
It won’t mean much to average folk, but some super rich guy could get a full 1% of the nation’s wealth. All that means is that he is entitled to control 1% of the nations resources. Leaving the other 300 million of us to fight over the remaining 99%. A dollar simply reflects your proportional allocation of resources in the economy.
I have thought the same, if there is less population that means more resources for individuals. I have never understood why we have to have growth for growths sake. I read a few years ago an article lamenting populations reducing themselves in some European countries and wondered why that is such a bad thing.
I’m one of the few people here that support a reduction in population. There’s a lot of talk about nationalism, maintenance of cultures, etc, and I agree with that, but a “Out-Breed-The-Other-Race” plan is fucking stupid as shit. I think IT is the single paramount topic that needs to be addressed. It’s simply mathematical common sense. If you’re having kids, more than 2 is Net+ gain. Don’t let me hear people with more than 2 kids bitch about traffic, or other population-growth-related difficulties, because they’re adding to the problem. Call me an asshole, it’s the damn truth and people need to hear it.
Its bad when they use it to justify immigration
True,attempting to outbreed the other guys is silly. At some point(at the rate we are going) we are going to exceed the carrying capacity of the planet. (Damn, now I sound like one of those left wing enviro nut retards.)
It’s not so much out breed the other but to preserve your bloodline. 2 or 3 children maybe 4 are the ideal. 1 child per woman is the recipe for the extinction of many bloodlines and a universal sign of decadence.
According to your logic Namibia or some other scarcely populated country should have the highest GDP per capita right?
It’s bad because it’s a universal symptom of decay. You would have an argument if average number of children per woman in western europe were 2 not 1 or less.
I see things the same as you, Growth for growths sake is a never ending incline treadmill. I would rather live in a city the size of Seattle than Tokyo (20x the population) any day, When it comes to declining population I believe its not a bad thing in the long term, but the short term readjustment will hurt. In the short term the less productive older age population will bulge, and the lower % of younger population will have to pay more taxes to support the system, but in a generation or twos time, the demographics will revert to the norm.
Absolutely. And when America was a rather small footprint on the world, Americans were incredibly wealthy wherever they went. I went to Costa Rica last year and the cost of living in the most developed areas now approaches that US rural communities. American wealth is evaporating before our eyes.
The modern American economy absolutely requires growth for growths sake, due to living beyond our means for decades and using debt which cannot be repaid (US Debt Clock shows over $800,000 in government debt per family–you think you will ever come close to paying $800,000 in taxes? That’s for past debt only–not current government services).
This is why we will absolutely see mass immigration continue in America. It’s simple economics. There are only 3 ways out–massive devaluation of the dollar, rapid increase in taxpayers, or outright default. Immigration is the least bad of those 3.
Wealth is not created nor destroyed by having children, per se. In other words one cannot merely either refrain from having kids, or have as many kids as possible, and automatically become rich. That should be obvious.
The problem here is the *rate* of growth. Indeed Namibia has some of the fastest growth rates in the world, and, as the hypothesis would predict, has very low wealth. Check out the map below. The countries with mostly stable populations are almost universally the most economically viable.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/10/31/how-the-worlds-populations-are-changing-in-one-map/
You’d have a point…if Namibia wasn’t 20 times the size of Netherlands and had only 2 and a half million persons whereas Netherlands has 15. I didn’t say wealth was created or destroyed by having children. My point is that wealth as we know is at least 50% man made and involves work. Iron ore is useless unless it’s processed in a steel mill. So are gold or arable land…completely useless unless they are processed or tilled. Even in the highly advanced countries of the West, automation hasn’t replaced most manual complicated labor (electricians, plumbers, air condition mechanics, sewer workers, etc). The countries you just showed in the article with stable populations have some of the highest population densities as well. So what gives?
In a nutshell. Our current prosperity wouldn’t have been possible without the “demographic explosions” of the past in the west and therefore people willing to pitch in. The amount of persons is no guarantee of progress (see Africa) but low population densities in developing civilizations are associated with stagnation (Australia and Canada are just extensions of Western civilization), otherwise our ancestors shouldn’t have died like flies in their cradle in a time where Europe had less than 100 million people (Middle Ages, early 1500s). If you notice, the inventions and social mores that drove European expansion came not from the fjords of Norway or from the frozen Volcano in Iceland, but came from the most populated countries in Europe.
P.D. for the record I think 2.1 children per woman is the ideal to the West, maybe a bit more, however we are not even near that.
Apologies, I thought you were trolling.
Rwanda is among the most densely populated African nations (441 / sq km), along with Nigeria, Uganda, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, etc.)
Libya is among the least densely populated (3.6 / sq km), along with Chad, Niger, and Algeria.
I’d far prefer living in the second set of countries.
Of course to accurately measure population effects on wealth, one would need to correct for things like education level, productivity, amount of infrastructure and technology, etc.
I’m not aware of any such study, but on a personal level, life in somewhere like Montana where I never have to wait in line and there is no rush hour traffic, is far preferable to living in the concrete fortress of Altanta. Interestingly enough, Montana funds the same public services as Atlanta, but does so without a sales tax!
Money is nothing more than a reflection of one’s proportional control of the limited resources in the world. This is very obvious in places like Indian Casinos or the state of Alaska, where one receives an annual check from the government once a year. If you doubled the population, you’d get half the check you used to.
Anecdotally, when the American population was a third what it is today, and we were the world’s largest creditor nation (now the world’s largest debtor), a middle income man could travel almost anywhere in the world and be wealthy. Today there has been a great leveling of wealth (which will continue, and accelerate) and one must travel to third world nations to feel truly rich.
I could present a plethora of examples like the Netherlands, where high population density != shit holes, but we would spend the whole day on that. My point: population density is not the sole independent variable int he mix. Moreover Chad and Niger are even poorer than Nigeria and Libya right now doesn’t even exist as a country thanks to Western meddling and civil war.
There you have it wrong. You think wealth= resources, which is partly right. However, so far if you don’t have workers to process those resources, those shiny pieces of raw materials are completely useless and you wouldn’t enjoy those things you enjoy in Montana, due to the lack of technology, technology developed in regions with far higher density than, say Montana which is not precisely known as a hub of engineering and cybernetics…
I can infer from your example of the Indian reservation that you think wealth is static, however if something has been proven is that such is not the case. In your example of the Indians, if the extra people are lazy and expect mere handouts from the govt, of course they will see their “income” (more like charity alms) reduce its value, however if these extra-people start to pitch in and use their minds, their wealth in time will increase and the “cake” so to speak will be more abundant.
For that change just check what happened to the dollar in the 100 year period you are talking about, combined with a plethora of factors (destruction of the family and intra-generational transference of wealth within the masses; massive devaluation of the currency, dumbing down of educational standards) and guess what, none of those factors has to do with population density.
Population density not the sole independent variable = “guy can’t just have either zero kids or tons of kids and expect that to make him wealthy”
I think we are stating the same thing.
Re: workers and resources. What I see coming is a huge and permanent decline in the amount of needed labor. Yes, I will still need a plumber to figure out why my toilet won’t flush. But look at the huge changes in what were traditionally huge parts of the workforce:
Manufacturing – permanently outsourced overseas with the rise of multinationals and lowered trade barriers, with the remaining jobs increasingly handled by automation and robotics
Transportation – driverless cars will put an end to truckers and the claim is that in 20 years all cars will be driverless
Customer service – many routine transactions done automatically (ie direct deposit vs traveling to a bank and handling them paper checks and rolled coins). Some banks even charge you if you use their labor instead of an ATM machine.
Sales / Service – outsourced to foreign call centers. The most modern of these have workers whose accents are as good as domestic workers
Health care – still quite labor intensive but they are introducing robotic surgery and I’ve avoided several trips to the doctor by consulting WebMD.
Manual labor like construction will probably remain a great labor industry, because every site is different so it’s not cost effective to program a robot to handle individual building conditions, but most people don’t work in manual labor fields.
Bottom line is: Instead of “wealth being held up” because there is insufficient labor to “process resources”, I think it’s the opposite–more labor is not needed and we are creating huge problems in the future of what to do with people whose labor is no longer needed in the modern economy. Something like 100 million Americans are out of the labor market, and I don’t see any “shortage of labor” at all but the opposite–excess of available labor that has no productive means to which it can be put. And I think this is a long term problem.
Re: the oil in Alaska and casino workers on the reservation. Increasing the amount of labor in the oil field or on the casino gaming floor would have little to no impact on the outcome. Increasing the number of floor workers or oil pump mechanics does not result in greater gambling revenues or increase the amount of oil pumping out of the ground.
“If you don’t have workers to process resources you won’t have nice things”
Let’s not reduce the argument to gross extremes. No one is talking about eliminating labor. We are talking about how there are not 6 billion jobs on the planet, and the world would get along much better, and everyone on it would be richer, if there were fewer people.
Just think about filling up your car. There is a limited amount of oil on the planet. The fact that oil is allocated to around $2 a gallon right now is because your income somehow correlates to entitling you to a certain percentage of the world’s oil supply. If we double the population, expect oil to cost $4 a gallon, and if we halved the population, filling up your car would be twice as cheap. (Note one must make some assumptions to present the basic theory–in actuality it is more complicated: for example the cost of oil would more than double if the population doubled because the additional oil would need to be extracted from more costly areas like tar sands, but the basic theory holds)
That is correct. But you are wrong when it comes to the identification of the underlying reality. The only reason many people will be made redundant shortly (and thus exterminated I’m afraid) is because their labor will be performed by robots and software. Otherwise they would still be even more necessary due to the ever increasing complexity of our society and demands from a strict consumer.
Paradoxically this development wouldn’t have been possible if mankind had stayed at 1 billion people for example since many of the engineers, mathematicians and other specialized people wouldn’t have been born, neither the demand that would require ever more ingenious solutions and spur innovation. It would have been probably saner and more tranquil world alas much poorer one, which it seems is the part you don’t want to understand.
Oh please don’t be so naive, leave naïveté to young women and children. We had wars when Europe had less than 50 million people and the world didn’t have even 500 million, and millions of hectares of productive land were empty, ready for the peaceful taking; the same thing in Asia, Africa and Americas. Why do you think we would embrace our “brethren” and sing kumbaya together now if we were less? The same goes to poverty, high population exacerbates poverty but poverty is not a function of population. Otherwise inventions and breakthroughs would come from the barely populated places like Montana…and only densely populated places would be poor…
You’d be right…except that we have more than a century worth of oil at current population growth, probably much more since new oil wells lay untapped. Moreover you miss the meaning of the concept of money. Money is: (1) a store of value, (2) a medium of exchange, and (3) a unit of account. Money can either rise organically and be determined by the common agreement of a society (like silver and gold) or imposed top-down by a regime (fiat dollars, euros, etc.). Currently oil is at 46 USD per barrel (WTI). In 1950 the price of an oil barrel was 20 USD in average. Since the US dollar has suffered roughly a four fold decrease in its purchasing power since those days, the price of oil is not a bad deal. However the wealth of our society is not same, it can be argued that it’s more since more and better products have been made and new products have been released since the 50’s. My point: the USA doubled its population and in spite of the currency devaluation and stagnation of salaries in real figures, your prediction in most fronts hasn’t been vindicated.
In a nutshell: human ingenuity is the engine that produces wealth. Iron ore or gold ore and completely useless in themselves, the same goes for uncultivated land. If we had a real overpopulation problem the solution is in space exploration. However that avenue is not being explored and will not be explored in the short or medium term. And no, we will not reach 10 billion and no I am not an advocate of large families (>3 children).
Seems like a lot of people are reading the Culture whiz these days. Which is great!
http://culturewhiz.org/forum/topic/rise-europe-explained
http://culturewhiz.org/forum/topic/lot-men-are-frustrated-dating-because-they-lack-male-testosterone
http://culturewhiz.org/forum/topic/human-brain-not-intelligence
Most of the articles on this site are total garbage.
In other words, labor is being made obselete by technology.
Technology may be “the only reason” but it’s a sufficient explanation.
Of course one can never be sure how things would turn out in an alternate reality, but the vast majority of the population has lived in primitive societies. The vast majority of discoveries, inventions, and technological advances occured in Western Europe (and more recently, also American, but these were by Europeans who emigrated there). In other words progress and development was concentrated in isolated nations of a couple hundred million, not billions. It seems completely practical that regardless of billions of breeders in the dark continent, history would have progressed very similarly under the leadership of the Europeans. Indeed today, with globalism, the billions of underclass are competing directly with the first world nations for scarse resources, and as a share of population, the developed educated classes are a small minority of world population. We do not need them.
A limited resource is still limited even though there may be “a lot” of it. Aluminum is a limited resource. But aluminum foil can be bought cheaply at any dollar store. That does not make it unlimited or less rare because there is “a lot” of it.
If I could, I would wager a large amount of money with you refuting this assertion. Unless something drastic happens to change our current trajectory, we will reach 10 billion perhaps as soon as 30 years from now. And if that thing happens, I will gladly forfeit my money in return for more stability.
Bottom line: Did large populations accelerate human development? Probably. But is advancement at breakneck speeds of utmost importance? If anything, I’d say the problems of society today are, as many thinkers have posited throughout history, due to an imbalance between the advancement of technology, and the understanding of how it will affect society. We invented the iphone not even a decade ago, and look how it has changed the world. I could write an entire article about just the single app Tinder and how it will affect the next generation, raised by single mothers swiping their finger across the screen to attract new cocks. If we had a world with a far smaller population, that was maybe 100 or 200 years behind our current level of advancement, but was a more cohesive, happy, sane society, that’s a tradeoff I’d be willing to make. And I’d be far wealthier.
We could continue this discussion by taking it into the realm of AI, where I see human labor as being all but eliminated, but perhaps it’s enough for now to say that I agree that wealth can be expanded by humans, and that the pace of development can be increased by having a larger society, but that these are more than offset by the negative influences they introduce.
Just saw a point on the “Women don’t pay taxes article” stating women make 85% of purchases. This kind of sums up my philosophy. Yeah, 85% of the people are still running around and eating and buying housing and clothing and all that. But all the innovation and productivity is concentrated in the other 15%. You don’t *need* the 85% in order to have development and progress.
My entire argument comes down to quality over quantity.
You miss the point. During those times, Only China and India had more population than Europe and even then it’s debatable their density was higher. Remember that China alone is practically the size of Europe, but with much less cultural and ethnic diversity. During the time of the great discoveries and even before European’s population was enough to have 30.000 students at the University of Paris alone in the 1200s. I never spoke of billions. More over, had Europe adopted draconian measures like the ones of China, one can rest assured many brilliant people wouldn’t have been born, many of them were the child number 4 or 5 of fairly large families. Moreover had this population explosion not happened, the pressure for the development of solutions in transportation, information management, manufacturing and so on would never have had reached the point of requiring ever more breakthroughs.
I’ll say I have to agree with you on that. When I was a child and later on teen my dream was to be alive by the time we finally started space colonization (I was a child in the 90s). Now I am almost sure our civilization will not last long enough to get out of this planet. Partly because our technological advancements have diverted our efforts and contributed to the destruction of our social fabric, thus making impossible to focus our mind and resources in this task. Now even if we could reach Mars and other planets, we don’t know what unexpected consequences of such an action…hopefully the positive impact of such a breakthrough will offset any negative repercussions…
Without the other 85% that eats and buys housing and clothing, there is no raison d’etre for most innovations. Even if they come to fruition, most would lay in a corner, unappreciated until a later time, since they are not necessary and no one will pay to reduce wait times from 3 minutes to 2.5 in a transaction if your queue system is not collapsed. Moreover most geniuses in history weren’t begotten and given birth by other geniuses but by persons of average and even below average resources and intelligence.
Besides all that, up to now, without the other 95% of the “useless eaters”, the “innovators” wouldn’t have been able to innovate, since due to lack of personnel, specialization beyond certain point would’ve been impossible. A Leibniz or a Kopernikus would have amounted to nothing had they been born with their IQs in a lost valley of 90 people in the Urals, in the Amazons or in the depth of the African jungle. Granted, they might have improved the lot of the people of the village…if they survived the tribal combat or the hunting. Life in a pre-civilized world or even in the recent past was far from stable despite the lots of empty land…
And here comes the most important event of our time: The separation between people and labor, or rather demand and labor is one of the greatest events of the millennium. Massive automation lead by algorithms, standardization of competences and design of better AI guided mechanical devices (un-manned cars, ships, aircrafts) will lead to the obsolescence of billions of persons. The unexpected consequences of this development remain to be seen. The expected are easy to see (mass unemployment, social upheaval, implementation of even more socialist schemes, a revolution possible extermination either by soft methods like mass poisoning or invasive virtual reality like the one depicted by Roosh in one of his short stories; or hardcore methods, like global war, artificial plagues among others.)
But the greatest unexpected consequence that for me it’s obvious will be the stagnation of our knowledge and civilization (more dependence on machines and since the brain is a use it or lose it organ will not do us any favors…Animatrix: Renaissance sans the machine uprising is our future) and the loss of freedom, the greatest experienced since the invention of slavery. So you are likely to have your emptier world but a world with far less freedom than what we have now…unless you are a neo-tyrant.
For the record I would bet 1000 USD to prove you wrong about population figures. The UN has had to revise their numbers a lot of times…down. As you can see in the Internet, the rates have fallen worldwide except for Africa and a few other places, but Africa will collapse. A disruption in Global supply chain and our dark friends will have to swim or sink. they have the resources so I wouldn’t worry about them.
Sorry for the rant.
In a world population of 1 billion, would the iphone ever get invented?
(I would argue yes, at more or less the same time it was invented already)
If that notion makes you feel better…be my guest, absence of evidence or logic notwithstanding.
It was a serious question.
In all likelyhood the iphone wouldn’t exist, neither many other things. But given tge law of unintended consequences…it might have resulted in world a bit saner.
On this we can wholeheartedly agree. I’m still a youngish unmarried man, and the world from my youth is unrecognizable from today. A slower development of technology would be fine with me. But it’s hard to believe we would never invent an iphone.
I didn’t say never…just not at this point in time. IMHO
Nationalism without natalism is bound to failure, just like marrying a virtous prostitute is an assured pain in the ass and failure , all for nothing in the end. Moreover Russia, one of your examples can under no circumstance could be considered an overcrowded place, for god ‘s s sake it’s almost double the size of china and has less than one tenth of its population. Under your hypothesis Russia would have risen as a propsperous nation after the great genocides of the 20th century. Japan might be nationalist but it’s a dead nation. Their god was their dream of an empire, that dream was shattered in WWII. All that’s left is a residue. In the 21st century Japan will either be a chinese satellite or a radioactive debris clusyer in the pacific. It’s no surprise they have the lowest birthrates in the world many of their men have even renounced sex. As for Poland their nationalism as fa as I can see (i could be wrong) is based on race but in the end their women crave the same things and their men are not willing to put them in line.
Things we can’t eat in the US:
– Unprocessed milk and cheese
– Haggis (because of sheep lungs, and only sheep lungs)
– Certain sausages
– Sassafras Oil
– Pate de Foie Gras (in California, apparently)
Things we can eat in the US:
– Oils naturally refined by crushing, grinding, boiling, freezing, and offering to Satan useless plant matter
– Magic corn sugar
– Fifty chemicals nobody outside a Starbucks engineering department can even spell (aka “pumpkin spice”)
– GMO everything
Unpasteurized milk might cure asthma in children.
Cant have that right?
Why would we want a cure when instead we can make inhalers that only treat the problem and therefore help keep the Big Pharma profits rolling?
And inhalers that kill, at that –
http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/title/researchers-say-killer-asthma-inhalers-should-be-recalled
Jack boot raid. Worse than crack.
“Pate de Foie Gras (in California, apparently)”
Idiots fois grois is delicious!
Just like BBQ whale.
Until you’ve tried it you have no diea how good it is!
So Clark Griswold would be a big deal at s-bux these days??
There is nothing magic about Corn Syrup, it’s just an inverse sugar…
Are GMOs Safe?
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html#lf_comment=346610340
” what it is women do with that technology: a modern loose woman uses technology to go to places where men can ravish her”
That’s kinda politely put 🙂 It might be better to say a modern loose women uses technology to become a complete virtueless cum-bucket and rid herself of her soul alltogether.
Assuming they have souls to begin with…
Yes they have souls but there are completely underdeveloped.
They have ‘ssholes…I’ll give them that much.
They do have souls, but said souls dissapear fast if there’s no strong force to lay down the law (I say this because I’ve seen matriarchs who do it just as well as any man).
Well, the red-headed ones definitely don’t. But of course, we already knew that.
Gingers have no soul?
A lot of things suddenly make sense now, don’t they?
Thank you for helping me see the light. 🙂
“Worse, the fundamental outlook of men, who viewed themselves as the creators of civilization, the slayers of enemies and the protectors of women, all under God, has changed. The modern millennial man is a childlike hedonist who cares little for his civilization, culture or People.”
Very interesting and deep article. I salute you, Kshatriya , for this post.
Diet and environmental/man-made toxins certainly do contribute to the decline. But I do not believe it’s the root cause of it.
We are devolving as a species first and foremost because strength in it’s many representations is no longer a virtue or requirement for human survival.
The weak rule the earth because they are provided for by technological advances and by society. Take all this away and only the strong and resilient will survive.
Good luck with all that it’s like a alternate reality Predators movie where the SJW’s are gonna fight everyone else for the resources to the death.
They are kinda like puppeteers when you think about it.
Im afraid I don’t follow.. Just take an example from nature. A herd or pride of animals will protect it’s own to a certain extent but if an individual leeches off the majority for an extended amount of time, they either get left behind, expelled or killed. And if they just suck but fall in line they get to stay but do not get to procreate.
In human societys we keep the old and infirm alive for decades, families have kids with downs syndrome and abort perfectly good fetuses. If you fail in life, you get welfare and foodstamps. If you don’t have the skills you need you get affirmative action. If your dependent on handouts and live off the state you get to find a partner in the same situation and get to have even stupider offspring than you.
Do you see where Im coming from?
I use to believe that until I read this http://culturewhiz.org/forum/topic/heritability-iq
It’s a thesis on IQ suggesting it’s not fixed but somewhat fluid. Obviously everything from dementia to congenital diseases affect IQ, so does nutrition and toxins. But that doesn’t mean that there are no genetic limits for different gene expressions. And stupid does not become a genius just because he is subjected to favourable environmental conditions or put on a doctors coat.
Genius is really a mental disorder similar to autism
http://culturewhiz.org/forum/topic/human-brain-not-intelligence
Well if one pathologises traits that the majority does not possess then evolution eventually grinds to a halt.
Huh? What do you think homosexuality is?
Some traits are beneficial and some are not. But if everyone was equal in every way shape or form, there would be litte technological advances, no literally masterpieces, no musical hits, no civilisational wonders etc.
To have geniuses you have to have morons. The question is what you do with those morons.
Sorry, the Culture whiz explains everything much better. I’m going to follow him.
http://culturewhiz.org/forum/topic/rise-europe-explained
thanks
That aspiring patriarch stole my hairstyle.
Anyone know where to get those kind of dress shirts? Asking for a… friend. Yeah… right… friend.
Vegetarianism was common in India prior to Ashoka. Being a vegetarian doesn’t necessarily make one emasculated. Some of the most masculine dudes I’ve met(Muay thai fighters) were vegans.
And they have the guys in japan called herbivores that arent interested in meat..very studly! Welcome beta shill!
I’ve seen omnivores who are emasculated. Your point?
I see one right now.
Because calling someone emasculated is an excellent way to counter arguments.
From what I knew of the herbivore men in Japan it had nothing to do with their diet, By connotation its natural to infer that. The Japanese obviously see less meat as being detrimental to masculine vigor since they came up with the phrase for these young men. Japanese have a diet low in red meat, as they just dont have the grazing land, however the Japs actually have the highest testosterone levels of all the Asians. They also have the highest SHBG levels which makes T less available to receptors, and I suspect that would be related to their diet or low level chemical exposure…fitting in with this authors theory,
Highest T of asians. So the best of the worst? I think I once heard a story about a vegetarian body builder. I chalk it up to tin foil hat conspiracy theory.
Wrong kind of meat…
Or maybe the elites are trying to slowly poison us.
Stop sending food to Africa.
I disagree. I think population growth is as it should be and indicates Earth’s natural productivity. I feel that we’ve been looking at it from entirely the wrong perspective.
“the fact that the rapid population increase during their key developmental years meant that the growth of industrial agriculture that somewhat necessarily accompanied it—the Green revolution—created such nutritionally sparse food that there was insufficient development of Boomers’ brains, leading to a generation of overgrown children.”
Except that this is complete bullshit. Boomers don’t have lower IQ’s than their parents, and being that they are taller than their parents, I see no evidence that they had malnutrition.
“Nanda rule led to the growth of Buddhism and the adoption of degenerate attitudes, moral collapse and eventually weakness to invasion. After the institutionalization of Buddhism by power-hungry and utterly Machiavellian psychopath Ashoka—who looked to weaken the Brahmins, Hinduism’s traditional moral guides—Buddhism’s degenerate vegetarian curse spread like a virus” I am not sure if this is a joke. Ashoka was a Buddhist, but Buddhism never caught on in India, and the Brahmins are a bunch of spoiled assholes.
“will be living individually, in effect, 1/7th the life that its ancestor population did.” Umm no, Human life expectancy is at an all time high – if it wasn’t for the high quality writing, I would have sworn this was written by a psuedo-intellectual 10 year old.
“in general, food today contains ½ to 1/10th the nutrients it did in the 1930s” Citation?
Buddhism came from China, to subvert the Hindus. Ashki ‘Jews’ came from China, to subvert Europe. Genghis Kahn came from China, to sack Baghdad and subvert Golden Islam. And this guy:
http://www.theworldofchinese.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Nelson-Mandela-great-wall-pic-master.jpg
Ever notice when you change the background he doesn’t look so black anymore does he? He came to subvert South Africa. The Chinese have a 5000 year plan. The little yellow man has always been the king of subtrifuge, subversion and LEVERAGE in fighting and conquest. The yellow cup floweth over now.
“Buddhism came from China” Nope, it originates in India. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha
“Ashki ‘Jews’ came from China” lol, okay I am 80% sure you are just satirizing.
“Ever notice when you change the background he doesn’t look so black anymore does he? He came to subvert South Africa. The Chinese have a 5000 year plan.” top kek.
I appreciate what the author is trying to express here, but I don’t agree that a poor diet is the leading cause of degeneracy. Although there is definitely a strong feedback loop where degeneracy leads to a poor diet, and a poor diet reinforces the degeneracy. Modernity has created for us an artificial environment where the incentive structure which used to make us better people who had meaningful connections with the people around us and the places we lived has been thrown out the window and replaced with an entirely new incentive structure.
The single mother welfare system, the anti-father/husband courts, and allowing women into the workforce has completely eliminated the incentive for women to find a good man to pair with and offer to give birth to his children. The only incentive a woman has now to pair with a man is a fleeting emotional desire to experience his masculine qualities and intimacy. While a man who is exceptionally masculine and knows how to stir desire in a woman can incentivize loyalty in women, the more concrete incentives such as money and wealth can be provided by women themselves. In an environment where wealth can be had by women without pair bonding, this leaves many men seem redundant at best, and a nuisance at worst. This lowers man’s confidence and makes it harder to live a meaningful life which leads to degeneracy.
Globalization in the form of open trade and open borders has largely damaged man’s incentive to protect and fight for his nation and home. Without a meaningful connection to his nation in the form of land ownership and working with that land, the endless flow of cheap foreign goods due to open trade greatly reduces the significance of the nation state in his mind. Open borders on the other hand has a deleterious effect on man’s willingness to fight for his nation when he sees it being filled with people who he shares no ethnicity, race, beliefs, or values with. This eliminates the need for men to be courageous and dominant resulting in weak, spineless, effeminate men; once again leading to degeneracy.
Lastly, industrialization and technology has made many skills obsolete, while at the same time robbing men of important and fulfilling experiences that lead to spiritual and mental growth and are often times a major distraction from more important things. One day of working with one’s hands can teach one lessons that a lifetime of government sanctioned schooling could never provide. Whether it be building a table, growing a garden, changing your brakes, reading a book front to back, or simply taking the time to unplug and meditate; these things fill men with a sense of accomplishment, confidence, clarity, and wisdom that the modern world has completely forgotten about.
There will be a day or reckoning. The corporate/globohomo/government cocoon only has power while structures based on the natural order continue to exist. As the family unit continues to dissolve, the nation state dissolves, and the racial identity of the people dissolves, civilizational collapse will soon follow. After this, there will be a rebirth of some kind, but it’s anybody’s guess whether this rebirth will retain some elements of modernity while reverting back to a hunter-gatherer/agrarian society, or do away with modernity all together. My guess is that it will most likely be the former, but with major limitations in place to prevent the degeneracy from happening again.
My grandparents lived to 87 and 92 respectively. They ate unprocessed pig lard, unpasteurized milk, grass fed meat, fresh fish from the local lake- pretty much everything farm to table in less than 24 hours.
Now it is hard to get these nutritious foods because the government makes companies process everything.
The answer to failing nutrition is to supplement, unfortunately.
Interesting point about socialism and vegetarianism happening simultaneously to weaken a society.
People hate me for saying this, but I think the starvation in other countries can be blamed on charities. Stop sending “help” and they’ll stop having 10 kids per litter.
This article looks like it borrows heavily from http://culturewhiz.org/forums/
However, the author doesn’t know enough science to create a solid argument. He mentions nothing of poor quality of shipped food in Rome — think more bacteria and fungi.
I added a bit
Rome’s extreme martial and social discipline led to expansion. As it expanded and the city’s population grew, the diet for most people changed over time to mostly grains farmed highly intensively, shipped in from all over the Empire, losing a lot of its nutrition on the way. The immune system will down regulate testosterone to allow the immune system to be stronger, since testosterone inhibits and blocks some of the immune system’s full functionality. Simultaneously, and partly as a result of rising grain production, meat consumption fell, reducing the population’s testosterone levels even more, leading to falling strength and willingness or ability to compete, as well as rising mental illness because of a lack of protective bacteria in the gut.
These bacteria, on roots, are the protective bacteria that act as the root’s immune system and prevent the other/dangerous bacteria from creating super colonies that form biofilms that would prevent the nutrients from getting to the roots. In humans, these bacteria prevent gram-negative bacteria from creating imbalanced gut flora or dominating the ecosystem of the intestine which would allow them to firm biofilms when the right super colonies form, these bacteria are also how the gut flora prevent e-coli and cholera from devastating the host and explain why some people don’t get sick from exposures to them!
Also, lead poisoning was responsible for a majority of the moral decay in Rome and decrease in general intelligence and increase in violence.
Not getting your claim that Buddhism has made India and/or Hindus vegetarian. Even Gautham Siddhartha was not 100%veg after attaining Buddhahood and Buddhists themselves have never been majority pure veg, then or now. Go to any Buddhist community anywhere in the world, west, east, doesn’t matter, most are not veg. Go to any Hindu community anywhere in the world, you will find around 50% vegetarians. Rather Brahmins with their food taboos were and are mostly veg. Even in the coastal regions of India where some Brahmins eat fish, a large percentage are vegetarian. Some Hindus claim Jainism influenced them toward vegetarianism but the Vaishnava sect within Hinduism as well as Brahminical influence on the wider Hindu culture has always ensured that a great percentage of Indians from ancient times until now are vegetarians. Even the Hindus who eat animal flesh still generally will not eat cow flesh. There is no reason why a healthy active man cannot be fit and strong on a lacto-vegetarian diet. I know many. Or even vegan diet. There are vegan body builders. The problem with Indian guys is they are not active. Its even seen as low class in India to do physical work. That is why if you go to India the fittest, strongest guys are the low class laborers. Even if they are vegetarians. The middle class and upper class guys are lazy and woefully out of shape whether they eat meat or not.
”While in the past, like men, women used to have enough emotional
maturity to try to live a life of self-respect (for example by remaining
virgins and not drinking alcohol)”
Your desi cultural bias is showing. In most regions of the world there has always been some form of fermented drink drunk by the people. You think Italian women once refrained from grape wine? Or Japanese women from saki? Only in India is it a taboo for your average middle class woman from a good family to drink alchohol. Amongst Muslims its taboo for both men and women. Desi Hindus are very influenced by Islamic culture it seems coz they too get their undies in a bunch over adult women sipping wine.
so basically the writer thought, “this blog is full of stupid firangis so i can make shit up about Buddhism’s influence on Hinduism”.